| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 |
| Location: | South Lakeland, UK |
| Posts: | 4066 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
The only time I see any advantage from using a DX body, is to increase reach, ie. birding or anything needing more pulling power. Especially if you are saving JPEG images in the camera. Saving as NEF's provides the opportunity to 'rescue' less than optimal exposure settings and still get superb final images. NEF's contain a basic JPEG, so viewing should not be an issue, processing might be? I don't know what software you have, I use Lightroom for all storage and processing, the artificial intelligence 'auto' provides a very good basic image which you can easily refine to get the final image you want but that's another skill.
The main benefits of an FX, full frame camera are a far better viewfinder, much easier, more relaxed technique and more options for cropping. I find FX is a far more relaxed experience all round, the moment I pick up a DX camera I feel constrained.
Unless you are going to use either a monopod or tripod, your hand held images are going to be worse with a DX than an FX or require very good technique, which is difficult to learn, especially when photography is an adjunct to your lovely horses (and rightly so!).
I would venture a D3 or D700 (same sensor, smaller body) would be very good for what you need, but more pixels from a D610 would give more options for cropping. D700's are not expensive and might even give you better images than the D610 because of the larger pixels being more forgiving. For sport, like rugby or cars where there is significant movement in the subject, I always reach for the D3, even though I have the D800 in my bag. The players won't stand still and pose, any more than one of your horsed will, even if you have excellent technique you still have to allow for the moving subject which limits your options for settings and make the technique even more demanding.
____________________
Robert.