Nikon FX / DX Observations and Questions

My entry into "serious" digital equipment was via a refurb D60 kit with the usual pair of kit lenses, 18-55 and 55-200. Prior to that purchase I was using my film Nikons and an excellent Canon Digital ELPH. I was quite pleased with the performance of the D 60, and the kit lenses, recently reviewing the images, still find most of them pretty decent. Two factors got me interested in upgrading. First was the announcement of the DF which would allow me to use my considerable collection of film era Nikon lenses, second was my Son's upcoming Wedding. June of '14 I bought the DF and worked hard to learn it from that point 'till the Wedding Day in mid August. It has been a delight, and is still my favorite. In '16 I bought a used D 750, I liked some of the features, the extra MP, and always used two cameras on my photo excursions in film days. The D 60 went to my daughter shortly after I got the DF, so there was a void. Again, an excellent camera, though I should have known that the articulated screen would be of small value since I rarely use live view. Anyhow, I used the two cameras from Macro to long range wildlife with pretty good results. The latter, and a limit on the new wildlife specific long lenses that I was willing to buy got me back into DX for the extra reach. Last Fall I found a used, low shutter count D 7200 with a bunch of accessories at a very attractive price. I used the camera with both kit lenses quite a bit, and found it to be virtually identical to the D 750, with the extra reach using my FX lenses both old and new. If it weren't for my fondness for the DF, the D 750 and D 7200 would be a perfect travel kit, since they are so similar operationally and use the same batteries. Here are the questions. One of the things that came with the D 7200 is a good quality after market battery grip. It does make the camera feel more like my F 4 and 5, but also makes a compact light camera considerably heavier and bulkier with no value I can see. Some say it improves the grip - I have average sized hands, and have no difficulty without it. Using a battery grip on my F 5 speeds up autofocus, but it doesn't do that on the D 7200. I don't find carrying an EN EL15 to be a problem, and swapping batteries takes less than a minute, and two batteries fully charged would handle any day of shooting I can remember. What is the advantage to the grip? Second question, DX lenses. Both the kit lenses are quite decent, somewhat smaller and lighter than FX, and also use 52mm filters, but both have plastic mounts as opposed to metal on FX lenses. I suppose the primary advantage to DX lenses is cost, second possibly size and weight, but except for wide angle DX, otherwise what advantage is there to DX vs. FX lenses? I will say, with the addition of the D 7200, except possibly for a wide angle DX, I 'm probably done with new lenses, can't see I'll need anything past the 900mm my 600mm will now deliver.

The birds, bugs, and flowers are back, several short trips pending in the course of the year, looking forward to a lot of new photos with both formats.

Sandy, doubtless you'll get an earful from the FX mafia, but I think you've hit the nail on the head. Given your in-hand kit, I think I would choose exactly the same set of bodies and lenses, without the battery grip. I still only shoot DX, mostly because I haven't yet found a used D810 at a price I'm willing to pay. (When will the D850 effect kick in?) Still, I am in no wise unhappy with my two DX bodies. I know there are some here who will cringe, but my most-used lens is a kit, plastic-mount, AF-S Nikkor 18-105mm/3.5-5.6 DX VR, if only because it is by far the most convenient and easiest to carry. I have other, far more exacting lenses, but they tend to be special purpose and of limited useful scope. The 18-105 is so flexible that it's hard to not have on the camera when I'm not shooting a special purpose subject. I sometimes run two bodies when I'm out doing misc. landscape and travel. When I do, I mount the UWA Tokina 11-16mm/2.8 to my 16MP D5100, since I'm less likely to heavily crop those images, and a longer lens (usually the 18-105, but often the AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm/4.5-5.6 DX VR, depending on likely subjects) on the 24MP D7100. I did once break the plastic mount on my 18-105 by being stupid. (I laid back my power seat in the car and bent the lens right off the camera. This was fortuitous, as the inexpensive lens mount broke off rather than damaging or distorting the camera body. A stronger metal mount, as on the 70-300, would likely have ruined both the body and lens, making for a much more expensive issue.) Thankfully, it was relatively inexpensive to have repaired. Still, I try to be extra careful not to stress the mount, since it is a known weak point. The two kit lenses you have will likely cost less to replace than repair should you manage to damage either of them, so they're a good choice on the D7200 in risky situations.

Just an observation that in order to compare DX vs FX, you have to do it within the same generation. A newer higher resolution DX sensor often will outperform an older lower resolution FX sensor.

I normally carry both a "crop" sensor with a longer telephoto zoom (100-400) on it, and also a "full-frame" sensor camera of the same generation with a "utility" range lens (24-105 or so).

 

"Bent but unbroken"

I was blown away by the quality of images I got from my D70 when it was at the point of being discontinued (I’m cheap so I usually wait until the ‘new’ model is announced and get the old one at a discount). Other than the better low light capabilities, I see little difference in that to the D7000 that replaced it, and see no need to replace the D7000 for anythin* newer at the moment. I’d like an FX body to get a better viewfinder view, and to have a bit more control over narrow dof, but will it make my pictures any better? I doubt it. Of course, if I had pots of money.................

 

I guess it depends on what you shoot. For what I do, there is little advantage in FX bodies or glass (as with Sandy I have two or three old school Nikon fx lenses that sit on my F100), so I would probably try to aim at FX lenses that were compatible with DX in an attempt to get the best of both worlds. Like David, most of the time I have the 18-105 on board as it covers 95 % of what I need.

My bug about DX is that Nikon seems to have abandoned DX for us advanced amateurs or folks that do NOT want to go up to FX.

• There are only TWO high end DX zoom lenses (17-55 and 16-80). For anything more we have to go to FX glass.
  
• I would LOVE a DX version of the FX 70-200 f/2.8. The slow variable aperture 55-200 just does not cut it, when the light goes down. So, without a DX option, the only option is the big, heavy and expensive FX 70-200 f/2.8. I opted for the lighter 70-200 f/4.
   
  
• I also want a faster GP zoom. My choices are the DX 16-80 f/2.8-4 or the FX 24-120 f/4. Again, my the prime choice was the FX lens, this time for zoom coverage. But, the extra speed of the 16-80 was attractive. I decided to wait on this lens, because buying the 16-80 would commit me to DX, and the 24-120 would be another push to FX.
   
  
• Nikon does not have a fast DX wide prime, specifically a 24mm f/1.8 or f/2 (35mm FX equiv). The nearest fast prime is the 35mm f/1.8, which is a "normal lens," not a wide. Well at least they have that, Canon does not even have a crop sensor 35mm f/1.8 lens.
  

So will I be forced/pushed into FX because of the lack of DX lenses that I want? I hope not. Because weight is a major concern of mine, as I get older.

I already made the decision to get the 70-200 f/4 instead of the the f/2.8 because the f/2.8 lens is 2x the weight of the f/4 lens.

 

On the other hand, I LOVE the 18-140 as a GREAT daytime general purpose lens. However, note the "daytime" limitation, as it is NOT a fast lens. Which is why I have the 35mm f/1.8. The equivalent Canon 18-135 has a much smoother and easier to turn zoom ring. In comparison, the Nikon zoom ring feels stiff and cheap. I think the reason is the cam angle is steeper on the Nikon than the Canon, requiring more force to turn.

 

As I get older and as weight becomes more of an issue, I was looking at the D3400 or D5600 + 18-55 kit as a lighter alternative to the D7200 + 18-140. A "tweener," between my P&S and D7200, when I don't want to haul the weight of the D7200 + 18-140, and I want something better than my P&S. But, is the D3400 and shorter 18-55 "good enough?" Unfortunately for Nikon, the D3400 kit was not. And the Nikon 1-V3, without an integrated viewfinder, was not a consideration.

 

I jumped ship to an Olympus E-M1 (micro 4/3) + Panasonic 12-60 (24-120 FX equiv) as my "tweener." About as light as a D3400 + 18-55, but with much more capability. In use, the EM1 feels like a small D7200. The major con was/is that it is a completely new system, which has to be assembled from scratch. Except for my old manual Nikon lenses, there does not seem to be a practical, FULLY compatible, reasonably priced Nikon to m43 adapter for the electronic Nikon lenses.

 

So for me, it is DX (including the FX 70-200 lens) + m43.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Gary Naka

I enjoyed the D70S and D200 that I owned for what they could deliver, but to me the D700 was a game changer -- an FX body with a better dynamic range that allowed me to shoot in low light (the D200 was terrible in low light situations). The D700 made me a believer and I followed it up with a D800e, which I currently own.

 

I have been generally happy with my FX lenses on the D800e and own a slew of FX primes and zoom lenses; however, the 200-500mm highlighted the D800e's shortcomings when it came to BIF (AF speed and the need for more reach). I bought a D500 to address those specific needs and eventually got DX lenses (35/1.8, 10-20mm and 18-140mm) for general use and travel with the D500.

 

At this time, I'm happy with the lenses that I own but the D850 gives me a slight case of GAS.

Edited May 22, 2018 by photo_galleries

I was blown away by the quality of images I got from my D70 when it was at the point of being discontinued (I’m cheap so I usually wait until the ‘new’ model is announced and get the old one at a discount). Other than the better low light capabilities, I see little difference in that to the D7000 that replaced it, and see no need to replace the D7000 for anythin* newer at the moment. I’d like an FX body to get a better viewfinder view, and to have a bit more control over narrow dof, but will it make my pictures any better? I doubt it. Of course, if I had pots of money.................

 

I guess it depends on what you shoot. For what I do, there is little advantage in FX bodies or glass (as with Sandy I have two or three old school Nikon fx lenses that sit on my F100), so I would probably try to aim at FX lenses that were compatible with DX in an attempt to get the best of both worlds. Like David, most of the time I have the 18-105 on board as it covers 95 % of what I need.

 

My first dlsr was the D70. I would still be using it, except that it died.

The only thing that was limiting me was the max ISO of 1600. That was like pushing Tri-X. Low light work was painful.

When I got my D7200, the high ISO up to 25600 was the single biggest jump in capability, that I valued. Everything else was gravy.

The grip is a matter of preference. Many photographers like the additional size for comfort and/or find the extra controls useful when shooting verticals. And I met one event photographer (there are undoubtedly more) who liked the grips because they made his cameras look larger.

 

The only advantages of DX lenses are lower cost and lighter weight. They are useless for FX unless you're willing to give up the use of the outer 50% of your sensor. I had a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DX that was all right, nothing spectacular. After I started shooting with a D7200 and a D750, I replaced it with a Nikon 28mm f/1.8 FX, slightly slower, better sharpness, which I can use on both systems, for a "normal" lens in DX and as a wide angle in FX.

Personally, I never got the attraction of grips; I never found any issue with a 300 f/4 or 80-200 f/2.8 and never felt additional weight in the camera would make it more balanced. But I think it's highly personal, as Hector said, and probably very much related to the size of hands and the way you're used to holding a camera.

 

I think it's a pity Nikon doesn't invest a bit more into "serious" DX lenses. With the D7x00 and D500, they've got very good tools, but the choice of lenses is a strange mixed bag. It does keep the message alive that DX isn't a serious format (but rather a stepping stone to FX), and I really wonder that's a smart marketing message.

That said, I am a happy FX shooter, prefering it mainly for the much better viewfinders (as I mostly use manual focus lenses) and the extra bit of shallow depth of field it can deliver - it suits my style. But I think the choice between DX and FX should be made based on such considerations, and not the default idea that seems to live with many photographers, that FX is the holy grail and the passport to "serious shooting". But the marketing message seems to work.....

The grip is a matter of preference.

Indeed. I needed it on the D7100/D7200 to improve handling with large lenses like the 80-400 or 200-500. A grip was also needed on the D200 because I rarely could do an outing with one battery only. With everything else, it is a matter of convenience (vertical controls) vs additional weight. I use a grip on the D500 but not on the D810 (as with the D700, I find those FX bodies with grip to be a tad too large and too heavy).

 

The only advantages of DX lenses are lower cost and lighter weight.

There's the focal length range issue too - I like the 16-80 (my only DX lens) because of the range (price is definitely FX-like as "lower cost" certainly does not apply here). I could use the FX 24-105 on the D500 but under most circumstances, that would be a limiting focal length range. Strictly speaking, I don't actually need the 16-80 but it is convenient to throw into the bag when I am out shooting with longer glass "just in case".

 

It does keep the message alive that DX isn't a serious format (but rather a stepping stone to FX), and I really wonder that's a smart marketing message.

Nikon never considered DX on its own merits but always as either a gap filler (before they offered the first FX) or a stepping stone. Really a shame.

I guess Nikon marketing does not want to canibalize FX sale for DX sales.

But if they don't defend the DX space, someone else will.

And right now that someone is the mirrorless guys.

Because Canon is similarly neglecting their crop market.

 

OK maybe the 80/20 rule applies and they are satisfying the 80%, and we are the complaining 20% that require a lot more engineering and production work to support.

 

And now with the monumental task of introducing a full mirrorless system (FX and DX) around the corner, I doubt there will be much engineering resources for truly enhancing the DX line.

 

My thought is with the high end/pro 17-55 and 16-80, they want you to use the FX 70-200 as the next lens up, even though it does not behave the same on a DX body.

My thought is with the high end/pro 17-55 and 16-80

It would be tempting to find and buy some good DX lens in the teens, other than the 18-55 kit lens, then use FX lenses on the D 7200 for the rest. In my situation, far easier to use the DX camera to do what I bought it for, to extend the reach of my long (and other) FX lenses and count on either FX camera to do the wide work.

far easier to use the DX camera to do what I bought it for, to extend the reach of my long (and other) FX lenses and count on either FX camera to do the wide work.

Pretty much what I do - despite the fact that I added a "convenience" 16-80 to the bag. Not going to get a super-wide-to-wide DX zoom, that's what I have FX for.

 

For my wife it's still all DX without any need or desire to move towards FX at all. Tokina 11-16/2.8, 16-80, 70-200/4, 80-400, and 35/1.8 make for a quite compact (even when both tele zooms are in the bag) and very versatile setup. Attempts to duplicate that versatility with an all FX setup ends up needing a much bigger bag that will be substantially heavier.

It would be tempting to find and buy some good DX lens in the teens, other than the 18-55 kit lens, then use FX lenses on the D 7200 for the rest. In my situation, far easier to use the DX camera to do what I bought it for, to extend the reach of my long (and other) FX lenses and count on either FX camera to do the wide work.

 

Sandy, unfortunately, as much as I hate to say it, I think you are right.

Because that would me that I need to plan to buy a FX body.

After having shot with DX bodies ranging from D70S/D1/D1H/D1X/D2X basically from 2003 to 2012, my only DX body nowadays is a D7100 with 18-55 DX kitlens

The D70S was nice to have as a smaller sized body compared to the D1 etc, and the 2x HSC crop was a very usefull asset back when I used to shoot surf

Already shot with FX lenses most of the time, only real DX lens I had was the 18-55 DX kitlens. Can understand the atractiveness of DX lenses, smaller and cheaper then a FX one, but since basically only usable on a DX body a bit too limited in use for me

 

But I let go a big sigh of relief when I upgraded to a D3 shortly after its introduction, even if that meant I had to buy much longer lenses due to the loss of the DX/HSC crop..

The IQ, dynamic range and in particular high ISO performance of the D3 were much better then on any of the single digit DX D series bodies, the latter a very, very major consideration for me as I used to shoot surf in the Netherlands, which means most of the time working on low/bad light rainy over cast days

 

Only reason I got the D7100 was to have a cheap (compared to eg D800 and DF) small body around to take along for recreational not very serious shooting

Could have held on to the D70S for that, but got the higher pixel, better AF, better high ISO (compared to the D70S) and better menus D7100 for a pretty low price

Don't shoot surf any more, so don't miss the DX/HSC crop, while my D800's give reasonably high pixel count files in DX mode if needed

So for me it's FX 95% of the time

 

I find using a grip (or body with large grip like the single digit D bodies) handy when shooting long/large lenses of when shooting a lot in portrait mode (eg when shooting catwalk which I do a lot nowadays)

But when shooting with shorter lenses like my 1.4/58mm AFS or 85/135/180mm AFD lenses, the added weight and bulk have no added value so I leave then from the bodies I then use

Pretty much what I do - despite the fact that I added a "convenience" 16-80 to the bag. Not going to get a super-wide-to-wide DX zoom, that's what I have FX for.

 

For my wife it's still all DX without any need or desire to move towards FX at all. Tokina 11-16/2.8, 16-80, 70-200/4, 80-400, and 35/1.8 make for a quite compact (even when both tele zooms are in the bag) and very versatile setup. Attempts to duplicate that versatility with an all FX setup ends up needing a much bigger bag that will be substantially heavier.

 

I like your wife's kit.

Except for both ends that is kinda what I have or plan for, + my old lenses.

16-80 (considering), 18-140, 70-200/4, 35/1.8

+ 75-300/4.5-5.6 AF, 500/8 mirror (I don't use the LONG end enough to justify the $$$$ on updated glass)

75-300/4.5-5.6 AF

Definitely a lens I would replace with something more modern. Or stick a 1.4x TC behind the 70-200/4.

Definitely a lens I would replace with something more modern. Or stick a 1.4x TC behind the 70-200/4.

 

What sucks is that the zoom sticks on either end. So I have to push/pull extra hard to get it moving. That makes zooming with that lens at either end very difficult. So I end up using it like a variable focal length lens rather than a zoom.

I suspect the grease has shifted and accumulated at the ends of zoom range, and dried out, so that the zoom mechanism gets stuck in the sticky grease.

 

I had been thinking about replacing it, but I only use it for softball, baseball and at one school for tennis. So less than a dozen times this school year. So I did not think it worth replacing, especially since I got the 70-200. Because the logical lenses are Nikon 200-500 ($1,400) and the Tamron 100-400 ($800 + $130 tripod mount). Both more expensive than I want to spend for an infrequently used lens.

 

hmmm. I did not think of a 1.4x TC on the 70-200. I need to look into that.

"doubtless you'll get an earful from the FX mafia....."

 

- Wow! I didn't realise there was an FX mafia. Can I expect a meeting in a dark alley with a guy in a cheap suit saying; 'Them DX camras, they break so easy. Maybe you should consider takin' out a liddle insurance wit us...'

 

I have no pangs of conscience swapping between full-frame (FX is short for 'effects', not a format size) and DX.

 

I basically follow a simple mantra. 'Full-frame for the best quality, high ISO and wideangle work; DX for tele and macro.'

 

Choice of format size is just another tool in the toolbox since digital has freed us from the tyranny of grain.

I like my FX Nikons when I am focusing on photography, but don't carry them any more when travelling light and photography is not a priority. It would be great if a light pancake semi-wide DX prime (or zoom) were available - from someone. Maybe I have missed finding it. I do have the 35/1.8DX, but that is just too long focal length (on DX) for me. I also have an 18-55P, just physically too long after I got spoiled using to a Leica M with 35/2 back in the film days.

 

On a trip now, the only camera I have with me is a Sony A7(ver.1) with the very compact Sony DX 16-50 zoom or FF 28/2 on it. Just in case, I have a small bag with a few adapted manual lenses in the car. I don't really like the A7, hope Nikon comes out with something better maybe DX format, shorter flange depth, with some small lenses to go with it!

I like my FX Nikons when I am focusing on photography, but don't carry them any more when travelling light and photography is not a priority. I

Though the D 7200 with FX 24-85 has intruded a bit on former practice, I use a Ricoh GXR with any of several lenses for that. With any of the 10MP modules the camera is small and relatively flat. I find there are often unexpected opportunities that produce interesting images.

I didn't realise there was an FX mafia.

Sorry, RJ. I thought I was being funny. No offense intended. (Did you think it was aimed at you? If so, why?):confused::rolleyes::)

Actually, David, I thought both your comment and RJ's response were good fun. Obviously both formats have their advantages - pretty much the core of the thread.

Sandy,

About the grip, I think many get it just to make the camera looks more like the 1 digit variety. I would never want the grip unless it improve performance in some way like higher frame rate otherwise it's only for show. I never use the vertical release button either.

WRT 3rd party grips. I've yet to find one that gave any sensible or economical number of shots with the supplied AA battery holder. And if the bulky thing is only going to act as a spare En-El15 carrier, then what real use is it?

 

Just stick a spare En-El15 in your pocket or camera case and leave the grip in its box at home!

 

Besides, my cameras won't fit their holster cases with a grip attached.