DX vs FX

[Dominik]

Is going FX really worth it? I own a d3100 and currently want a new body either the d7100, d600 or d700. Should I go FX or am I just wasting my money? My main focus with photography is landscape and sports.

The lenses I own are the Nikkor 35mm, Tokina 11-16mm, Tamron 18-270 and the Tamron 90mm.

 

[480sparky]

FX bodies have better dynamic range, low ISO ability, et al. The question you need to ask is whether you require those things. The D7000 is still a champ performer, even though it's going on 3 years old.

You budget is also a factor... can you afford FX glass? If so, you'll need to buy GOOD lenses as FX will reveal every little optical defect of a cheap lens.

 

[Dominik]

FX bodies have better dynamic range, low ISO ability, et al. The question you need to ask is whether you require those things. The D7000 is still a champ performer, even though it's going on 3 years old.

You budget is also a factor... can you afford FX glass? If so, you'll need to buy GOOD lenses as FX will reveal every little optical defect of a cheap lens.

It's a hard choice I'm just debating on getting the d7100

 

[Usul]

Landscape and sport are required a plenty different approach to the equipment. FX will be better for landscapes becouse of wider dynamic range, IQ and resolution. I guess D600 ought to be better solution among others ones. And for sport photography DX cameras allow you spend less money to long tele lenses becouse of crop factor and also you can buy a camera with better AF and fps for decent money. So it all is about your budget.

 

[StandingBear1983]

Seems like the D7100 is a good choice for you, plenty of image quality for landscape out of the 24MP sensor plus the great 51 focus points and 6 frames per second for sports. - if you need more low light capabilites then you got to find a D700 second hand.

 

[jaomul]

The 24mp sensor does not guarantee good quality for landscapes (though Nikon are doing great here at the moment) and I don't think there are reviews for a finished d7100 yet. I would argue the D7000 being a good sports camera due its buffer size. It is no doubt a great camera but maybe not for sports. The newer D7100 may be an improvement here at( not sure yet). To be fair any Nikon camera now seems to be top notch with image quality and dynamic range etc. A secondhand d300s may be a good option. The d600 seems fast enough and its images are great if your happy to pay a little more. Just make sure its buffer is big enough for what you need

 

[Solarflare]

The D7100 doesnt have much in respect to buffer size.

 

[Solarflare]

FX bodies have better dynamic range, low ISO ability, et al. The question you need to ask is whether you require those things. [...]

The low ISO ability is substantial, the higher dynamic range is almost nonexistent, though. We are clearly in the area that the A/D converters limit the dynamic range.

I think the main advantage of using larger sensor is the lowered demands on the glass. Purely from the fact that that the sensor is larger, the D600 will in most practical applications archieve substantly higher resolution than the FX bodies (who are all 24 Megapixels in their current incarnation, just like the D600).

For Nikon specifically, the selection of glas available is a huge factor. Short focal lengths for DX are hard and expensive to get. Also, theres simply a LOT more glass to choose from for FX that doesnt really make that much sense on DX.

 

[TheLost]

FYI.. The D7000 is great for sports and the D7100 should be even better with its new 51 auto focus system. Anybody who says otherwise either:
1) hasn't used the D7000 to shoot sports.
2) has D300(s) syndrome.
3) Thinks you need to hold down the shutter button and take millions of pictures to shoot sports.
4) has a D4.

 

[jake337]

FYI.. The D7000 is great for sports and the D7100 should be even better with its new 51 auto focus system. Anybody who says otherwise either:
1) hasn't used the D7000 to shoot sports.
2) has D300(s) syndrome.
3) Thinks you need to hold down the shutter button and take millions of pictures to shoot sports.
4) has a D4.

Or shoots sports professionally for a living...

 

[jake337]

Rent a FF camera a see the difference for yourself.

or

Rent a Mamiya 645 afd and see the difference in "medium format' digital.

 

[TheLost]

Or shoots sports professionally for a living...

Then you should be using a D4

 

[JDFlood]

You might consider it a future oriented decision. You likely to want to get into the hobby and think you want to get better and better results... 5years, 10 years IF YOUR PERSonality is I want to get really good or I tend to want the best equipment, go FX. If you take pride in "good for the money" or dabble in too many things to really commit to a few, stick with the DX. Also, are you likely to become wealthier over time? This is a good time to make the decision, enforce you have too much invested in DX glass.JD

 

[Usul]

The D7100 doesnt have much in respect to buffer size.

The D7100 doesnt have much in respect to buffer size.

I think this guy (Josgeph) just copy posts of other members for increase post count. Moderators should note that.

 

[Helen B]

It is probably link farming - there's a hidden link to another website. In simple terms: Search engines take note of it and it ("inbound linking") helps to raise the rank of that website in search results - or so the link farmers hope.