D3/700 in DX crop mode

[itznfb]

Do any D3 or D700 users ever switch to DX crop mode for the crop factor and "longer" focal length?

wondering because i'm thinking about replacing my D90 since i've found myself walking around in the rain much more often than i had thought i would and who wouldn't use that excuse to buy a better camera?

however, i mainly focus on wildlife shots so the crop comes in very useful. is it reasonable to use the crop mode just for the purpose? also owning a Fx body gives me an excuse to get the 14-24mm
or should i just wait for the D400?

 

[kundalini]

Hmmm, I've never set the camera to that mode, so I suppose Auto DX crop is by default. The only DX lens I've mounted on the D700 is my 12-24mm f/4. It automatically placed a black rectangle in the viewfinder to indicate the 1.5x crop. However, it can cover the FX frame from about 18mm and up.

There is one slight flaw in your reasoning. The D700 will be knocked down to a 5.1MP camera with DX lenses. So if you're wanting to get the advantage of the cropped sensor with telephoto lenses, then a D300 would be a better alternative. When I go out to shoot wildlife, I carry the D300 with either 70-200mm f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4 and have the 1.7TC in my pocket. When I go two bodies, it's the 70-200mm on the D300 and 24-70 on the D700.

The thing to remember is to purchase FX lenses all along.... IMO.

 

[adamwilliamking]

Hmmm, I've never set the camera to that mode, so I suppose Auto DX crop is by default. The only DX lens I've mounted on the D700 is my 12-24mm f/4. It automatically placed a black rectangle in the viewfinder to indicate the 1.5x crop. However, it can cover the FX frame from about 18mm and up.

There is one slight flaw in your reasoning. The D700 will be knocked down to a 5.1MP camera with DX lenses. So if you're wanting to get the andantage of the cropped sensor with telephoto lenses, then a D300 would be a better alternative. When I go out to shoot wildlife, I carry the D300 with either 70-200mm f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4 and have the 1.7TC in my pocket. When I go two bodies, it's the 70-200mm on the D300 and 24-70 on the D700.

The thing to remember is to purchase FX lenses all along.... IMO.

+ 1

 

[itznfb]

hmm.... i never realized that it was turned into a 5mp when in DX mode. that sucks. and makes my decision pretty easy. so thanks for that.

but yea, my concern wasn't with DX lenses as i have plenty of Fx glass. it was mainly being able to put that additional 1.5x into the 70-200 and 150-500 that i was concerned about. since i already have a D90 though i'll probably end up waiting for the D300 replacement.

 

[kundalini]

Well then, you're set with the D90. Just gotta plug the D700........... Jesus, what a 'kin camera.

Look, I won't get ****e for my D80 (considering to convert to IR), the D300 isn't going anywhere soon and the D700 is my go-to body...............

Sorry, got distracted by a physco-***** from hell that I met recently and completely lost my train of thought.

FX / DX... all good......

 

[JerryPH]

Just gotta plug the D700........... Jesus, what a 'kin camera.

I'm still in love and learning more and doing more each day thanks to this camera... I agree, to call it incredible is almost an insult, becuase it is so much more!

I have the D700... and the only time I would switch to the cropped mode is when using a DX lens... which is next to never (I did at first to play with it... there is no reason to do that anymore ). The reason is that MP size drops from 12.1 to 5 MP. So that "magnification" that you want is dropped due to lower resolution. If you force the camera in FX mode on a DX lens... you see a nice HUGE back circle around your picture... and you have to crop a lot of it down... and you are again back to that low resolution shot once again.

As a rule, I don't have any DX lenses that I *must* use on my FX camera. I didn't purchase a Cadillac just so that I could put bicycle tires on it, but I do do it for the novelty factor, and never when I have something important to shoot.

Edit: Sitting here thinking... I can see a "kind of" exception... if someone had this uber-impressive DX lens that did something that no other lens did, I think I would use it on the D700 in DX mode. It wasn't 3 years ago that 5MP was what pros were shooting at, and doing well with. If someone showed me a 50mm F/1.0 DX lens, hell yeah, I would shoot with it often, but to use the DX mode to slap a kit lens on a D700... OMG, that would be so lame.

 

[itznfb]

do you do a lot of wildlife photography? i've gotten used to having 510mm effective focal length. if i went with the D700 i'd be SOL and stuck with 340mm. that or i'd have to get a Sigma 150-500mm and i'm sure that would be a joy to use compared to the nikkor 70-200m w/TC-17 :thumbdown:

 

[JerryPH]

Well, that old argument about "effective focal length" really is an old one. The DX crop factor is just that, a cropping, not a magnification. This point has been discussed ad nauseum and hopefully resolved. In print you can get a closer crop of an area, but it is still always just that, a crop. In digital, one would see no differences on screen between a 200mm shot from a D200 and a 200mm shot on a D700 that was cropped 50%, they would look identical.

 

[itznfb]

yea. you're probably right.

just to clarify though... i'm not talking about using DX lenses. my question was based on losing 170mm length from the 70-200mm TC-17 combo. it just seems strange for example... when i take a closeup of an animal at 510mm and get its eyes real clear, it seems like that wouldn't come out as well in a post process crop.

i guess the only way to find out is to just buy it right? ;D

 

[Garbz]

This is the upside many people don't see about the crop factor. There are physically more pixels stuck into that small area. Thus if you compare a D700 with the middle cropped out to a D300, assuming you're using excellent glass the shots will come out far crisper on the D300 due to it's higher resolution (12mpx vs 5mpx). Jerry is right in that on a screen there's no real difference. But this also assumes you're sticking with your full image. There have been times that I have taken images from my D200 and cropped them down for enlarging. This if you crop the middle 3/4 out of a D200 you end up with 5mpx, do it for a D700 with a DX lens, and you end up with around 2mpx. This will make a big differences when you go to print a sizable copy of this image. If your real desire is wildlife photography then high resolution would probably be more beneficial than a full frame sensor that can shoot in the dark.

This is a downside to Nikon chasing the high ISO as opposed to Canon chasing the high megapixels. When you crop a 5DMkII image to DX size you're still left with a 9.4mpx image, or about the equivalent to a D200. Can we pray for a D700x

So either save up for a D3x, get a D300 or get some long glass to go with your camera

 

[itznfb]

lol. i could never justify that one. hey honey! guess what i got instead of a new bathroom! i don't think she's be as excited.
i'll just try and sell some crap i don't need and get the D700 for now and see how i like it. i'd like to purchase it with grip though and 24-70 2.8 sigma. plus some CF cards. so i'll need a few grand more than i got now