Everyone happy they switched from DX to FX?

[wade_thompson]

<p>I'm close to making a switch to FX from cropped.<br /><br />I've seen examples of the richness of the D700 as compared to my D300 which has served me well.<br />4 of the 6 lenses I have are full frame (50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 80-200mm f2.8, and 28-75mm f2.8) leaving 2 that are DX (18-200mm f3.5-5.6 and 10-24mm f3.5-4.5)...which I think I can live without. <<I would probably sell those two and buy one lens to fill the void.<br /><br />I just wanted to pick the brains of those on the board here, to see if everyone was glad they made the move to FX.<br />Your thoughts?</p>

[craigd]

<p>I was very pleased with the results when I switched from crop-frame to full-frame, though it was on the Canon side (5D Mark II). I was even happier when I switched from full-frame digital back to film. There is something very rewarding about a real photographic print or slide.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"There is something very rewarding about a real photographic print or slide." It's always nice to here about someone switching back to film after giving digital a go. I admire people that like to buy film, get it processed, put it in an old-fashioned album or slide carousel and sit back and enjoy the results. I think it's rewarding and relaxing to slow down a bit in this fast paced and hurry, hurry world we now live in. </p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Wade;<br>

I am a professional art photographer and I am more than happy with the DX format. I am currently working with the d7000 and the d300 and primarily the 17-55 2.8 and the 50mm f1.4 as well as the 16-85 VR. All of this gear has served me very well and I feel no need to move to full frame. The d7000 gives wonderful results at ISO 1600 and 3200. I do not shoot landscapes much at all but if you do then you have to take that into consideration. Unless something earthshaking happens I will stick with DX. Hope this helps.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I do most of my work with a pair of D300's I also own and use a full frame Kodak and have used a D700. For the kind of work that I do full frame has no advantage and some disadvantages.<br>

I shoot sports for a living mostly equestrian events, and for me the crop works well. It gives me a narrower field of view and the frame is well covered by the focus points on my D300's. I have no problems with the view finder even using it with super speed manual focus lenses. Exposed properly the image quality is great. I have never had any of my clients ask me what I shoot with, all they really care about is do I deliver the images that they are looking for.<br>

When I want the ultimate in image quality I step away from miniature format cameras all together and shoot 4X5 and 8X10. I then have the negatives or chromes drum scanned. Right now in my experience there is nothing in the DSLR realm that can hold a candle to drum scanned 4X5.<br>

Different formats have different uses. If you are seeing a huge difference between your D300 and the D700 I would look to improving your technique before I dropped the money on a new camera.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I use both FF and DX. I haven't thought twice about using both formats simultaneously. I use my D700 with 24-120 to photograph people and my D7000s with Nikon 200-400 to shoot birds and sports and Sigma 8-16 and 17-70 F2.8 OS macro to shoot nature. I purchase equipment based on the body/lens combination that feels most comfortable to me. When I'm happy with the combo, my images just turn out better.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>sure, no regrets. as long as you have the lenses when you make the switch, it's all good. you are definitely going to want something wider than 28mm.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I admire people that like to buy film, get it processed, put it in an old-fashioned album or slide carousel and sit back and enjoy the results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>while we're at it, why don't we crank up the victrola and listen to a jack benny radio program? then later, we can go for a ride in the horse-and-buggy carriage. sorry for the snark, but that above comment was way o/t. you can put digital prints in a photo album just as easy, or do a slide show--on a notebook, desktop computer, iphone or flatscreen TV--without even having to go through the step of processing/slide conversion.</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The best part of FX for me is the low noise and high ISO capability - a combination of better sensors, better image processing and larger pixels with a better signal/noise ratio. I can shoot at ISO 1600 with impunity. The downside is that a 70-200 is no longer long enough, and actually becomes a useful portrait lens.</p>

<p>I would definitely consider using a good DX camera for a two-camera shoot.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>My answer is 'yes'. However, camera-lens combinations are even more important, I think. For example, DX + 135/2.0 is not as good as FX + 200/2.0 wide-open. See <a href="00YaiT">Ilkaa Nissila's pics</a> of the Yamaha Clavinova.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>DX and FX both has advantages and bad points. Understand them and it's all cool. DX is better for telephoto. FX shines low light and, say, manual focusing if you have MF lenses. </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I was very pleased with the results when I switched from crop-frame to full-frame, though it was on the Canon side (5D Mark II). I was even happier when I switched from full-frame digital back to film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I bypassed FX and went straight from cropped frame back to film.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I'm a Dx user and have no intention of going Fx. I just sold my two D70s bodies for D300s. I like that the lenses are lighter and the whole system is less expensive. I have a Tamron 17-50 VR f/2.8, Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 and waiting for a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 to arrive. With that I can cover from 16.5 to 600mm equivalent.</p>

[indraneel]

<p>If you've used FX (35mm film) before, you'll be like a duck in water. I'm waiting for technology to catch up and make those 4K projectors cheaper.</p>

[jon_porter2]

<p>Yes, I'm glad I switched to the D700 as my primary digital two years ago. But the move had little to do with a desire for better image quality; if you're not getting superb results with DX then moving to FX really isn't going to make a difference. I like the D700's better viewfinder and the ability to use my wide angle primes, plus I also have an F100 and FE2 which can't use most DX lenses.</p>

[ryanmontgomery]

<p>I shoot DX, moved To FX and shoot these both alongside film for weddings. I felt that with the size of some of the albums we were producing that digital wasn't cutting it. I was quite happy with producing a 20x16 framed image as the quality was more than enough for the viewing distance but some of our albums are this size when opened with a double spread and for formals like these I use medium format.<br>

In saying that, my wife refuses to change her Fuji s5 pro because of how well it handles highlights on a bright day.</p>

[johnfarrar]

<p>Switch to D700 from D200 gave a huge increase in IQ. Love it. Also love having wide primes; the 20/2.8 AIS for example. However I'm what Thom Hogan calls 'confused' in wanting the IQ of FX and light weight - so the FX body is accompanied by a lightweight lens kit as well as some big heavies like the 17-35. Pick the lenses for the trip...</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>I continue to use a wide range of digital cameras and formats. m4/3 to DX to FX and on occasion, digital backs for large-format. All have their place and confining oneself just to a single format is rarely justified on quality criteria alone. For the purposes they are applied to (UV/IR), my D40X and D200 bodies give better quality than any of my FX cameras (D700, D3S, D3X). Just to name an example.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I'm happy with FX for my people and general city/architectural photography. I use DX for close-ups/macro and sometimes for landscape details. I also have a 6x7 film camera which I use for non-telephoto landscape and urban scenes. I would like to replace the 6x7 with a high-resolution FX camera but haven't gotten around to it yet. Eventually I plan to have only FX cameras. Not because it's necessarily the best for everything but it's too complicated to travel with cameras of multiple formats and associated lenses all in a backpack - including backups for critical events.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Listening to a Jack Benny show and going on a horse and buggy ride sounds like fun to me. I would be happy to do that today. However I would like a FX camera in a small package that I could carry around easily, take on bicycle rides and hiking. So anyway I do not have a FX camera but I will certainly consider one when I see one that will fit my needs. The M9 is almost small enough but it's to expensive for me. Not sure how the rangefinder mechanism would hold up to the vibration and banging around on a bicycle anyway. Still I am thinking about it a little. I was planning on a coast to coast bicycle tour in 18months and I have to have a rig for the trip by then. However I have no problems with film and do like to have the negatives for archival purposes. So the chances are I will be riding with a film rig.</p>

[chris_letts]

<p>I'm happy that I HAVEN'T switched. After the initial 'FX must be best because its bigger' nonsense, and a lot of fact-finding, the important thing for me is the longer tele ability of DX.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>I moved from DX to FX and likely won't go back for the shooting I'm doing now.</p>

<p>Even for sports and motorsports I like the FX format better than DX, but I only do those on occasion where I used to shoot sports once or twice a week. At that point I reveled in having the crop factor of the DX format, but now that I'm used to FX, I don't think I'd go back...I'd just spend the money on longer tele lenses.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Why switch????<br>

Each format have different purposes... You have to choose the one you need.... There are times when you will need them both side by side.<br>

In my case, if I couldn't afford them both I would choose DX coz the crop factor will make my longer lenses even longer. Remember long lenses are more expensive. On the wide end, there are plenty of ultra wide lenses for DX cameras.</p>

[OPK]

<p>I went there, and now I'm back to DX and analog MF. FX makes sense to me only with really huge enlargement.<br>

FX doesn't justify the cost.</p>

[gary_mayo1]

<p>Do you have all sockets and ratchets in your tool box? Do you only have wrenches? Or do you have the tools you need to do the job?</p>

<p>It is not world with all black and white choices. </p>

<p>FX is better for some shots, DX is better for others. Before the day of the D3, I had in my war-chest a Kodak SLR-n. I was a tool I needed, for some shots.</p>

<p>If you feel the need for more than one lens, you should also see the need for more than one camera format.</p>

[gary_mayo1]

<p>Ryan:</p>

<p>Get your wife a D3S for her birthday, and she will forget all about that Fuji S5</p>