Upgraded to Full Frame. Question. Keep DX?

[CR88]

Keep in mind that a FX lens has larger elements to create a larger image circle.
DX lenses, because they are ONLY used with smaller sensors do not have to have as large elements, thus use smaller elements to create a smaller image circle for the smaller sensor.

Caveat ... there are some DX lenses that create an image circle that is suitable for an FX. But in general, if you use FX lenses the DX sensor is going to get the "sweet spot" of the FX image circle and technically should be better than the equivalent DX lens.

Because the DX lens uses less glass, it will cost less (in general). If anyone made a 24-70/2.8 in a FX and DX version at the same quality standards, and economies of scale were exactly the same, (same number sold in the same timeframe, etc) then the DX lens should cost less based on the less high quality optical glass being used. Thus the reason DX lenses are cheaper .. plus they may not use the high end glass, and use cheaper materials, cheaper designs, etc to actually cater to the lower end market in price/performance.

as to the D600/D7100 issue.
At one time I really contemplated getting the D7100 vs the D600. Though I needed the FOV of the FX so I bought it. I too noticed the image quality difference. Thus I barely used my D7000 before selling it.

Now I added the D500 and I immediately noticed an image quality problem. BUT, in experimenting I've also learned that if I double my Shutter Speed the image quality jumps up dramatically.

So if I were to take a shot on my D750 at 1/1000, on the D500 I just do it at 1/2000.

Awesome info, thank you. So on the 500, are you saying that the quality difference was diminished enough that a 500 would have been an alternative to purchasing the 750? Personally, I love the feature set, build and ergonomics of the 500 I just thought that FX was direction I wanted to go. I recently ran across a Nikon Refurb 500 for not much more than I paid for my 750.

 

[astroNikon]

Awesome info, thank you. So on the 500, are you saying that the quality difference was diminished enough that a 500 would have been an alternative to purchasing the 750? Personally, I love the feature set, build and ergonomics of the 500 I just thought that FX was direction I wanted to go. I recently ran across a Nikon Refurb 500 for not much more than I paid for my 750.

No. I still think DX and FX have different uses on other than perfect to normal lighting.

The D500 is a better DX camera. Just like the D7100 was better than the D7000.
It's just that it has a very fast AF system, also an improved 3D tracking, FPS, etc. It has a pro setup and pro features with a price to match.

Also keep in mind the D500 is a Pro body so it removes the "aids" that people may use such as all Scene, Effects and AUTO modes that you find on the D750, D7x00, etc.

I would use the D750 for:
- Weddings, portrait stuff, etc.
- real Low Light

I'll use the D500 for
- fast action in good and better lighting - I've already tested it in subpar lighting and the D750 was superior ==> D500 vs D750 Indoor Soccer Shootout
- macro

Keep in mind, if I double (1 stop) the Shutter Speed, for proper exposure I'll have to adjust Aperture or ISO to compensate. The D750 already has 2 stops advantage, now it's 3 stops in less than ideal lighting. Everyone's usage will vary of course and lighting is key here too.

It all boils down to what you are going to use ,etc.
I'm also not saying the D500 can't do everything. It can, just like a D7200 can do everything.
But there are inherent improvements you gain with a FX camera.

The D500 is better than the D7100, which is better than the D7000, which is better than the D300, which is better than the D200 in sensor, ISO/low light, Color rendition, depth of colors, etc.

You went from the D200 to a D600 FX, and then a D750 FX.
The D600 trumps the D7100 if you were to a comparison.

I'd keep the D750 no matter what.

I forsee me selling my D500 sooner than my D750 especially if I had to choose one over the other.

if all that makes any sense.

 

[CR88]

Awesome info, thank you. So on the 500, are you saying that the quality difference was diminished enough that a 500 would have been an alternative to purchasing the 750? Personally, I love the feature set, build and ergonomics of the 500 I just thought that FX was direction I wanted to go. I recently ran across a Nikon Refurb 500 for not much more than I paid for my 750.

No. I still think DX and FX have different uses on other than perfect to normal lighting.

The D500 is a better DX camera. Just like the D7100 was better than the D7000.
It's just that it has a very fast AF system, also an improved 3D tracking, FPS, etc. It has a pro setup and pro features with a price to match.

Also keep in mind the D500 is a Pro body so it removes the "aids" that people may use such as all Scene, Effects and AUTO modes that you find on the D750, D7x00, etc.

I would use the D750 for:
- Weddings, portrait stuff, etc.
- real Low Light

I'll use the D500 for
- fast action in good and better lighting - I've already tested it in subpar lighting and the D750 was superior ==> D500 vs D750 Indoor Soccer Shootout
- macro

Keep in mind, if I double (1 stop) the Shutter Speed, for proper exposure I'll have to adjust Aperture or ISO to compensate. The D750 already has 2 stops advantage, now it's 3 stops in less than ideal lighting. Everyone's usage will vary of course and lighting is key here too.

It all boils down to what you are going to use ,etc.
I'm also not saying the D500 can't do everything. It can, just like a D7200 can do everything.
But there are inherent improvements you gain with a FX camera.

The D500 is better than the D7100, which is better than the D7000, which is better than the D300, which is better than the D200 in sensor, ISO/low light, Color rendition, depth of colors, etc.

You went from the D200 to a D600 FX, and then a D750 FX.
The D600 trumps the D7100 if you were to a comparison.

I'd keep the D750 no matter what.

I forsee me selling my D500 sooner than my D750 especially if I had to choose one over the other.

if all that makes any sense.

Perfect sense. Much appreciated. While I do product and real estate shots on occasion (particularly for customers on a budget having us redo their brochures, postcards, and or line cards), I mostly do landscape (inc. cityscape, Disney, etc.) with an emphasis on night and dusk. Sounds like the 750 flips mosts of the switches as far as what I would I need. Thanks again.