Do I need full frame DSLR for shooting art? Receipts or not for warranty & used D7000
 

I have been learning about the nikon cameras, & have been linked to the d7000, it seems to be a bit difficult to find.

I went on Nikon's website & learned the difference between the DX & the FX cameras.

Do I need FX for shooting my artwork? will there be a critical difference in quality if I just use DX? I realize the FX are full frame, while DX is not, that is why the seemingly lower megapixel cameras were more expensive than the d7000 higher mega pixel. I will be using my camera for this in addition to general photography, including low light. I also learned that the full frames do a bit better with low light & low noise images.

The FX cameras a really out of my budget, the one closest right now would be the d700, but it seems to lack a movie function, while not critical, I would like this feature in a camera.

I would also like to use a 200 or 300 mm lens for distance & have been told a 50mm would be best for the artwork. I was linked to a sigma 300mm lens on amazon. would these lenses work on a FX Nikon?

So that seems to bring me back to the DX d7000, will this work for artwork? enough to make good sized portfolio prints? It keeps popping up & then selling out on amazon, sometimes cheaper sometimes more expensive.

another issue, is the warranty on a used d7000, will Nikon honor it? what if a seller only has a photocopy of the original receipt? do I need a receipt should I need a repair in the warranty period? I keep seeing this camera her & there from best buy used but new in box with receipt, even some of the ones on amazon.

I've answer the full-frame versus crop-frame (APS-C / 1.5x), FX vs DX, question at http://www.digitalFAQ.com/forum/show...2984#post12984
Read that post.

Larger sensors cost more to make. And then the cameras using the larger sensors are generally professional bodies, created much more rugged, and with more advanced features, which also increase costs.

For example, I could drop my D3s on concrete from a few feet in the air, and it'd just bounce. I accidentally tested this with my old D3 (oops). Do that with a consumer body, and you'd likely have a pile of scrap metal and plastic.

I believe that specific lens was a "DC" lens (digital crop-length lens) from Sigma. DX is the term from Nikon, DC is what Sigma uses. DC = DX. So no, it would look terrible on a full-frame body. Only the inner 2/3rds of the lens would have optics.

Sigma also uses the term "DG" -- a mostly meaningless pair of marketing letters. It means that the Sigma lens have been "optimized" for digital SLRs. This mostly refers to optical coatings that prevent flares, ghosting and related image distortions. Everybody does this now, and has for years, so it's mostly only important if you're buying used lenses. But even then, a "non-digital" lens can still look better than the so-called "optimized" ones. It all comes down to the quality of glass and coating, not the simple fact that it has extra coatings.

Sticky situation. I would pretty well guess that you will need an actual receipt. A copy won't do. I don't know about the transferability of the warranty, if the first owner already registered it with Nikon. Some of this actually depends on state laws, and it varies state to state.

I don't know about the legitimacy of a claim of this having been bought from Best Buy. Based on what I'm seeing, it's not been released in North American stores yet. Sounds like gray market with a fake receipt to me!