Fx vs Dx... which path is right for me long term?

[astroNikon]

I love full frame for its better lens choices. More shallow depth of field wasnt really on my mind. But all the really good lenses are for full frame.

I definitely like the D500 as the fun camera, possibly of the decade. "Unlimited" buffer, constant 10fps, AF over the whole image area, etc. Dont really need it though.

The 51 focus points of the D750, you actually lose a little range up and down compared to the d600 as the points are more squished together so you have to be more accurate in pointing the camera

1. The D750 AF covers more image area.
2. You can enable 9 point mode on the D750, which I do all the time, so I can choose an AF point quickly.

Yea...shame you cant use those better full frame lenses on the crop frame cameras....cause that would be awesome, and give DX cameras use of every modern lens nikon makes.

I crippled my d7000 DX by only using FF lenses. Lol

 

[pixmedic]

I love full frame for its better lens choices. More shallow depth of field wasnt really on my mind. But all the really good lenses are for full frame.

I definitely like the D500 as the fun camera, possibly of the decade. "Unlimited" buffer, constant 10fps, AF over the whole image area, etc. Dont really need it though.

The 51 focus points of the D750, you actually lose a little range up and down compared to the d600 as the points are more squished together so you have to be more accurate in pointing the camera

1. The D750 AF covers more image area.
2. You can enable 9 point mode on the D750, which I do all the time, so I can choose an AF point quickly.

Yea...shame you cant use those better full frame lenses on the crop frame cameras....cause that would be awesome, and give DX cameras use of every modern lens nikon makes.

I crippled my d7000 DX by only using FF lenses. Lol

How?

Sent from my SM-N900P using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, my own suggestion might sound a bit daft. But have you considered a good used d600 or d610? Invest in some good glass, keep the 7100 for wildlife shooting. Then upgrade to the 500 a little bit later. Best of all worlds.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

When BH has the D750 refurbished for $1400, it's hard not to spend the little extra to get it over a D6xx

Great price on a 750, you can probably pick up a used 600 for half of that. Hence my suggestion. If you'll mainly be using it for portraits it would be a phenomenal camera for a very small chunk of change

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

Didn't realize D600s were going so cheap. Maybe I'll pick one of those up to use side my side with the D7100. That way I can try out full frame cheaply and decide which way to go when I decide to buy a better body.

Yup, the d600 is just shockingly cheap, and if it has any shutter issues Nikon will fix it free. I bought one that had just had the shutter replaced, it's been solid as a rock since day one.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[astroNikon]

I crippled my d7000 DX by only using FF lenses. Lol

How?

the FF lenses improved corner to corner performance. Contradictory to many DX lenses which decrease corner to corner performance relative to using a FX lens, which drive people to FX cameras/lenses, with larger elements which also have corner to corner issues as it uses the entire FOV image. Thus pushing people to medium format, then large format, then they just quit altogether!
lol

 

[greybeard]

I recently switched from DX to FX and here are the differences I have noticed. First of all, it probably isn't all that fair because I'm going from a Nikon D7000 which is a 16 MP body to a D750 which is a 24MP body and at least 1 to 2 generations newer, but, here goes. The FF is so much better in low light that I don't even worry about low light noise much. I shoot in MANUAL with the ISO set to AUTO. This is the absolute easiest and nicest way of shooting I've ever done. The FF 750 is clean up to at least ISO 6400 while the D7000 crop from starts falling apart at about 2500. If you were to compare pics from both cameras at ISO 100, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. If we were comparing a D7200 with the D750 I'm sure the difference would not be as pronounced. The advantage the crop frame has over the FF is Telephoto reach. A 400mm tele on the D7000 Crop frame has the same reach as a 500mm on the FF. This is something to consider if you are into long tele use for wildlife and the like. I'm considering getting a Refurbished D7100 just for Tele use.

 

[greybeard]

I recently switched from DX to FX and here are the differences I have noticed. First of all, it probably isn't all that fair because I'm going from a Nikon D7000 which is a 16 MP body to a D750 which is a 24MP body and at least 1 to 2 generations newer, but, here goes. The FF is so much better in low light that I don't even worry about low light noise much. I shoot in MANUAL with the ISO set to AUTO. This is the absolute easiest and nicest way of shooting I've ever done. The FF 750 is clean up to at least ISO 6400 while the D7000 crop from starts falling apart at about 2500. If you were to compare pics from both cameras at ISO 100, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. If we were comparing a D7200 with the D750 I'm sure the difference would not be as pronounced. The advantage the crop frame has over the FF is Telephoto reach. A 400mm tele on the D7000 Crop frame has the same reach as a 500mm on the FF. This is something to consider if you are into long tele use for wildlife and the like. I'm considering getting a Refurbished D7100 just for Tele use.

 

[snowbear]

The advantage the crop frame has over the FF is Telephoto reach. A 400mm tele on the D7000 Crop frame has the same reach as a 500mm on the FF.

I don't believe this is true. The view angles are different, with FX being wider, but my limited observation (viewfinder comparison between a D40 and a N90) reveal the reach (or magnification) are the same - objects appear the same size in either format. I'd like to see this difference - the same scene shot at the same focal length, with both FX and DX, without any additional cropping or enlarging.

I'm considering getting a Refurbished D7100 just for Tele use.

Would the crop/DX mode on the D750 accomplish the same thing?

 

[greybeard]

The advantage the crop frame has over the FF is Telephoto reach. A 400mm tele on the D7000 Crop frame has the same reach as a 500mm on the FF.

I don't believe this is true. The view angles are different, with FX being wider, but my limited observation (viewfinder comparison between a D40 and a N90) reveal the reach (or magnification) are the same - objects appear the same size in either format. I'd like to see this difference - the same scene shot at the same focal length, with both FX and DX, without any additional cropping or enlarging.

I'm considering getting a Refurbished D7100 just for Tele use.

Would the crop/DX mode on the D750 accomplish the same thing?

No, when you go to crop/DX mode on the D750 you cut resolution from 24MP to like 10MP. Also, the reason the D40 and D90 angle of view appears the same is because they both have the same size DX sensor. To get an idea of the difference you would need to compare the D40 or D90 to the angle of view from a true FX camera like the Nikon D700, D750, D610, D810, Canon 5d, 6d, etc. using the same mm lense like a 35mm. This is why a 35mm lens is considered a "NORMAL" lens on a DX (APS-C) camera whereas it is considered a "MODERATE WIDE ANGLE" on a FX (full frame) camera. Wild life and sports photographers have longed for a professional grade DX camera because of its' extended reach with telephoto lenses. The Canon 7D and the Nikon D500 have finally met this need with the Canon 7D coming much sooner than the Nikon D500.

 

[snowbear]

The advantage the crop frame has over the FF is Telephoto reach. A 400mm tele on the D7000 Crop frame has the same reach as a 500mm on the FF.

I don't believe this is true. The view angles are different, with FX being wider, but my limited observation (viewfinder comparison between a D40 and a N90) reveal the reach (or magnification) are the same - objects appear the same size in either format. I'd like to see this difference - the same scene shot at the same focal length, with both FX and DX, without any additional cropping or enlarging.

I'm considering getting a Refurbished D7100 just for Tele use.

Would the crop/DX mode on the D750 accomplish the same thing?

Also, the reason the D40 and D90 angle of view appears the same is because they both have the same size DX sensor.

Not a D90, the N90 (North American version of the F90) which is a 35mm film body not DX. Again, objects are the same size in the viewfinder - one does not "reach" further than the other, as far as I can tell. Hopefully someone with DX and FX digitals will post comparison photos; it will take a couple of weeks for me to do so with film and digital, but I will if nobody else tries.

 

[greybeard]

The advantage the crop frame has over the FF is Telephoto reach. A 400mm tele on the D7000 Crop frame has the same reach as a 500mm on the FF.

I don't believe this is true. The view angles are different, with FX being wider, but my limited observation (viewfinder comparison between a D40 and a N90) reveal the reach (or magnification) are the same - objects appear the same size in either format. I'd like to see this difference - the same scene shot at the same focal length, with both FX and DX, without any additional cropping or enlarging.

I'm considering getting a Refurbished D7100 just for Tele use.

Would the crop/DX mode on the D750 accomplish the same thing?

Also, the reason the D40 and D90 angle of view appears the same is because they both have the same size DX sensor.

Not a D90, the N90 (North American version of the F90) which is a 35mm film body not DX. Again, objects are the same size in the viewfinder - one does not "reach" further than the other, as far as I can tell. Hopefully someone with DX and FX digitals will post comparison photos; it will take a couple of weeks for me to do so with film and digital, but I will if nobody else tries.

oops, Didn't notice the N, my bad

 

[snowbear]

The advantage the crop frame has over the FF is Telephoto reach. A 400mm tele on the D7000 Crop frame has the same reach as a 500mm on the FF.

I don't believe this is true. The view angles are different, with FX being wider, but my limited observation (viewfinder comparison between a D40 and a N90) reveal the reach (or magnification) are the same - objects appear the same size in either format. I'd like to see this difference - the same scene shot at the same focal length, with both FX and DX, without any additional cropping or enlarging.

I'm considering getting a Refurbished D7100 just for Tele use.

Would the crop/DX mode on the D750 accomplish the same thing?

Also, the reason the D40 and D90 angle of view appears the same is because they both have the same size DX sensor.

Not a D90, the N90 (North American version of the F90) which is a 35mm film body not DX. Again, objects are the same size in the viewfinder - one does not "reach" further than the other, as far as I can tell. Hopefully someone with DX and FX digitals will post comparison photos; it will take a couple of weeks for me to do so with film and digital, but I will if nobody else tries.

oops, Didn't notice the N, my bad

No problem - I figured it was a misread.

 

[greybeard]

Tomorrow I'll take a 2 shots. One with a FF and 35mm lens and one with a crop frame and we'll examine the results.

 

[snowbear]

Sounds good.

 

[astroNikon]

The advantage the crop frame has over the FF is Telephoto reach. A 400mm tele on the D7000 Crop frame has the same reach as a 500mm on the FF.

I don't believe this is true. The view angles are different, with FX being wider, but my limited observation (viewfinder comparison between a D40 and a N90) reveal the reach (or magnification) are the same - objects appear the same size in either format. I'd like to see this difference - the same scene shot at the same focal length, with both FX and DX, without any additional cropping or enlarging.

I'm considering getting a Refurbished D7100 just for Tele use.

Would the crop/DX mode on the D750 accomplish the same thing?

Also, the reason the D40 and D90 angle of view appears the same is because they both have the same size DX sensor.

Not a D90, the N90 (North American version of the F90) which is a 35mm film body not DX. Again, objects are the same size in the viewfinder - one does not "reach" further than the other, as far as I can tell. Hopefully someone with DX and FX digitals will post comparison photos; it will take a couple of weeks for me to do so with film and digital, but I will if nobody else tries.

Oooh Gawd ...

Be careful about viewfinder comparisons. I've found that they are not exactly as advertised. Very annoying. you'll have to compare a shot taken with a shot of the viewfinder and then compare to what the viewfinder actually shows vs the image taken.
I don't know if diopter adjustments would have an effect on that too.

Keep in mind the crop factor for a Nikon is 1.5x and Canon is 1.6x (non APS-H)
So a 400mm lens is more like a 600mm FOV, not a 500mm.

Depending upon your distance to subject you may find the FX offers a great resolution cropped to a DX. I found my d600 24mp FX offers better highly cropped images compared to my d7000 16mp for subjects greater than 7miles away, especially on the more extreme 24 miles away. the D500 I actually found that the images suffered in shutter speed compared to the same shutter speed to the FX 24mp (d600 and d750) and needed a stop faster shutter speed, for both far distance and some closer fast sports for improved IQ. Odd but true. Think of the size of the pixels and the image moving faster between smaller pixels.

Keep in mind the D500 is a 20mp camera, whereas the other current Nikons are 24mp.
and the current FXs are 24mp or greater.

I'm usually shooting at the extremes, so I tend to push the cameras where they weren't meant to be.
YMMV

The "crop" FOV factor of the DX though is very nice for it's intended use compared to a FX.
The advantages of a D500 is evident if you do BIF or fast sports and don't mind the tons of PP files.
I've also found the d500 low light/bad light still does not compare to a d750 in the same situation.

If you are filling up the viewfinder with the image, or more than half I don't think they'll be much of a difference of FX cropped vs DX .. but it all depends upon the image itself. if it was a very complex, detailed image would those translate well to a lower MP resolution when magnified for pixel peeping?
If we are after pixel peeping then you'll find a more compressed mp image probably better for a general image.

FYI, there are many past threads that show the difference... will add a few
looks like the last update killed this thread ==> So You Wanna See the Difference Between Full Frame and Cropped Sensors?

here's a nice thread to read .. though not many pics of dx vs FX ==> D7100 vs D610

here's a good FOV review ==> Camera Sensor Crop Factor and Equivalent Lens Focal Length