From DX to full frame?

<p>I am thinking of adding a second camera body - I currently shoot with a Nikon D80. Please share your experience with whether moving up to a camera body with a full frame sensor makes any "sense" since I will be wanting to continue using my DX lenses and want to maintain the flexibility of interchanging lenses between two bodies. I understand that bodies with full frame sensors provide the option for viewing DX sensor size in a cropped viewfinder or rear screen. Logic suggests to me that it would be best to stick with a body like the Nikon 7000 that has the same size sensor that I currently have on the D80. Thanks for your input. Larry</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will be wanting to continue using my DX lenses and want to maintain the flexibility of interchanging lenses between two bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>just on that basis alone, i would say no. the hybrid format works best when you have all FX lenses. if you're not ready to upgrade your lenses, you're not ready for FX. there's little point in paying a premium for an FX body and using it in DX mode. the d7000 would be a major upgrade from a d80 in every single way. using a d800 or d600 with a kit lens from the d80 would be a head-scratcher. the money you save on getting a d7000 over a d600 could go toward better lenses.</p>

<p>Eric, Thanks. I agree with you fully, but wanted to get confirmation or hear others' view. I appreciate your response. Larry</p>

I'm in a similar position and have this

to contribute a food for thought. Why

not go full frame and add a cheap 50

prime for now and another lens later?

I'm considering keeping my dx kit and

starting a prime only full frame kit to

complement. Doesn't cost much more

but leaves more options for the future.

I'd keep those dx lenses off and leave it

to lenses that can do justice to the new

camera.

<p>Larry:<br>

I upgraded from a d300 to a d7000 and later wondered if I had made a mistake by not moving to a FX body. I have not regretted my move to the 7000. It is a superb camera. I do mainly gallery and museum work and have stopped thinking about a FX upgrade. My subject matter is the figure and still life and I print up to 16X20 with wonderful results. If you shoot primarily landscapes then a move towards FX is worth consideration but if you don't need it don't go for it at the moment. I do admit that when I decided to add to my 17-55 2.8 and 50mm 1.4 prime that I started looking at FX primes but that was an eye towards the future. The price of moving up to FX is high so give it some serious thought. The d7000 is wonderful and I am looking forward to the 7100 or whatever is coming. Good luck with your decision.<br>

-O</p>

<p>I don't know your lens lineup, but I wouldn't recommend this move if you're talking about moving to a D700. However, if you're moving to a D600 or D800, it might be a reasonable move - depending on the image size (megapixels) that either of those two cameras offer. If you can live with the pixel count in DX mode, it might not be such a bad idea until you can put together a decent FX lens lineup.</p>

<p>Your D80 camera has perhaps 10 MegaPixels.<br>

If you go for D800, using your DX lenses in DX mode on D800, you will get about 15 MPixels.<br>

You should see immediate picture quality gain in enlargements, and in crops.<br>

This would be most reasonable way to get into FX. Then... you will need money to get some FX lenses.</p>

<p>Double-check that your existing lenses ARE in fact DX lenses.<br>

I upped from D200 to D600 recently when I found that my old lenses all worked perfectly well on the D600 because they weren't specifically DX.<br>

I'm glad I did..</p>

<p>If you 'need' a FX body for a specific reason, then there is no substitute. Why do you want to switch to FX? </p>

<p>What lenses do you currently use?</p>

<p>As others have said, if you have all Dx or majority Dx lenses, then the move doesn't make sense, unless you have a specific need for a full frame body. </p>

<p>If you really are suffering from NAS, then I'd suggest an upgrade to a D5200 or D7000 (Although the D7000 is a bit long in the tooth). </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>The main reasons to go for full-frame are the availability of ultra-wideangle lenses and much better control over depth of field. A brighter and bigger finder and better high ISO performance also come as a bonus. If those things don't worry you, then you don't need full-frame.</p>

<p>Why would you spend $2,000 on a camera, then cripple it by shooting DX only? It would make a lot more sense to simply buy a $1,000 camera and use the other $1,000 to upgrade your lens selection. There is a huge difference between the D80 and D7000, not so much between a D7000 and D600.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I agree with others. Maybe buy the D7000 sometime this holiday season when it invariably drops even more than its already-bargain $1,000 because it is a huge upgrade to the D80. It's like your camera on steroids. Even the D5100, if you can live without the features that you lose from your D80 (wireless commander, top LCD, front dial, larger viewfinder, in-body motor for non-AFS lenses), then you get D7000-quality output for pennies. It has the same autofocus system as your camera, so for basic operation, you won't likely be missing any shots that you'd otherwise get from your D80, unless you are someone that finetunes their settings a lot between shots. The camera is selling "refurbished" at Adorama for $380. That's the same image quality that you would get with the D800 in crop mode, so now you would REALLY have to decide whether the features for zero image quality gain are worth paying 7 times more for that FX camera like others are telling you to get.</p>

<p>I also agree with Kent: ignore the others that are telling you to buy an FX camera and shoot in DX mode. Why spend $2,000 on a D600 to get sub-D7000 results (using DX lenses), or to spend $3,000 on a D800 just to get D7000-quality results in DX mode? If you were to buy the FX camera and slowly build an FX kit, by the time you have the FX kit built, your current camera will be old news, and it will already be time to upgrade! Buying FX cameras now with the future promise of a setup only makes sense if you have nothing else to do in life with your $1,000 to $2,000.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The main reasons to go for full-frame are the availability of ultra-wideangle lenses and much better control over depth of field.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You will gain narrower potential DOF, but not by much (less than 1 stop equivalent), and you will find it correspondingly more difficult to obtain more DOF. </p>

<p>To me, the main reasons to go FX are larger viewfinder, more features, and better IQ, especially at high ISO.</p>

<p><em>you will find it correspondingly more difficult to obtain more DOF.</em></p>

<p>This is not the case. FX cameras give the user the option to use A) shallower DOF, with higher SNR and detail contrast (due to lens MTF being sampled at lower frequencies when making the final print), or alternatively, if the photographer chooses, B) to match DX DOF, SNR, and detail contrast by keeping the shutter speed the same, stopping down about 1 stop, and increasing ISO by 1 stop on the FX camera relative to settings used on DX (1 stop is approximate). In other words, with FX the photographer has more flexibility with regards to depth of field, but they can match DX DOF in practice if they choose to do so (this is not the case if the smallest aperture of the lens e.g. f/22 or f/32 is used on the lens with the DX camera, but almost no one uses these apertures as the diffraction makes the image quality poor). Typically the smallest aperture that yields high quality is f/11 (this is subjective and depends on the use of the image); I have on occasion used f/16 on FX but that's pretty unusual.</p>

<p>The main drawbacks to FX are that the cameras and lenses are generally bigger and more expensive.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>B) to match DX DOF, SNR, and detail contrast by keeping the shutter speed the same, stopping down about 1 stop, and increasing ISO by 1 stop on the FX camera relative to settings used on DX (1 stop is approximate).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>agree</p>

If you have any AF-D lenses then you have

to go to d7000 or the new upgrade say

d7100 with 24 mp cam. If all your lenses

are AF-S then you can go to d5200

Going to FX needs full upgrade to your dx

lenses

<blockquote>

<p>Logic suggests to me that it would be best to stick with a body like the Nikon 7000 that has the same size sensor that I currently have on the D80</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Logic +1 ;-)<br>

If you cannot list one reason to move to FX, while giving reasons to stay with DX, the choice is fairly easy. Sure, there are advantages to FX (and they might differ per person), but if they do not come into play for you, why pay the considerable extra money for it?</p>

<p>No; there isn't any use in the large sensor if you are using lenses that use only a part of it. To use FX, at least the primary but preferably all lenses should be FX lenses.</p>

<p>If you are willing to accept that there will be some necessary duplication of some 'functions' such as having to get two different "ultra-wide" lenses (one for DX the other for FX), there is no overall solution so satisfying as having at least one of each.<br /> FX and DX are different formats, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, and if you use both you can put a wide on the FX and a long on the DX and avoid swapping all the time. This works a lot better than trying to mount DX lenses on an FX body in MHO ;)</p>

<p>Nikon D7000 is one of the best cameras ever made by Nikon. There's no way you will be dissapointed. If you really need FX, then sell whatever you got in your arsenal and go with a D600. You will need extra cash of course for DX lenses. <br>

But bear in mind that it doesn't make sense, as other also mentioned, to spend $2.000 on FX body and shoot DX. Waste of money. I had the D80 and currently own one D7000, more than satisfied...</p>

Eric is right. If you have fx lenses, then an fx and dx body system works. If you want to use dx lenses, their use will be restricted to dx

body for the most part.

<p>"...<em>dx lenses, their use will be restricted to dx body for the most part." </em> - most FX cameras have DX mode that can be activated automatically, or manually, when DX lenses are installed. It is up to the user to use auto DX mode, or manually set it on FX camera. Nikon already provided this feature for you and provides automatic lens format detection and switching to DX mode.</p>

<p>You are not restricted and can use DX lenses on FX body, as long as you understand the picture edges cropping action on the larger sensor. </p>

<p>Nikkor lenses with CPU built-in can provide information to a FX camera and use automatic format DX mode. Non-Nikkor lenses, you will need to set DX mode manually on the FX camera. </p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for your comments. Fortunately, I have time to make this decision. I can see the rationale of both sticking to DX with a D7000 or comparable newer model or going to FX. We all know that photography continuously amounts to making compromises in equipment, shooting decisions, and more. You have raised some good points for me to consider. Larry</p>