FX vs DX camera and lenses

[Nikon_Josh]

I thought this would happen with all these FX releases and I'm right, a bunch of posts from people who can't even use a Crop camera saying they think they need to upgrade to a full frame camera. The D7000 can produce absolutely stunning photographs and if you ar enot well versed in photography yet, chances are you will see little to no difference in the results you get from DX or FX. Get out and bloody shoot with the lovely camera you have instead of worrying about upgrades.

 

[frankgtrs]

i din't say i needed an fx camera. Im in love with mines but technology moves on and in a few years most if not all of us are going to feel the need to upgrade and i really doubt nikon can do much to a dx camera that would make me buy it having my current one, so i figure if, when i do upgrade it'll most likely be to an full frame.

 

[shady195]

just adding to the convo here

Unless DX format cameras become obselete and they stop making them I will be sticking with them. I'm not a pro or a technical expert, and aside from some of the caviots when it comes to focal length on DX bodies with FX lenses IMO i see no reason to go FX unless your making huge prints and count pixels. If your a pro and you have the money to burn I guess knock yourself out, but you can always work around your equipment to get the desired result regardless of the body and lens combo. I have seen similar images come from a DX/FX camera.. a D300 and a D700 as two people i know were both shotting the same subject, and unless you looked at them at 100% you would never know the difference. Most people post their work on the interent, hardly anyone looks at it even close to the full resoloution..

Thats just my opinion

 

[o hey tyler]

just adding to the convo here

Unless DX format cameras become obselete and they stop making them I will be sticking with them. I'm not a pro or a technical expert, and aside from some of the caviots when it comes to focal length on DX bodies with FX lenses IMO i see no reason to go FX unless your making huge prints and count pixels. If your a pro and you have the money to burn I guess knock yourself out, but you can always work around your equipment to get the desired result regardless of the body and lens combo. I have seen similar images come from a DX/FX camera.. a D300 and a D700 as two people i know were both shotting the same subject, and unless you looked at them at 100% you would never know the difference. Most people post their work on the interent, hardly anyone looks at it even close to the full resoloution..

Thats just my opinion

Full frame cameras are superior when it comes to portraiture and background control. It's just property of the format size and the reduced camera to subject distance when shooting on a 35mm sensor.

 

[Patrice]

Full frame cameras are superior when it comes to portraiture and background control. It's just property of the format size and the reduced camera to subject distance when shooting on a 35mm sensor.

FX is not inherently superior to DX, simply different. Much as MF is different to FX and LF is different to MF. None of these are superior to any other simply because it is larger or smaller, there are very many other factors involved.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

just adding to the convo here

Unless DX format cameras become obselete and they stop making them I will be sticking with them. I'm not a pro or a technical expert, and aside from some of the caviots when it comes to focal length on DX bodies with FX lenses IMO i see no reason to go FX unless your making huge prints and count pixels. If your a pro and you have the money to burn I guess knock yourself out, but you can always work around your equipment to get the desired result regardless of the body and lens combo. I have seen similar images come from a DX/FX camera.. a D300 and a D700 as two people i know were both shotting the same subject, and unless you looked at them at 100% you would never know the difference. Most people post their work on the interent, hardly anyone looks at it even close to the full resoloution..

Thats just my opinion

Full frame cameras are superior when it comes to portraiture and background control. It's just property of the format size and the reduced camera to subject distance when shooting on a 35mm sensor.

Word, with no room for debate.

 

[o hey tyler]

Full frame cameras are superior when it comes to portraiture and background control. It's just property of the format size and the reduced camera to subject distance when shooting on a 35mm sensor.

FX is not inherently superior to DX, simply different. Much as MF is different to FX and LF is different to MF. None of these are superior to any other simply because it is larger or smaller, there are very many other factors involved.

I didn't say that full frame cameras were inherently superior. I stated that they were superior when it comes to portraiture and background control... You know, the first sentence of my post.

 

[StandingBear1983]

The Bigger the Sensor the more detail it will have, no? - technology is also involved in the sensors of course, and today you have smaller P&S cameras with the quality of the best pro first DSLR of the year 2000 for example.