Goodbye, DX

480sparky

Chief Free Electron Relocator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
25,142
Reaction score
9,000
Location
Iowa
Website
pixels.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
This evening marks a turning point in my photo gear. I had made the decision a few months ago to convert to all FX gear. As of tonight, all my DX equipment (with the exception of the 10.5 fisheye) has been sold and is sitting in boxes ready to ship out tomorrow.

Goodbye, D60. Goodbye, Nikkor 18-105. Goodbye, D7000. Goodbye, Nikkor 10-24. You were good to me.
emot-raise.gif
.



Now, to order another D600!
smiley_emoticons_fips_hurra2.gif
 
This evening marks a turning point in my photo gear. I had made the decision a few months ago to convert to all FX gear. As of tonight, all my DX equipment (with the exception of the 10.5 fisheye) has been sold and is sitting in boxes ready to ship out tomorrow.

Goodbye, D60. Goodbye, Nikkor 18-105. Goodbye, D7000. Goodbye, Nikkor 10-24. You were good to me.
emot-raise.gif
.
Now, to order another D600!
smiley_emoticons_fips_hurra2.gif

So you'll soon have two D600 bodies, you must really like that camera. I'm curious, how better is low light (high ISO) performance on your D600 compared to what use to be your D7000? I'm not switching to FX yet but if I ventured that path, it would mainly be for the improved low light capabilities. In general, are you enjoying your D600? Anything to complain about?
 
So you'll soon have two D600 bodies, you must really like that camera. I'm curious, how better is low light (high ISO) performance on your D600 compared to what use to be your D7000? I'm not switching to FX yet but if I ventured that path, it would mainly be for the improved low light capabilities. In general, are you enjoying your D600? Anything to complain about?

I generally don't shoot in low-light, so I never compared the two. There's probably enough comparisons out there on the innernets anyway.

I have a few complaints about the D600, but nothing Nikon would give a hoot about.
 
DxOMark - Camera Sensor Ratings

OVERALL numerical rankings of the D600 sensor? #3.

OVERALL numerical ranking of the D7000 sensor? #26

Specific,individual sensor performance metrics available at the above link.
 
Goodbye brush. Goodbye comb. Goodbye mush.
 
DxOMark - Camera Sensor Ratings

OVERALL numerical rankings of the D600 sensor? #3.

OVERALL numerical ranking of the D7000 sensor? #26

Specific,individual sensor performance metrics available at the above link.

Too bad about Nikon's ongoing cruddy sensor issues, though.

Yeah...people who have an oil-flinger will need to actually clean their sensors two or three times, until the excess oil flings itself off.
 
DxOMark - Camera Sensor Ratings

OVERALL numerical rankings of the D600 sensor? #3.

OVERALL numerical ranking of the D7000 sensor? #26

Specific,individual sensor performance metrics available at the above link.

D7100 # 13 :D

So is there a comparison thread where people discuss the differences they experienced switching from DX to FX? I've been eye balling a refurbished D600 but just not sure I want to make the plunge.
 
Love my 7100 and has great low light but I still long for more, congrats on the switch, can't wait till my wallet gives me the go ahead to grab a full frame body
 
Tailgunner said:
So is there a comparison thread where people discuss the differences they experienced switching from DX to FX? I've been eye balling a refurbished D600 but just not sure I want to make the plunge.

One of the things you notice when moving to FX is that prime lenses suddenly regain the characteristics that they were designed to have; in other words, a good 24 or 28mm lens can actually BE a wide-angle lens, and NOT require expensive aspherical optical design to be a good lens. On the wide-angle end, I think the FX bodies are simply the best thing, since the wide lenses on FX do not require expensive,complicated, exotic designs to perform acceptably.

On the Nikon 24- and 36-MP sensors, the pixel count is very high, and even a decent lens produces a file that has a lot of information in it; a less-than-stellar lens on a 36-MP D800 produces higher resolution than a great lens on say a Canon 5D-III or a lower-res Nikon like the 12-MP D700. Not by a lot, but by a clearly noticeable amount; see Roger's tests at Lensrentals.com for a good article on this in his "Choosing a System" series of tests of multiple camera/lens combos.

On FX, a 28-70 f/2.8 is what is was DESIGNED to be...not some hybridized bastard lens. Same with a 50mm f/1.8. Restoring the angles of view of a prime lens kit makes FX worth it if you have even 3 or 4 good lenses that were originally designed for FX use.

It also works on telephotos; indoors, a 70-200 on DX is very "tight"at many,many venues; on FX, it's very useful. Same with a 300mm; on DX, often wayyyyy to narrow-angle. On FX, not too narrow, but it becomes what it was originally designed to be. All the old FL's: 24,28,35,50,60,85,90,105,135,180,200,300 are part of a logical kit. For example, the 135mm lens; on DX bodies, it is a VERY narrow-angle lens, not suited to many real-world locations...it's just too damned "narrow-angle", but on FX, 135mm becomes a moderately long lens that can actually be used in a church, or in a backyard, or in a gymnasium, from "normal distances".

Same thing with the 35mm length; VERY useful indoors on FX.
 
Tailgunner said:
So is there a comparison thread where people discuss the differences they experienced switching from DX to FX? I've been eye balling a refurbished D600 but just not sure I want to make the plunge.

One of the things you notice when moving to FX is that prime lenses suddenly regain the characteristics that they were designed to have; in other words, a good 24 or 28mm lens can actually BE a wide-angle lens, and NOT require expensive aspherical optical design to be a good lens. On the wide-angle end, I think the FX bodies are simply the best thing, since the wide lenses on FX do not require expensive,complicated, exotic designs to perform acceptably.

On the Nikon 24- and 36-MP sensors, the pixel count is very high, and even a decent lens produces a file that has a lot of information in it; a less-than-stellar lens on a 36-MP D800 produces higher resolution than a great lens on say a Canon 5D-III or a lower-res Nikon like the 12-MP D700. Not by a lot, but by a clearly noticeable amount; see Roger's tests at Lensrentals.com for a good article on this in his "Choosing a System" series of tests of multiple camera/lens combos.

On FX, a 28-70 f/2.8 is what is was DESIGNED to be...not some hybridized bastard lens. Same with a 50mm f/1.8. Restoring the angles of view of a prime lens kit makes FX worth it if you have even 3 or 4 good lenses that were originally designed for FX use.

It also works on telephotos; indoors, a 70-200 on DX is very "tight"at many,many venues; on FX, it's very useful. Same with a 300mm; on DX, often wayyyyy to narrow-angle. On FX, not too narrow, but it becomes what it was originally designed to be. All the old FL's: 24,28,35,50,60,85,90,105,135,180,200,300 are part of a logical kit. For example, the 135mm lens; on DX bodies, it is a VERY narrow-angle lens, not suited to many real-world locations...it's just too damned "narrow-angle", but on FX, 135mm becomes a moderately long lens that can actually be used in a church, or in a backyard, or in a gymnasium, from "normal distances".

Same thing with the 35mm length; VERY useful indoors on FX.

Hey thanks,

So when you say it restores angles of view, is this something like the view on my 28-70mm 2.8 is slightly wider viewing through a FX body vs a DX body?
 
Hey thanks,

So when you say it restores angles of view, is this something like the view on my 28-70mm 2.8 is slightly wider viewing through a FX body vs a DX body?

If it's an FX lens, yes.
 
Tailgunner said:
So is there a comparison thread where people discuss the differences they experienced switching from DX to FX? I've been eye balling a refurbished D600 but just not sure I want to make the plunge.

One of the things you notice when moving to FX is that prime lenses suddenly regain the characteristics that they were designed to have; in other words, a good 24 or 28mm lens can actually BE a wide-angle lens, and NOT require expensive aspherical optical design to be a good lens. On the wide-angle end, I think the FX bodies are simply the best thing, since the wide lenses on FX do not require expensive,complicated, exotic designs to perform acceptably.

On the Nikon 24- and 36-MP sensors, the pixel count is very high, and even a decent lens produces a file that has a lot of information in it; a less-than-stellar lens on a 36-MP D800 produces higher resolution than a great lens on say a Canon 5D-III or a lower-res Nikon like the 12-MP D700. Not by a lot, but by a clearly noticeable amount; see Roger's tests at Lensrentals.com for a good article on this in his "Choosing a System" series of tests of multiple camera/lens combos.

On FX, a 28-70 f/2.8 is what is was DESIGNED to be...not some hybridized bastard lens. Same with a 50mm f/1.8. Restoring the angles of view of a prime lens kit makes FX worth it if you have even 3 or 4 good lenses that were originally designed for FX use.

It also works on telephotos; indoors, a 70-200 on DX is very "tight"at many,many venues; on FX, it's very useful. Same with a 300mm; on DX, often wayyyyy to narrow-angle. On FX, not too narrow, but it becomes what it was originally designed to be. All the old FL's: 24,28,35,50,60,85,90,105,135,180,200,300 are part of a logical kit. For example, the 135mm lens; on DX bodies, it is a VERY narrow-angle lens, not suited to many real-world locations...it's just too damned "narrow-angle", but on FX, 135mm becomes a moderately long lens that can actually be used in a church, or in a backyard, or in a gymnasium, from "normal distances".

Same thing with the 35mm length; VERY useful indoors on FX.

Hey thanks,

So when you say it restores angles of view, is this something like the view on my 28-70mm 2.8 is slightly wider viewing through a FX body vs a DX body?

Angle of view- field of view.

On a DX a 50mm has the same Field of View as a 75mm lens on a FF camera.

A FF camera also has the benefit of having a shallower depth of field for equal fields of view. iow to get basically the same FoV as a 50mm on a FF you'd need a 35mm lens on a DX. You can compare on google from here.
 
Hey thanks,

So when you say it restores angles of view, is this something like the view on my 28-70mm 2.8 is slightly wider viewing through a FX body vs a DX body?

If it's an FX lens, yes.

Yes sir, it's an FX glass. I figured it was cheaper than a 24-70mm 2.8 and will get me started if I switched to FX in the future.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top