Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
Photo Album
Colorado Places and Beauty
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TerryMiller" data-source="post: 2711999" data-attributes="member: 7900"><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Just as a note, but not something to recommend unless one has quite a bit of money for equipment, since I purchased a full-frame camera (the D700), I have become spoiled with the quality of the images. I don't know what they are called in other brand names, but with Nikon, DX cameras have a smaller area with the sensor, thus, one doesn't get quite as much "territory" in the image as the full-frame FX cameras do. I can tell quite a bit of difference between my FX and the DX (D300) bodies.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">In a sense, I made a mistake in wanting a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. When I got it, all I had was the D300 (DX) and didn't know the difference. Later, when helping a coworker's wife choose a camera, I found out that the 70-200mm lens was an FX lens. Well, of course, that led me to looking at FX cameras. I got my D700 on E-bay for about $1500 for the body alone. When it sold new, they were around $3300. While I do have one issue with the FX, it is still the camera I prefer to use, and do use the most.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TerryMiller, post: 2711999, member: 7900"] [FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]Just as a note, but not something to recommend unless one has quite a bit of money for equipment, since I purchased a full-frame camera (the D700), I have become spoiled with the quality of the images. I don't know what they are called in other brand names, but with Nikon, DX cameras have a smaller area with the sensor, thus, one doesn't get quite as much "territory" in the image as the full-frame FX cameras do. I can tell quite a bit of difference between my FX and the DX (D300) bodies. In a sense, I made a mistake in wanting a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. When I got it, all I had was the D300 (DX) and didn't know the difference. Later, when helping a coworker's wife choose a camera, I found out that the 70-200mm lens was an FX lens. Well, of course, that led me to looking at FX cameras. I got my D700 on E-bay for about $1500 for the body alone. When it sold new, they were around $3300. While I do have one issue with the FX, it is still the camera I prefer to use, and do use the most. [/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
Photo Album
Colorado Places and Beauty
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
