I presently use a Nikon D300 for many of my static landscape and nature shots where I always use the native ISO (200). I notice many landscape photographers have switched to full frame (eg D700). So what is the improvement one gains by going full frame if you are still shooting at a low ISO. Do larger sized prints (eg 16x20) show a significant improvement just by using a full frame sensor. Once again I'm not asking about the high ISO advantage of full frame.
In essence, I keep thinking that DX is better suited for active landscape work than FX (more DoF, lighter lenses, less light fall off,...).
So why am I using a FX body?
- Flagship cameras at Canon/Nikon/Sony get the latest and the greatest sensors with the best DR at low ISO (unclear to what extend this is enabled by the larger sensor),
- FX cameras also get the highest resolution sensors,
- They are on the strategical path for developement at the major brands, and investement in lenses suitable for work with FX cameras ends up being a safer bet.
I am more opened than I used to be about landscape work with limited DoF, but it is unclear to me whether this is a real artistic decision of one that I had to make to cope with the limitations of FX in terms of extended DoF.