fx vs dx for wildlife

<p>Hello.. i am a beginner at wildlife photgraphy and wanna upgrade my gear. I have two options. Nikon D7200 or Nikon D750, one being the dx and other fx. I know that normally the fx camera will produce better images but do the modern day dx lack behing that much??? Also is it same to shoot with dx (crop factor of 1.5x) or cropping the image to 1.5x from fx in post procesing? Money not being a factor what would you suggest? Thanx in advance. :-)</p>

<p>I shoot Canon rather than Nikon, but the issues are the same. I shoot both full frame (fx) and crop sensor (DX).</p>

<p>IMHO, a very important issue for wildlife is pixel density, which determine how many pixels you will get on the subject at a given distance with a given focal length. This is really what is at issue when people write about the "reach" of a body. the two you are considering have similar pixel counts, so the DX has a much higher pixel density. That means that for wildlife, for any given number of pixels on the animal, you will need a much longer lens (1.5x) with the FX camera.</p>

<p>FF has some advantages. All other things being equal, FF cameras handle low light somewhat better. Given a sufficiently high-quality lens, they will produce more detailed images, which will be apparent if you print large but probably not if you don't. The downsides are that they cost more, are bigger and heavier, and require longer, heavier, more expensive lenses for a given amount of reach.</p>

<p>The exception would be a high-pixel-count FF camera, which would let you crop and retain a lot of pixels on the subject.</p>

<p>This is why many wildlife photographers use crop-sensor cameras and why they were so impatient for the new crop models recently released by both Canon and Nikon.</p>

<p>After I bought a FF camera several years ago, I kept my crop sensor camera, primarily for two uses. One is shooting macro shots of bugs, and the other is long telephoto work, like wildlife (which I don't do much). Pixel density is reason in both cases.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that you are going to need other equipment--certainly lenses (telephotos can be very expensive), and probably a tripod or monopod. Unless you have unlimited $$, the question I would ask is: are you better off paying more to get an FX body or to put that money into lenses?</p>

What telephoto lenses do you have, or intend on purchasing? If purchasing, what is your budget? Don't forget to add the cost of a good tripod into the budget.

<blockquote>

<p>Money not being a factor what would you suggest?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One each? DX for the pixel density, FX for its better high-ISO performance and when the "more reach" of the DX isn't needed. If you can afford the lenses that give you all the reach you need on an FX camera ($8K and up), then the DX body is not needed at all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p >Dan M , Feb 05, 2016; 08:43 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot Canon rather than Nikon, but the issues are the same. I shoot both full frame (fx) and crop sensor (DX).<br>

IMHO, a very important issue for wildlife is pixel density, which determine how many pixels you will get on the subject at a given distance with a given focal length. This is really what is at issue when people write about the "reach" of a body. the two you are considering have similar pixel counts, so the DX has a much higher pixel density. That means that for wildlife, for any given number of pixels on the animal, you will need a much longer lens (1.5x) with the FX camera.<br>

FF has some advantages. All other things being equal, FF cameras handle low light somewhat better. Given a sufficiently high-quality lens, they will produce more detailed images, which will be apparent if you print large but probably not if you don't. The downsides are that they cost more, are bigger and heavier, and require longer, heavier, more expensive lenses for a given amount of reach.<br>

The exception would be a high-pixel-count FF camera, which would let you crop and retain a lot of pixels on the subject.<br>

This is why many wildlife photographers use crop-sensor cameras and why they were so impatient for the new crop models recently released by both Canon and Nikon.<br>

After I bought a FF camera several years ago, I kept my crop sensor camera, primarily for two uses. One is shooting macro shots of bugs, and the other is long telephoto work, like wildlife (which I don't do much). Pixel density is reason in both cases.<br>

Also, keep in mind that you are going to need other equipment--certainly lenses (telephotos can be very expensive), and probably a tripod or monopod. Unless you have unlimited $$, the question I would ask is: are you better off paying more to get an FX body or to put that money into lenses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is very well written and in my limited knowledge, very good advise. <br>

Personally I shoot nikon and have both the D7200 and D750. If I had to choose one or the other for wildlife, I would choose the D7200 for the extra reach and a lighter rig. You will not be giving up much in the way of image quality unless it is really low light. </p>

 

<p>Not a wildlife photographer, but when I read it, thought the same as Javier. Thanks, Dan.</p>

<p>I also shoot Canon but with the same advice - for wildlife it's a cheap body and spend the money on lens</p>