FX or DX

[gerardo2068]

Thanks. Now I'm far. SA, TX. Not sure when I would take trip to FL. I would really like to though.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Yes, that's my main point. I wanted to see what's the benefits of FX to see if they would really apply to me. I'm happy with the DX format and yes I would like better low light ISO capabilities. But I would think the next model after the D300s would have some improvement. Even if it's minor. But the wider angle you get with FX is not a top feature in my list (would be nice but not at the top in the list).

In my opinion it would make sense for you to stay DX. This is not a decision to be taken lightly in my opinion, until you have fully evaluated why you may need an FX camera stick with the tool you know. And just to say, FX cameras do not give you a wider angle in the modern day, lenses such as the Sigma 10-20 are nearly as wide as any FX wide angle lens.

 

[ann]

I will have to find a local camera shop. And rent one

try lensrentals.com

 

[gerardo2068]

I understand. Another point I think I should get better lenses too. But also I notice most lens I would like are in FX format

 

[gerardo2068]

try lensrentals.com

Thanks

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I understand. Another point I think I should get better lenses too. But also I notice most lens I would like are in FX format

That isn't a problem, FX lenses can be used on DX cameras, no problemo! Sometimes an FX lens will actually perform better on a Dx camera as you are using the sweet spot of an FX lens.

Ofcourse if you do upgrade to FX, the FX lenses you have already can be used.

 

[Trever1t]

As far as construction and button placement there's almost no difference between the D300/s and the D700....you can grab one and go without looking. Both are Magnesium bodies and are about identicle in size.

 

[gerardo2068]

I would think the gap between the next FX entry level and the next high end DX will be smaller.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I would think the gap between the next FX entry level and the next high end DX will be smaller.

Yeah, but at the end of the day its still 1.6. Walk up to a model or object with the 85mm on the DX, then walk closer with the FX. Look at depth of field differences. That alone sold me. Again I used both a D7000 and a D700.

Its erroneous to try to claim they are both "about the same" or "close gap"... I mean a new Camaro runs "almost" the same track times as a 911 GT-S too if we're playing horse shoes

 

[gerardo2068]

Yeah. After this I will def going to test a FX when I get a change. I have plenty of time to do more research about this.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I would think the gap between the next FX entry level and the next high end DX will be smaller.

Yeah, but at the end of the day its still 1.6. Walk up to a model or object with the 85mm on the DX, then walk closer with the FX. Look at depth of field differences. That alone sold me. Again I used both a D7000 and a D700.

Its erroneous to try to claim they are both "about the same" or "close gap"... I mean a new Camaro runs "almost" the same track times as a 911 GT-S too if we're playing horse shoes

This is a good way of describing one of the main differences between FX and DX!

 

[IgsEMT]

I currently have the the D300s. I'm very please with it. I'm wondering why would I would go up with FX format? I'm sure at one point in the future nikon will upgrade their D300s for a better DX format camera. I'm not sure if at that point I should get the newer DX format camera or their entry level FX format camera (at that point I presume they would have also a upgrade for their D700 out too). The D4 is way out of my budget. lol Whats your point of view on this? Thanks. BTW I've been learning a lot from this forum!

My 5 cents...

To Fx or not, it IS the question
I shoot people (events, portraits, in and out of studio).
I love my d300s, I wouldn't sell it or get rid of it. I used various combination of lenses, flashes, external strobes, etc - all w/o faults.
About few months ago I upgrades to D700 and fell in love w/ it. Build quality is amazing, despite what some claims and tests were I think that its AF is faster then D300s. I started using video features in the camera for my kids/family and in all honesty it is the ONLY feature I miss in D700: having my kids dance (quick pic and then another 20sec of video clip) - all very convenient. For that reason alone, I dusted off my trusty D90 and use it for anything family related, while keeping my D300s (both of them) and D700 for work.
When I'm shooting small events, like birthday parties, I use d300s for video (toasts, or some presentations, etc) and it adds a nice flavor to the package when giving to the clients. If I'm making a slideshow, then those videos are jut wonderful.
Glass: 99% of the time I use 24-70 on my d700 and my d300s (back up) is fitted w/ 28-105. I might mount the 10-24Tamron on it, for an ultra wide look. Fisheye, (I use Tokina 10-17) I use on d700 b/c the camera doesn't read the lens as a Dx and I get a wonderful frame around the shot. 70-200 I use ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY on D700 b/c of the Fx range. Using 70-200 on crop body isn't practical for me. If I know that I have a specific lens (Tamron 10-24) and I'm going for this funky ultrawide portrait, then I'll use it on Dx body to get full 12megapix (after cropping/rotating as needed for final look will be about 10.5). I also anticipate this shot to be printed larger then 20-24 so I'd want every bit of juice possible in it.
When I'm in my studio shooting w/ an 85 on d700, I know that I can take a shot and crop it down to 5megapix and still get a sharp 16x20print.

At the end of the day it comes down to what I'm shooting and what will my prints be.
Hope that helps,
Good Luck

 

[greybeard]

One of the differences that often fails to get mentioned is the difference in viewfinders between FX and DX. The FX viewfinder is bigger and brighter than the DX.

 

[zamanakhan]

If you have the money go FX. Really that's what it comes down to.

yup pretty much, i'd buy a d700 if i had more cash but the d7000 is pretty awesome in its own.

 

[greybeard]

Is it really an upgrade? Coming from medium format film, the DX FX thing is a lot like the 4.5x6.....6x7 medium format discussion of years ago. There were the hardcore RB67 users and the upstart RB645 users and there was endless discussion about which format was "professional". When you change formats you are changing a lot more than just sensor size in a camera body. You are going to have to use an different lens system with different DoF characteristics. Most pros use DX because they are coming from 135 (35mm) film cameras and have developed their techniques around the focal lengths and DoF that come with it. Many of them may even have a bunch of lenses from their film cameras that work with the new DX bodies. The attitude that the FX format is somehow a amateur or starter format is just rubbish. I'm using a DX camera these days and I don't particularly like it because I spent some much time with my old 35mm that I would be perfectly happy if someone would make a digital version of a Minolta SRT201. I also have 3 AF Nikkor lenses that I bought for the last film camera I bought (28-80, 50 1.8, 70-300) It makes perfect sense for me to get a D700 (or D800) body and just use those lenses. Same DoF etc. etc.

You on the other hand have developed your techniques around the DX format and it's characteristics. What will changing formats really do for your photography?