Upgraded to Full Frame. Question. Keep DX?

CR88

TPF Noob!
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
38
Reaction score
2
Location
Midwest
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hello all, recently I upgraded to a Nikon D750. It's my first full frame, well I briefly had a D600 but ran into the oil spots on the sensor issue so I returned it and held out until I could afford the 750. So, now my question is this; do I even keep my DX lenses, etc., or should completely abandon the DX format and sell off what I have to put money toward the purchase of my dream walk around lens? (24-70 Nikon 2.8, or Tamron equivalent.)

Originally I thought about keeping some DX lenses and picking up a refurbished D7100 so I have both formats.

To add a little more info, I recently purchased a Roland XR640 wide format printer and have considered adding photography, printing, framing, etc. to my business's digital and offset printing operations. So, I thought I may be able to use both formats. The DX for landscape and reaching out and the FX for product photography, low light and anything that really needed to be enlarged. In the past, before I purchased my business, I did wedding photography and other for hire type work so it seemed like a good opportunity to diversify.

If there is no need for DX, I could unload everything and focus on better glass for my FX. Between the the D200 body, DX lenses and maybe even my FX 24mm 2.8 Nikon prime I could probably get at least half of the money needed for the 24-70. Right now on the FX side, along with the 24mm 2.8 I also have a Nikon 50mm 1.4, and a Tamron 70-200 2.8.

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!
 

Derrel

Mr. Rain Cloud
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
48,227
Reaction score
18,916
Location
USA
Website
www.pbase.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Tricky question.I would only stay with DX if I could/did move to a newer sensor in DX, like the D7100 or D7200, or even a D3300 or 5300 or newer, to obtain the current state of the art DX sensor quality. I'm familiar with D200 and D2x era sensor-tech: easily bettered by multiple, newer cameras. Unless you have a NEW DX sensor, I would get out of DX entirely. Personally, I think the D750 has excellent 24-MP FX image quality. I have a 24/2.8 Ai-S and 24/2.8 AF-D, not really "that" thrilled with either lens on 24-MP FX digital, until stopped down to f/7.1 or smaller.

Personally, I would get used to the FX format and how that shoots, and then decide. See how you like the full frame lens behavior. See what the 24mm prime's limitations are (you will see them on the D750 in landscape pics). See how much handier the 70-200/2.8 is on FX. See how good the 50mm is on FX. See how good the D750 is for bounce flash work. See how amamzing it is on accidentally under-exposed shots.
 

JoeW

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
1,886
Reaction score
903
Location
Northern Virginia
Website
500px.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
What Derrel says is gold. I think is advice on this makes a lot of sense.

Let me offer one other tidbit to consider (which may not be relevant to your situation). I'm going on a photo safari to Botswana in July, so I've been doing a lot of research about equipment, what to bring, prepping for the shoot, etc. One very common piece of advice for a lot of photographers is bring at least 2 bodies (so you're not swapping out lens in a dusty or dirty environment). And many of the shooters are bringing an FX body and a DX body...and their longest lens is going on the DX body.

So...if you think you're ever going to be someplace where you'll need two bodies and one of them will be about getting the maximum amount of reach that you can, that may be an argument for DX. Otherwise, Derrel's point about...shooting FX and seeing what you think before making a decision makes the most sense.
 

480sparky

Chief Free Electron Relocator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
24,769
Reaction score
8,809
Location
Iowa
Website
www.imaginationimagesofiowa.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I'm with Derrel. I got out if DX (D7000) when the D600 came out. Then the D7100 was rolled out and I jumped back in. I now keep the Nikkor 200-500 on it, usually with a 1.4 TC. Never been sorry I do.
 

astroNikon

'ya all Bananas I tell 'ya
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
13,668
Reaction score
3,341
Location
SE Michigan
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I went from a d7000 DX
to the d7000 and d600 FX
then to the d600 and d750 FX
then to the D750 and D500 DX .. I wish I kept the D600 to have 2 x FX and 1 DX

But these are all newer sensors to your d200.

What I can tell you is it all depends.

The 1.5x DX crop factor comes in handy for a few things but I didn't initially buy it because of the 1.5x. Specifically I think my tamron 150-600 is on my D500 probably 98% of the time (sports & aircraft) and the other 2% is macro type work.
Everything other type of work is FX.

Originally, I kept my D7000 for over a year after I got the D600. But I barely used it, I had to find reasons to use it. So I ended up selling it and never missed it. The D500 was added really for the AF and FPS not really for the 1.5x. I was looking at the d5500 for the 1.5x attached to a telescope but the d500 killed 2 birds with 1 stone. But now I've found the 1.5x handy for outdoor sports/long lens, aircraft & macro type. My FX is still the king for indoor sports and everything else.

But as Derrel mentioned, your 2005 10.2mp D200 is a little old (12 years) in technology. The D5500/5400/5600 would make a good replacement if you can stand the UI and watered down features, otherwise the D7000/d7100/7200 if you think a DX would be handy.

But I would hold on to your D200 for 4-6 months to see if you even use it anymore then make a decision then. They're selling for about $70-140 on ebay.
 

astroNikon

'ya all Bananas I tell 'ya
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
13,668
Reaction score
3,341
Location
SE Michigan
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
btw, I had the 24/2.8 AF-D lens. It had some mustache bad distortion (if I recall properly) after I tested it shooting a brick wall and compared it to my 24-85 which was much cleaner. So I sold it. I do miss it's compactness.
 

Solarflare

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
2,898
Reaction score
395
DX is better for macro, many forms of wildlife shooting and if you need range in general.

DX also has the nice feature of an AF that almost covers the whole image.

Also if you only have ONE full frame camera right now, the D7100 is your backup.

Thats why I personally wouldnt get rid of that D7100.
 

astroNikon

'ya all Bananas I tell 'ya
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
13,668
Reaction score
3,341
Location
SE Michigan
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
DX is better for macro, many forms of wildlife shooting and if you need range in general.

DX also has the nice feature of an AF that almost covers the whole image.

Also if you only have ONE full frame camera right now, the D7100 is your backup.

Thats why I personally wouldnt get rid of that D7100.
FYI, OP has a D200.
 
OP
CR88

CR88

TPF Noob!
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
38
Reaction score
2
Location
Midwest
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Thank you, much appreciated info. The 200 has performed well over the years, but found that only low ISO shots were usable. The 7100 I owned briefly seemed to be light years ahead of it, but I found that the build and ergonomics were a few steps down . While I don't beat my cameras, I do also prefer something better weather sealed as I tend to carry light and have been caught in rain storms more times than I can count. Even through a continuous rain as I tried to find my way back to the hotel through the streets of Rome, the 200 didn't miss a beat. That being said, I compared shots against my old D600 and 7100, and the results weren't even close. My only concern with running two bodies of different formats is that resources I could put towards better FX glass are being tied up in equipment that doesn't get regular use. It's not so much the body but also the multiple DX lenses that will likely get little to no use. Being that I am not a full time shooter, I am not sure it will be as important to have a backup as it will be to have the right lens for the job when I do have to get a shot. If my logic is flawed I am open to other ideas, but keep in mind that I will not be shooting all that often at first to where a well cared for 750 wouldn't be able to be counted on when needed, at least I hope. For those that suggest that I invest in better glass and focus on the FX side, would there be another lens I should look at in the sub $1,200 range that would be as versatile as the 24-70? I am open to used. Given what some have said, I would consider getting rid of the 24mm as well and getting something a little wider like a 16-35 instead? The 24mm's compactness is awesome, but I agree, it's performance has fallen well short of my expectations.
 

Solarflare

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
2,898
Reaction score
395
The current successor of the D200 is the D500. It has the same style of ergonomics, and you'll probably find you have no reason to complain about its high ISO performance. Useable ISO 40k, they say, but that always depends upon the personal taste of the tester.

I am always amazed how people believe they can judge build quality by picking cameras up. You only can judge surface and weight, nothing else ... for judging build quality, you have to actually tear the camera apart - dont you ?

That said, yes the D200 is classified "professional", while the D7100 is classified "semi-professional". So you're probably right anyway. People who actually work with the innards of cameras also state older models have been more robust than newer models, so the D500 is probably not as robust as the D200, either. But thats just a wild guess on my part.

Anyway, Nikon has descided to give these two camera types different styles of interfaces. Its not that its not there, you simply have to get there in a different way.

That said, I think personally I prefer a real mode dial and thus semi-professional style. Then again I never ended up desciding to pick a professional model yet, and use it longterm. Maybe when I do I will learn to love it. Though not having a real mode dial doesnt feel right. ... I really dont know.
 

fmw

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
3,694
Reaction score
492
Website
www.foodieforums.com
I don't think it matters a bit. You should handle your lens collection in whatever way makes practical and financial sense. If you have a desire for a specific lens, then I would suggest you abandon whatever DX lens in that approximate focal range when when you add it to your collection. In the meantime you can use what you have.
 

goodguy

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
5,555
Reaction score
1,121
Location
Toronto Canada
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Very personal question.
I had D7100 and got rid of it when I got the D750, I was very sorry I sold it.
I got instead the D3300 but if I could I would gladly want the D7100 instead.
Its my second body in events and back up camera.
 

astroNikon

'ya all Bananas I tell 'ya
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
13,668
Reaction score
3,341
Location
SE Michigan
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Thank you, much appreciated info. The 200 has performed well over the years, but found that only low ISO shots were usable. The 7100 I owned briefly seemed to be light years ahead of it, but I found that the build and ergonomics were a few steps down . While I don't beat my cameras, I do also prefer something better weather sealed as I tend to carry light and have been caught in rain storms more times than I can count. Even through a continuous rain as I tried to find my way back to the hotel through the streets of Rome, the 200 didn't miss a beat. That being said, I compared shots against my old D600 and 7100, and the results weren't even close. My only concern with running two bodies of different formats is that resources I could put towards better FX glass are being tied up in equipment that doesn't get regular use. It's not so much the body but also the multiple DX lenses that will likely get little to no use. Being that I am not a full time shooter, I am not sure it will be as important to have a backup as it will be to have the right lens for the job when I do have to get a shot. If my logic is flawed I am open to other ideas, but keep in mind that I will not be shooting all that often at first to where a well cared for 750 wouldn't be able to be counted on when needed, at least I hope. For those that suggest that I invest in better glass and focus on the FX side, would there be another lens I should look at in the sub $1,200 range that would be as versatile as the 24-70? I am open to used. Given what some have said, I would consider getting rid of the 24mm as well and getting something a little wider like a 16-35 instead? The 24mm's compactness is awesome, but I agree, it's performance has fallen well short of my expectations.
I have the D500 DX and D750 FX.
I do NOT have ONE DX specific lens. So ... I'm not quite sure what the problem is ??

Now, I also don't go out in a rainstorm either. When I do get stuck in rain I do make sure my camera/lens is covered out of direct water. Keep in mind, that even though the D500/D750 camera may have weathersealing you'll also have to make sure the lens also has a rubber grommet around the mount. In addition to other seals for other parts of the lens. That leaves out cheaper lenses. Or just get a waterproof cover for the lenses.


"I compared shots against my old D600 and 7100, and the results weren't even close." ... And what were the results ?
 
OP
CR88

CR88

TPF Noob!
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
38
Reaction score
2
Location
Midwest
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Thanks all. I think eventually I will want to have another quality DX camera. After posting I did a bit more research and I must admit that I was not aware of the fact that some FX lenses would be suitable for, and perform quite well with, both the DX and FX formats. So down the road as funds are available, maybe in a few years I may try to pick up a used or refurb D500 and just replace my DX lenses with FX lenses that can be used with both. Had I not gone with the 750, the 500 was the one I was going for.

As for the weather sealing and carrying in the rain, I definitely don't make a habit of it, I am usually quite protective of my gear. It was a situation where we got lost trying to get back to our hotel and ended up in a rain storm. I never would have taken the camera out in those conditions, but while we were out I did get some pretty cool shots. Something about the old city at night with all the light being reflected off of the wet stone was just awesome. I did try to hide my camera under my sweater as much as I could, but there was no relief. I was drenched as was the camera, and it still performed perfectly the rest of the trip.

As for the comparison between the 7100 and 600, I found the 600 pictures to be better on every level, image quality, low light performance/detail, etc. I am not a professional by any means, but even to my untrained eye there were things that stood out. Depth of field being the most noticeable, especially with portraits. Not saying that the 7100 wasn't good, it was actually a great camera, I just preferred the images that I got off my 600. Ultimately, because of the oil spot issue, it went back. To be honest, that was really the point that I thought that FX may be for me. I picked up the 600 on a whim because of the price and was blown away.

Thanks again for the input.
 

astroNikon

'ya all Bananas I tell 'ya
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
13,668
Reaction score
3,341
Location
SE Michigan
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Keep in mind that a FX lens has larger elements to create a larger image circle.
DX lenses, because they are ONLY used with smaller sensors do not have to have as large elements, thus use smaller elements to create a smaller image circle for the smaller sensor.

Caveat ... there are some DX lenses that create an image circle that is suitable for an FX. But in general, if you use FX lenses the DX sensor is going to get the "sweet spot" of the FX image circle and technically should be better than the equivalent DX lens.

Because the DX lens uses less glass, it will cost less (in general). If anyone made a 24-70/2.8 in a FX and DX version at the same quality standards, and economies of scale were exactly the same, (same number sold in the same timeframe, etc) then the DX lens should cost less based on the less high quality optical glass being used. Thus the reason DX lenses are cheaper .. plus they may not use the high end glass, and use cheaper materials, cheaper designs, etc to actually cater to the lower end market in price/performance.

as to the D600/D7100 issue.
At one time I really contemplated getting the D7100 vs the D600. Though I needed the FOV of the FX so I bought it. I too noticed the image quality difference. Thus I barely used my D7000 before selling it.

Now I added the D500 and I immediately noticed an image quality problem. BUT, in experimenting I've also learned that if I double my Shutter Speed the image quality jumps up dramatically.

So if I were to take a shot on my D750 at 1/1000, on the D500 I just do it at 1/2000.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Top