FX vs DX Format?

[brfarris1]

I have been shooting with my D90 for a couple of years now. Although it has served me well, it has some limitations, especially with the DX lenses that I am using. I am planning to upgrade when the newer Nikons arrive (either the upgraded D300 or the upgraded D700). I like to photograph landscapes and wildlife. The full-frame sensor would be nice for landscapes, and the low-noise / high-ISO of the full-frame sensor would be great for wildlife shots. But I get most of my shots on hikes where I am carrying camera equipment and tripod, and the FX bodies and their corresponding lenses are much heavier, especially added to the other gear that I carry. And the cost of the FX body and lenses is a major consideration. It is not out of range, but it's gonna hurt.

I would appreciate some input from anyone out there who shoots landscapes/wildlife to get your views. Thanks!

Brian

 

[haim]

I shoot all sorts.
I own a D3s and also had owned a D300, and also a D700.
The D700 is somewhat heavier than the other plastic crop sensor bodies...
If i had to suggest anything, then my suggetyion will be to buy a D700 as it's a best weight vs iso you will get. Id the D700 isnt enough (iso wise) then yeah... prepare for a huge bill.
The lenses i would recommend you to get for landscape would be the nikon 16-35 f/4 VR.

walk around would be the nikon 24-70 bloody pricey though and heavy. I use that lens alot for event photography...

 

[molested_cow]

Other than the points that others have explained, I would say that if I am shooting portrait and landscape, I'd use FX. If I need to use telephoto or macro lens, DX gives me "more" magnification without using a bigger lens. Of course, that's if the sensor has high enough resolution.

Also, today's lens for FX are usually high end(expensive) lens. If you have a good collection of Nikkor lens, good for you!

 

[nt5acs]

FYI-Yall are probably to young to remember them but half frame 35mm were once produced. I think they were marketed double one's film budget.

Roger

I love it I have one that still works...... sometimes.

 

[ann]

I went from a d100 to a d700. At the time i went round and round, testing the 300 as well and finally bit the dust. Never looked back and am more than happy with the choice. There is a difference in the look, (can't put it in words, but the the best I can come up with would be smoothness)

 

[rgribbons]

With the quality of image from the likes of the D7000 and D300 replacement (if/when it comes) and dedicated wide angle lenses is there really an IQ advantage to full frame any more (unless you're pushing very high ISO)?
If you're not professional is there really a justifiable reason to go full frame and take the hit on weight and cost?