worth going to FX?

spraynpray

Hear-hear @tcole1983 - and I say that as someone who now has DX and FX bodies. If you are going to cock-up a wedding, it is just as easy to cock it up with a D750 as it is a D7100. The difference between the two cameras is not 'night and day' as some people would have you believe. I reckon there is a good stop of improvement in low light high ISO performance between the D7100 and D750 in real world terms, whereas when I tested my D7000 against a D7100 there was a good two stops of improvement. In good light, the D750 is phenominal at 12800 - better than the D7100 at 6400.

Photobug

You have to keep in mind, that the D7100, except for the sensor, is in all ways a superior camera to the D610. I liked shooting with the D7100 but disliked the image quality. I disliked shooting with the D600 but liked the image quality. In order to have the best of both worlds, you need to move up to a D750 and swallow the price difference. Your call.

+1 @PitchBlack I really like my D7100 and after shooting the D750 3 times....the $300 instant rebate on the 24-70mm + D750 has my attention.

donaldejose

If you are willing to take the grey market risk a D610 is now only about $200 more than a D7100. See main blog.

Golf007sd

What is wrong with D7100 image quality? I have never used one. But would like to know.

+1 tcole1983 comments. Given what the OP is doing, the D7100 will fulfill the task at hand. However, perkedel was asking for feedback on FX bodies as well...so he got some.

Having the D7000 and a D4, has offered me a great amount of first hand data to compare. I must admit, the FX end results have a tendency to win me over upon close examination.

Having seen so many finished images coming from a 24-36MP sensor, when shooting portraits, I would be leaning heavily toward those sensor sizes. Hence, +1 on PitchBlacks feedback.

donaldejose

I have shot with 12mp DX, 14 mp DX, 16mp DX, 24mp FX and 36mp FX. In good light, low ISO and moderate f-stop I don't think there is much difference. when looking at a downsized 2mp image on your computer monitor. Yes, there is an increased dynamic range but most people won't notice it. However, once you start to print poster size or shoot in low light or shoot wide open the difference becomes apparent. DX is good and is always getting better but I am one who thinks FX will always remain about one stop ahead of DX. How often will that one stop be important to you compared to the increased cost is the question each of us has to address. Is it worth twice the cost (D7100 vs. D750) to you? Maybe, maybe not.

sevencrossing

What is wrong with D7100 image quality? I have never used one. But would like to know.

Nothing; in fact nothing "wrong" with the IQ of any current Nikon Camera
In the same way, there is nothing wrong with a £10 bottle of Port
but if you have been lucky enough to sample something like Graham’s 1966. You might not like the £10 stuff
Some of have been spoilt by cameras such as the D800 and just don't want to go back to Dx

manhattanboy

Really I don't understand the argument...what is really wrong with any of the dx bodies. I am obviously biased towards dx since that is all I have but is dx THAT bad compared to fx?

There is nothing wrong with the 7100 or other current Nikon DX sensors. They are just tools to accomplish a means. As has been stated many times, larger pixels means more slop allowed in the focus and more light gathering ability all else being equal. Those that need sharper pictures in lower lighting settings find the FF and MF sized sensors better...
Just be happy with what you've got. A $1000 D610 is VERY tempting right now to those that do not own an FX, but understand that it will not replace the DX if you do a big chunk of your shooting at 200mm or more. Anyone shooting less than 200mm would benefit from increased focus slop and better light gathering ability... and let's be honest, most of the time the real benefit of the more advanced 7100's AF is action shots, which is mostly shot at the tele end unless you like to live dangerously LOL.

tcole1983

I also am not saying that you won't see any difference or any improvement from an FX body. For some reason I am not a fan of the D6XX bodies. The D750 kind of intrigues me, but I don't have the funds for that. I just think the current DX bodies can hold their own. And if you print large then you can maybe see the difference at that point more than on the computer screen. I have however printed fairly large prints with my 12MP D5000 and they look fine to me...maybe our personal perceptions play into it also. I don't shoot as much as many on here and I deffinitly am no pro. Pitchblack obviously has the pictures to back his point of view. I think maybe once you have the best then going back to something like the D7100 might just seem like less.

My opinion on buying equipment and spending money. If you are making money using the equipment then it is a different story then just shooting for a hobby. If I were making money I would probably have an FX body. Some can afford to buy expensive equipment even as a hobby...I think most can't just throw a couple grand down on bodies. I spent a significant amount of money on my lenses and then spent a little on my bodies...I have been happy with that approach. It got me through the wedding I shot which is the only paid gig I have done.

spraynpray

If PitchBlock were to take the same shot (say one of his polo shots (which we haven't seen enough of lately by the way)) with a D7100 and process it in the same way as one from his D800, I really doubt we would see much difference at all on our screens. Printed, we would see more, but still not night and day.

DX is much better bang per buck than FX tho.

@Golf007sd: You would be surprised how much better the D7100 is than the D7000. I had both and would only use the D7000 when I had to and the light was good enough after buying the D7100. There was probably more difference between the D7000 and the D7100 than the D7100 and the D600.

Manufacturers aren't 'conning' us, there are differences between DX and FX, but a lot of them are carefully rationed useability tweaks and snob appeal. We all know that buying them doesn't make us suddenly better photographers, and I reckon tcole has it right - money spent on the best glass will repay in finished image improvement more than an FX body.

sevencrossing

Please lets not have another DX VS FX argument

the Op's question is worth going to FX?

There is a difference but only the OP can answer the question. Is the difference, worth the extra expense

It has nothing to do with print or screen size and nothing to do with snob appeal

good glass will improve both a Dx and an Fx image

Golf007sd

spraynpray

If PitchBlock were to take the same shot (say one of his polo shots (which we haven't seen enough of lately by the way)) with a D7100 and process it in the same way as one from his D800, I really doubt we would see much difference at all on our screens.

Not to digress, but this is a super important point.

Sorry, @spraynpray, but here you are 100% clearly not speaking from experience. Especially in shots taken during the bright midday sun it's super important to have good dynamic range—vitally important. I absolutely cannot stress this enough. Look at my bikini shot on the first page of the PAD for November and think about it. How do daytime shots in bright sunlight normally look? Shots during these times are extra harsh and have far too much contrast. The only way to make those photos look good is to even the picture out by bringing up the shadows and dropping the highlights. I was able to easily adjust this photo and I didn't have to use any reflectors or diffusers or anything. I just harnessed the power of almost 15 stops of dynamic range at ISO 64. That shot would've been much, much, much worse shot with a Canon 5D3 or a D7100 because the shadow noise would've overwhelmed the photo. The D800 (and now D810) has completely changed the way I take photos during the daytime. Completely. The dynamic range for shots during midday is THE reason I started using the D800 and sold all of my Canon gear.

Well, you're right in that I don't have experience shooting a model in midday sun with a D810 and without a reflector. Agreed rescuing shots using every last scrap of dynamic range would give the D810 the edge, but that's hardly an everyday occurrence is it?

haroldp

Almost any equipment will do for 'everyday' photos, that is why cellphones are taking over.
I, and I think most on this forum are equipping ourselves to handle as many outlyer situations as our budget and skills will allow.
... H

ThomasHorton

But but but, I thought all the cool kids shoot FX?

:P

sevencrossing

, but that's hardly an everyday occurrence is it?

Sady, not if you shoot weddings in the UK

retread

I agree that when $$$$ to invest is limited the D7100 and better glass is a wise path.

I plan to move from the D5100 to the D7100 or its successor as I acquire good FX glass and then to a D8xx body when the time and SSSS are right.

Using the FX glass on both the DX and FX bodies reduces my lens inventory although the bigger lenses are heaver.

The largest I have printed is 16 x 20. It was shot with the D5100 and the 24-70 lens. Everyone who has seen it likes it.

dissent

Apparently they were liked and it got me work. Now, why does it have to be something so miserable as shooting pictures of girls in bikinis.

And getting PAID for it!! 8-}

As for the DX vs FX, I think you can get more of that "something extra" with FX than you can get with DX. Doesn't mean that DX can't get nice shots. Just up to the photog as to whether that "something extra" is worth ponying up the extra bucks for FX over DX is worth it - to them. Clearly, for some folks, it is.

DaveyJ

Our farm expenditure for imagery is pretty substantial as it is incredibly important to document what we do. We look at FX Nikons and see NO advantage to our mission. Taking photos at f1.4 is just NEVER done. When I want to look at shallow field photos I go back and look at my 35 shots which were very rarely done at shallow depth of field but sometimes Kodachrome or Velvia was loaded in the camera and the natural light was LOW at least by studio standards. It is pretty painful to look at those images as the subjects were rarely encountered today and they were just TOO shallow as images. I'd have my friend Al McClane holding a huge trout in a stream and either he or the trout would not be in sufficient focus. I just don't get photo opportunities like that today.

Fast forward to day after my expensive foray in large and medium format film to digital. A D7100 will handle the same lighting and subjects (roughly as natural resources are changing and often NOT for the better) extremely well. Our use of FX says a D750 would work quite nicely but a D7200 would be less money, maybe a little smaller, and do many subjects and video very nicely.

Given this situation I find it almost impossible to buy a D750 and a few heavy lens when a Go Pro 4 will do stuff that is unbelievable and the Nikon AW 1 is performing nicely with it's underwater and shock and cold tolerances. When the D7200 comes out I will just BUY one and figure where it fits in our fleet of cameras and video. I did like the stills from the D700 but sold it as I got a very good offer ( I rarely sell my used gear) and I needed video also. One of my favorite lens though is the Sigma 10-20 DX on the D7100 camera. I also think the Nikkor 18-55mm Kit lens is amazing for what it is. Spray N Pray on NR cured my prejudice on that lens and the results have been impressive. But there I am NOT addressing low light and I use the 18-55VR on the D3200. Often the D3200 get used as it is small and doesn't cost much if it gets wrecked which has not happened yet.

Freedom7

Interesting stuff. I’m going from D7000 with 17-55 to D750 and 24-70. Mostly exterior and interior architecture, lots of natural light English country house interiors, I’m hoping there’s a difference for sure. (Previous upgrade was from D70 to D7000 which was a nice upgrade path)

sevencrossing

@Freedom7 for your interiors I suggest HDR , not "artistic" type. but using it as a tool to get detail in the shadows and the highlights. The end result should look normal not the HDR "look"

Freedom7

@sevencrossing many thanks for the advice, never considered HDR but will give it a go. The ability to bring more out of the shadows is one of my hopes in this upgrade.

manhattanboy

Well, you're right in that I don't have experience shooting a model in midday sun with a D810 and without a reflector.

I do not have enough experience shooting bikini models in midday sun either...someone please help!

Pistnbroke

If i put my 18-140 on my D7100 and my 28-300 on the D800 there is no real difference .But if I put a 10-20 sigma on the D7100 and my crappy 17-35 on the D800 then there is an amazing difference because the images are spread over more pixels ..so as I said before if going wide then go D8xx.
Only what I have found and beleive and paid for ( the D800) you may not agree and thats your option

sevencrossing

my 28-300 on the D800 .... and my crappy 17-35 on the D800

To get the best out you D800 you really need of one these

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/04/29/nikon-published-an-updated-list-of-recommended-lenses-for-the-d800e-camera.aspx/

donaldejose

Pistnbroke: so in your experience a high megapixel sensor improves the images from a "crappy" lens because "the images are spread over more pixels?" I don't quite understand that. Why would a lower quality image cast by a lens become better when spread over more pixels?