FX versus DX - when to spend money on DX versus a nice lens

[Ilovebokeh]

Hi,

I am aiming to get a telephoto lens.

I want to buy once/buy right so how likely is it that I will need to change to a FX from my Nikon d5500 DX?

Also, there is a second hand FX lens that AF (nikon 80-200 F2.8, about ten years old), so what would about $1,000 get me on a FX camera body?

Or am I best to just buy a new lens for around $1,500 instead (if so, why please?)


thank you

[Tannin]

You won't ever need to change to FX, that's purely a matter of choice. FX costs more and is very slightly larger and heavier, but delivers lower noise and in many cases more detail. Note that FX costs more two different ways: the bodies are dearer, but quite often you need different lenses which also cost more. (Around 20% is a reasonable guess, but it varies a good deal.)

If you are going to buy a lens, get a good one! Lenses last pretty much forever, so it's worth spending a bit for the long-term. Camera bodies are short-lived things, relatively speaking. Having said that, there is nothing at all wrong with buying a good old lens. I seem to remember that the Nikkor 80-200 was top-class in its day. Whether it is a sensible substitute for a new current model, I can't say. Doubtless one of the Nikon experts will be along to answer that, and say what's worth buying in FX second-hand in Nikonland. (I can only speak about Canons with any confidence.)

[Cage]

Yendor, it sounds like you are either getting very serious about your photography and/or have a bad dose of GAS which most photographers suffer from at various times.

* GAS is an acronym for Gear Acquisition Syndrome, the naming of which is credited to one of our members, LanceB.

I have both DX and FX in Nikon, the DX D7200, and the FX D600. Why do I have both? It's all to do with the size of the sensor and what I will use the different cameras for.

Look here for a side-by-side comparison of the two cameras. https://www.digicamdb.com/compare/ni...vs-nikon_d600/

As you can see the D600 sensor is 135% larger than that in the D7200, meaning that from the same position, the FOV (Field of View) of the D600 will capture much more of what you see than the D7200 will. This for me is particularly useful for my wide angle shots like nightscapes, landscapes and architecture.

There is a trade-off however. Although both these cameras offer around 24MP, those megapixels are spread over a much bigger area on the FX sensor so in theory will not capture as much fine detail as the same number of megapixels on the smaller DX sensor. At normal viewing sizes the difference may not be very noticeable.

I use my D7200 with it's 1.5 crop factor for detail work, particularly birding, where I strive for as much fine feather detail as possible. The D7200 captures it's 24MP onto a sensor 23.5 x 15.6mm but if I was to crop the D600 shot down to DX size it would only give me 10.6MP.

I hope you see where I'm going with this. Your choice between DX and FX depends on what you intend to use your camera for.

If money was no problem I'd have the new D850 with it's 45.7MP sensor and offering 19.5MP in DX crop mode.

And I totally agree with Tony's comments that a good lens will outlast many camera bodies.

I do however feel you need to move up a notch from the D5500, whether it's a D7200 or a D610, both of which can be had for around $1K.

Decisions, decisions.

[arthurking83]

Summary down below if you don't want to know why!!

First up, I agree 99.9% with what both Tony and Kev has written.
But there's always a small amount of difference of opinion, so I'll also respectfully disagree as well .. where the 0.01% anomaly comes into the equation.

That differences of opinion is that while lenses generally last longer than camera bodies, the way gear has been churned out in recent times, this is no longer a given!

eg. Nikon released the first gen 70-200/2.8 VR .. and outstanding lens in it's day, about 50% better all round than the 80-200/2.8 AF-S lens it kind of replaced. NOTE that this 80-200/2.8 AF-S lens is AF-S .. not AF-D that you've been looking into.
Totally different beast .. and the focusing system is different, which makes a big difference.
But we're all encumbered by financial resources to some degree, and you get what you can according to that limitation.

So, way back when .. I was also limited by funds, so went with the 80-200/2.8 AF-D lens myself .. going along with the same notion that 'lenses last a long time'.
Even if I wasn't limited by the $ .. I'd still have a philosophical issue with simply spending whatever amount of money on something that gets me no real advantage over a cheaper option.

For me what that last comment means is that if I'd just won Tatts in a big way and had the money .. I still wouldn't even consider Nikon's latest and greatest 70-200/2.8 E FL VRIII model lens at $3K.
I just don't have the need for that 'greatest 70-200/2.8 lens of all time'
I know the Tamron 70-200/2.8 USB VC lens would suffice for my uses .. which of course are not professional.
But taking into account that I'd just won Tatts(I haven't .. I wish .. just back to the above 'flush with cash' scenario) .. I'd say with 101% certainty I'd be at the store the next day and getting the Tamron G2 version(again back to that USB dock doodad for me).

So for me it all comes down to what works 'good enough' at a decent price and gets me pictures that I want.
Not being a pro, I want fun. I also look at interesting .. ie. diverse. I also search regularly for bargains. Not bargains in the sense to find that $3k lens for $1k .. just fun, cheap stuff that gives me the option to do different stuff.
I've never needed half the stuff I have .. which all may be related to rabbits here at the moment, as gear has multiplied quicker than I can keep track of!

Hope this gives a bit of a description as to how I decide on what I think is a good upgrade option at the time, with a strong emphasis on just giving me the ability to get out and shoot different things .. depending on mood.
A pro would think completely differently. Wedding photographer just needs that body lens that focuses 1 nanosecond quicker so they don't miss that split second chance. Pro sports shooter needs that same ability in a lens, but also from the body at silly high ISO values with totally clean noise rendering too. But at the same time, they also have to make money .. so cost SHOULD be a factor in their choices too. You can't make money if it's all going to be lost on updating gear, and losing massively on depreciation on that gear .. a pro photographer is a business, and that business has to make a profit(normally!).

So onto the question:
Fx camera at about $1K or less. They would all be second hand at that price point. D610 should be able to be got at close to $1K .. maybe $1.5k tops.

D600, D610 and D750 is also good, but you'd be looking.
D700 would be cheaper again, and can shoot faster(frame rate) ISO levels are fabulous too. resolution will be the killer, if this is important to you(again this comes back to needs, what do you want from that gear .. do you want to print large A2 sized super high quality prints? Or just the occasional large print for yourself .. etc. You need to take your need/want into account.
I'd say D800's will come close to that price range too now. Maybe a bit more, not sure how much more, it'll be a game of patience. D850 will ensure that D800's now drop massively in price .. and of course all the other Fx bodies along with them.
D850 will push many D810s to the S/H market, and why would you buy a D800 at (eg. 1.5K) when you may now get a D810 at 1.5K .. etc, etc... follow on.

So(my point re Fx camera) is start to look into D800's D800E may be a just a tad better, especially if higher ISO may be needed .. which on a tripod won't! .. but if shutter speed is a limitation ISO could be an issue .. once again it'll come down to requirement(need/want).
What this means: if you're shooting landscapes, ISO will be at ISO100 no matter what .. maybe ISO400 sometimes, but I can't see many situations that need more than that.
But if you shoot faster paced stuff, then even tho you're on a tripod, the subject demands the faster shutter speed .. lens will be limited to it's aperture ... so ISO has to increase(to counter shutter speed).

Back to that 80-200/2.8 AF-D lens(and why my respectful disagreement with Tony and Kev).
Once upon a time this lens was considered great. Not the greatest, just great. 70-200VR was greater, but 2x the price.
What happened? .. time moved on.
Tamron made their 70-200/2.8(non VC) .. a much better lens. Still awkward focus system, but much less awkward than the 80-200/2.8D. IQ was better on the Tamron(overall). Only issue with the old Tamron is at 135mm. Not so good.
But that 70-200VR1 lens.. still considered the greatest, which it kind'a was, was found to be no so great in 2007, when Nikon made their first Fx camera. Corner IQ was woeful. Tamron now had the upper hand with their non VC 70-200/2.8.
On Dx, you could see this difference. So Nikon had to upgrade the 70-200VR1 to the VR2 model to counter the bad corner IQ.
For sports shooters and portrait photographers this corner IQ wasn't an issue tho, but for the landscaper it was .. BIG!. Nikon responded and so in the space of about a year or two this great 70-200VR1 became the unloved lens by many.
Many were dumped, and I'd seen a lot on ebay at below $1K many years back. I still do every now and then.
Tamron did a similar thing, but IQ wasn't the issue. They had their non VC lens, then to counter AF speed issues, they made a proper USD(read that as much faster and quiet AF) version. Still a good lens, but then they made the G2 for the USB dock factor .. and no wyou can tweak a great lens to be as great(or not) as you like.

So, over time, as new models are released to address issues with the older model, found out due to newer camera bodies .. lenses are no more immune to becoming outdated as are camera bodies.
Camera bodies initiate AF, and lenses respond. A great focusing lens(eg. the 70-200's from Nikon) are no better trying to focus on an old crappy D70. The D70 is the limitation here.


Summary here:
The point of the reply here is that your requirements will dictate if a camera body is a better upgrade path, or the lens should be considered instead.

You say you crave bokeh .. I'd say taking that factor into account, the Fx body would be the better upgrade path. But if your requirement is (pseudo)magnification(ie. how much of the subject you want in the frame, and how much do you need to crop).. then the lens will be the better option.

How this would work - using the 70-200 lens as the base lens. If you got a Fx camera like the D800 you would need to get closer to your subject to achieve the same subject framing, compared to using that same 70-200 on a Dx camera. You could just stay in the same location and crop the Fx camera to Dx frame, but now you go from 24Mp capture down to 15Mp capture from the Fx shot. You lose pixel density by comparison. Framing is still the same, but less IQ in a sense. Add high ISO in the exposure and quality will suffer more on the Fx camera now.
BUT! if you do the right thing(which can't always be done) and move closer to get the same framing on the Fx as you can get on the Dx camera .. and then don't need to crop .. you will come out ahead on three fronts.
1. don't crop and you now have 36Mp as opposed to 24Mp(on the Dx)
2. at the same ISO settings that 36Mp need less reproduction ratio for a print, or display on an monitor .. Fx wins at the same ISO setting.
3. Bokeh will be much better, in that DOF will be shallower by comparison to that same Dx framing. DOF is a function of subject distance as well as aperture setting. Get closer(at the same aperture setting) DOF is shallower. Move back(as in Dx framing) DOF is deeper. Bokeh quyality is a function of lens and DOF.

The old Nikon 500/8 mirror lens (all mirror lenses in fact) have dreadful bokeh! They can blur as well as any other lens, but the bokeh(quality of the blur) is just bad, capital BAD! you get onion rings in the image a lot of the time.
BUT!!! get closer and with the right background, you wouldn't know it in some situations. Because DOF is dependent on subject distance to lens and background .. you can easily pass off the terrible bokeh lens as a creamy bokeh lens.
I have many images to show this. Not only that but if used right, that terrible bokeh can actually look nice too!

Last final comment .. taking into account that I know this reply is massively long .. I just got my two new lenses. Combined cost at about $170, maybe $180 .. their cost is such an insignificant factor I've already forgot how much they did cost .. Cheap naaasty quality product, and I knew this. But fun factor is about as good as I've had for a while tho. light as a feather .. horrible AF noise(like a couple of mozzies stuck in the lens) I doubt that they even used plastic for the lens elements .. more like transparent tissue paper they feel so dinky .. but again it comes down to fun.
Reason I commented oon them is that I was surprised by the bokeh. So far looks good-excellent. Not excellent and above(ie. totally satisfied) just that as far as I can see for now(10mins playing) I don't think the bokeh will be something I'd be worrying about.
Lenses are the Yongnuo 35/2 and 50/1.8 for Nikon. They go well on the D5500. (noting that I still hate using D5500 tho).

No matter, what I still can't recommend that 80-200AF-D lens tho ... from experience.

[Cage]

What would I do if I was in your position?

At this point I'd keep the D5500. It has the highly regarded Sony sensor, and with the right lens will produce images that will delight and astound you. What it won't do is auto focus with non AF-S lens.

I'd go for the G1 Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC (I had one and it was excellent) and also replace your 17-50 f2.8. On the D5500 that will give you the FF equivalent of 25-75mm and 105-300mm, if you want longer you could add a 1.4 T/C.

If you want to try UWA shots, the very good Sigma 10-20mm would be a good starting point.

I'd also consider buying the Tamron from a reputable Grey Market seller as they don't seem to have any inherent problems, the lens that is.

Just my two bobs worth.

[arthurking83]

What would I do if I was in your position?

At this point I'd keep the D5500. It has the highly regarded Sony sensor, and with the right lens will produce images that will delight and astound you. What it won't do is auto focus with non AF-S lens.

I'd go for the G1 Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC (I had one and it was excellent) and also replace your 17-50 f2.8. On the D5500 that will give you the FF equivalent of 25-75mm and 105-300mm, if you want longer you could add a 1.4 T/C.

If you want to try UWA shots, the very good Sigma 10-20mm would be a good starting point.

I'd also consider buying the Tamron from a reputable Grey Market seller as they don't seem to have any inherent problems, the lens that is.

Just my two bobs worth.

A good two bobs worth there too!

Alternativebecause the OP has come across as a bokeh junkie .. instead of replacing the Tammy 17-50/2.8(good lens I still have mine ) .. check out the price difference between it, and the much better Sigma 18-35/1.8.
While the focal length is shorter at 35mm vs 50mm, it's still a usable focal length range .. but the f/1.8 aperture it has at max is a greater, more noteworthy enhancement ... something I think will be more tangible as an upgrade.

Personally I wouldn't go with the alternative of Sigma's 50-100/1.8 over the much longer 70-200/2.8's even tho the same aperture advantage applies here as above.
I think when you want telephoto, then longer focal length may be more appropriate.
But if I were a wedding singer .. er, shooter! and had to weight up the pros and cons between a 70-200/2.8 or 50-100/1.8 on APS-C .. the 50-100/1.8 would win every time.

Once again, usage types will help determine which way is the best way to go.

[Ilovebokeh]

Yendor, it sounds like you are either getting very serious about your photography and/or have a bad dose of GAS which most photographers suffer from at various times.

* GAS is an acronym for Gear Acquisition Syndrome, the naming of which is credited to one of our members, LanceB.

I have both DX and FX in Nikon, the DX D7200, and the FX D600. Why do I have both? It's all to do with the size of the sensor and what I will use the different cameras for.

Look here for a side-by-side comparison of the two cameras. https://www.digicamdb.com/compare/ni...vs-nikon_d600/

As you can see the D600 sensor is 135% larger than that in the D7200, meaning that from the same position, the FOV (Field of View) of the D600 will capture much more of what you see than the D7200 will. This for me is particularly useful for my wide angle shots like nightscapes, landscapes and architecture.

There is a trade-off however. Although both these cameras offer around 24MP, those megapixels are spread over a much bigger area on the FX sensor so in theory will not capture as much fine detail as the same number of megapixels on the smaller DX sensor. At normal viewing sizes the difference may not be very noticeable.

I use my D7200 with it's 1.5 crop factor for detail work, particularly birding, where I strive for as much fine feather detail as possible. The D7200 captures it's 24MP onto a sensor 23.5 x 15.6mm but if I was to crop the D600 shot down to DX size it would only give me 10.6MP.

I hope you see where I'm going with this. Your choice between DX and FX depends on what you intend to use your camera for.

If money was no problem I'd have the new D850 with it's 45.7MP sensor and offering 19.5MP in DX crop mode.

And I totally agree with Tony's comments that a good lens will outlast many camera bodies.

I do however feel you need to move up a notch from the D5500, whether it's a D7200 or a D610, both of which can be had for around $1K.

Decisions, decisions.

Thank you to all for the amazing replies.

I have been taking photography courses recently, loving photography, and it gets me out into nature to explore. I am a natural zoom guy and have my focal length at max for most of the time. So this lens will be lots of fun in the field, plus will be my go to lens for portraits.

I would love to make money from having fun (who wouldn't) but recognise that professional photography is beyond me.

So this is extravagance at its finest. A friend of mine recently passed away (within 2 months of a cancer diagnosis) so I am emotionally probably making a life is short purchase.

I have time right now, but am uncertain about future income. Like a car, it is hard to justify the purchase/depreciation generally, but I will get good value for money - assuming the lens lasts.

I want to click buy on the Tamron g2 tonight, but will sleep on it just in case.

As for the Nikon d5500 holding me back, where would it likely be a problem?

Thank you

[MissionMan]

Yendor, it sounds like you are either getting very serious about your photography and/or have a bad dose of GAS which most photographers suffer from at various times.

* GAS is an acronym for Gear Acquisition Syndrome, the naming of which is credited to one of our members, LanceB.

I have both DX and FX in Nikon, the DX D7200, and the FX D600. Why do I have both? It's all to do with the size of the sensor and what I will use the different cameras for.

Look here for a side-by-side comparison of the two cameras. https://www.digicamdb.com/compare/ni...vs-nikon_d600/

As you can see the D600 sensor is 135% larger than that in the D7200, meaning that from the same position, the FOV (Field of View) of the D600 will capture much more of what you see than the D7200 will. This for me is particularly useful for my wide angle shots like nightscapes, landscapes and architecture.

There is a trade-off however. Although both these cameras offer around 24MP, those megapixels are spread over a much bigger area on the FX sensor so in theory will not capture as much fine detail as the same number of megapixels on the smaller DX sensor. At normal viewing sizes the difference may not be very noticeable.

I use my D7200 with it's 1.5 crop factor for detail work, particularly birding, where I strive for as much fine feather detail as possible. The D7200 captures it's 24MP onto a sensor 23.5 x 15.6mm but if I was to crop the D600 shot down to DX size it would only give me 10.6MP.

I hope you see where I'm going with this. Your choice between DX and FX depends on what you intend to use your camera for.

If money was no problem I'd have the new D850 with it's 45.7MP sensor and offering 19.5MP in DX crop mode.

And I totally agree with Tony's comments that a good lens will outlast many camera bodies.

I do however feel you need to move up a notch from the D5500, whether it's a D7200 or a D610, both of which can be had for around $1K.

Decisions, decisions.

Field of view is not a sensor limitation. Field of view is a limitation in available lenses in some cases. Both sensor have the capability of the Same field of view, but if you put the same lens on both you won’t get the same FOV. In short, there are plenty of APSC lenses that go as wide as you need.

[arthurking83]

D5500 won't hold you back .. per se!
It's a great little camera .. just gave it to my daughter and she loved it.
I like it(note that's a LIKE .. not a LOVE!!) simple reason for me is two points about the D5500, and in general all cameras made the same way ...

1. body size(for me) D5500 is just too small to handle effectively... just my hand size/style/preference .. everyone will want something else. That shouldn't 'hold you back' unless it is an issue for you.

BUT!

2. Two control dials. I'm simply the type that needs two control dials. That usually means 1(main) rear dial to control the variable that the camera is set to vary as the priority.
So the camera will have a few mode settings, shutter, aperture, program(have no idea how it works) and manual .. they come with the name 'priority' .. so aperture priority = control aperture via a dial. Same with shutter .. shutter priority = control shutter via dial.
But, because metering is one of the most important aspects of photography for me, I also want quick easy access to exposure compensation. I hate exposure compensation buttons, but I use exposure compensation a lot.

With my 3 other '2 dial cameras', I set [A] priority mode, front dial is the control for aperture, easy enough to reach to change, but I'm not always changing it .. or more accurately I'm altering aperture with more consideration, and not accidentally.
With that setup, (and a setting in camera called 'quick compensation' to do this next part) I then use the rear dial to change shutter speed but not because I want a different shutter speed, I make that change only because it gives me a simple quick and seamless way to set exposure compensation when needed ... and usually it's needed. The shutter speed is still automatic in this usage method, it's just that I want black things to be black and white things to be white .. and so on. So for that to get good exposure I use exposure compensation.

On those '2 dial' cameras it's simple, don't really need to think: look through vf compose scene, depending on where AF point it directed, assess colour and tone requirement for the subject behind the AF point, set compensation using a dial, shoot.
That method(or workflow) is a split second action. being second nature and a fluent method, it takes no time to achieve a half decent exposure doing it this way.

D5500 on the other hand.
the method(easiest) way to set the metering for a good exposure is: compose framing through vf, assess colour of subject, decide I need some compensation, move camera back to access i button on the rear(*), hit i button, now hit the exp comp icon on the touch screen, press the icon up or down, hit ok button(there are two, one on screen and one physical on camera), look back through vf to take shot(**)

(*) here's the major issue! I've taken my eye off the ball(so to speak) I'm now wasting photographic time setting the camera, rather than composing shooting or whatever and the issue is ...
(**) I've most likely missed the shot, in having to take my eye from the vf and go back to it now. The bird has gone, the person has lost interest, the Bunyip has eaten me!

This is why I say that in some situations a new body, or body upgrade/update can have significant impact on getting better results.
More pixels usually means nothing unless that the increase is significant and a massive way(eg. D700 to D800 did .. 12Mp to 36Mp for those Nikon users).
Going from 24Mp to 30Mp on the same format in real terms will = not much net gain. Net gain for sure, but not really worth a multi thousand dollar spend!
Going from a 24Mp Dx to a 47Mp Fx can be a real gain, and not as big a loss as it used to be going from Dx to Fx in terms of lost resolution(pixel density) .. but this involves a $5K spend.
Only person to help you assess that kind of expense is the one making the decision .. you!
Going from 24Mp Dx to 24Mp Fx could help with landscapes, will be a backward step for most nature situations(ie. the lost pixel density) .. see Cage's replies re D7200 and D600 cameras. That would be a good setup to do photography like nature AND landscapes, but you need two bodies, and obviously two lenses at the same time.

I'm pretty confident that either the G2 or the G1 Tammy will work well for 'ya on the D5500 tho.
For landscapes(depending on how wide you want to get) some cheap alternatives could be Sigma 12-24mm lenses, or Nikon's nice little 18-35mm AF-S lens. Note the AF-S part of that lens too tho. They do have an older 18-35 AF-D lens in their product lineup(not sure if it's still being sold, but something to be weary of). Not so good .. OK, but the extra $s on the 18-35AF-S is worth it .. and it will focus on the D5500. D600 will focus any AF type lens, as it has the built in screw drive system.

[sanger]

In one of the recent Australian Photography magazines there was a centrefold or thereabouts of a volcano eruption...great shot, anyway this shot was taken on a D3300 + 18-55 kit lens.
I felt a bit like you some time back and scratched the itch by buying second hand stuff, saved heaps and am enjoying using different lenses and understanding what I may or may not want in the future.
After 4 years I'm still learning on my D3100 and producing much better shots now.

[Ilovebokeh]

G2 seems the winner.

https://www.cameralabs.com/tamron-sp...-vc-g2-review/

Just trying to find where.

Grey market around $1500 - 2 year int. unofficial warranty.

Local around $2000 - 2 year AUS official warranty - plus it looks like I will need help with micro adjustments on the usb dock.

And my preference is to shoot volcanic eruptions from a focal length of 200

[arthurking83]

.....

And my preference is to shoot volcanic eruptions from a focal length of 200

I'm thinking 12mm sounds like fun, with the incredible 6mm f/2.8 it'd be positively smoking hot rush ...

but reality would set in and I'd get a wide angle shot at 600mm .. + the 1.4x teleconverter!

[Ilovebokeh]

I'm thinking 12mm sounds like fun, with the incredible 6mm f/2.8 it'd be positively smoking hot rush ...

but reality would set in and I'd get a wide angle shot at 600mm .. + the 1.4x teleconverter!

Ha.

Yeah, everyone is different, but the power of magnification sounds wonderful to me. (I choose F2.8 though as image quality > magnification)

I.e I am not so keen on the wide angle. If anything, I need to simplify/condense my compositions.

[tandeejay]

D5500 on the other hand.
the method(easiest) way to set the metering for a good exposure is: compose framing through vf, assess colour of subject, decide I need some compensation, move camera back to access i button on the rear(*), hit i button, now hit the exp comp icon on the touch screen, press the icon up or down, hit ok button(there are two, one on screen and one physical on camera), look back through vf to take shot(**)

Um... I've got a D5500, and you don't need to take your eye off the view finder to adjust exposure compensation... There is an exposure compensation button slightly behind and to the right of the shutter button. push that, then the dial then adjusts the exposure compensation. and if you press the flash button while holding the exposure compensation button, you can adjust the flash compensation. (if no external flash is connected, the popup flash will pop up).

And if your in manual mode, you can set the touch screen to control the aperture while using the dial to control the shutter speed, (and the fn button on the front left (below the flash button) can be set to control the iso, so everything you need can be controlled without taking your eye off the view finder. Only time I need to look at the touch screen is if I need to change the metering mode, or AF mode. (or use things like exposure bracketing, and hdr etc...)

[arthurking83]

Thanks John. Still trying to get my head(and hands) around the D5500. As I noticed you write that exposure compensation button info, I had a look across the desk and saw it there .. and Doh!

I'll check that manual mode too ..

And the other thing I can't find in the menu is 'focus point wrap around' .. where it continues on from one side of the frame and across to the other side of the frame in a continuation motion

[Ilovebokeh]

just typed out massive post that is gone.

ok options before I pull the trigger.

no 1 (for me)

$1,550 used

$1,050 Nikon 610 (7,500 shutter count. Photographer says he bought 2 years ago - can't remember where, which sounds suspicious - but comes in 'mint condition' with box etc.)
and
$500 80-200 f2.8 nikon lens

i love the bokeh on this lens

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200afs.htm




OR

2) $1,500 new tamron g2 70-200 f2.8 grey market - 2 yr int. warranty


OR


3) $2,000 tamron g2 70-200 f2.8 aus store - 2 yr aus warranty

Your input is appreciated. I know this may seem like I am rehashing, but this is a very important decision for me so I appreciate opinions, risks, risk management suggestions.

If risk was no problem, 1 would be my favourite by even more. 2 is uncomfortable for me - to buy such a large priced intricate item from an unknown. 3. is no guarantee either. I may move and the store (good reputation) may not be easy to work with if something goes wrong - I would be a new customer.



Thank you

[tandeejay]

And the other thing I can't find in the menu is 'focus point wrap around' .. where it continues on from one side of the frame and across to the other side of the frame in a continuation motion

That sounds like it would be nice feature. Haven't come across that yet... pressing the OK button while looking through the view finder (or in live view mode) will center the focus point, which could get you half way across to the other-side quickly... not quite as good as the focus point wrap around...

[arthurking83]

.... Haven't come across that yet... pressing the OK button while looking through the view finder (or in live view mode) will center the focus point, which could get you half way across to the other-side quickly... not quite as good as the focus point wrap around...

Nah! doesn't exist. Handy when you're stuck with just the joystick pad controller thingy .. and not the touch screen to position the AF point.
The touchscreen function is awesome .. I'm guessing like the joystick in the newer model cameras will be.

Still a great lil camera. Daughter liked it .. the idea of it that is. Fits her hands much better than mine.