I know in other forums it does. But I am kinda on a crusade lately with all the gear frenzy in a site I am sure I don't have to name. We are in a time where even the most basic gear is more competent than we have ever dreamed ourselves to imagine.

I am game or the new D800 that is coming out and voiced my excitement for its potential for quite a while now. But with it feeling a bit like the air out there points to the the idea that FF is the only way to go, well I have kinda decided to be the advocate for the "little guy". People starting out and those without much of a budget.

I think I will be forgoing the D800 (and the added expense of going FF) and getting a D7000 soon. I might upgrade my super wide from the Tokina 12-24 and getting the Nikon 10-24.

For landscape work it is getting to the point that even a person with a basic camera like the D7000 can be competitive with lower end gear, even against the likes of some MF shooters and very competitive with FF shooters.

My points of order would be the follwoing.

1. DX cameras CAN do super wide and you don't need FF to participate in very creative perspectives.

2. DX noise handling is getting very good. FF really does have the edge here, but for all the most extreme cases and considering most landscape work is in the low to mid ISO arena, isn't really a factor in landscape work.

3. Large printing. Well I hope I have shown by example and digging into the topic first hand and trying many different ways that even a 12MP DX camera can get monster prints.

4. With all the above in mind, understanding and capturing good exposures and compelling compositions will often trump any hardware deficiencies people often tout as the justification of going full frame.

As always I will try to be tactful in my arguments, but I would love more getting involved with landscape work and know they don't have to mortgage the back 40 to participate seriously in the craft. And that often investing in ones self over the gear can often make more of a difference than purchasing new gear.

Roman

I'm with you. I need the low noise for indoor dog sports, but I have considered the D7000 as my outdoor camera. The only thing that really holds me back at this point is budgeting for a camera that doesn't do both indoor and outdoor equally as well as the D3S.

Jim, for your kind of work I am wondering if the buffer and lesser focusing might actually be a problem area for you?

I am betting the up and coming D400 might be a better choice for someone like you with an action twist toward their photography. Still DX and less expensive but using the tech from the upper line that lends itself for more aggressive moving targets.

Roman

When I first started out, I'd occasionally fill the buffer, but I learned some shutter discipline and it hasn't been a problem since.

I really need to upgrade my second D3 to D3S, but I'm on the fence about waiting for the D4 (D-next?). Ideally, I'd have two D3S bodies and and a third (maybe D3 / D7000) as a spare for the dog sports work.

For the studio, I'd love a D3X, but the budget for it just isn't there right now.

What do you do with the output? How big do you print?

My hunch is the D4 will be more MP and similar in most ways between the current D3s and the past D3 with more MP.

I am thinking the D3s is the camera to have even AFTER the D4 is introduced as you wont have insane ISO like that ever again based on Nikon's news release a few months back saying they will not concentrate so deeply on ISO performance in the future.

So if your not printing huge (were talking 40" x 60"). Then I would probably get another D3s and use them till their shutters fall out.

That is the perfect camera for fast paced reliable action.

Roman

I hope that lack of concentration on high ISO doesn't mean it will get worse, just that it won't get any better.

I just shot a few ISO 16000 (hi.3) photos last weekend and would be comfortable printing them at 11x14. Most of the dog sports stuff is 8x10 and smaller with the exception of collages.

Portraits are another ball of wax, and I lust after the "almost medium format" of the D3X.

I'm the proud owner of a new D7000. The issue about photo size isn't a big problem with software like OnOne Software's Genuine Fractals (Now Perfect Resize) Photoshop plug-in. I've been using it for nearly 20 years. The D7000's 16 mpix is more than enough to allow for clen shots at ISO 4500 enlarged to poster size.

FWIW, I had a D3100 for our trip to Disney. It did remarkably well in low light for theater shows, etc so don't discount the DX sensor there for sure.

Hey Roman,

I feel entirely the same way. It was one of the reasons why I picked up the Olympus Pen E-P2. When I need a SLR or something with a lot of megapixels, I have the Canon. For walking about and taking photos, I always have the Olympus right where I need it.

12 Megapixels is all I need for most applications. Shoot, I remember working to get 16x20s out of my old Canon D30 (3.11 mp) and they looked pretty good if I was willing to put some work in it.

My goal, as much as possible, is just to have the absolute minimum I need to carry around to get 'the shot.' It take photos a lot more because it is always in my bag. LOL, sometimes they stink, but that is another story for another day.

James