Mon 11-Mar-13 11:27 AM | edited Mon 11-Mar-13 11:42 AM by sirraj
I have read some comments about how photos from FX cameras somehow look better than DX. I've seen it described as "something special" about full frame photos. If you take depth of field and high ISO out of the comparison and looked at two identical, well exposed, ISO 100, 24 megapixel photos (D600 vs D7100, for example) would there be a difference you could see? Most of my photos are landscapes shot in good light, would I see a noticable difference. I am tempted by the D600, but replacing my DX lenses adds a lot of additional cost. Thanks for your opinions.