The change of times - are you guys mostly using FX?

It was not that long ago, when people even debated if FX would even be available at the store front and how FX may not be required and not economical to manufacture. Since the tide has changed, just wondering apart from the curious blue moon if you are guys are using mostly FX, DX or a split of both? Digital SLRs that is. If you are using DX on that overseas safari once a year by all means count it as it is a "significant" photography trip when the DX is used "substantially" for that period of time.

 

I guess thou in terms of most sales DX probably be the larger lot for the general consumer market. Once in a blue moon I break out the NIkon D70 and no one at my club says anything.

i use both, depending on what I'm doing and the circumstances.

 

 

Kent in SD

When I'm really serious, I carry both bodies.

 

Telephoto zoom on the APS, and normal zoom on the 35mm film format, but of course, they can be switched around, etc.

 

I just consider them two different formats that each have their advantages.

You are missing the CX format :-)

 

And four-thirds.

I bought into DX with a Nikon D100 years ago, although all my lenses were FX. I just kept it up moving to a D300. Continue using film for FX, and my micro 4/3 more than either of the others.

What Kent and JD said.

DX for anything that needs magnification and deeper depth-of-field - macro, wildlife, sport etc.

 

FX for shallower DoF, quality, higher ISO and wider angles.

 

Other formats for greater portability, discretion, camera movements, etc.

 

It's not an either/or choice. The best tool for the job is the best tool for the job. Not what's flavour of the month or what other people think you ought to be using.

Edited May 13, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

I love my FX Nikons, but frankly when I look at the output of the (fairly inexpensive) Nikon DX I had before, there isn't an awful lot of difference. For the reasons Rodeo joe described in re: magnification / wildlife, am thinking about a D500.

2x DX bodies because that's what I could afford when I bought in. Looking forward to a D810 (someday).

DX.

As a senior citizen, weight has become a consideration, so I'm not into the BIG lens and body any more. The 18-140 DX lens saves quite a bit of weight for a general purpose lens, vs a FX equivalent. So the DX body does good enough for me. Although the D7200 was a weight increase from my D70.

 

Would I like to go FX, yes, but I have my doubts I can make use of the image quality increase over my D7200.

And I do not look forward to the increase in weight of the big FX zooms like the 70-200/f2.8 VR. I would rather have a smaller and lighter 70-200/f4 DX VR lens (which will likely never happen).

DX.

As a senior citizen, weight has become a consideration, so I'm not into the BIG lens and body any more. The 18-140 DX lens saves quite a bit of weight for a general purpose lens, vs a FX equivalent. So the DX body does good enough for me. Although the D7200 was a weight increase from my D70.

 

Would I like to go FX, yes, but I have my doubts I can make use of the image quality increase over my D7200.

And I do not look forward to the increase in weight of the big FX zooms like the 70-200/f2.8 VR. I would rather have a smaller and lighter 70-200/f4 DX VR lens (which will likely never happen).

 

There is no reason to think that a DX 70-200/4 would be any smaller or lighter than the current one, so you might as well enjoy the FX version. It's a great lens and noticeably lighter than the f/2.8 version, which I used for years before deciding I had gotten too old to want to carry it around. ;) The f/4 works really well on my D500.

 

Danny W.

When I got my D700, I left DX for good. If I ever change sensor sizes again, it will be medium format.

Long Telezooms on DX except 70-200 f/2.8 otherwise FX D810. I have lately considered only using the D810 and set it to DX when using the long telezooms, but I have not yet tried it. Likely try it out on my short trip this coming week.

Since getting my D500 I see no place for FX in my bag.

Since I got the D800, the D300 is only used when I need the fps. On the other hand, my Fuji X100T, which has a DX-size sensor, is used more than any other camera.

I don't see myself buying DX (I do have a D70s I paid $30 for and I really don't use it). I may buy Fuji, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic. For me the DX is something of a compromise. It's not the small sensor as I would buy an M4/3 camera. It's the sensor which is smaller for its lens mount. Edited May 13, 2017 by BeBu Lamar

I use FX for my own photography (have used DX, FX, and 6x7 cm). At work I use some micro four thirds cameras for photogrammetry. I use an iPhone 6 for copying notes made on paper and storing them in the cloud.

Pretty much what RJ said.

 

I tried a 1V2 (CX) that was fine for casual photography in daylight, but I felt like I was giving up too much vs my FX mainstay equipment. Now I travel with a Sony A7 (FX) with a DX format pancake zoom lens on most of the time and a few serous FX primes in a small bag.

 

My D810 & associated Nikon gear still outperforms the Sony A7, IMO. I like the way Sony is heading and enjoy some of the features of the Sony mirrorless system, hope Nikon comes up with something better that will use the very good Nikon lenses I have.

Edited May 13, 2017 by robert_bouknight|1

Even though I am an amateur photographer, in the sense that I make my living doing something else, I take my photography very seriously and tend to get the best tools available. In 2016 I bought one Nikon FX body and one DX. That FX body is my third Digital FX, but DX is still very much important to me.

 

There is no "best" format, neither in the film era nor the digital era. It all depends on what you would like to accomplish in each shooting condition.

I started digital with a D70 and progressed to my D7100, which meets my needs. I love having 24 mp to work with. I shot with all formats in film, so I am familiar with the differences in formats. I have not felt the urge to move to FX.

Haven't gotten rid of any of my older DX bodies or the DX-specific lenses ... but it seems I'm only ever using the FX bodies, now.

I used to covet BIG, EXPENSIVE looking gear. The joke would be made carrying my RB67 that it was my 'Instamatic'--and you should see the big cameras... :eek:

 

DX with my 7100 gets the job done for the purposes of my work. Given that I have the Nikon battery grip on the bottom (mostly for ergonomics), there is nothing that I gain is reduced weight. But lenses are more reasonable (mostly shooting with Sigma) and myself not being a pixel peeper likely would not benefit from the larger FX lenses.

My most frequently used Nikon bodies are the D800 and the Nikon 1 V2, although I bought a Nikon 1 V3 yesterday. I also have a D700.

 

ShunCheung hit the nail on the head when he asked about the CX sensor. I'm not giving up on my FX sensor bodies, but the Nikon 1 is a great camera for digital photos, videos, and prints 8x10 or less.

 

Just as one screwdriver blade doesn't fit all screws, one camera body isn't best for all photos.

I don't have my DX cameras anymore, and don't foresee getting one soon as I'm still perfectly fine with my D700. The other cameras I use all use 135 film, so I figured they do count as FX too :-)

 

In the end it's about getting the right tool for the job as you see it, and getting the right tools to suit your preferences. None of them is by definition better than the other, it depends on what you want to do and how you prefer to do it.

Just as one screwdriver blade doesn't fit all screws.

 

At least I have never heard (read) this expression before, but how fitting.