FX/DX differences, please share your experience...

[laura_kamler]

<p>Is there anyone here who has done a side by side comparison of <br />shots with the same lens on Nikon FX body with the same megapixel <br />count as the comparison with a DX body?<br>

I would love to see your comparison shots and hear your comments.<br>

Thanks,<br />Laura</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>If you use the exact same lens on both bodies, then shoot to inlude the same FOV, the DX appears to have more DOF. However, if you shoot from the exact same distance to subject, the FX has more.</p>

<p>Beyond that, FX is better looking at higher ISO's and will give better file quality at those ISO.</p>

<p>On the DX, I use them for a couple of reasons. One, they do offer more DOF at the same aperture for an eqivalent FOV, which means less flash needed, which in turn means faster recycle of your on cam unit. Two, lighter bodies and lenses overall (makes a difference for long days). Three, cost per shot is approximately half that of the FX models for similar reliability.</p>

<p>I hav both and will likely continue use of DX as long as they are made.</p>

[joey_grob]

<p>I love FX.. The viewfinder is huge, and I see no downside to the larger sensor..<br>

There is great relief of eyestrain (i'm 31) when you look though a FX viewfinder all day it's much better.. i put a D200 up to my eye, and it looks tiny..<br>

Then again, I take the old medium format camera out occasionally and look through the viewfinder .. **GASP** if i could look through that all day !!!</p>