Who knows in 2 years to come FX become like rm4000?
bt for me, 17-55 isnt really great after all..it's okay, bt not too great.why? cz u cant get nice bokeh like prime lens..n if u want landscape, u cant go super wide angle.
so..lets say rm3000.. jz have a 1855 kit lens or 18-105mm (if u havent sold it). and get 35mm/50mm prime. then get wide angle lens maybe 11-16mm? only thing lagging is super zoom lens..haha..i dun use the lens so nvm..btw i start to like the 18-105..maybe like it more than my tammy 1750..cz the extra zoom.

ONLY way to prevent from FX bug is avoid seeing sharp and bokeh-ish picture.. later u'll ask urself, why i cant do that?? lol
same here..when i bought d5100 my uncle say i'll outgrow it..din believe it..bt now i think wat he said was true..maybe cz i handle his d700 adi.

I’m amazed at the amount of confused people on this and other photog forums, Nikon has provided a series of cameras that tailor for everyone’s needs, yet there are people who can’t seem to grasp the concept that if you are looking for a square peg, don’t go to the “round pegs r us” store….!!!!

Let’s see if I can help some of you understand a very simple concept, instead of moaning and whining about what the camera you are looking at buying “does not” have compared to another model in the line up, why not look at what it “does” have compared to another camera in the line up.

So the entry level cameras, first off, these are not professional cameras, so stop moaning that they are small and plasticy, they are for novice photographers, at the moment the D3200 has a 24mp sensor, the D5100 has a swivel screen. make up your mind which is more useful for you and buy that one.

The D7000 and soon to come D600 are aimed at keen amateurs and semi pro shooters that need the more useful features of the pro cameras, but without the weight, size and cost of a full professional body, moaning that the D7000 or the upcoming D600 will only have 39 focus points is sad and pathetic, both these cameras have more focus points than the models below, they also have AF fine tune, they also have hyper sync, they also have commander mode, they also have bigger buffers….

Don’t compare a camera that is obviously “not” a pro camera to a pro camera…..

For all you people waiting for a pro DX body (D400) it will never happen, at least not if you have your head stuck in 2008, the D300 came out when Nikon did not have a full frame pro body, so the D300 was an upgrade of the D200 which was the smaller brother to the then top dog, the D2. When Nikon brought out the D3 the game changed for ever, Nikon had gone FX for their pro line up, the D700 became the smaller brother to the D3 and DX as a pro format was dead.

However I suspect that as the D300 was so new, but already obsolete as a pro camera, Nikon upgraded it to the D300s to keep it going for a few more years, and to possibly give the wildlife shooters a pro crop body to help with reach on there long lenses. Yes people, the crop factor is a reality, though some people have a hard time understanding it…..

So I repeat, there will never be a D300s replacement…. unless…..

Next, the D700 is gone and will never be replaced because Nikon cocked up and made too good of an all rounder in this camera, they wont repeat that mistake, the D700 has been broken up, you will find half of it in the D4 with better ISO, faster fps rate, larger and faster buffer….

The other half is in the D800, higher resolution in FX and DX modes….

Nikon has created a bigger gap between there flagship models to make you buy both, if that’s what you need, and lets face it, if you are a pro and make your living from photography then spending £10,000 on a couple of cameras and accessories is nothing….

There will never be a D700 replacement, Nikon will never give a pro a great “all rounder” again.

Getting back the the D300s replacement, it’s called the D800, maybe Nikon should have called it the D400/800 for those slow on the uptake. The D800 is an 18mp pro body DX camera that is also a 24mp FX camera (1.2x crop mode) and of course a 36mp FX camera, so three cameras in one all for the very reasonable price of £2,500…

The trade off is you lose 3fps but gain two FX modes up to 36mp….

So all you people whining about the D400 that will never come, just go out and buy a D800.

Look for what the new camera brings to the table from it’s predecessor, not what it doesn’t have, Nikon has not been around for 100 years by going backwards….!!!

In short, Nikon has never had an FX camera at this level in their line up, so therefor everything is a bonus, and nothing is a loss as there is nothing before it to compare it to, it can not be compared to any pro body camera, DX or FX as it is “not” a pro body, so all those whining about it not being a D700 or a D300s, grow up…..

The D600 is the big brother to the D7000, so it will do everything the D7000 will do but with a 10mp DX mode, and a 24mp FX mode, the only trade off for that that I can see at the mo is the 1/4000 max shutter speed, but that is easily fixed with an ND filter.

So in short if you are after a mid to advanced FX camera then this is it, if you want a pro camera, then it’s not.

Stop whining about what “it isn’t” and start celebrating what “it is”….!!!!

Happy shooting.

10 years? give you 5 years max la
just like me using d70s already bising wan get new bodeh 

FX isn't sharp because of FX... more like because FX glass are usually higher grade than DX... how many pro grade FX lens compared to pro grade DX lens?

Not only FX can sharp and bokeh-ish
DX also can do that. With correct lens. Wanna see some sample ? Ask celciuz. He shot alot with his D90
I found a comment at NR interesting.

true oso..bt it's damn weird..i dno it's my camera or what..D5100 on 24-70 cant give sharp images. i seriously think it's body problem since the same 2470 works well on d700.
ya la..bt anyhow oso lose to FX ma.
bt oso true lar..if nt why isit called FF ?

i also want house, now paying for car edi.. pandai2 budget la haha
it depends on whether u will upgrade later or not, cos believe me fx glass is expensive. to resell dx then go fx will cost more man
but if ur confident u stick to dx, 1755 2.8 is a great all rounder lens. if u want low light then get the 35 f2/1.8 or even the nano 28 1.8g

but if u think ur gonna go fx in the future... this one really depends on what ur gonna use ur stuff for
+100   

your setting on D5100 is it ?

anyhow lose to FX on what ? Which part ?

That's y I dont want go for Fx cause body already 5k++...and glass at least 5-10k ++...lol!

shoot RAW also like that..
as far as i noe, lose to fx in DOF on the same lens lets say 35mm f/1.4..

24/1.4G - 6.7k
35/1.4G - 4.8k
85/1.5G - 4.6k


That's without a doubt for DOF la. But still can produce creamy bokeh ma.

ya..can lar..haha..lens oso mahal ma..
btw why 50mm 1.4G is so much cheaper than those 3 lenses? it's only 1.8k.

Because 50mm f/1.2G has yet to announce lo

lol..i think cz it doesnt have those nano coating.. and those ED thingy..

ya..can lar..haha..lens oso mahal ma..
btw why 50mm 1.4G is so much cheaper than those 3 lenses? it's only 1.8k.

The optical quality of this lousy lens isn't anywhere near the 1.4g lens or 2.8 Fx zoom 

The optical quality of this lousy lens isn't anywhere near the 1.4g lens or 2.8 Fx zoom 

in my opinion arr... only in my opinion and of course you are free to disagree
there is no such thing as lousy lens. there is only lousy photographer

Dx...Well I'm actually got enough money for the 17-55(I had funding "bullent" in 2 years) but the problems is I still a student and how ppl look at a student that using big and professional lens??

one step nearer to D600
and my source seems very very reliable for the price
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/08/30/updated-...ikon-d600.aspx/