D500 or D750

[pete_s.]

<p>You need to figure out what kind of photographer you are going to be and what kind of clients you are going to have.</p>

<p><strong>It's the job that you need to do that will determine what kind of equipment you need.</strong></p>

<p>If you want to be able to do most any kind of photography job you need a full set of gear. Two camera bodies, lenses from ultra wide to tele (f2.8 of course and VR if possible), a full set of primes, t/s lenses, macro, hotshoe flashes, a set of strobes, light modifiers and grip, fully color managed setup with high end monitors. And then of course a business, insurance, marketing etc. That's a lot more than a couple of thousands.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

If you do weddings with flash, you should be able to work with DX. You already have a lot of DX lenses suitable for the

tasks of weddings and portraits. It would seem that for you, staying with DX would be a lot more economical than getting

FX cameras and lenses.

 

If you are dying to get better low light results and shallower depth of field, or the larger viewfinder of FX cameras, then FX

may be something for you. But it would be costly to transition to.

 

I find that if I use flash at events, people stary posing with artificial expressions for the camera. If I use available light only

and no flash, I get more subtle and natural expressions and many people are unaware of being photographed. I find the

larger viewfinder of FX cameras is very helpful in timing shots for the best expressions. These are some of the reasons

why I prefer FX for most people photography situations. In the studio and also on location, for portraits I do usually use

flash as the subject is already aware of the camera and posing. I find it difficult to switch between the posed formal and

candid documentary modes and generally the posed work at weddings occurs at a specific time and I avoid bringing the

flash to the candid part since it really affects the mood and results that I get, and it's easier for me to capture the kind of

expressions that I like when not using flash. But it may be a subtle thing and not everyone will mind the difference. I do

use some bouncef flash for shots where I must shoot into the window light in the afternoon and the indoor artificial lights

haven't been turned on yet, or aren't bright enough to balance the window light. This occurs e.g. during cake cutting quite

often.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I find that if I use flash at events, people stary posing with artificial expressions for the camera. If I use available light only and no flash, I get more subtle and natural expressions and many people are unaware of being photographed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this might depend on how you're using flash, though, as well as whether you are using a huge honking zoom or a more compact prime. going off-body with a sync cord can prevent that deer in the headlights look direct flash can produce. i tend to like available light too, but in certain situations, a little bit of fill works well. i never use the red-eye reduction mode with the 3 pre-flashes, either. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I typically use only a tiny blip of flash (with a fairly large aperture and moderately high ISO so I get a lot of ambient light) in situations where the ambient light is coming too much from behind the subjects, and bounce that light from the white surfaces behind and above me. It doesn't cause any "deer in the headlights" appearance but the result is much like there had been an additional big window behind me. However, when the flash goes off a few times, even if it is a slight blip of light, many people will start to pay attention to the photography and I lose the ability to capture expressions and social behavior as they would have happened without the subjects being camera aware. Now, it may be that the bride and groom and their family <em>like</em> posed work of events, but then they probably shouldn't ask me to make the photographs. ;-)</p>

[kylebybee]

<p>This is off subject but may have to do with decision making. The Nikon DX 35 f/1.8 that I have has been a mystery to me. What is the difference between it and the regular FX 35. The focal length doesn't change or does it, I know that an f/2.8 DX lens actually renders a f/4 aperture equal to FX. So does Nikon make the f/1.8 on the 35 DX a true f/1.8?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 35mm f/1.8 DX renders a smaller image circle than the FX version, so you get some vignetting and soft corners with the DX version if you use them on FX (I recall at longer distances the vignetting becomes very obvious). The FX version is designed to render a high quality image over the whole FX sensor area, so that's the lens you need for FX (or one of the 35/1.4's). f/1.8 is f/1.8, there is no difference there. However if we think in terms of equivalents, a 35/1.8 on DX is roughly equivalent to a 53mm f/2.7 on FX in terms of its angle of view and the depth of field that you'd get if aiming to shoot the same photo wide open. </p>

[kylebybee]

<p>Thank you Ilkka.</p>

[ruslan]

<p>Ilkka is right and competent as always. <br />I would add that D500 has 4K (you can take super-duper-ultra HD footage in the future for 4K TV sets) and it more robust and it has 1/8000. <br />With very high skills of the photographer people will like APS photos, but the work of low-skilled photographer will be mostly abhored. Both are capable of stunning work at weddings. </p>