I sort of agree with everyone then disagree.
I’m with Steve on the DF’s design I do like it, it’s a reminder when the photographer made the decisions, not the camera.
I would have liked the DF in the Coolpix range.
I’m going to defend the D800, because the images are just stunning. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, I know, it takes no prisoners. It does go on a 600mm lens, you can shoot 4 or 5 fps, and it delivers, especially with a remote. What you can’t do is wave it around like a mad ack-ack gunner. Wildlife photography is partly anticipation, patience and a large slice of luck.
There’s a huge misconception that to be a good wildlife photographer you have to be rattling off frame after frame….you don’t.
My new passion is dragonflies (DIF), which I shoot in single frame mode the images are pin-sharp, so that’s a myth that it’s no good for BIF. But you have to have quality glass, which is an expensive drawback.
On the DX argument, I don’t professionally come across any. People think they’re getting extra reach, but as I keep pointing out their sensor enlargement factors are fixed and the image quality dependent on the final resolution of the output device.
You can change the image area by increasing the focal length of a lens or getting closer to the subject whatever sensor size you have.
DX for sports photographers again is really not an argument in quality terms either, because the final destination for these images are printed basically on bog-roll, the printing process covers-up a multitude of mistakes and error. You can shoot at 10 fps and the sports editor won’t give a fig about pin-sharpness. As with wildlife photography, anticipation, skill and more awareness are more important factor.
