Considering a new DSLR... (now own a D600 - next: other discussions)

[randomrogue]

if i was buying a camera system right now and it had to be between APS-C and FF, between Canon and Nikon i would get the D7100 and it would be a pretty easy decision.

and then a few months later i'd be loathe to use it because it was so damn heavy and unnecessary

They're not that heavy. The lenses can be heavy though. I keep my 50mm on it most of the time and only bust out the bigger lenses when I need them. Walking around with a telephoto or UUWA on there is a bit too heavy for my taste but this was true on my old camera as well. If anything it's more balanced on my D600. I would really recommend you see how these cameras fit in your hand.

 

[destrekor]

Alright, so for the DX vs FX and lens usage, I've mostly been focusing on focal lengths.

I need to think more clearly about apertures and what I would need to pay to have a fast lens or two today, for a DX body, that would still be great for an FX body later.
Which means, if it's fast on DX, it's extremely fast on FX and thus will command a pretty penny over other lenses.

With the crop, it's about what, a 1 stop difference? As in, 1 stop slower than the same lens on an FX body.

So, in what areas of photography would this actually hurt me most?
While good portraits can look amazing, I despise portrait photography, or shooting people in general. I MIGHT, if I landed such a gig, get into documentary-style photos of people, for photojournalism work, but that's not at all my focus at the moment (and again, if I landed such a job, I could afford the upgrade or take a lot of risk out of sinking more money into it).

Considering my focus will be large scenes, be they inside of homes, inside/underneath/surrounded by man-made things (capturing lines and shapes of architecture, or unique angles of such), seeking out landscapes or certain aspects of urban imagery (I love abandoned buildings!) - would I really be often looking to get a shallow DOF?
And for certain work, the deeper DOF would be beneficial, would it not? Question being, would the benefit of a deeper DOF outweigh the benefits of a larger sensor for that specific scene? As in, in this case, would a 24MP DX sensor, using a tripod and low ISO, capture a better landscape scene than a 24MP FX sensor?

a diagram that is kind of helping me here:

 

[MrSquished]

Alright, so for the DX vs FX and lens usage, I've mostly been focusing on focal lengths.

I need to think more clearly about apertures and what I would need to pay to have a fast lens or two today, for a DX body, that would still be great for an FX body later.
Which means, if it's fast on DX, it's extremely fast on FX and thus will command a pretty penny over other lenses.

With the crop, it's about what, a 1 stop difference? As in, 1 stop slower than the same lens on an FX body.

So, in what areas of photography would this actually hurt me most?
While good portraits can look amazing, I despise portrait photography, or shooting people in general. I MIGHT, if I landed such a gig, get into documentary-style photos of people, for photojournalism work, but that's not at all my focus at the moment (and again, if I landed such a job, I could afford the upgrade or take a lot of risk out of sinking more money into it).

Considering my focus will be large scenes, be they inside of homes, inside/underneath/surrounded by man-made things (capturing lines and shapes of architecture, or unique angles of such), seeking out landscapes or certain aspects of urban imagery (I love abandoned buildings!) - would I really be often looking to get a shallow DOF?
And for certain work, the deeper DOF would be beneficial, would it not? Question being, would the benefit of a deeper DOF outweigh the benefits of a larger sensor for that specific scene? As in, in this case, would a 24MP DX sensor, using a tripod and low ISO, capture a better landscape scene than a 24MP FX sensor?

a diagram that is kind of helping me here:

faster denotes larger apertures that can bring in more light. speed is not determined by sensor size. f2.8 on a FF is the same speed wise as f2.8 on an APS-C as on an MFT. yes faster lenses sometimes tend to be more expensive when they are made to handle a larger sensor but it's not always the case. for example the oly 60mm f2.8 weather sealed macro is 599. i paid 599 for my 100mm Canon FF compatible f2.8 macro lens. they are both rated the same optically. the panasonic MFT 12-35f2.8IS lens is actually more expensive than the similarly ranged 17-55f2.8IS lenses on APS-C cameras. but f2.8 is not faster on one system over the other.

have you seen the luminous landscape website? they have good tutorials on basic camera functions like aperture, speed, DOF, sensor size effects, etc...with good pictures and diagrams for the beginner.

 

[destrekor]

faster denotes larger apertures that can bring in more light. speed is not determined by sensor size. f2.8 on a FF is the same speed wise as f2.8 on an APS-C as on an MFT. yes faster lenses sometimes tend to be more expensive when they are made to handle a larger sensor but it's not always the case. for example the oly 60mm f2.8 weather sealed macro is 599. i paid 599 for my 100mm Canon FF compatible f2.8 macro lens. they are both rated the same optically. the panasonic MFT 12-35f2.8IS lens is actually more expensive than the similarly ranged 17-55f2.8IS lenses on APS-C cameras. but f2.8 is not faster on one system over the other.

have you seen the luminous landscape website? they have good tutorials on basic camera functions like aperture, speed, DOF, sensor size effects, etc...with good pictures and diagrams for the beginner.

Here's the thing - I have a good working knowledge of all those topics... as they relate to 35mm film.
I never once really researched, learned, got taught, or otherwise gained any experience as to how the different photography principles change a little with the different film/sensor sizes.


So yes, aperture doesn't change - but the apparent image DOES change.

An image captured using F2.8, focused at 3m, with a 24mm lens, using a DX body, will produce a different DOF than the same scenario on an FX body.

It is, effectively producing a, what, an image that appears to have been captured using an F4 lens (all other specs being equal) ?
Due to the crop, is it a 3/2 stop difference (1.5) ? Thus, effectively an F4.8 image?

Can I even discuss this concept in the way that I have?
In other words, I know that the smaller sensor won't be able to create an image equal to the most shallow DOF image a FF body can produce - but how can it be quantified so that I can understand when shopping for lenses that will work wonderfully on both DX and FX bodies?

This only truly matters to me because I'd like to be able to buy some lenses today, for a DX body (if I buy such), and be able to use them forever, including for an FX body in the future.

 

[randomrogue]

The 50mm F1.8 is a fast lens and can be used on both bodies. It's a portrait lens on DX though since it's 75mm. I bring it up though since it's cheap, fast, and sharp.

Any telephoto lens for FX will work on DX and give you more reach. So this is good.

Your focus sounds like it's going to be wide angle scenes immediately. This is a conundrum since you will have no choice but to get a DX wide angle lens for all the reasons we've outlined above.

Why would you want a fast lens? Shallow depth of field and for low light scenes. The tripod can help you with low light scenes. Keep in mind though that if you're taking a picture at dusk of something moving then you'll want the fastest shutter speed possible and this will only be possible if you can open up the aperture nice and wide.

 

[randomrogue]

The Sigma 12-24 might not be a bad option though for you. On DX it will be 18mm and although this isn't UUWA it's still wide angle.

 

[destrekor]

The Sigma 12-24 might not be a bad option though for you. On DX it will be 18mm and although this isn't UUWA it's still wide angle.

If I get a DX body, I am certainly getting a lens with a 10mm wide end.

From the images I've seen, I'll clearly enjoy the effectively 15mm UWA ability compared to 18mm.

The question would be: $500-600 or so for a 10-20 (or similar) Sigma lens, or about $800 for a Nikon 10-24 (15-36 effectively). That one Sigma is nice for the F3.5 constant, but apparently the Nikon performs much better at 10mm (not without barrel distortion though - yet software should be able to fix that up for the meantime).

I wouldn't mind THAT too much - because if at some point in time I feel I can afford and/or that I NEED an FX body because the DX is holding me back, then I should be able to afford to upgrade to a proper FF Nikkor UWA lens like the 14-24 F2.8 (about $2000).

hmmm - decisions decisions.

 

[blastingcap]

If you want, download a DoF app for iPhone or Android. There are several out there. You can enter the various data like sensor size, focal length, and the calculator will spit out an answer as to what is deemed to acceptable focus--i.e., DoF.

Here's the thing - I have a good working knowledge of all those topics... as they relate to 35mm film.
I never once really researched, learned, got taught, or otherwise gained any experience as to how the different photography principles change a little with the different film/sensor sizes.


So yes, aperture doesn't change - but the apparent image DOES change.

An image captured using F2.8, focused at 3m, with a 24mm lens, using a DX body, will produce a different DOF than the same scenario on an FX body.

It is, effectively producing a, what, an image that appears to have been captured using an F4 lens (all other specs being equal) ?
Due to the crop, is it a 3/2 stop difference (1.5) ? Thus, effectively an F4.8 image?

Can I even discuss this concept in the way that I have?
In other words, I know that the smaller sensor won't be able to create an image equal to the most shallow DOF image a FF body can produce - but how can it be quantified so that I can understand when shopping for lenses that will work wonderfully on both DX and FX bodies?

This only truly matters to me because I'd like to be able to buy some lenses today, for a DX body (if I buy such), and be able to use them forever, including for an FX body in the future.

 

[randomrogue]

If I get a DX body, I am certainly getting a lens with a 10mm wide end.

From the images I've seen, I'll clearly enjoy the effectively 15mm UWA ability compared to 18mm.

The question would be: $500-600 or so for a 10-20 (or similar) Sigma lens, or about $800 for a Nikon 10-24 (15-36 effectively). That one Sigma is nice for the F3.5 constant, but apparently the Nikon performs much better at 10mm (not without barrel distortion though - yet software should be able to fix that up for the meantime).

I wouldn't mind THAT too much - because if at some point in time I feel I can afford and/or that I NEED an FX body because the DX is holding me back, then I should be able to afford to upgrade to a proper FF Nikkor UWA lens like the 14-24 F2.8 (about $2000).

hmmm - decisions decisions.

Do not forget to look at the Tokina 11-16. It's rated very highly. I don't remember which one of the DX lenses is the best but 10 or 11 mm will both make you happy. There's also a Sigma 8-16.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[Indus]

I actually have both cameras and the D600 is way way way better than the D7000 in every way especially low light situations.

The autofocus is way better and more accurate. Consider this, in 8500 shots on my D600 I've had less than 5 out of focus shots at f/2 where as I've had over a 1000 out of focus shots with my D7000 at f/5.6.

It's really a no brainer but it is more expensive. If you shoot ISO 100-1600 all the time, you'll be fine with D7000. If you're pushing ISO above that (I often push mine upto 12800 the D600 makes the ISO 12800 look as clean as the D7000's ISO 1600. So in the long run it's worth it but it's your money.

 

[destrekor]

I actually have both cameras and the D600 is way way way better than the D7000 in every way especially low light situations.

The autofocus is way better and more accurate. Consider this, in 8500 shots on my D600 I've had less than 5 out of focus shots at f/2 where as I've had over a 1000 out of focus shots with my D7000 at f/5.6.

It's really a no brainer but it is more expensive. If you shoot ISO 100-1600 all the time, you'll be fine with D7000. If you're pushing ISO above that (I often push mine upto 12800 the D600 makes the ISO 12800 look as clean as the D7000's ISO 1600. So in the long run it's worth it but it's your money.

D7100 - not D7000. Quite similar overall, but an entirely different sensor and new photo engine, iirc.
And the D7100, iirc, has/will have a newer and faster AF system.

And the more expensive model is always a no-brainer when compared to lesser models. There's a balance between what you pay and what you get out of it (income or personal value) that weighs heavily in the decision process.

 

[MrSquished]

Here's the thing - I have a good working knowledge of all those topics... as they relate to 35mm film.
I never once really researched, learned, got taught, or otherwise gained any experience as to how the different photography principles change a little with the different film/sensor sizes.


So yes, aperture doesn't change - but the apparent image DOES change.

An image captured using F2.8, focused at 3m, with a 24mm lens, using a DX body, will produce a different DOF than the same scenario on an FX body.

yes as stated earlier Sensor Size changes DOF by 1 stop from FF to APS-C and then 1 more stop to MFT - as long as all other things being equal in the shot from FOV to perspective and framing. but a lens is not faster. f 2.8 is f2.8 on either of these three sensors in regards to speed.

yes if you do go crop sensor now and get crop sensor lenses, you will not be able to use them on an FF down the road. i wouldn't be concerned about APS-C going anywhere for awhile.

Canon seemed to hint that they think the market is shifting a bit. the arrival of mirrorless cameras that rival APS-C's for everything from IQ to features has a good chance of catching on and driving casual DSLR shooters away from APS-C to MFT size systems for the advantage of size and weight. shooters that half of them buy a decent APS-C kit and maybe never take it off of Auto. you also have passionate enthusiasts who bought into APS-C when FF was too much money also now considering MFT because they lose little IQ and don't have to carry around all that gear. APS-C bread and butter was those two groups that are both prime targets for MFT now. enthusiasts, and the ones that use a DSLR like a point and shoot - vacation, kids, soccer gaames, you name it.

and FF will get cheaper and cheaper as well, thus being the choice of pros, possibly squeezing out APS-C. it's definitely possible that things will migrate that direction. that will take awhile if true. and plus, Canon has made a terrible effort at mirrorless. but they are profitable so they have the money - they don't innovate as much because they don't have to. Oly and Panny had to, they came out with the next interchangeable lens format that is taking hold - not Nikon. not Canon.

nikon just busted out the 7100, seems they are pretty committed to APS-C. nikon also has no other business AFAIK except making cameras - canon has other profitable businesses. they probably can have a different approach because of this. nikon is in a different position. i'm pretty sure Nikon's financials have been worse than expected. the only one making money is canon. i think every other camera making division of a major company - Sony, Oly, Panny, Pentax, Fuji - is losing money. smartphones took everyone by surprise. they have taken over a big part of the p&s market.

i'd get a 7100 with a 10-20 lens designed for the crop sensor. and also a 17-55 2.8IS lens that covers the best walkabout, IS is fantastic as well. see what you shoot a bunch, do you need more tele? or not. if you find your range get a prime - you can see what focal lengths you shoot at the most with software on your puter. you seem to be trending wider angle, but your talk of what to shoot is very varied. i shot everything from landscapes to architecture to macro to street for fun so i know how it feels to want to shoot everything. so i had 4 lenses on a 1.6x crop to cover all those desires, but i built them up as i knew what i needed and even then i bought one that ended up not being used much.

lenses hold pretty good resale value IF you feel that APS-C is not enough camera for you. that's a big IF. i did the opposite, instead of needing to get rid of APS-C to go bigger to FF, i went smaller to mft. when i switched from aps-c to mft i gave my sister the 40D, 17-55IS2.8 and canon 100mm macro as christening gifts, so she could shoot my niece growing up better than with their P&S.

but i sold my canon 70-300IS and sigma 10-20EX on Amazon Marketplace. and i priced them to sell fast. the canon for $325 and the sigma for $400. I had the lenses for close to 5 years, from 2006-2007 until mid 2012. and I only lost like $280-$300 total. that's like i rented two lenses for $150 each for 5 years. you buy decent to good glass you can sell np on the secondary market. just take good care of em.

 

[elitejp]

OP I think you need to go out and buy a book or find a dvd that covers all of this. This is the first time ive ever seen someone so caught up in trying to learn everything about photography before having a camera to practice on. You want to know how the framing works just look through the viewfinder. If it isnt wide enough then buy a wider angle lens. And now you want to know everything about depth of field. Is this really going to make a difference in what camera you are going to buy? I think you have already bought and sold an entire system of cameras and lenses in your head without having actually taken a single picture.

Like some have said the ff is a better choice outside of cost. Indus has the cameras and is giving first hand knowledge and you still dont get it. Of course he hasnt compared the d7100 cause it aint even out yet so thats kinda impossible for him to do.

 

[elitejp]

Considering my focus will be large scenes, be they inside of homes, inside/underneath/surrounded by man-made things (capturing lines and shapes of architecture, or unique angles of such), seeking out landscapes or certain aspects of urban imagery (I love abandoned buildings!) - would I really be often looking to get a shallow DOF?

Just save yourself some money and buy a manual lens and shoot everything at at f/8. Thats all you need for what you want to shoot.

 

[destrekor]

OP I think you need to go out and buy a book or find a dvd that covers all of this. This is the first time ive ever seen someone so caught up in trying to learn everything about photography before having a camera to practice on. You want to know how the framing works just look through the viewfinder. If it isnt wide enough then buy a wider angle lens. And now you want to know everything about depth of field. Is this really going to make a difference in what camera you are going to buy? I think you have already bought and sold an entire system of cameras and lenses in your head without having actually taken a single picture.

Like some have said the ff is a better choice outside of cost. Indus has the cameras and is giving first hand knowledge and you still dont get it. Of course he hasnt compared the d7100 cause it aint even out yet so thats kinda impossible for him to do.

Now you're just coming off as elitist.


If you can't tell, I obviously want FF and if I got one, I'd have no problem understanding how things work.

That's the "sensor size" I've always known.

When you change film/sensor size formats, without wasting time and money experimenting, as you suggest I do, there are a few technical things you really need to know if you want to "get it right" on the first try. Which, if you know your fundamentals and how you want to use certain lenses, is entirely feasible.

Everything changes, though ever so subtly, when you change film/sensor size.

I'm a researcher - and considering this is going to be a few thousand dollars I am taking a major gamble with, I will most certainly research every angle, and research it yet again. I'll admit I am a bit OCD about product researching before committing to a purchase. But you should respect that, instead of taking a "you don't know what you're talking about - just get the cheapest thing and get a good book!" position.

Many books don't exactly cover the concept of "when moving from one film/sensor size to another, here is everything you should know about what will be different."
It's a fairly minor point - and more often than not (in the average history of photography), people move UP in film/sensor size, they get new lenses for an entirely different platform (I'd love a 2x3 or 4x5).


You're reading comprehension needs work. You missed the fact that I do, sort of, have "a camera to practice on." It's a film SLR. I also have two lenses, a flash unit, and own a photography book and have taken photography courses (one w/darkroom, one with color film).
The fundamentals I understand, though sometimes the terminology I get wrong because I've been "out of the game" for awhile.
But I don't have a DX body to practice with - and I don't care to experiment by making impulsive and barely thought-out purchasing decisions, when I could instead spend a great deal of time researching the ins and outs of the exact things I feel I need to know and making my decision carefully.


But considering it seems at least one photographer here can get paid with the results of a Micro Four-Thirds body, I guess I should be able to expect that as possible with a DX body.

The other question: can I get IQ results that can see me getting paid for art-type work (as opposed to contracted professional work)? As in, a great photo of something here or a unique landscape there, that gets published, wins local or whatever contests, or when posted online sees people order prints?

Which angle I want to focus on (why not both?) I haven't decided yet. If I get a DX body and I do find success, I'll definitely move up to whatever the best FF body Nikon offers at that time (or at least, a second-top model).
I'm not over-thinking or projecting too far with these. I know it may seem that way or appear that I am naive or something, but rather this is something I have worked on, off and on, for quite some time, and now I have discovered it is what I should be going full-steam ahead with, instead of trying to make a white-collar career (though in the mean-time, I have to keep trying until one or the other ends up being the successful route ).

 

[Anteaus]

I might be repeating something someone else said, so I apologize if this is the case. I can't speak for other brands, but for the most part newer Nikon FX lenses will work fine on Nikon DX bodies and in some circumstances these lenses provide better performance on DX bodies because the sensor mostly uses the center (arguable sharpest) portion of the lens and helps get rid of vignetting.

If your thinking about starting with a Nikon DX body such as the D7000 or D7100 and think FX might be a possibility in the future I would suggest just skipping DX lenses altogether and buying FX lenses where possible. While it is true that you will be missing out on some of the more popular DX lenses such as the 35mm 1.8G and 18-200mm zoom, you can still make up for those focal lengths in FX lenses and feel better knowing that money spent together will still go toward the future.

A couple of great FX lenses that work fine on DX and are affordable are the 50mm 1.8G and 28-85mm 3.5-4.5G. The 50mm might be a bit long on DX, but the 28-85mm is a nice midrange. Either way if you decide to go from DX to a entry level FX body or higher you only need to sell the DX body or keep it as a spare. Just check the Nikon USA site to see what lenses work fine on both FX and DX bodies.

For myself, I went from a D7000 to D600. I absolutely loved the D7000, but for me the D600 is a step up. I agree with what others have said in that there is nothing I can do technically with the D600 that can't be done on the D7000 and image quality is mostly about glass and technique. That said, cameras are tools and when you get better tools it gives you more options. There are people here that can probably pick up a D60 and shame anything I do with my D600, but there is something to be said about feel and controls. I love FX.

 

[destrekor]

I might be repeating something someone else said, so I apologize if this is the case. I can't speak for other brands, but for the most part newer Nikon FX lenses will work fine on Nikon DX bodies and in some circumstances these lenses provide better performance on DX bodies because the sensor mostly uses the center (arguable sharpest) portion of the lens and helps get rid of vignetting.

If your thinking about starting with a Nikon DX body such as the D7000 or D7100 and think FX might be a possibility in the future I would suggest just skipping DX lenses altogether and buying FX lenses where possible. While it is true that you will be missing out on some of the more popular DX lenses such as the 35mm 1.8G and 18-200mm zoom, you can still make up for those focal lengths in FX lenses and feel better knowing that money spent together will still go toward the future.

A couple of great FX lenses that work fine on DX and are affordable are the 50mm 1.8G and 28-85mm 3.5-4.5G. The 50mm might be a bit long on DX, but the 28-85mm is a nice midrange. Either way if you decide to go from DX to a entry level FX body or higher you only need to sell the DX body or keep it as a spare. Just check the Nikon USA site to see what lenses work fine on both FX and DX bodies.

For myself, I went from a D7000 to D600. I absolutely loved the D7000, but for me the D600 is a step up. I agree with what others have said in that there is nothing I can do technically with the D600 that can't be done on the D7000 and image quality is mostly about glass and technique. That said, cameras are tools and when you get better tools it gives you more options. There are people here that can probably pick up a D60 and shame anything I do with my D600, but there is something to be said about feel and controls. I love FX.

Which it is basically coming down to - where do I honestly need to limit myself for budget reasons? I'd definitely rather spend more on glass than skimp on the glass to buy a better body.

I guess this thread seems to hammer home the point that the D7100 *should be* a remarkable camera, and a terrific starting point - obviously the D600 is better but the D7100 isn't that far from in, relatively speaking (in contrast to other, cheaper bodies).

Considering the D7100 will have some improvements or, at the minimum, mostly feature-match the D600 (save for a few areas), that leads me to expect the next FF body from Nikon will be even better. If it's a suggested D400 or D600S or D701 or whatever, hopefully it's right around the D600 in pricing or between the D600 or D800. That would be awesome.

Hopefully it doesn't have sensor dust/oil issues. (like the D600, at least early models - not sure if that is still an issue if buying new today).

 

[Anteaus]

The D7100 has virtually an identical control/feature set to the D600. I'd like to say there are more pronounced differences, but the truth of the matter is that you're spending all that extra cash for a larger sensor and not much else. Others have explained it but ultimately it comes down to DOF and better f-stop performance, neither of which is likely to have a large affect on most images. I'm into ambient light photography and never use the flash unless absolutely necessary so I can appreciate the sensor, but with enough light it doesn't make a huge difference.

I wouldn't worry about the dust issue to much with the D600. Some people definitely had issues but you have to go looking for it, which means shooting way stopped down with bright backgrounds. I've got about 1500 shots on my D600 and no dust problems as of yet. It's possible I've got dust just like most cameras, but it isn't coming out on my photos. In any case Nikon warranties against it.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

There are a couple of considerations that I haven't found mentioned here.

First, a really big benefit of FF is the image in the viewfinder. I still shoot my old F4 every so often, and it's always difficult to transition back to the "looking down a tunnel" viewfinder on my DX camera.

Second, the focus points on the D600 seem to have been lifted out of the D7000 and are all cramped in the middle of the viewfinder.

You really need to check these two things out at a camera store before buying.

Additionally, on the tripod...be prepared to spend enough to buy a second camera body (D7000 or D7100 price range) http://bythom.com/support.htm

JR

 

[randomrogue]

I bought the D600 early and didn't have any issues. My only gripe with it so far is that they got rid of Focus Trap on all the new Nikon cameras.

If you want to learn from my experiences, in a nutshell, here they are:

1. If you're going to go DX, go top of the line. I didn't and this was a mistake. I should have gotten a D90 back then. If I did I bet I would still be using it. The missing features on the D3x00 and D5x00 line today make them much less future proof. The first one is missing bracketing for example and the later doesn't have commander mode. If you have the money and are going to be shooting in low light just go FX immediately and save yourself the hassle of being disappointed with noisy pictures.
2. Don't skimp on the tripod. If you want to get it right the first time buy a carbon fiber tripod and a carrying case so that you'll take it with you everywhere.
3. Post processing makes a huge difference. Learn how to use Adobe Bridge, Lightroom, or something equivalent to organize and edit your pictures. Shoot Raw from day one. Raw plus jpeg is fine. Learn some photoshop. Make sure you have a PC with 8GB or more of memory. A 24" or larger monitor is great. Two is even better.
4. Lenses make a huge difference. A slow lens is no fun if you're in low light. Have at least one fast lens. These new 1.8G's are a bargain (28, 50, 85). Do not buy lenses just to buy lenses. Photography is kinda nice since you just "know" what lenses you need after using your camera and seeing what focal ranges and apertures you use and need for missed shots. My personal opinion is to not buy a DX lens if you can help it. If you're not sure what you need then start with a general purpose lens and you'll naturally realize if you need a wide angle, telephoto, macro, and which apertures.
5. Ergonomics is important. I returned my first DSLR (a canon) since it just didn't work well in my hands. It's not a knock on Canon at all, it just didn't work for me. These new mirrorless cameras are terrible for me. They're too small and it's nothing but menu diving.
6. Read the manual. Keep it handy. Buy another book for your camera and read that as well. Take a course, watch videos online, and if you find a picture you like figure out how it was taken.
7. Have a good carrying case/backpack. Always bring your camera with you. If you want the best sunset of your life leave the camera at home. Just bring the camera with you everywhere. Consider insurance.
8. Have extra batteries. Two is fine for me. You might need more. You can never have too many. If you're going to be using a flash gun you'll want to invest in good rechargeables and a good charger so budget another $75-$100 here.
9. I love my lenspen. Get one.
10. Buy a remote shutter release immediately. You can get them super cheap on sale (I think I paid $18) and they're very useful for sharp images.

 

[blastingcap]

You don't need top of the line DX much of the time. Commander mode is not necessary if you don't mind manual flash trigger. You only really need it for iTTL but even iTTL can mess up sometimes, so you'll probably end up having to do manual anyway. A Yongnuo 465 or more recent can do iTTL when mounted on-camera, and can bounce. So I disagree... you don't need a D7xxx. My D5100 does just fine and takes better quality photos than my D90 which I sold. And the builtin motor thing is not very useful... the pre-digital-era lenses are rarely sharp by today's standards, so you will want AF-S lenses anyway. Other things like guidelines, better AF, etc. are already addressed in the D5200 so get that if you want. About the only thing I miss are depth of field preview and more manual controls (D5100/5200 requires more menu-diving with fewer customizable external controls).

Re: tripods, look for Sirui which is less known in the USA but is a reputable carbon fiber tripod makers.

For tripod head, I like my Acratech which is open and easily clean-able. I got the mini version (GP-s) for easier folding. But it's expensive at $400. If you want decent but cheap you could look for one of the Korean ones (Photo Clam).

 

[randomrogue]

AF Fine Tuning is a big one missing. The U1 and U2 is pretty awesome. The lack of two control dials. Smaller and dimmer view finder. Lack of top LCD. Two card slots. Intervalometer. Auto FP mode flash. Option for a grip.

It's going to depend on each user.

 

[blastingcap]

Many people don't AF tune properly, though yes U1/U2 is nice. I already mentioned menu diving vs external controls. Viewfinder is less important for what I shoot, but I understand why people like larger, brighter finders (and had one on my D90). Top LCD doesn't matter that much to me, but it's convenient. 2 card slots - again, not important to me but fast action shooters who eat buffer may appreciate it. I believe the D5xxx series comes with intervalometers as well. If you want good flash how about the freaking lowest of the low, the D40, that can nevertheless sync higher than any other allegedly DX model after it, including the D7xxx series, at 1/500th sec!

But yeah, it really depends on how you use a camera.

For most beginners I would advise getting a relatively cheap body, like a D5100 or, if they insist on some advanced features and don't mind the weight and worse sensor, a D90. Then spend more on the lenses. Then when they have a better idea of what is important to them, they can swap bodies if necessary.

 

[iGas]

The 50mm F1.8 is a fast lens and can be used on both bodies. It's a portrait lens on DX though since it's 75mm. I bring it up though since it's cheap, fast, and sharp.

Any telephoto lens for FX will work on DX and give you more reach. So this is good.

Your focus sounds like it's going to be wide angle scenes immediately. This is a conundrum since you will have no choice but to get a DX wide angle lens for all the reasons we've outlined above.

Why would you want a fast lens? Shallow depth of field and for low light scenes. The tripod can help you with low light scenes. Keep in mind though that if you're taking a picture at dusk of something moving then you'll want the fastest shutter speed possible and this will only be possible if you can open up the aperture nice and wide.

I agree that both DX and FF can use FF lenses, however DX will have lower lens resolving power when use FF lenses due to smaller area of lens usage.

Fast lens have 3 advantage, first and the most common usage is increase shutter speed to stop handshake and subject motion, second is to increase flash range, and the third tend to over look by novice is subject to background separation.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

DX will have lower lens resolving power

I have no idea what this means...

But, I do know that FX lenses are generally very sharp on DX due to the fact that the sensor is only using the center (e.g. sharpest) part of the lens. The tendency of some lenses to get soft on the edges does not apply.