Maybe I should ask the question why do photographers move on to FX from DX? I understand that I need to go the whole hog when changing to FX and it would happen eventually. Most people who have answered my original post have asked me why I want to go to FX and I have said that one of the reasons was that I thought it was better, natural progression as it were. Now I wonder what all the fuss is about if DX is up there with the best?
My aim for the future has always been to take better panoramics and I have thought, rightly or wrongly that I needed an FX to achieve it. If for no other reason than the 'negative' is bigger and the lenses are better. If someone could tell me that I can get the same results from my D300 or D7100 then that is the way I shall head. By the way I have just been offered a D700 with less than 5k clicks for $1350 which I have looked up is US$1245.
I have a question about resolution, here is the quoted figures for the D700; FX: 4,256 x 2,832 (L), 3,184 x 2,120 (M), 2,128 x 1,416 (S).
DX: 2,784 x 1,848 (L), 2,080 x 1,384 (M), 1,392 x 920 (S)
And here is the D300; DX: 4,288 x 2,848 (L), 3,216 x 2,136 (M), 2,144 x 1,424 (S)
Why are they larger on the D300 than the FX of the D700? Is this what people mean by 'there's not much in it'?