You mean like this?

This is the brother in law of a friend of mine. He hauls his Linhof up the hills in the lake district at silly-o'clock in the middle of winter. He gets the shots. Not because he has a Linhof (though it helps), but because he drags himself out of bed at silly times and climbs mountains in mid winter. I would post an example but I don't hold the copyright....

That's the sort of dedication I admire but can't muster.

Andy,

Not actually having an FX camera any comments would be based on old film days and various film sizes and using top glass. Nikon F2 (35mm) v Bronica SQA ( 6x6 cm ) v Sinar 5x4.
So I have had a bit of a rummage around the net to try and put the comment into a digital context. Good for a laugh as some are already writing off the D300 as old hat technology. D2X is now rated by many as an antique. All that appears to be on the basis that latest is best, and starts to fall apart when people start posting actual pictures :D . If I believed all I read the D100 should be in the bin by now. :rolleyes:

I think we all accept the horses for courses and so your choice is dependant on the type of pics you take. Luckily in your case you can do direct comparisons, and it would be interesting if you posted some results from such a shoot out at base ISO. No point in trying to pitch say a D2X against a D3 at higher ISO.

I have had a good read of Bjørn Rørsletts D3 review and if you go to chapter 9 and then in the conclusion then he discusses the subject of FX v DX. His conclusion is that for some DX is alive and well, certainly until the D2X replacement.

Link to Bjørn's web site. Click Reviews on the left pane.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Don

PS : Still scope to reduce your DX camera collection though. :D

Thanks Don - Just visited Bjørn's site and the chapter on FX Vs DX - most interesting - may well hold onto D300 and just slim down some DX lenses. Thanks again.

Very interesting comparison, I thought it would be more clear cut than that. No doubt it will all change when a D3+ with 20 odd mp comes out.

Nice post Duncan.
It is very good to see someone with that level of dedication (and fitness)
Linhofs are lovely cameras, an worthy to those with that level of dedication.

Back to the thread topic.....perhaps worth a mention that it's probably a good idea to have full frame lenses (fx), even if using crop (dx) bodies. Apart from the theoretical optical quality (using centre of lens etc) advantage, they're work on either format....Unless, we go back to the weight and bulk thing (dx lenses do tend to be much lighter and smaller)

D300, D200, D2X, D2H plus D3 - Andy, that's five cameras in just a very few years. You're a dealer's best friend! And, as Miketoll hints, when the 24Mp body comes out you'll find a reason to justify having one of those as well, so in a couple of years or so you're going to have at least five bodies again (D3, D700 plus the 24Mp version of each plus the high-speed version of the D3+, plus the one which will have the latest 'must-have' feature which we don't know about yet, so what don't yet know what it is that we must have!).

'More equipment = less pictures' is the old adage and there's more than a hint of truth in it! If you don't have a specialist interest that requires a specific lens (macro, etc.,) then a singly body with 2 or 3 lenses (plus a second body if you don't want to keep changing lenses 'in the field') will get you every picture you're ever likely to need.

There, that's saved you thousands of pounds in the future, so you can donate some of that to my fund for my next camera bo...oops, what a giveaway:)

So true Adey, and that technology ball just keeps rolling along.

Nikon are now offereing a buffer upgrade for the D3. Hints at D2X replacement buffer capacity to handle those expected large files.
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/c..._faqid=25465&p

Don

If you crop that full frame back to DX on a regular basis then its going to be an expensive tool for the job, unless it offers another must have feature.

While I agree with Joe's comment on full frame lenses, with this format if you use the full frame it can be a costly business at the telephoto end. Here the similarity exists with the old M/F slr's. Those lenses by comparison with 35mm equivalent fov were hugely expensive.

Re FX v DX : example my 180mm f2.8 = 270mm in DX ( ok it is not AFS or have VR ) cost around £500.
FX 300mm equivalent is the 300AFS VR f2.8 @ £2900. Even the f4 version of the 300mm is £300 more than the 180mm.

Expensive bees knees camera and budget glass is a different issue. ;) :D

Don

I didn't think I had strayed from topic. The point I was trying to make, is that it's the dedication you put in, rather than the equipment you have (to a certain extent), that gets you the shot.

FX or DX, it all depends on whether you need the long reach, as Stephen needs, or otherwise. Either way, I can't see that you need quite so much stuff, as Adey implies.

Duncan