FX vs DX

[JohnnyWrench]

If you can afford the FX, then get the FX. I would rather have less really good gear, than more mediocre gear. And you can always chisel away at getting the other stuff you need after you get the body/lens sorted out. You'll appreciate the quality of the FX and not be wondering "what if" long after you've forgotten how much it cost.

 

[Derrel]

Hello All,Thank you again for all of the help and support 'ThePhotoForum' community has provided already. I am coming to you all again today with another question for your advice; DX or FX camera?

I am looking to get a second body. I keep hearing and reading about the great effects of the Full Frame Sensors of FX, but the price is a bit high. The DX cameras are more affordable and so are the lenses. I have been reading and watching reviews on the D7100/D7200 vs the D610/D750.

My question is, does the switch to FX really make it worth the extra $1000-$2000 (body+lens)? Any and all advice/feedback is welcome. Thanks in advance!!

The D750 is sort of a compact wedding/event camera designed for FX users who want a light, small, relatively affordable half-height body...it is, I think, aimed right at Canon's 5D Mark III market, and I believe it is aimed at small-handed shooters (mostly female professional shooters, who in the USA, outnumber men about 80/20 or so). I don't see the D750 and the D610 as being comparable cameras, in either features or price, but they are both FX Nikons.

The D7100's price has dropped really low; the D600 oil issue made used D600's super-affordable; the D810 and D810a have made used D800's cheap as heck..I saw a used D800 for $1575 last week. I think the D7200's sensor is a little bit better in extreme under-exposure settings than the D7100- there is virtually NO banding in the D7200 sensor images when deep,deep shadows are "lifted" in post. The D750 is a beast for High ISO work...again, I really,really think Nikon designed the D750 to cut Canon's legs out from underneath, by offering a "wedding and people" camera for the hundreds of thousands of professional wedding and people shooters who want a number of pro-level features, but who want to save $800-$1000 over the price of a now-dated 5D-III option.

I think the choice is to either go FX all the way, or stay DX all the way. That makes the most sense to me, maintaining one format and the needed lenses. Just one format. Either way, you need to handle the cameras and see what you think of them, how well you like them. I found the D750's grip way too cramped for me, but I have very long fingers. To me the 750 feels 'cramped', but the D610 not cramped...

 

[JacaRanda]

Either way, you need to handle the cameras and see what you think of them, how well you like them. I found the D750's grip way too cramped for me, but I have very long fingers. To me the 750 feels 'cramped', but the D610 not cramped...

I think this advice is underrated and probably unheeded and probably too often ignored.

You know what they say about men with big hands.....big gloves

 

[Derrel]

Regarding cameras and sizes: I used to sell cameras across a retail sales counter, and I know from experience that most women prefer a lighter, smaller camera than most men. I am not sure of HeldInTheMoment is a man or a woman. But the fact is, as a very general rule, smaller, lighter cameras are preferred by SOME people, while other people like a larger camera. In today's marketplace, smaller cameras are kind of the hot, new thing. Many people are looking for a camera that is small-ish, and which doesn't weigh a lot. I've been using Nikon's 1-digit series cams since 2001, and they are HUGE, and heavy. On my most important photo shoots, I shoot talls maybe 95% of the frames, so to me, the big grip and the dual controls and also the bottom-heavy balance of the big D1-D2-D3 series Nikon cameras is perfect with a 70-200/2.8 on the front. That is my normal go-to rig, a long, fairly heavy f/2.8 tele-zoom on the front, so the balance, not the weight, the balance, is perfect. For people who are going to shoot more events and stuff, often horizontals, then the half-height type cameras work great, and there's not as much need for the grip for the 'talls'.

The D3 series is the heaviest Nikon yet, with models from 1220 to 1240 grams; the D750 is 750 grams (! coincidence?); the OP is coming from a D3000-series which is a 455 gram camera body. The D800 is 900 grams. Where the in-the-hand tests show their worth is in finding out how a camera fits and feels with a few specific lenses on it. The biggest, heaviest lenses balance best on the bigger, heavier cameras. On some of the smallest, lightest cameras, the big, heavy f/2.8 lenses have incredibly wrist-torque, or as I call it "nose-dive"...the big lenses force you to hold the camera's lens "up" all danged day long. The D750 has a small-body feel to it, just like the Olympus OM-1 had a small-camera feel to it, but the Nikon F2 had the FULL-sized feel to it, and the Nikon FE-2 had the medium-sized feel to it.

 

[WayneF]

A good crop will do most things a good fullframe will do, but THE FULLFRAME will have better high iso performance and ability for less depth of field for similarly posed and framed shots.

I suspect it was intended to have worded that as the EDIT suggests.

My question is, does the switch to FX really make it worth the extra $1000-$2000 (body+lens)? Any and all advice/feedback is welcome.

FX price is a really big factor. The FX lenses make it even more pricey, maybe $1000 more for EACH lens, so more and more and more expense as time goes on. If worried about budget, FX is a tough row to hoe.

A DX model like the D7200 should do about anything you can imagine to do, has all the features.

The FX has a larger sensor and often larger pixels (if comparing the same megapixels), and should have a a lower noise / higher ISO performance, generally (but FX can have many more megapixels ruling this out).

The only actual difference is the DX sensor is smaller (like DX 24x16mm, instead of FX 36x24mm), and being smaller, it crops the view of the lens image projected on it. DX only sees the central part of the larger FX image. A smaller image that hs to be enlarged more. This sensor size is called Crop Factor, the FX sees a view 1.5x larger than DX, DX is seen as cropped, so DX is said to have a 1.5x crop factor. This lack of crop also implies a wider FX view.

That in itself is not a big deal, we just stand back 1.5x farther to see the same DX view with the same lens, or we use a shorter wide angle lens to see the same DX view. This is called Equivalent focal length.... The view that FX sees with a 150 mm lens is seen by the DX with 100 mm lens. So the DX 100 mm lens is said to have the same or Equivalent view as the equivalent FX with 150 mm lens, which again, is due to the 1.5x crop factor.

But all of this is due only to the smaller DX sensor. The lenses are not actually affected.

But these details add up to other details.

A FX camera with a 24mm lens sees a 24mm view (relative to 35mm film size, which is same size as FX. The term Full frame is as compared to 35 mm film.)

A DX camera with a 24mm lens sees a 36 mm view... a view not nearly as wide angle as 24mm.
To see the "24mm view", the DX camera has to use a 16mm lens (due to cropping of the smaller sensor).
Nothing wrong with that, we can buy a 16 mm lens.
However such extremely short lenses are difficult, they have distortions and such, harder to correct well, esp at a low price.

And one other factor, FX with the same lens as DX, will have to stand closer (for the same view), and thus will less depth of field than DX. Not a lot, but some.
Some consider this a plus when they want to blur the background.
Me, I like depth of field, all I can get, so not such a plus.

But there is also a DX plus factor for telephoto lenses (probably the most common thing discussed).

A FX camera with a 200 mm lens sees a 200 mm view (relative to 35 mm film).
A DX camera with the 200mm lens sees a "300 mm view" (as compared to the FX).
So wildlife and sports photographers tend to like the DX for its longer view (into the same megapixels). The smaller DX image does have to be enlarged 1.5x more to view it, but that is not a large step.

Anyway, we might want FX if we want:

The most expensive solution possible, regardless of what it actually does, or if we know how to use it. This is actually important to some. They sell cars and watches that way too.

Possibility of very wide angle performance, at the expense of shorter telephoto performance.
You can buy a 14mm for FX, and see a 14 mm view (DX would only see a 21mm view from it, and we really cannot buy a 9mm lens to see the same view.. the 9mm would have more issues if we could.)
But you can buy 200 mm for DX, and see a 300 mm view from it (compared to FX).

If blurring the background is a big thing for you. I frankly think this is a minor thing.

Good low noise at high ISO is a factor for FX.
Except, the D810 for example has 36 megapixels though, so this becomes questionably less noise. But it is still more resolution, which is also a good thing.

 

[480sparky]

One does not need both FX and DX lenses. One FX lens with work on either format of sensor. So you don't need two sets of lenses.

One advantage to using FX lenses on DX bodies is you are only using the 'best part' of the glass.... the center. Any FX glass that's soft in the corners will only be so on an FX body; a DX body will crop out the worst of it.

If you're thinking of upping to an FX body, I'd start with upgrading the lenses first. Once you get what you think you need for FX glass, then start shopping for an FX body.

 

[jaomul]

Yes WayneF, that edit you did is indeed what was meant, thanks

 

[JacaRanda]

So, weigh everything (no pun intended), and contrary to some thought, don't simply get FX just because. Do you have big pockets or big hands or both?

 

[MJSfoto1956]

I am looking to get a second body. I keep hearing and reading about the great effects of the Full Frame Sensors of FX, but the price is a bit high. The DX cameras are more affordable and so are the lenses. I have been reading and watching reviews on the D7100/D7200 vs the D610/D750.

I have a two body system for travel: D800 + several wide angle lenses (e.g. 8mm, 14-24mm, 24-85mm, 28mm, 50mm, 85mm). Paired with that I have a Pentax K-3 + DA* 60-250mm and 300mm + 1.4x teleconverter for all my "long" shots. With two bodies I have everything covered from 8mm through 610mm (equivalent). The advantage for FX for wide angle is well established. The advantage for DX for "reach" is also well known (in particular the size/weight advantage of DX-designed lenses). IMHO I would not bother with FX for travel telephoto unless I had a sherpa. As such, if you already have a DX I would recommend using your long lenses on it, and they get an FX and a few wide primes.

YMMV

Michael
JMICHAELSULLIVAN.COM

 

[HeldInTheMoment]

Thanks for everyone's advice, I am sure this topic is posted on a weekly basis...lol

Overall, I went with the D7100 as a second body for now. While I could afford the FX camera setup, it would really push the envelope fiance wise and I am comfortable with my DX setup for now.

I will share however, the D7100 is a HUGE upgrade from the D3200. I think for my skill level and experience, it is a great fit for now. Maybe next year or so I can switch to the FX setup.

 

[Solarflare]

I will share however, the D7100 is a HUGE upgrade from the D3200.

<Game of Thrones mode on>
It is known.
</Game of Thrones mode off>