Question to DX owners, Do you see yourself upgrading to Full Frame in the future ?

[cgw]

Hoping Nikon will reboot the flawed, oil-spewing D600 or intro a better-made budget FX body in the next 2 years. They owe us.

 

[PaulWog]

Hoping Nikon will reboot the flawed, oil-spewing D600 or intro a better-made budget FX body in the next 2 years. They owe us.

If the D600 didn't have the oil/dust issue, I would've gotten FX right off the bat. I'd also probably be at least $2000 poorer.

 

[Coasty]

Sure, one day, unless the mythical D400 comes out soon, then I’ll wait a while before FX.

I actually have a friend in the Nikon management, he said that the D400 are all ready to be shipped.
They will ship it air mail via Pegasus
And via land mail a herd of Unicorns.

That’s freakin awesome news. I’ve been saving the gold from the all the leprechauns I caught for three years now. I’m headed to the gold buyer as we speak.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I already did.

 

[480sparky]

I actually have a friend in the Nikon management, he said that the D400 are all ready to be shipped.
They will ship it air mail via Pegasus
And via land mail a herd of Unicorns.

Perhaps I should get my Nigerian banker to release some of the $10,800,000 I have coming and cut a cashier's check for a couple of them.

 

[goodguy]

I already did.

Sure rub it in, you sir have not heart :mrgreen:

 

[sleist]

I have a D700 and a D7100. I don't see FX as an upgrade, just different tools for different purposes.
Good glass matters more in my opinion given that the image quality from all the sensors available today is pretty damn good.

 

[shadowlands]

For me, owning the 17-55 f2.8G was keeping me DX. I love that lens!
But I recently obtained a D700 and I love the performance at ISO 3200-6400. It allows me to shoot Baptism's, indoor sports, etc... without worries.
So I sold my DX gear to help pay for my D700 and 28-70 f2.8d.
I'm poor, but happy.

 

[ScottMac]

.. I'm considering picking up the 200-400 f4 and wait till next summer to grab the other toys ..

As good as this lens may be, I question why anyone would pay so much for such a beast when there are better and cheaper options available? If you have a look at the EXIF data on pictures taken with this lens, many ... no, most, are take at close to the the limit of 400mm. As such, I believe that, at least for my type of shooting, I would be better off with a 300mm f2.8 and when extra reach is required, add a 1.4x converter. Thoughts?

 

[Tailgunner]

.. I'm considering picking up the 200-400 f4 and wait till next summer to grab the other toys ..

As good as this lens may be, I question why anyone would pay so much for such a beast when there are better and cheaper options available? If you have a look at the EXIF data on pictures taken with this lens, many ... no, most, are take at close to the the limit of 400mm. As such, I believe that, at least for my type of shooting, I would be better off with a 300mm f2.8 and when extra reach is required, add a 1.4x converter. Thoughts?

I've been looking into this my self and everything I read seems to reflect the samething. And that is a 300mm 2.8 with a 1.4x or 1.7x would be a better deal.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I already did.

Sure rub it in, you sir have not heart :mrgreen:

You do realize that's a 2002 Nikon F5 35MM film camera don't you? You can pick up a nice one for about $300 US or so.

 

[goodguy]

I already did.

Sure rub it in, you sir have not heart :mrgreen:

You do realize that's a 2002 Nikon F5 35MM film camera don't you? You can pick up a nice one for about $300 US or so.

Oh, never mind then, I mixed it with one of the newer model.
Still an impressive looking beast.

 

[shefjr]

As good as this lens may be, I question why anyone would pay so much for such a beast when there are better and cheaper options available? If you have a look at the EXIF data on pictures taken with this lens, many ... no, most, are take at close to the the limit of 400mm. As such, I believe that, at least for my type of shooting, I would be better off with a 300mm f2.8 and when extra reach is required, add a 1.4x converter. Thoughts?

For me I like the versatility of the 200-400. I don't like the thought of fumbling around trying to attach a TC to a camera in the middle of my nieces sporting event or while shooting wildlife. Additionally, IMO I prefer the thought of purchasing the right tool for the job and not having to attach something extra for light to pass through to get the job done. I'm not saying that a TC is a bad thing by any means. I actually have been looking at the Nikon 400 2.8 with and attaching a TC.

In either case for me nothing has yet been purchased and when the time comes I can assure you I'll be throwing a poll up on TPF for everyone's thoughts and opinions. I enjoy open dialogue that helps consider all avenues and possibilities.

 

[supercool2]

I'm seriously thinking about pulling the trigger on buying a refurbished D600 ,and keeping my D7100 for when I want to take pictures with a DX camera. I hope that is not too crazy sounding. Would that be like owning almost identical cameras? They look the same,and most of the features are similar ,except one is FX and the other is DX. I can't afford anything else though. If I had the $$ I'd get a used D800 instead. BUT I don't like the idea of 36 megapixels. I'm happy with 24 right now.

 

[gregtallica]

I never have time to do anything with my pictures. I hope my girlfriend does, but I don't see spending that kind of cash on more equipment unless 1) it's glass, or 2) selling my photos/photo skills is what earned that money for me. My D7000 is more than enough for how much I want to invest in the hobby (fiscally and mentally); I love shooting but I'm having enough trouble as it is finding the time to keep up with this hobby.

However, it's easy to say all that when I did just start getting into mountain biking Which, hopefully/ideally, will mean using my D7k for mtb photos