Does one really need a fx camera

Going to some fantastic mountain range locations this summer for landscape. I shoot primarily wildlife and with mostly with the Nikon d200 or 300. To get the best wide angle images, I am thinking that I would have to get an Fx camera or learn how to shoot panos. Any suggestions or thoughts? I can rent a full frame camera if that is the best way to go. I hate working all day long at photoshop or lightroom when I can be out shooting.

Thanks in advance

Something on the order of a Sigma 10-20mm lens would work well for landscape images with your camera. It equates to a very wide angle 15-30mm lens on a full frame camera and is an excellent quality lens.

I concur with John, I shoot with a 10-22mm canon lens on my aps-c camera and it's pretty wide. Nikon does have a 14mm for it's fx cameras, but then you'd have to rent a camera and a lens.

when i was using a d300, i used the nikon 12-24mm lens - and was very happy with the results (with the exception of the lens distortion - had to used DxO which fixed it very well).

Lindy, your D300 is an excellent landscape camera. IMO the best lens to use is the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. I used my D300 with the Tokina for many years. I now use the D7000 with my Tokina len. Upgraded the body but the lens is still the best. There are many comparisons on the web with Tokina 11-16mm versus nikon WA lens for DX cameras. Tokina still comes out the best.

I also use the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and I am very happy with it. It is a very good lens at a far cheaper price than the Nikon equivalent. I bought it for my first trip to Yosemite and it covered all of my wide angle needs and then some.
Good luck!

Glad to see the mention of the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 I have read nothing but rave reviews on it.

The Tokina and Sigma WA lenses are both excellent, (used them both, bought the Sigma) and along with your D300 you've got a great set-up for your landscapes.
Why not consider renting a WA lens (the Nikons, at least, should be available at the lens rental places) and avoid the cost of purchasing?
Sandy

Lindy, I shoot a Nikon D7000 and use the Nikon 10-24mm DX lens. I am happy with the results of that lens. I is only f/3.5 to 4.5 but I have not found a reason to want the wide angle to open up any more than that yet. I liked the idea that someone had about renting one. I can tell you that the difference each mm makes at that wide of an angle will help you to include quite a bit more scene. Hope you have some fun with it.

Lindy, the advantage of full frame (which is all I shoot) is much more realized in wedding/event work. The reason is two fold: you often have to shoot in low-light situations with no flash at ISO 2500, and a full frame gets you a narrower depth of field given the same lens. When I do head shots of a bride with an f1.2 in a dimly lit room where only one eye needs to be in focus and I have to push the ISO to 2500, the clean imagery and artsy look I get with the 50mm and 85mm f1.2 lenses with a full frame sensor is unmatched. BUT, as you probably noticed, this isn't the Wedding Photographer's Network website, lol! For landscapes where you'll be on a tripod shooting at lower ISO (probably even 100) at f/11-13, the full frame is great but not hugely necessary. You just need a wider lens to deal with the crop sensor, and you got a boatload of great suggestions in this post. But another great advantage of your crop sensor body is the other thing you mentioned which is wildlife. Turning a 300mm lens into a 450mm with the crop factor is a no-brainer! I agree with everyone else, concentrate on the lens. Pano's are gotten equally with both full and crop if you shoot 3 or 4 images and stitch 'em.

If you ever decide to drop it all and shoot weddings, then prepare to buy a full frame body and lenses no slower than f1.4.

One other thing no one's mentioned yet, Lindy, is that Dx cameras do have some advantages of their own for landscape work. You have a little more depth-of-field wiggle room with the smaller sensor, which can be very nice for landscapes. They're lighter, which is a definite plus if you're venturing away from the roads. And they cost a lot less to replace in the event of an accident. If you're just planning to shoot from roadside turnouts, or if price is not a concern for you, those considerations might not count for much. But for someone like me who mostly shoots off the beaten path, and is relatively likely to drop his camera into a river or off a cliff someday, weight and replacement costs make it likely that I'll stick with Dx for landscapes for a long time. As other folks have said, you can get pretty darn wide on Dx. In fact, if you're not used to shooting that wide, it can take some practice; wide-angle comps can be a lot trickier to pull off than you'd think in a busy landscape. And there's no shortage of compositional potential in mountain scenery at telephoto lengths either.

Jackson, those are excellent points! The cost, weight, deeper DOF, all of it.

Thanks everyone for all the great advice! I will let you know how I do. I don't think wedding work is in my future at this point - however, possibly pet shots due to working in the veterinary field. Thanks again.