FX vs DX Format?

Roger3006

TPF Noob!
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
120
Reaction score
11
Location
Little Rock
Website
www.midsouthgunslinger.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Hello Everyone

What is the practical gain with the FX format over the DX format?

I have somewhat recently started to get serious about digital photography. I have shot film since I was a little boy which was a long time ago. My old theory was to use the largest negative with the best lens governed by practicality.

You may have seen my comment, "I have used everything from a Minox to a Speed Graphic", which is true; however, most of my film photography was done with a 35mm and a 2 1/4". The 2 1/4" was my first choice but in many cases was impractical, not to mention I did not want to drop my Hasselblad in the water while duck hunting.

With that said, it is obvious to me the quality of a camera body is more important with a digital camera than a film camera. I have been using a D90, which I like, but I constantly wonder if I would be better off with a FX pro-line body. I am sure I will upgrade my D90 but I am not sure as to what? I do not have anything to compare my D90 with.

To put things in perspective, how would I benefit with the FX format over the DX format printing 8"x10" images or 11"x14" images?

Thank you all for putting up with me and my antiquated ideas.

Roger
 
Simple.... ISO and fat pixels. Think of FX as 35mm and DX as 110 in film format..

I'll let everyone else type the trilogy about why those are important..

-B
 
This is not the best advice, but if you have the money to buy FX then buy FX. As I think Derrel has mentioned before on these forums, you can use lenses how they are really meant to be used! Specially when using primes, you use the prime how it was intended to be used when designed and built. No crop factors to consider when using lenses, the crop factor on DX cameras is great for shooting wildlife or sports but has little advantage in other areas of photography. I would love to go FX simply for the fact, you can get a more Shallow DOF when shooting portraits.

Oh yeah.. Did I mention Low light capabilities? The fact you can use ISO 6400 without worrying?? ISO 6400 was unthinkable in the days of film!
 
Thank you all for your comments.

I have a decent collection of Nikkor lenses. Most are prime lenes. I only have one zoom that I like which is a 35-70 F2.8D.

Josh, you are right , 6400 was unthinkable with film. My favorite flms were in the 100 ASA to 200 ASA range. I would step up to 400 when I had to but never really liked them. Kodachrone II was one of my all time favorites with an ASA of 25. Panatomic X was 32 if memory serves me correctly. In my opinion, lens speed is not as important now as it once was.

Blair, I always thought of 110 being on the chessie side. Is 110 a good comparison to DX as far as the end result is concerned?

Am I correct in using the lowest ISO possible for detail? Where do you think I would start to lose noticable quality on my D90 as far as ISO goes?

Roger
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you all for your comments.

I have a decent collection of Nikkor lenses. Most are prime lenes. I only have one zoom that I like which is a 35-70 F2.8D.

Josh, you are right , 6400 was unthinkable with film. My favorite flms were in the 100 ASA to 200 ASA range. I would step up to 400 when I had to but never really liked them. Kodachrone II was one of my all time favorites with an ASA of 25. Panatomic X was 32 if memory serves me correctly. In my opinion, lens speed is not as important now as it once was.

Blair, I always thought of 110 being on the chessie side. Is 110 a good comparison to DX as far as the end result is concerned?

Am I correct in using the lowest ISO possible for detail? Where do you think I would start to lose noticable quality on my D90 as far as ISO goes?

Roger

Well Roger, I have a D90 and have happily used it at ISO 1600. I shot a party recently at ISO 3200 and cleaned the results up quite nicely! But I would say you can go to up ISO 800 without worrying a great deal, the new CMOS sensors really are pretty good! My advice is to shoot is to do a test.. you will be pleasently suprised by what the D90 can do. Obviously if using higher ISO's, you will want to overexpose rather than underexpose.

You are right lens speed is not as important now, but it is a good thing to have on a DX camera as it means you can get that creamy bokeh look as you probably already know. I'm sure you could teach me a few things, seeing as you are a long time film user. Photography really was a challenge to master in the days of film, I think film still has some advantages. The dynamic range is quite staggering on medium format film.

As for Pro's using DX, Bob Krist (I think it is!) who works for the National Geographic Magazine was using a D90. :thumbup:
 
Thank you all for your comments.

I have a decent collection of Nikkor lenses. Most are prime lenes. I only have one zoom that I like which is a 35-70 F2.8D.

Josh, you are right , 6400 was unthinkable with film. My favorite flms were in the 100 ASA to 200 ASA range. I would step up to 400 when I had to but never really liked them. Kodachrone II was one of my all time favorites with an ASA of 25. Panatomic X was 32 if memory serves me correctly. In my opinion, lens speed is not as important now as it once was.

Blair, I always thought of 110 being on the chessie side. Is 110 a good comparison to DX as far as the end result is concerned?

Am I correct in using the lowest ISO possible for detail? Where do you think I would start to lose noticable quality on my D90 as far as ISO goes?

Roger

Ok so 110 may have been reaching a bit, the DX format is quite good actually.

On a D90 you start to lose quality above ISO 800.

Yes, some Pro's use DX.

-TbW
 
Last edited:
Josh

My father could teach us a lot about film if he were still with us. He would be 106 years old if he were alive. I have many of his glass negatives that are 2 1/4" by 2 3/4". He mixed his own emulsions long before my time. I still use his Rolliflex and Licaflex. They are both old but not out of date. In my opinion, it is very hard to beat a Zeiss lens of any era (Weatern or Pre WWII). I also have his Minox which is a really cool camera. I do not know if you can still get film or processing for it. The negative is about the size of the nail on your little finger.

Processing has gotten so difficult for film I have almost given it up. We had a excellent custom processor here that died three or four years ago. I amost quit shooting film do the the hassel of finding good processing. If there is anyhing left locally, it is digitized and then printed. In my opinion, the warmth of film is lost, in that process. I hope to set up a darkroom for black & white before I pass but that is not high on my list due to many "have to" projects in line.

Thank you again for your advice.

Roger
 
FYI-Yall are probably to young to remember them but half frame 35mm were once produced. I think they were marketed double one's film budget.

Roger
 
One of the advantages of the D700 over a body like the D90 is ease of use and function.
The AF system is incredible. You will have to try to miss for an out of focus image.
The viewfinder will feel therapeutic and actually make your eyes feel better. :)
You can AF fine tune and meter AI/S lenses.
Your lenses will get back their intended focal lengths.

On the downside.

$$$$
It is larger and heavier.
Your long lenses will be shorter.
 
If u have any old ais lenses, the d700 will meter with them, your d90 cant.

With the d700 youll lose video, and the useable resolution will be about the same. The big difference is iniso performance, the d700 is about two stops better.
 
The viewfinder is so much better on my D700 than my D7000 it made me look and rub my eyes after I first got it out of the box and looked through it, like something was wrong with it. Was like looking through air or such in comparison.

The next shocker was how much faster it focused my 24-70 lens. I thought the focusing was all on the lens but its a huge difference. Seems to focus easier in low light, but that may be my imagination.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top