FX Vs DX for semi-beginner

[ac12]

...

thanks much, such a great answer !!!!

> what other issues do you have with the D7200 + 18-140?

it seems to me that the AP threshold for this combination of camera and lenses is AP11 (based on my experiments + additional study of resources on internet) so right here right now I am struggling a bit to get a sharp landscape photos with good depth of the field and with wide lens (~ 27mm FX aka 18mm on DX)

HOW BIG are you making the print? And how close are you looking at the print?
Are you pixel peeping?

I've made acceptable 16x20 prints from a 6MP D70 and the old 18-70 lens.

Are you using proper shooting technique? STABLE camera, fast enough shutter speed, etc.
If you are not using proper shooting technique, you will NOT get a sharp image.

 

[Strodav]

I have a D7200 with a 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 and find it an excellent combination ..

thanks, sure ... I like my d7200 camera, as I've explained earlier, there were two levels behind my question:

1) I felt that there is a chance to *exchange a d7200 by d750 without any significant surcharge
2) I'm already thinking in forward so I've also asked on your opinion to just buy all future lenses to be f-mount FX

I'm already aiming at FX camera, I just want it .. so the very most likely this my d7200 will be my spare (sports/adventure) camera .. lemme tell you one thing - I'm playing guitar, there's similar ecosystem on music forums - ppl ask ``do you think should I buy $3000 guitar instead of my $500 guitar ??'' and some ppl reply that they have to "qualify" for that in the meaning of skill but I am (and me alike) saying - if you want it, if you can afford it, why not - you will certainly love that guitar and you will feel the difference

I have a $2600 Kiesel Aires that was custom built to my specifications. I absolutely love to look at it and the playability is phenomenal, but it does not make me a better guitarist. For lessons, jams and gigs I take my Fender Player Telecaster, a $700 guitar. Both are setup the same and I can get my tone with either guitar with the right amp settings. Both get me to where I want to go. I did not need the Kiesel to become a better player, but it does foster enthusiasm. Lessons and playing with buddies makes me a better guitarist.

 

[Soocom1]

Technique is the key and understanding the mechanisms of light vs. mechanical aspects is where the real crux lies.

MANY world known and extremely beautiful photos were taken with cameras that today would barely fetch $100.

Grading up to a FX format is simply moving into the 35mm full frame arena, nothing more.
Unless you know what is going on with the camera, having a $40,000 Hasselblad will do you no good.

This photograph taken by Weege the Great (Arthur Felling) in the 1940's with a Graflex 4x5 press camera and bulb flash is an example of someone working with highly simple equipment, that was also heavy, cumbersome and clumsy.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/99/1c/92/991c92dcd9b47e9dc2c81994fee3fe84--weegee-black-people.jpg

Notice the incredible contrast in the photo, and moreover, that it was taken and probably developed from his car.

 

[mrca]

Strodav, great posts. Op, instead of spending thousands on gears concentrate on learning what your lenses and aperture do to a photo. Learn lighting, the characteristics including direction, diffusion, intensity with ratio, and color. Learn composition. Learn editing in post. I moved from CA to Florida and one reason is Kelby is here. Sign up for his courses, $ 20 a month. Concentrate on the curriculum I described above and I guarantee for less than $200 and some study, you will become a really good photographer. I also cannot recommend enough joining a local club that has free, anonymous judging each month. That will take your work to another level. And Strodav, I am selling a martin d28 because not just as a result of a sailfish dislocating and restricting motion of my L pinkie, I have no musical knowledge or talent. The tone of that guitar is beautiful, $2800 like yours, but the music coming out of it when I play it, terrible and the pinkie restriction is frustrating. But with photography, having mastered the craft, I have a shot that has gotten perfect scores and a nfl photographer wanted to know how I did it...with a 10 mp d200 and one of the 10 worst nikon lenses per Ken Rockwell. Op, learn the craft, you have a better camera and lens than most of the famous photos ever made. If you just want toys, go for it, but if you really want improve your work, master the craft and get some good critique.

 

[greybeard]

I've made the jump from DX to FX. I started with a D7000, moved to a D750, and now have a D850 and a Z-50.

The difference between FX and DX all comes down to 1 stop difference. Lets start with the Field of View. A normal lens on a DX is a 35mm lens and a 50mm lens has the same field of view on a FX. The Depth Of Field is one stop different between the 2 lenses. That is to say that f/4 on the DX (35mm) will have the same DoF as f/5.6 on the FX(50mm). So, if you want really shallow DoF with a DX camera you need a fast lens like the 35mm f/1.8. I've used one of them and at f/2.8 it presents a very nice background. Low light pretty much comes down to 1 stop also. But, this isn't as cut and dry as the DoF thing. I am saying that iso 3200 on DX and iso 6400 on FX should look comparable. You can recover 1 stop more shadow detail from FX than you can from DX. That is comparing DX and FX cameras with the same mp sensors like your D7200 and a D750. However, every new generation of cameras gets better and better at low light performance. What advantage does a DX have over a FX? Tele reach with DX gives a 1.5% advantage. That is to say that a 50mm lens on DX is like a 75mm lens on FX. That isn't such a big deal but, a 300mm f/4 on DX has the same reach as a 450mm f/4 on FX and that can be the difference between getting an acceptable wildlife shot and not. Again, I'm comparing cameras with the same mp sensor like your D7500 and a D750.

 

[ac12]

. . . 1/6 time + 2000 iso compared to d7200 DX

. . . I am struggling a bit to get a sharp landscape photos

1/6 sec shutter speed is not going to always get you SHARP images, even with VR or a tripod.
The leaves on the tree blowing in the breeze will appear blurred, the branches on the trees will also be moving.

If you are shooting rocks and other SOLID objects, they won't move in the breeze, so not a problem.
But, if you are shooting anything that moves (grass, leaves, branches, animals, streams, etc.), you HAVE to select shutter speed that is fast enough to freeze their motion, or you will get motion blur.

Exposure is a balance. If you want to freeze motion, you have to raise the shutter speed, then open the aperture and raise the ISO. In the sports world, there is a saying, "do you want a low noise but blurred image (low ISO and low shutter speed), or a sharp but noisy image (high shutter speed and high ISO)." It is an either/or, you can't get both.
Well you can get both, but only by an advance in sensor technology in the camera. So don't hold your breath waiting.

 

[ac12]

I have a D7200 with a 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 and find it an excellent combination ..

thanks, sure ... I like my d7200 camera, as I've explained earlier, there were two levels behind my question:

1) I felt that there is a chance to *exchange a d7200 by d750 without any significant surcharge
2) I'm already thinking in forward so I've also asked on your opinion to just buy all future lenses to be f-mount FX

I'm already aiming at FX camera, I just want it .. so the very most likely this my d7200 will be my spare (sports/adventure) camera .. lemme tell you one thing - I'm playing guitar, there's similar ecosystem on music forums - ppl ask ``do you think should I buy $3000 guitar instead of my $500 guitar ??'' and some ppl reply that they have to "qualify" for that in the meaning of skill but I am (and me alike) saying - if you want it, if you can afford it, why not - you will certainly love that guitar and you will feel the difference

This is confusing.
#1 says you will exchange the D7200 for a D750, but then you say the D7200 will be a spare. So it appears you will buy a D750 + lens, without exchanging/selling the D7200.
So I would guess the D750 + lens will cost you an additional $2,500 - $4,000, depending on lens.

Remember what I said, the 24-120 is not the sharpest of the Nikon zooms. So if you want SHARPNESS, you need to research and select a different lens.

 

[ntz]

This is confusing...

I've already abandoned the plan with *exchanging d7200 by d750 .. It is expected that next year the d750 price will decrease even further because of new models .. I will stick with d7200, I will keep this camera as my secondary camera and later next year I'll get some another (Nikon) FX camera .. no idea what it will be, depends on situation, maybe new d750 or used d780 .. price matters but not that terribly much .. maybe even mirrorless Z6 comes to play .. who knows .. I've postponed this decision at ?Jul 2021, till then, I'm with my d7200 .. I'm just faithful to Nikon, considering no other brand .. If I don't count a film cameras before, my first digital camera was Nikon d90 (actually I still have it and it works, only battery depleted ..), then I've upgraded to my current d7200

 

[Designer]

..later next year I'll get some another (Nikon) FX camera .. no idea what it will be, depends on situation, maybe new d750 or used d780 .. price matters but not that terribly much .. maybe even mirrorless Z6 comes to play .. who knows ..

Frankly, this statement indicates to me that you have no clearly-defined goal in mind. This is no way to build a photography kit. Even if you can afford it, just buying some camera with a later build date might not necessarily give you what you're expecting.

You began this thread by asking about blurry photographs, and you've received some good advice, so I would suggest that you do some more practice with your existing kit and see if that helps. act12 in post #22 (above) pointed out that your lens "is not the sharpest of the Nikon zooms." and while this may be true, most people are not going to see the difference without looking very closely at some sample images by several different lenses.

I think you should take things a little slower and get to the point where you really know where you should spend your money.

 

[greybeard]

I have answered your question in an earlier post, now I'm gonna tell you what I think. Your kit is more than adequate to give you sharp landscape pictures. Do some reading about f-stops and Depth Of Field. In landscape photography, most folks like everything in the picture to be in sharp focus. Older lenses had DoF markings on the lens that would tell you what your acceptable DOF would be at any given f-stop. If I was shooting at say f-11 I would put the left (11) at infinity and the right (11) would tell me how near objects would appear in acceptable focus. Today these marks are missing from most AF lenses so you need some sort of a DoF chart for focal lengths and format. If you are using slow shutter speeds, mount the camera on a tripod or firm surface, turn off VR and use a remote shutter release or the self timer. It takes a lot of practice to know just exactly what you kit can and cannot do. Learn you kit so well that you can pre-visualize what a picture will look like before you ever snap it.

Here is the best $30 you will ever spend
Nikon D7200 Guide | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

depth of field markings on lens - Google Search

 

[weepete]

If you want it and have the money, go for it.

Will it significantly improve your images? no.

I made the leap from crop to full frame last year, but that was a few genernational leaps, and I'm on a different system. For you, you will maybe see a 5-10% difference in image quality but that only really matters if you are printing very big and can leverage the bigger sensor.

If you are having noise issues with a D7200 then chances are you are underexposing your shots. The sensor in the D7200 is really very good, particularly with noise and you should be able to produce very clean shots. If anything I'd get a nice, sharp, reasonably fast lens (f4 or faster).

From your sample image I can tell there's some technique issues that spending time on will improve your shots much more than just getting better tech. I'd encorage you to post some shots on this forum for feedback, it's been invaluable help to me over the years and is mostly the way I've driven my photography on.

I shoot a fair amount of panoramas, so getting a panoramic head, a levelling base and learning to set your nodal point is not a bad shout. A copy of lightroom (or other editing software) along with a copy of The Digital Negative by Jeff Shewe. But you really should address the technique issues first, that'll make the most difference to your shots.

 

[ntz]

...
Here is the best $30 you will ever spend
Nikon D7200 Guide | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

hello, thanks much for your advice ... I've checked some reviews and bought this one finally (because it's just physical):
Mastering the Nikon D7200 by Darrell Young

also I've found one landscape photographer (likely known here) Henry Turner who is using d7200 DX for his professional artwork so this also encouraged me a lot and opened my eyes wider ... I need to remind that I didn't want to be ungrateful to my camera but as I said for me price matters so I didn't feel that I can afford two cameras (with possibly separated lenses set) at same time but now I've changed my mind and will do all what you suggested to me + will wait for d750 sale (and I believe next year it will, there are new models, this is 2014 camera) or at another FX because I just want FX

 

[SquarePeg]

You got some excellent gear info and advice here. I’ll add my 2 cents on sharp photos. If you’re having issues getting a sharp photo, post your results here along with your settings and you will get some solid feedback and suggestions on what the issue could be. Also you haven’t said what your post process is - that is just as important in landscape photography as your shooting technique. Most of the landscape photos you see posted on Instagram/Flickr/Facebook have been edited. It’s a valuable skill.

 

[ntz]

Hello Peg,

I cunningly upgraded my tripod, so I am no longer reluctant to take my tripod with me ... I had (have) old Velbon, 3kg+, with that levers system (not a ball head), now I invested to used Manfrotto 055XPROB + new ball head + new quick release unit and L-bracket .. (I didn't like that quick release from manfrotto ball head ..)

regards, dan

 

[Grandpa Ron]

The economy depends on buying more stuff whether you need it or not. Any reason is better than none.

I have learned may times, education cost.

Above a certain quality level, good, better, best are often a matter of application and opinion.