Iceland.... Dx or Fx

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by warren_lewis|1, Oct 8, 2014.

  1. Hi,
    I currently own a d7100 and am taking a trip to Iceland... Pondering a d750 purchase for the trip.... If... I'd get "better" more details, depth of color...
  2. Warren;
    I have a d7100 and a d810 and have traveled in Iceland so I can relate. Your d7100 and your possible d750 would both work depending on the lenses you carry with you. The d7100 and the lenses you would most probably use with it would give you a lot less weight to tote around but the FF option would give you more resolution.
    I will most certainly go back there for a second trip and I will almost certainly take both cameras with me. If I was forced to choose one over the other I would probably go with the d7100. 24 mpx. can get you some wonderful images. That is a bad answer to your question, sorry. In any event I promise you that you are going to have a hell of a good time.
  3. Depending on the lenses you have there is essentially no difference. Travel photography rarely pushes the outside of the envelope and it is only at these fringes that you might see some miniscule differences.
    The D7100 is a fine camera and for 99.9% of images every bit as good as the D750. I am assuming that you have a really good flash and complete lens setup. If not, your money would be much better spent on those items than on a new camera.
    As for your basic premise that the D750 will give you "better" more details, depth of color...". Not that you will be able to see in any print you will make. Probably not noticeable at all even if you are an inveterate pixel peeper.
    Your camera handling technique will trump any tiny differences between the two bodies. Spend a fraction of the cost of the D750 on a good travel photography seminar as a refresher, concentrate on your camera handling technique and make certain of your lens kit and you will do just fine.
    One caveat. If you have contrived to convince your wife that you just can't trust your once in a lifetime trip to "that old thing" and so she should not object to your spending $4k for the camera and "special" lens that you need for the "Icelandic light" then of course you must strike while the iron is hot as they say. Image quality? Nah.
  4. without knowing what lenses the OP has, the question can't really be answered. i would think the lenses will make a bigger difference than the camera.
  5. Iceland has a lot of contrasts so a high dynamic range would be great (the D810 on tripod would be the best in that respect, also it has higher resolution). The D750 may be a good choice as well though there are few reviews of it and those that I've seen seem to focus on using it for wildlife/events. If you're interesting in photographing wildlife then the D7100 would give you more pixels on the subject when you are limited by your lens's focal length, but it has a much smaller buffer than the D810 (and a somewhat smaller buffer than D750). You could just use the D7100 for everything if you have the right lenses for that, and are happy with the quality, but a modern FX camera does give a richer tonal range and more room for making adjustments to deal with the high contrast range (dark soil/rock, bright sky) without having to resort to multiple exposures (which you may in some cases want to do, and do e.g. exposure blending in post) and better quality especially with wide angle lenses. I like the D7100 a lot for telephoto applications in the focal length limited case but use FX for most subjects and think the tonality/dynamic range (especially print quality) is in favour of FX when you are not limited by your lens's focal length.
    By the way, Iceland is fantastic photographically but be prepared for rough weather. When you see great light, make photos, don't wait! Conditions can change quickly.
  6. " "better" more details, depth of color... "

    Assuming you are shooting RAW, your lenses, and your image processing software play a more important role in getting 'better' images than the body except under the most extreme circumstances. Under most typical shooting conditions, you would likely not be able to see a difference in IQ unless you were printing 6' posters and looking at them at a close distance. I am not saying there is not a difference, just that it will be difficult to see it. If you can afford the D750 and have the appropriate FX lenses for it, why not!

    You can compare JPG images from both cameras side-by-side here to see for yourself:
    If may also be worth your time to check out the MEASUREMENTS section comparing the D7100 to the D810 (the D750 test results are not out yet) to see how little difference there is between the D7100 and the D810. Here is a link:
  7. Doesn't matter what lenses the OP has, actually. Unless you're shooting on a tripod with awesome technique, I can't imagine you seeing a difference between the ACTUAL photographs those two make.
  8. Any image processing that is applied to the files from one camera can be applied to the files from the other, and the more information there is in the original capture, the better the end result will be.
    If you cannot see differences, maybe use a phone camera and save yourself some trouble. Most people who are used to viewing high quality photographs (especially in print) and who are in control of the whole process from capture to print, do see differences in image quality between cameras and lenses and often see these differences to be of some significance, although of course the creative aspects of the photography are more important than technical quality. Photography is such a competed field that in my opinion all aspects of it should be done as well as possible, to make images that stand out and have a chance of being seen and appreciated.
  9. I've been to Iceland twice and am planning a third, winter, trip. I use a D7100 and Leica IIIc. I honestly don't think you'll see much difference from a camera, and none of the people you show photos to will. I sometimes use another wedding photographer's D800e and will say if you are making prints larger than 20x30 (which I do) there does start to be a noticeable difference. You have to ask yourself if spending the thousands more on another 24mp camera AND the lenses that will make the most of it is a better choice than spending the thousands on another trip to Iceland. There's always the "hot" camera of the month that everyone talks about on internet forums, but rarely does a camera really improve our photography. And, they depreciate so fast! If you aren't regularly using a tripod the difference in cameras (and lenses for that matter) starts to quickly disappear. For Iceland, the most important thing to bring is a polarizer. Second is a tripod. If you don't have a back up camera of some kind, I would buy one. (My philosophy is I'd rather have two $1,000 cameras than one $2,000 one.) There are only two towns I've found camera shops, and like everything else they are three times as expensive. I had the misfortune of dropping my polarizer over the edge of Dettifoss on my first trip. A replacement for a cheap uncoated one was $185 in Aukreyi. I ended up using my back up lens with 52mm polarizer. In the end, a camera is the least important thing in making interesting photos.
    Kent in SD
  10. Get a used D7000 for a back up instead.
  11. Photography is such a competed field that in my opinion all aspects of it should be done as well as possible, to make images that stand out and have a chance of being seen and appreciated.​
    This rather seems to assume it is some form of competition. Is Warren planning on exhibiting huge pics of his work in a prestigious gallery, or is he just wanting a few shots for Facebooking, Flickr or a few largish prints to put in his house? Probably the latter, like most of us. I agree with the others that the choice of the D7100 or D750 will make no practical difference and he should be guided more by what his current plans are and his lens selection. I don't think I would get an FX camera just for this task, unless of course he has some long time hankering for full frame.
  12. OP here... Thanks for the great info...

    More details: I have a CF Manfrotto Tripod with a Medium sized Ballhead...
    Lenses: 15mm f2.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 & a 100mm Macro lens... The 30mm is a dx lens...
    All the others are Fx...
    Zooms: 17-50 f2.8,16-85,18-140 & 50-150 f2.8...all dx...

    My son (14 yrs old, he picked this trip as his birthday present) has a d5000...

    We have polarized filters to fit all the lenses...

    My techniques are very good for photographing people & food... Landscape is not my forte... So, I've been reading up and practicing...

    I shoot Raw... I have a Canon printer and have been pleased with prints up to 13x19..I have sent larger files out to MPix and the results have been excellent...

    I don't tend to jump on the new equipment has been a life long interest... 40 years ago I got a Spotmatic...

    Just wondering if there would be, for me, an advantage to going full frame...

    The wife is okay with whatever I decide... (this time... 😊)...
  13. OP here.... Like most trips, I'll print 2 or 3 to put in my restaurant...I'll also put together a book of some sort
    for my son for later in life... And the usual Facebook, Instagram stuff...

  14. Assuming the 15mm is a fisheye (and hence of limited utility), then going full frame leaves you with a very limited selection of lenses that make full use of the D750 - a 50mm, 85mm, and a 100mm macro. Seems that with the D750, at least one if not two lenses would need to be purchased? Is that in the budget as well? If you were to make the move, are you planning on keeping the DX system or will you consider selling it (or giving it to your son)?
  15. I'd keep the dx and pick up a 12-24 & 24-120...or 24-105 sigma

  16. Are you going to travel with all those lenses? Because your zooms are no good for FX.
    With your son traveling with a built-in backup body... you have everything you need.
    Maybe, thinking of the future, and I had the funds, I think I'd get the D750. That 15 would be loads of fun on there although I'd use longer stuff for most landscape. (Me, personally, I've gone down to an even smaller format, but if I still shot bigger, I'd go FX.)
  17. I went to Olympic Natl Park last May and chose to take 2-D7100s instead of 1-D800. It's nice to have a second identical body with a different lens. That way, I can focus on composition and not on changing lenses.
  18. I used to travel with FX cameras. Now I use mirrorless DX cameras. Don't let yourself get bogged down in gear - you can have the 16-85 and 18-140 with you so you and your son each have a versatile daytime zoom, and a couple of primes, and save yourself hassle and weight. Bring the tripod if it's a travel model that folds up small.
  19. Lenses: 15mm f2.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 & a 100mm Macro lens... The 30mm is a dx lens... All the others are Fx... Zooms: 17-50 f2.8,16-85,18-140 & 50-150 f2.8...all dx...​
    i wouldnt even consider an FX camera then. why? $2300 on a body plus another $900 on a 24-105 would be an expenditure of $3200 which would give you less photographic capability than you have now with your DX set-up. i would consider getting a stabilized 70-300 for extra reach, and maybe an ultrawide zoom, but otherwise, you're fairly covered for lenses. you do have three zooms which overlap in range, so you'd have to narrow it down to just one. you could also get a TC for the 50-150 instead of buying a separate telezoom. i would leave the 50, 85, and 100 at home and just take the 30/1.4 for any low-light stuff you encounter. and, i'd probably also take the 16-85 and the 50-150, and the 15mm. definitely bring a tripod and remote. just get polarizers and you're set. instead of spending $3k on a new body, a backup DX body or identical 2nd body as Mike D suggests is a solid suggestion. i would also consider a compact, self-contained camera like the Ricoh GR, Coolpix A, or Fuji x100 for candids. it's easy to overthink what gear you need for travel before a trip, but when you're actually there, you dont need a kitchen sink arsenal of glass unless you're Bjorn Rorslett and you are going to make laborious art prints to be printed at humongous sizes for gallery exhibitions, rather than actually enjoy your trip.
  20. From your list I would take: 17-50mm f2.8, 50-150mm f2.8, 100mm macro, 30mm f1.4 (if going in winter.) I have a tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and did use it some, especially the 11mm end. Take good rain gear so you are covered top to bottom) boots, pants, top. Iceland is actually pretty warm since it's in the tail end of the Gulf Stream. Not much wildlife there except for birds. Tons of birds in summer, don't know about other times of the year. There are some fantastic restaurants in Reykjavik and a couple in Akureyi. We tried the whale, puffin, horse, and reindeer. I always make a point to attend church somewhere on Sunday. Icelandic choirs are the best in the world, and even the choir in a small church approaches world class. The larger churches in Reykjavik, Akureyi, and Husavik have a service in English.
    Island, Cut with Bays:
    My family learned to sing "Lofsongur," their national anthem, in Islandic before we went. We sang it impromptu when meeting folks there and had a lot of fun with it! The people there are just like people in North Dakota, even have the same accent.
    Kent in SD
  21. I would think that the biggest difference would be your ability to capture wider perspectives with an fx camera. And maybe in low light the
    D750 might give you some advantage. Otherwise, probably not much difference. When I travel, I use D800 and a Sony 5N with an 18-
    200 lens. They both produce keepers at about the same rate. If we're going to Iceland, I would that my D800 with my 24-70 f2.8 and a
    good tripod and my Sony Nex 5N, although I really love the Sony 7R
  22. this may be of interest to you
  23. OP Here....Thanks for all the great info and lots to think about...The real purpose of this trip is to spend time with my son, so, gear wise, I'll stick with the d7100, 17-50 and 70-300 (forgot I owned it), I'll pick up an 11-16 for wide angle and pack my tripod and polarizing filters...The boy will take the d5000 with the 18-140mm lens...
    We put the money for the d750 aside for our trip to Japan for his next birthday...
    We'll take the Mirrorless Panasonic as well...
    I'll post pics...
  24. Have fun Warren, it is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been.
  25. Let me add to much good advice..

    Landscape: start stitching panorama images! Iceland seems inviting
    to that approach. Steep learning curve though .. and you need
    software (like PS). Camera wise, you just need a Dx body, a 50mm
    lens and a VERY steady hand to begin with. A tripod, yes.. but that's
    where things get complicated..

  26. I've been to Iceland a dozen times with numerous cameras. I returned with great images from all trips. I assume you will be leaving soon, so the weather may be pretty bad. You have a decent camera already. Figuring out how to reliably keep driving rain and sleet off your camera and lens might be more important than buying a new body.
  27. OP Here....Let's talk clothing....We're thinking matching outfits....
    Bottom to Top...LLBean Boots ( Forgot what model, Just below the knee, the warmest rated pair they have ) and Waterproof Merrill hiking boots, Smart Wool Socks, Silk Underwear, Lined Hunting Jeans, Flannel in the interior, Patches of Suede on the thighs...
    Silk Long Underwear tops, Not sure of the shirt, Artyrek Shell and their Storm proof Jacket on top...Beanie Hats and Freehenad Thinsulate Gloves...Baklavas...
    Truthfully, We're only there for 4 days, and will be in the Southern part of the Country...Nearest I can tell, it wont be that cold, the issue is wind and rain....gotta stay dry...
    Thanks again,
  28. OP Here....Any thoughts on Restaurants?
  29. Restaurants--
    There's a bunch of good ones in the old down town area of Reykjavik, between the cathedral and the docks. I've never had a bad meal in Iceland. The seafood and lamb are generally the best, but as I mentioned above we tried the more exotic fare as well. Best meal for the money might have come from a little mom & pop seafood place right on the small boat dock. Rough picnic tables to eat on with seafaring decor.
    Kent in SD
  30. Clothing--
    Have not yet been there in the winter, but have looked over the typical winter weather. It's not that cold there. In fact it looks like a great place for someone from South Dakota to go in winter to get a break from the intense cold. You need waterproof from head to toe and layered insulation. I would take your boots, hat, ArcTeryx jacket & shell. You will also want fleecy tops, and Goretex pants with either Thinsulate or fleecy pants underneath. I'd leave the flannel pants home since they aren't waterproof. Are your gloves GoreTex? Walmart sells some nice longsleeved tops around here that are very thin and stretchy and are synthetic fiber. I think the brand is "Russel". I wore those last winter and they would be about right as a base layer in Iceland. You need to have breathable waterproof from head to toe. Not only keeps rain off, but also is your first protection from wind. It doesn't sound like it will be that bad there, but remember I'm a guy from South Dakota. I would expect the damp kind of cold.
    Kent in SD
  31. Warren.
    The restaurant in The Saga Hotel is good as well.
  32. When traveling, it's better to use gear that you know and trust and understand.
  33. While in Iceland the temperatures are moderate, the winds can be quite icy especially in the winter. When I was there in the winter I had to use a car as wind shield for my tripod and camera, otherwise the tripod would topple over. So it is good be prepared (both physically and mentally ;-)) for some cold wind. This takes nothing away from the photographic opportunities which are spectacular.

Share This Page