Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
ac12
11
Mar 31, 2019
Couple of different examples: Nikon D70 was my first dSLR. I soon bought a D70S, to replace the D70. This was still a D70, but with ONE important change (for ME), the D70S had a wired remote shutter release. Why, because the IR remote shutter release on the D70 was a PiA to use. This is what @BF_Hammer was talking about. I owned and used the D70S for the next 12 years, and was quite satisfied with it, with no need to upgrade. Only when the D70S died, was it replaced with a D7200. On the D7200, I got a 70-200/4 pro lens, and the image quality instantly improved significantly over the general purpose 18-140 kit lens. I could easily see the eyes of the sports players clearly, where it wasn't as clear with the 18-140. So clearly, the D7200 could deliver good image quality, but was limited by the kit lens (18-140). Putting a better lens on it, improved the images. But FX pro lenses are expensive. So YOU have to evaluate if you are being held back by the camera (1st example) or the lens (2nd example). Or if you have GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). In which case you want to replace both camera and lens :-) One major caution is the DX/APS-C to FX/FF jump. If you upgrade from a DX camera to a FX camera, most/all of your DX lenses will also have to be replaced by FX lenses. This is essentially a system switch, unless you already have FX lenses. The cost of this upgrade/switch is what holds back many DX shooters (including me) from upgrading to FX, or investing in GOOD/expensive DX lenses.
PRODUCTS YOU MAY LIKE
Trending Posts in More Community Picks