DX after FX?

[chanh_nguyen1]

<p>I'm curious, along the line of Dan's question <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00aYft">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aYft</a>, how often you use your DX camera(s) after getting an FX</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I almost always take both a 35mm sensor and a APS-C sensor body along with me.<br /> The most obvious use of an APS-C body, after you buy a 35mm-sensor body, is for use with telephotos, where you want to take advantage of the so-called "crop-factor" -- effectively making your 100mm into a 150mm lens.<br /> Even with 'regular' lenses, it's just handy to have two different ranges on the different bodies without having to swap in the middle of things. A nice 50mm f/1.8 lens on a DX body will make a nice little 'portrait/street' camera, especially if your DX body is one of the smaller models.</p>

<p>For something where you need the greater number of pixels, the lower noise, the newer processor, the newer camera is there. But in the old days, people were right when they said that you didn't really need more than 6MP, certainly not for everything. Anything above 8MP is by nearly any reasonable standard still a practical shooter. If the deity had not meant you to have two cameras, she wouldn't have given you two shoulders!</p>

<p>BTW, I'd vote for the two different formats regardless. My next camera body to buy will almost certainly be a newer, whiz-bang DX body, not another FX body.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, I'd vote for the two different formats regardless.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Be careful, JDM, folks here aren't really into DX and FX combo. I used to get a lot of slack for suggesting it. Maybe people will come soon enough...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yeah, I've noticed that too, and of course, my credentials as an apostate may also be, well....<br /> On the other hand, this is not a Nikon-only question, but applies to anyone who shoots with cameras that are made in both formats.</p>

<p>BTW, was that <strong>f</strong>lack (bad) or <a href="http://www.subgenius.com/"><strong>s</strong>lack</a> (good) that you got? ;)</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>get flak, give slack...my bad.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>I still use both formats. I use FX for most of my work, but prefer DX for nature shots as mentioned for the extra reach. I would use DX for sports as well if Nikon had a body that would match the frame rate and iso performance of the D3s, but I don't imagine that is going to happen anytime soon.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I used mixed formats. Prior to digital, I used Nikon for 35mm film and Contax 645. Different formats are for different purposes.</p>

[Two23]

<p>For me, I see more problems with FX than advantages. And, there's the imense cost of selling my current 11-16mm f2.8, 17-50mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1 and buying 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200m f2.8 VR-2. Also, I love the 1.5x I get when using my 80-400mm VR. I'm still thinking that in the long run, FX is a loser. For the past 120 years the absolute trend has been for ever smaller formats. We started with full plate, about 6.5 x 8.5 inches, in the 1880s. There is nothing special about the 35mm format. It belongs to the 1970s. Time & technology moved on.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[lwg]

<p>I have been using the D800E for the last month. I see no reason to keep the D7000, and haven't used it much since the new camera arrived. The image quality of the cropped D800E is at least as good as the D7000, which really surprised me. So to me the main advantage of the D7000 is the smaller size, and the U1 and U2 settings. That's not enough of a reason for me to keep the camera, so I'm going to sell it off. I'm not a pro, so I don't need a backup body. I have film cameras and a LX5 for that if the D800 fails.<br>

Ideally I would have an OM-D, the D800E and my 4x5. With those I can do almost everything I ever want photographically. I'm not seeing the reason for a DX camera in my bag anymore.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I've been using a D700 (FX) with 24-70 for several years but also use a D7000 (DX) with Sigma 8-16 (12-24 equivalent), and Sony A57 with 70-400 (105- 600 equivalent) resulting in total equivalent coverage of 12-600. All lenses are highly rated and I am extremely happy with the coverage and capability of these combos. They all fit in a Think Tank back pack that fits in the overhead rack of a puddle jumper. I have begun to substitute the D700 with a D800.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i use both, depending on situations. havent bought a DX lens in a while, although i'm considering an 8-16 for my upcoming trip. the fact lenses are swappable to some degree between formats is a plus, although FX ultrawides arent quite so wide on DX, which means you have to double dip on UWAs. i like the idea of a smaller camera with ace IQ and hi-ISO, like the OM-D, but investing in a new set of lenses is not something i look forward to.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p>Different formats are for different purposes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, Shun!<br>

The DX format is also very useful for macro photography in the field to gain some extra working distance from your macro lenses. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>FX is a loser. For the past 120 years the absolute trend has been for ever smaller formats.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes but not all smaller format attempts have been successful or have sustained till today. The 35mm format has been successful with film and has sustained that success to the multitude of full frame digital cameras today. This fact tells us that the 35mm format is as relevant today, to some photographers, as it ever was. Time and Technology moved on...and landed in 2012.<br>

<br>

As a dual format user I can say I am keeping my APS-C camera along with my full framer. </p>

[chanh_nguyen1]

<p>I can see that different formats have different compromises among speed, convenience, cost, etc. But for sheer photographic quality, isn't a bigger sensor always better for the same technology generation?<br>

For extra reach, can I just crop an FX image? I suppose a DX equivalent from the D800 would be at least as good as the same picture taken with my D200. That's not a fair FX/DX comparison, but L G also mentioned above that his cropped D800E is as good as D7000.<br>

Why is FX a loser? It's not that much bigger, heavier than DX, unlike larger formats. I would venture that it strikes a good balance between convenience and quality. As technology moves on, improving IQ while keeping the same "bulk" is always welcome.<br>

I wonder whether Galen Rowell would run and climb with a D800 or a D7000 or something smaller if he were still around today.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>I use a D700, D300 and now just added a V1/FT-1 combo and all three accept my F-mount lenses. Now, with the three sensor sizes I take out the 12-24mm DG, 24-70mm AFS, 70-200 AFS and 300mm AFS with the TC14Eii I have effective FL range of 12mm - 1134mm in just four good lenses.<br>

I have no problem using all the formats available and they offer advantages for every purpose.</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<blockquote>

<p>I have been using the D800E for the last month. I see no reason to keep the D7000</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LG, as a matter of fact you continue to use DX after FF, the only difference is that you got them inside the same box and ready to switch at any moment, so the is no surprise you give up the "external" D7000.<br>

I think the topic was more about the advantage of keeping a DX body when using a FF that only gives up to 5 Mp in DX mode, and this is the reason why I didn't sell the D200 till now. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>For extra reach, can I just crop an FX image? I suppose a DX equivalent from the D800 would be at least as good as the same picture taken with my D200. That's not a fair FX/DX comparison, but L G also mentioned above that his cropped D800E is as good as D7000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem is frame rate. I prefer DX for wildlife photography and I prefer much higher frame rates than 4 per second from the D800.</p>

<p>You can set the D800 in the DX crop mode, but I find it difficult to frame a shot when the viewfinder is FX but the capture area is actually DX. And the D800 is still only 5 frames/sec on DX crop. You need to add the MB-D12 to get to 6 frames/sec in the DX crop mode. Now all of a sudden you have a bulky and expensive set up.</p>

<p>In comparison, the D7000 is 6 frames/sec native. The D300/D300S can reach 8 with the MB-D10. That is why I am still looking forward to the DX DSLR that will eventually replace the D300S. My D800E will mainly be the landscape camera and for testing lenses.</p>

[Stephen L]

<p>Funny, I just made the decision that 2 bodies was the best "upgrade" path from my D90. I just took delivery on the D700 and my DX upgrade will be the next top of the line DX body. I hope it's a D400 rather than a D7100 but we'll see. This way I get to keep the 17-55 and not buy a 24-70 2.8. The only "DX only" lenses I'll be keeping are the 17-55 and the Sigma 30mm 1.4. I'll sell the Tokina 11-16 and buy a 16-35 or 17-35 for the D700. I have the 70-200 VR1 which can be used on both (don't mind the soft corners on FX) My 85mm f/1.4D and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 are absolutely stunning on the D700. My Sigma 150 macro is great on both. I think I'll sell the 70-300 though and get a 300 f/4 - on the fence here.<br>

I felt like I wanted the higher pixel density in a DX body so I could combine the extra reach with the "cropability". I like the D700 for closer work, night shooting, long exposure.<br>

I'll keep the D90 until the D400 is released and the pre-order disaster (which <em><strong>will</strong></em> happen again) is over before I replace it. This way I'll be able to test any downsides to my plan.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Got the D700 since a short while, and I strongly doubt whether I keep the D300. I don't benefit from the extra reach of DX often enough, really; and for my usual photography, the D700 just is a nicer body.<br>

It's not strictly a FX versus DX thing (and I see absolutely zero reasons to call one a loser and the other a winner); the viewfinder of the D700 coupled with some MF lenses I like a lot, and the fact that I tend to use wide apertures with thin DoF way too much, that tips the scale towards this camera. I like the output of the D700 a bit better too (at any ISO).</p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>I have not used my D200 after getting the D700, having been into 35mm slide film for years uncounted before :-)<br>

When I want to travel light I use the non-Nikon E P-1 with the wonderful 45mm f1,8 lens and the less wonderful 17mm pancake.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>I have and use both formats. I actually moved to the D700 for clean images in low light applications, not for its sensor size. Now, Dx cameras approach or exceed what the D700 is capable of.</p>

<p>Fx does have downsides. Lenses for Fx are larger, heavier, and more expensive. The camera and lens combination in Fx are quite a load when traveling. Though to be honest, my D300, and even the smaller consumer DSLRs are still bulky. One does not put any of them into a pocket, and none of them are especially surreptitious when pointed at strangers at large.</p>

<p>Historically 35mm was not selected and then popular because it was 35mm. 35mm film was adapted from movie film of the same width and which was in industrial production. The camera bodies, not larger SLRs initially, were small and light weight. The image quality on 35mm film was always questionable because, for film, it just could not capture enough information for large or art prints. 2 and 1/4 square cameras and larger film formats were used where image quality and print size were important. Most 35mm captures were not very good printed beyond 8"x10" unless the capture was uniquely well done and under the right circumstances.</p>

<p>35mm, like the digital format "wars" currently going on, raised the issue of what image was just "good enough" coupled with convenient enough and economical enough. Smaller film formats attempted in the 70s and 80s largely failed because they were not good enough. The issue of, and history of, "good enough" has been intelligently discussed at The Online Photographer (Mike Johnston's blog) and several time even by David Pogue, in his NY Times' articles about the evolution of digital cameras. They conclude that outstanding images can come from lesser cameras than we discuss here. There is another aspect of "good enough." And that is that "good enough" when applied in the market place can result in inferior products becoming the norm. I can envision FX, or even Dx, as a fading technology in the future as sensors improve and costs of production continue to shrink, with the present bodies becoming similar vestigial technological devices, such as the likes of Matthew Brady's (or Ansel Adams' for that matter) view cameras. (Or worse examples in my lifetime, 8 Track cartridges, or dictophone belts. ;-))</p>

<p>Now, cell phones are in every pocket. The iPhone and competitors are proving "good enough" for the common man. For avid amateurs, and for some professionals too, micro four/thirds is proving good enough for art prints, for news reporting and for some publication purposes. Like the early "miniature" 35mm cameras, before pentaprisms, before reflex mirror humps and boxes, motor drives, honking telephoto lenses and huge electronic flashes, these smaller digital formats are proving good enough, small enough, and -only sometimes - cheap enough.</p>

<p>I look more and more at my Fx setup and I find myself thinking about it the same way I used to think about my double lens reflex 2 1/4" square camera -- it is bulky, clunky at times to use, and I begin think, perhaps a little like Shun Cheung, that the Fx outfit is reserved for when I want to landscape or some project where I do not mind looking as if I am carrying a bazooka. Perhaps one of those Micro 4/3s or the new SONY large sensor pocketable camera will be "good enough."</p>

<p>To get to the more concrete or granular question of the original poster, I prefer Dx for telephoto, for travel - since it is smaller and lighter, and as with another poster above, I sometimes find my D300 sometimes is my macro camera of choice given the effect of its crop factor when using my existing macro lenses.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>To Kent, above,</p>

<p>You may want to give more thought to the contemplated 14-24mm purchase for moving to Fx. I have one, and I love it on the D700. Images at the 12 Mpix degree of resolution are of outstanding quality.</p>

<p>The problem is that expert users are noting that the 14-24mm may not do so well at 36 Mpix. See, e.g., http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/06/30/recommended-lenses-for-the-nikon-d800e/, or http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection, or http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=set_threaded_mode&forum=430&topic_id=1152&prev_page=show_topic&gid=1152#1161. Digital Lloyd, Lloyd Chambers, is reporting that there is a significant focus shift on the 14-24mm in autofocus if using a stopped down aperture, with a significant drop in resolution.<br>

I love my 14-24mm, but my experience is with the D700. As I anticipate getting a 36 Mpix Nikon, I am confronting the fact that I may have to get a different wide angle.</p>

<p>YMMV.</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

Check out these photos taken in the 40's and 50's. The equipment used to take these images (one camera and one prime lens) is now 60

years old, and these images are still brilliant even by today's standard.

 

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2011/08/10-things-henri-cartier-bresson-can-teach-you-about-street-photography/

 

I'm not sure that DX or FX makes a lot of difference in practice. Content always outweighs IQ.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ty, yes, very true. But what's the point?<br>

Does it mean one cannot discuss the merits of one camera over the other? Nobody in this thread actually said you need camera model A or B to get better photos, instead only telling which tools one prefers in our own attempts to shoot one image that comes remotely close to those great ones.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"</em><em>Content always outweighs IQ" </em> Today you can have both.</p>

[lwg]

<blockquote>

<p>The problem is frame rate. I prefer DX for wildlife photography and I prefer much higher frame rates than 4 per second from the D800.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the major limitation of the D800 that I see, and I think the one reason I would consider another camera for a task. But with the D7000, and the D300 I can only think of a few times I shot at full speed. So to me it wasn't a big issue, and certainly nothing I'll carry an extra body for. In the future when Nikon comes out with the 24 or 36mp DX camera at least as good as the D7000 I might buy one, but the problem is I probably wouldn't have it with me when I needed it. So I will sell off the D7000 and put the money towards more glass. Then if I feel the itch that an updated DX camera can scratch I'll consider what's available then. It could be that the 1 series cameras would be an ideal second body, with high frame rates and the telephoto effect I usually want when shooting at those frame rates.</p>