Moving from DX to FX not so simple

[scaryloud]

The current price for the D600 refurb is cheaper than the D300s was new. While some may jump to FX, there are things to consider first.

A lot of DX camera owners have FX lenses in our camera bag. Getting rid of your DX lenses is easy enough, but those FX lenses you currently have may surprise you once slapping them on an FX camera.

I own a D7000 and own the 24-120 f4 FX and 70-300 f4.5-5.6 lens among others and have been spoiled, plain and simple. I borrowed a D600 and went out to try it out and did direct comparisons to my D7000. When I got home, I saw the results... much to my dismay. The sweet spot of the lens my DX camera took advantage of doesn't exist on a FX camera.

Every bit of vignetting, barrel distortion, pincushion, coma, corner softness, etc that may be a FX lenses shortcoming is COMPLETELY evident on a full frame camera. I'm not trying to discourage fellow prospects, just understand this and either be prepared to increase your post processing time or dig deep in your wallet for the highest quality lenses. The choice is yours...provided you can afford it.

 

[Patriot]

Every bit of vignetting, barrel distortion, pincushion, coma, corner softness, etc that may be a FX lenses shortcoming is COMPLETELY evident on a full frame camera.

Isn't that's what PP is for in the first place? Companies that make these lens also make lens profiles to go with them. Just load the profile and the computer will fix these "shortcoming".

 

[manaheim]

Every bit of vignetting, barrel distortion, pincushion, coma, corner softness, etc that may be a FX lenses shortcoming is COMPLETELY evident on a full frame camera.

Isn't that's what PP is for in the first place? Companies that make these lens also make lens profiles to go with them. Just load the profile and the computer will fix these "shortcoming".

While you can make corrections to some degree for many lens challenges, the core of what the OP is right on the mark. Moving from a DX camera to an FX one requires you to seriously evaluate what glass you are running because it may not be able to keep up with the quality demands of the better device. Especially if you are running glass designed specifically for a DX camera (crop issues, quality issues at the outside extreme of the lens that Nikon ignores because it's for DX glass, etc.)

There's just a lot of stuff to think about. This is why I waited until I had my 24-70 2.8 and my 70-200 2.8 VR2 before purchasing my FX camera.

 

[480sparky]

......... just understand this and either be prepared to increase your post processing time.........

Not really. Most lenses have PP corrections available. All the issues you listed are corrected with one click.

 

[DCerezo]

Where can you get these PP corrections from??? Are they presets you have to download?

 

[tirediron]

There is yet another consideration: Most of us are being way too f**king picky! We pontificate loudly about "edge sharpness" and "barrel & pincushion distortion" and a whole host of other so-called problems with this or that lens. At the end of the day, how much does this really matter? I recently visited the 2012 Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition, and granted, most of the gear was top-end pro level, there were a number of images shot with Canon Rebels, Nikon 'thousand' series, and kit lenses. Under average conditions, I find it virtually impossible to tell an image shot with my old 18-70 from one shot with my 85mm f1.4. Just sayin....