Nikon fx vs dx

[Nikon newbie]

Ok so I know there is prob a million post on this stuff, I've read multiple reviews online but I'm still stump. I feel like the more I read my opinion changes, so I have a nikon d3100 lense kit, I thought the next one I would buy would still be a dx like a d7000 so why would I need to spend more and buy fx lenses (35mm 1.8 is in fx & dx) now I've researched lenses there isn't many in dx so the range will be off on all of them if I put a fx on my dx sensor- I'm aware of the sensor differences. Should I fork out the money and buy a fx camera, or will a dx higher end be ok in the long run? Maybe match it up with a 35dx, 50fx and a longer mm lense, I don't know- thought?

 

[astroNikon]

FX & DX specific lenses help define the image size given to the sensor.
A DX sensor is smaller, thus needs a smaller part of the total image.
A DX lens will function on a FX camera, though only provide a truncated, smaller, image size. So the image can be heavily vingetted.

Some lenses only come in FX. A 50mm is an example. You can't get much cheaper to make it so it only makes sense to make on FX lens. An AF-D 50mm is just around $100.

It's up to you if you think saving money on a particular DX lens is worth the tradeoff if you think you may go to a FF camera at some time.

You can use FX lenses on a DX camera. When I bought my d7000 I ONLY bought FX lenses.
So when I bought my d600 FF body I had to do nothing more than use what I already had.

 

[astroNikon]

FYI, I bought a d7000 to have the in-body focus motor.
This allowed me to purchase old used AF-D/AF lenses that can autofocus on the d7x00 body.
They all work on the FX cameras and saves a ton of money comparatively.

 

[sm4him]

What do you mean by the statement "the range will be off on all of them if I put an FX on my DX sensor"?

So far as I'm aware, there's really no issue to using most FX lenses on a DX camera. I've certainly done it. Yeah, the field of view is different, due to the smaller sensor, but that is really more potentially problematic with a DX lens on an FX body than vice-versa.
Perhaps I'm wrong about that--if so, someone will surely come along and tell us so, lol!!

Personally--I'd say unless you aim to become a professional, you can easily stick with the DX bodies and DX *or* FX lenses. Actually, if you upgrade to something like the D7000 (or D7100, even better) then you could also look at older F-mount lenses that are less expensive than today's FX glass, because on the D7xxx series they will still AF-- if cost is of concern to you.

EDIT: Aaaannnndddd…Astro already said pretty much all of what I just typed. Ninja'd again.

 

[Nikon newbie]

FX & DX specific lenses help define the image size given to the sensor.
A DX sensor is smaller, thus needs a smaller part of the total image.
A DX lens will function on a FX camera, though only provide a truncated, smaller, image size. So the image can be heavily vingetted.

Some lenses only come in FX. A 50mm is an example. You can't get much cheaper to make it so it only makes sense to make on FX lens. An AF-D 50mm is just around $100.

It's up to you if you think saving money on a particular DX lens is worth the tradeoff if you think you may go to a FF camera at some time.

You can use FX lenses on a DX camera. When I bought my d7000 I ONLY bought FX lenses.
So when I bought my d600 FF body I had to do nothing more than use what I already had.

Do you notice a huge difference between your old d7000 and the d600?

 

[astroNikon]

Do you notice a huge difference between your old d7000 and the d600?

I use the low light capabilities of the d600 a lot. So for me there' s a big difference.
In bright (or controlled) light not so much.

EDIT: also in confined spaces the FX of course uses the designed field of view (say 50mm) versus a crop factor of 1.5 which makes a 50 into a 75mm field of view.

 

[fjrabon]

I've owned a D600 and a D7000 (still have the D7000). I don't shoot a ton of low light with a dSLR, so I really felt like I didn't particularly need a full frame setup.

After owning, trading and selling a ***LOT*** of lenses for my D7000 and D600, here's what I settled on for my lens lineup for the D7000, in order of most used to least used:

Tamron 60mm (DX) f/2 macro/portrait hybrid - To me it's the perfect all around portrait lens for DX, center sharpness is like a razor, contrast is great, color is spot on, bokeh is gorgeous, it will do 1:1 macro. It's a bit of a specialist lens, really only being great for portraits and macro, but those are two problems it more or less solves in one pass, and it solves them with aplomb. These days macro and portraits are two of the main things I use a dSLR for (walk around I'm using my Fuji X100T), so this gets the most usage of any of my lenses.

Nikon 80-200 AF-D (needs a focus motor) f/2.8 (2 ring) - built like a tank, focusing is fast and accurate, doesn't focus breathe like the 70-200 f/2.8 VR versions do, so at close focus 200mm is 200mm (on the 70-200 VRs at closest focus 200mm is like 140mm). Not quite as sharp at f/2.8 as as the 70-200 but still plenty sharp, especially on DX, where you're only using the center of the lens. Contrast is excellent from f/4-f/11. It's a bit flat at f/2.8, but that's easily enough fixed in post. Bokeh is good/very good. Excellent for portrait, wildlife and sports work on DX.

Tokina 11-16 (DX) (my version needs a focus motor, but there are AF-S versions) f/2.8 - Best APS-C wide angle IMHO. The extra light comes in handy more than I thought it would, excellent sharpness and contrast. Bokeh is meh, but do you really care about bokeh on a wide angle?

Sigma ART (DX) 18-35 f/1.8 - New lens to me. So far I love it though, it's exactly like having 3 primes that you don't have to change lenses for (18mm, 23mm, 35mm; converts to 27mm, 35mm and 50mm in FF terms, which are all very popular prime lengths). Sharpness is off the charts, contrast is great. It's huge, yes. But it takes the place of 3 lenses in my bag, and I don't have to change lenses nearly as much as using those 3 primes.

Nikon 105 DC AF-D (needs a focus motor) f/2 Another new lens to me, incredible for outdoors portraits though. Like mind blowingly good, and relatively cheap. It's a limited lens in what you can apply it to, but what you can apply it to will blow everything else away. It's also cheap-ish because it never caught on the US for some reason (rumor is that a lot of people thought it was a soft focus lens). The DC control is also very useful. I set it to give more depth of field in front, which allows me to focus on the eyes and still get the nose in focus while shooting shallower DoF than I'd normally get away with. Great for outdoor headshots. Bokeh is incredible, maybe the best I've ever seen.

Nikon 300mm AF-D (needs a focus motor) f/4 - When you need 300mm, you need 300mm. It's a good lens, it's relatively cheap, especially compared to a 300mm f/2.8. The extra stop of light would be nice, but the 300mm usually means you don't miss the f/2.8 very much depth of field wise. With modern cameras' low light ability, I don't find myself missing the extra stop of light nearly as much as I feared I would.

Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D (needs a focus motor) - Great lens, it's tiny, f/1.4 is great, *ultra* sharp, great contrast. The only issue I have with it is that I prefer the Tamron for portraits, which is where I'd use this focal length the most. This comes out to 75mm on a APS-C, which is a weird focal length for anything but portraits.

Nikon 35mm DX f/1.8G - With the purchase of the Sigma, this just sits in my bag. It's an okay lens, a lot of people love it, but I never bonded with it. I'd sell it, but they go for basically nothing on the resale market, so I kind of keep it as a backup. It is very small, which is a plus. I don't like the contrast on it. Sharpness is very good. Bokeh is okay, but not great.


As you can see I have a mix of FX and DX lenses. About half my lenses use the D7000's internal focus motor, which has more than made up for the cost difference between it and what I would have had to buy with a camera without a focus motor, plus the D7000 has more robust controls and feature set.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

I had a 5d mkiii (full frame sensor of course) and recently switched to a crop sensor. I honestly don't notice any IQ difference at all. If anything I like the images I'm getting now more. The low light capabilities have been great too. The autofocus doesn't touch the 5d but all together I am happier with my current set up. I fell into the full frame is best and nothing else will do syndrome but I dont regret going to the smaller sensor at all. I know this is a little off topic from OP's original question but I think the whole you have to have full frame to be professional is bs. Just my 2 cents.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Neither is better than the other, and if someone tells you different, excuse my fallacy, they're an idiot. Fx and dx cameras each has their own advantages. Fx for low light. Dx for simulated zoom/ crop factor. I have pro career photogs asking me to take family portraits over and over again based on my dx photos. When they find out, they go nuts. I'm a gear nut. Gears nuts are stupid.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Add to that, I sold my d7100 to a member here when I went full frame. Besides low light, it performs on par and worst for certain purposes. BUT! Always buy fx lenses.

 

[Nikon newbie]

I had a 5d mkiii (full frame sensor of course) and recently switched to a crop sensor. I honestly don't notice any IQ difference at all. If anything I like the images I'm getting now more. The low light capabilities have been great too. The autofocus doesn't touch the 5d but all together I am happier with my current set up. I fell into the full frame is best and nothing else will do syndrome but I dont regret going to the smaller sensor at all. I know this is a little off topic from OP's original question but I think the whole you have to have full frame to be professional is bs. Just my 2 cents.

What are your go to lenses? I'm looking for s

Neither is better than the other, and if someone tells you different, excuse my fallacy, they're an idiot. Fx and dx cameras each has their own advantages. Fx for low light. Dx for simulated zoom/ crop factor. I have pro career photogs asking me to take family portraits over and over again based on my dx photos. When they find out, they go nuts. I'm a gear nut. Gears nuts are stupid.

Any advice on lenses ironmaskD? I'm just starting and only have a lense kit, want to do more family photos , natur lighting

 

[IronMaskDuval]

I had a 5d mkiii (full frame sensor of course) and recently switched to a crop sensor. I honestly don't notice any IQ difference at all. If anything I like the images I'm getting now more. The low light capabilities have been great too. The autofocus doesn't touch the 5d but all together I am happier with my current set up. I fell into the full frame is best and nothing else will do syndrome but I dont regret going to the smaller sensor at all. I know this is a little off topic from OP's original question but I think the whole you have to have full frame to be professional is bs. Just my 2 cents.

What are your go to lenses? I'm looking for s

Neither is better than the other, and if someone tells you different, excuse my fallacy, they're an idiot. Fx and dx cameras each has their own advantages. Fx for low light. Dx for simulated zoom/ crop factor. I have pro career photogs asking me to take family portraits over and over again based on my dx photos. When they find out, they go nuts. I'm a gear nut. Gears nuts are stupid.

Any advice on lenses ironmaskD? I'm just starting and only have a lense kit, want to do more family photos , natur lighting

To be honest, there are other members here who have a wider range of experience with lenses. I personally love the nifty 50, 60mm micro, 70-200 2.8 and the current laa lens. It's like $50 for the d version. I've owned a lot of lenses, but the cheapest are usually my favorites minus the 70-200. In that case, the 80-200 does just as well. I've been contemplating the f4 nikkor zoom. The 24-70 is great, but it is the size of a telephoto.

There are nikkors out there that are just duds, but the good ones are goo, even if they're not as great as the great ones. Composition and lighting is more important to your audience than sharpness will ever be.

 

[fjrabon]

Add to that, I sold my d7100 to a member here when I went full frame. Besides low light, it performs on par and worst for certain purposes. BUT! Always buy fx lenses.

Eh, I sorta disagree with always buying FX lenses. A lot of times when you buy FX glass for DX you're either overpaying, getting a much larger lens than necessary, getting a slower lens, or not getting the focal lengths that really work for dx. Or most often, all of the above. Now what I may agree with is only buying used DX lenses. That way you take little/no loss of you decide to go full frame and sell off your DX glass.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Add to that, I sold my d7100 to a member here when I went full frame. Besides low light, it performs on par and worst for certain purposes. BUT! Always buy fx lenses.

Eh, I sorta disagree with always buying FX lenses. A lot of times when you buy FX glass for DX you're either overpaying, getting a much larger lens than necessary, getting a slower lens, or not getting the focal lengths that really work for dx. Or most often, all of the above. Now what I may agree with is only buying used DX lenses. That way you take little/no loss of you decide to go full frame and sell off your DX glass.

I agree with your disagreement. The 35 1.8 and 17-55 2.8 are excellent lenses. It'll be a sad day however when you no longer have a dx and see a black circle in your vf.

Despite the excellence of the 17-55, it holds its value poorly.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

Not a Nikon shooter so I can't really comment on lenses.