dx vs fx

<p>I am finally making the switch to digital that I have been vehemently been avoiding for several years. My knowledge is VERY limited, in fact while I am a good photographer I have always been bad at understanding the technical stuff. So. My 1st question is this...what is the difference between dx and fx?</p>

<p>Use the search feature at the top of this page (change the pull-down search target selector from "Adorama Store" to "All of Photo.net") and try the phrase "dx vs fx" for bountious discussions along these lines.<br /><br />But: an FX sensor is the same size as your familiar 35mm negative. A DX sensor is like a smaller crop out of the middle of it. So, the field of view you're used to for a given focal length will be narrower. DX sensors, being smaller, are less expensive to manufacture.</p>

<p>The FX ( 24x 36mm) format is about 225% larger than the DX format of 16 x24 mm. Said another way: the DX sensor is less than 45% the area of the FX sensor.<br>

If you have two camera both with approximately the same megapixel resolution -slightly more than 12 mp as in the D300 vs. D700 & D3 -- this means that the same number of pixels are spread out over a larger area and each individual sensor pixel is larger. The benefit of the larger sensor pixel is that if all other things are otherwise equal lower noise at at all ISO (sensitivity) settings and depending on the processor in the camera , better dynamic range.</p>

<p>There is a world of influences on photo quality beyond and indeed in front of the pixels however: primarily microlens arrays, and the in camera processing pipeline ( yes even for raw files).</p>

<p>So, given a 50mm lens, an FX sensor gives you a 4X6 print that looks like the standard angle of view from a 35mm camera...<br />A DX sensor with the same lens, gives you a 4x6 print that has the angle of view of a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera. As if you cropped out a central portion of a 35mm negative and enlarged it to 4x6 (or proportionally larger sizes).<br />The Nikon D300, D90, D2x are DX cameras, while the D700 and D3 are FX. If you have a collection of Nikon lenses, they will retain their angle of view with the FX, and you will gain an apparent 1/3 telephoto effect if you go to a DX camera.<br />Many people love the DX for it's ability to "add" reach on telephoto lenses, BUT the DX format renders, say, a 20mm lens as if it was a 30mm (quite a difference).<br />So, if you want real wide angle in the DX format, think of lenses measuring in the 10-15mm range.<br />Keep in mind that some lenses have been specifically designed for the DX format... and will vignette badly if used on an FX camera.<br />Lastly, I was a very reluctant convert to digital.<br />I would never go back to film.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for your help. I have been looking at the Nikon D3 and D700, both fx. I shoot primarily with a fully manual Pentax K1000, no flash. I am truly a minimalist and feel that a top of the line camera is not going to make you a good photographer. I shot weddings for several years(stopped about 2 years ago) and used my Nikon N80, which served its purpose. Now I am getting back into it and MUST switch to digital for the convenience. From what you all have taught me I believe FX is the way to go.</p>

<p>If you're getting into weddings, you'll probably want to consider two bodies. Two D700s is a lot more liveable than two D3's budget-wise... though the D3 allows you to record to two CF cards at once, for data redundancy. That's a tough call, there. All about the budget.</p>

<p>DX = a sensor size smaller than 35mm film.<br>

FX = a sensor size the same as 35mm film.</p>

<p>Given that you are an experienced film user, jumping straight into FX will be an easier (if more expensive) transition for you. You can use all of your Nikon AI and AF film lenses with the same field of view as you did on your film cameras, and you'll get full matrix metering after programming them into the camera.</p>

<p>While DX is cheaper and lighter, I imagine you might become frustrated with the smaller, dimmer viewfinder. You'd also need to invest in additional lenses to cover the fields of view that you already had covered for film (eg.: a 28-whatever isn't even wide on a DX frame).</p>

<p>The D700 is basically a D300 body with D3 guts, minus the extremely high frame-rate speed, built-in battery grip and some other extraneous features that you probably won't notice; all for less than half the cost of a D3.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for your advice and information! Very helpful and much appreciated!</p>

<p>Melissa<br>

I was very reluctant to change from film to digital, and made the move eight months ago with the D3. I couldn't be happier, it is an outstanding camera. I waited until there was a full frame FX and until I thought the digital would give me the quality that I was getting from film, and the D3 has way passed my expectations. Learning to use the camera is no problem, the biggest learning process is the post processing, I will be learning more and more about the post processing probably for the rest of my life.<br>

I bought my D3 before the D700 came out, like a lot of people if I had known I would have waiting, and used the extra money on another lens. Right now you need to ask yourself weather you need the vertical grip, extra flash card, or the lighter weight. Certainly go to your camera store and handle both to see what fits you the best. You can't go wrong with either.<br>

Myself, I am now saving up for a DX camera as I would like the reach with my longer lens, as I have developed an interest in bird photography.<br>

Good luck with your choice<br>

I sold all my film cameras to afford the move to digital and do miss them, but I could never go back to just film and no digital.</p>