So here's my dilemma: I've been a DX shooter so far. I have a Nikon D7000 and the following lenses: 1) Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 2) Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 (my main walk-around lens) 3) Nikon 50mm f1.4 4) Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 (my second walk-around lens) 5) Nikon 105mm micro f2.8 I own a couple of 77mm filters (polarizer and ND).
I frequently shoot events / weddings / portraits to make some extra money but photography is not my profession (I work in IT). My main interests in photography are wildlife and landscapes.
I'm planning a year long trip through the American west -> Canada -> Alaska. Lots of scenery and hopefully lots of wildlife pictures on a once in a lifetime trip.
1) Do I stick with what I've got? I'm happy with the D7000 and my lenses. I'm not sure if FX and the D800 will improve my photography. My 70-200mm acts as a 300mm lens (1.5 crop factor) which is great for wildlife.
2) Do I invest in an FX camera like the D800 since this is a once in a lifetime trip? 36 MP and the increased range could be worth the investment? If I do this, I can still use the DX lenses (17-55 and 11-16) on the D800, without real benefit over de D7000.
3) Do I stick with what I've got and invest in a good tripod + perhaps a 300mm f4 lens (which will be a 450mm lens on the D7000)? By the way, is there a difference in sharpness between the f2.8 and the f4 version of this lens? THere's a big difference in cost, for 'just one extra stop' ... Or do I forget about the 300mm lens and buy a 1.7x TC to use with the 70-200?