Those who upgraded to FX and those dual format users...

[RaymondC]

<p>Hi, I was just thinking about my lenses and thought of this and I don't have that much lenses. </p>

<p>For those who went to FX, you guys took a hit on your DX bodies and lenses right?</p>

<p>And, for those dual format users be it DX and FX digital or maybe you shoot film also. Do you guys find it a chore and that it feels unnecessary that you need to fulfill two line of lenses. For example, that DX wide zoom lens, a mid zoom, and a lens more suitable for travel. </p>

<p>Also, are there any here that primarily shoot primes? B/c I am in that boat. One of those slow low volume shooters. At break-point, those that have zooms and primes is that nice to have or do you consider it more critical? </p>

[Jerry_]

<p>It depends on how much weight you think it is necessary to carry around all day with you. I've yet to meet a "lightweight" FX body (and I've a Niklon D3 and a Nikon D700.) If you go to the streets in New Orleans for Mardi Gras (for one example,) hiking around with a couple of those "useless DX" lenses and a much lighter DX body, chances are good you will not see a vast amount of difference in your images at the end of the day. And, of course, you do know that Nikon (for some reason....) has the crop option in the FX body, so if need be, you can shoot with a "useless DX" lens, if you wish.</p>

<p>The choice would be yours to make....</p>

<p>Please check the link below for a "useless" DX lens image...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/16267412</p>

<p>and please remember, the lens-body are tools for you to work with.</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>DX lenses are useless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was a pretty good place to stop reading.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Never bought a DX lens, always used my FX lenses on DX and film bodies. IMHO it was a good marketing ploy to sell more lenses, and a lot of people went for it. Ho-hum - there's one born every minute........, now to rename the Brooklyn bridge, repaint it and find a buyer..... :>)</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I have owned two DX bodies and three FX bodies, and of course used film for over 25 years. I have owned about 35 lenses with most of the change over occuring in the past 8 years. I made a point of never owning a DX lens. I have used DX and FX bodies side by side for about 3 years and am currently limited to FX only. </p>

<p>You don't need a set of lenses for each format because the reasons for having two formats is completely different. That is to say, for instance, that you don't need a superwide DX lens because that is what your superwide FX lens on your FX body is for. The DX body simply gets you a different view for your FX lenses.</p>

<p>I have a few reasons for wanting to have a DX body again.</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of sports and that means a lot of shutter actuations. I would really like to not kill my FX body and get those shutter actuations distributed over two bodies.</p>

<p>I have not yet had the right cameras to be able to prove it, but I do feel the best crop sensors are worth having over the best FX sensors for supertelephoto photography. I used to use a Nikon 400/2.8 ED AIS and 1.4x on DX, but am now limited to full frame, so I prefer the option of buying a used high MP DX body at less than half the cost of a used 600/4 ED AIS that I would have to use on FX for similar view/MP. In general terms a DX body will allow one to buy the smaller FX supertelephoto lens, like my situation. It is easier to wield a 400/2.8 than 600/4 and similarly a 600/4 is easier to deal with than an 800/5.6, not to mention the increase in lens speed as well.</p>

<p>The third advantage to DX bodies for me is the increased frame rate. I have been taking sports photos for over 25 years and really don't have a problem capturing the moment that I want with one shot. However, I did have an 8 fps DX body for a couple of years and it did allow me to get lazy, at least while shooting, and it did help in image capture about 3% of the time. Unfortunately it made for ridiculous amounts of time editing out images and then ridiculous amounts of time for post processing, only leading to more editing! Talk about shutter actuations and constant changing of memory cards!</p>

<p>Oh, and those 35 lenses, all but 6 were primes. I currently have one zoom and four primes. All those lens changes occurred as I made the change from manual focus film days directly to digital, and having juggled both Canon and Nikon equipment for the past few years, and all while improving image quality. As I am slowly achieving my "dream" lens set the changes are becoming fewer and fewer, with only one lens to get rid of now, and two or three more to get. Every few years I keep telling myself that I need a zoom, so I buy one, and then I never zoom it, so what is the point. I'd rather have two primes than one zoom. </p>

<p>Good luck.<br>

</p>

 

[andylynn]

I used to shoot DX and film. That was a bit of a pain because the fact that lenses I could use on film with a

reasonable wide angle - say, my 28-75/2.8 Tamron, we're not wide angle on DX, and I didn't have an FX ultrawide, so

I couldn't really have just one set of lenses. Then I got out of DX and went to using a D700 and F100, which makes

lens selection so much easier. 50mm primes act like they ought to on both cameras, and lately I've been able to use

my new 24-85, my 70-300 and my 50/1.8G as something very close to a complete set of lenses without having to

spend all that much - with a few others that have more specialized purposes. It's definitely easier to only use one of

the formats. If you're shooting digital only and you don't have a need for FX I think you can do fine sticking with DX

and getting DX lenses. DX usually saves you money and weight, and if you can't get a good image from a D7000

you're doing something wrong.

[kohanmike]

<p>I thought this forum was specifically meant for people who do not look to flame and criticize. I'm a professional photographer and only use a Dx system, was D70s, now D300s. Most of my lenses are Dx, third party too. My clients have no idea what equipment I use, they are extremely happy with the results. I shoot side-by-side with Canon users, Fx users, and none of us care what the other uses, we just fulfill the job, each in our own way, and happily work together. My photos have been published in magazines, newspapers, catalogues, billboards, posters and not once did it matter what equipment I used.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>DX lenses are useless.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>One of the dumbest statements I have ever read on photo.net.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I contemplated a partial move to FX a few times already and so far always rejected it because I considered the cost-to-benefit ratio rather poor. Now that used D700 bodies are in what I consider a reasonable price range - and with the chance of a possibly sub-$2000 (or slightly above) FX body (D600) on the horizon, I will re-evaluate. But if Nikon brings out a high-end DX D400 instead (or in addition), then I doubt my decision will be in favor of the FX body. Mostly, DX works for me and on the technical side, I only see small benefits (and a few drawbacks) for getting an FX body. I can't justify the expense of $1500-$2000 FX lenses; most certainly not when prime lenses are considered. In contrast to my previous considerations that mostly revolved around an almost complete move towards FX, I am nowadays only considering a partial one - mostly consisting of just getting a body as I have enough lenses that will work with it (and possibly replacing some as time progresses and Nikon brings new lenses to the market).</p>

<p>One reason (probably the main one) for me to get an FX body would be to use my 16-35/4VR with it - this would replace the 12-24/4DX I am currently using. I would also look forward to use the 20/4 Ai, 28/2.8Ai-S, and 105/2.5 Ai on an FX body again - though I consider this a rather small incentive.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i kept my DX lenses when i went FX. wouldn't say they are "useless" since they helped me to get some shots. for me, the dual format was out of necessity--needed the hi-ISO performance. if there was a DX body with that same performance i probably wouldn't have switched, but then again, i didn't have all-DX lenses to begin with. i wouldn't say having two lines of lenses is completely unnecessary, because DX bodies and some glass are still more compact than FX, also because FX glass works on DX bodies for, yes, extra reach. There IS some redundancy, but the biggest hiccup is probably the fact that you need two ultrawides. in other words, while a 24-70 and 70-200 can be adapted to either format, and the advantages of DX are apparent on a 70-300, an FX ultrawide is merely wide on DX. no real way around that, and that's a pain when i bring a DX and an FX body to shoot an event -- since i can't switch bodies and change equivalent focal lengths from ultrawide to tele completely effortlessly.</p>

<p>after just returning from SE Asia, i'm still debating the travel kit question, and considering m4/3 and other mirrorless options--which would be a third system. can't say i look forward to the outlay of cash, but an even more compact kit with equivalent performance to what i have now would be a plus. Will i sell off my DX kit at that point? probably not. i still find my 17-50/50-150 setup remarkably versatile for most applications. but if i do invest in m4/3, it will be hard to justify new lenses for either DX or FX. the only one i really want at this point is the sigma 8-16 (and maybe the 24/1.4).</p>

<p>the fly in the ointment right now is, what does nikon have down the pike,i.e. rumored D400 and d600. either one could conceivably work for me, but probably not both, unless i win the lottery. this uncertainty is what's keeping me from pulling the trigger on an OM-D, but in the meantime, m4/3 is looking more and more attractive, with more and more good lenses appearing almost daily, especially since a second body can be had at the sub-$500 mark.</p>

<p>however, if you're a committed nikon shooter, you pretty much have to stick with what they're offering. if you shoot mainly primes and dont have many DX lenses, than FX seems like a natural upgrade path. or at least it did last year. casual shooters who don't do sports, action, or editorial, i think, have to seriously consider whether one of the new cameras , i.e., OM-D or XPro1 with a three-prime set up, will do everything they need it to do, or whether it makes more sense to stick with nikon. it would be an easier call if nikon had taken the same route as canon with mirrorless, i.e. make current lenses accessible via an adapter. because they didn't, the Nikon 1 series seems like a dead end, much more so than either DX or FX as formats.</p>

<p> </p>

[kohanmike]

<p>Let me add that since 1972 I used Nikon F2 bodies, but when I switched to Dx digital in 2006, I never looked back. I actually have no intention of going Fx.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Hmmmm. DX lenses are useless, BUT are they more or less useless than zooms? What about Crappy Kit Lenses™? What is really true here is that MY way of shooting is not only BETTER than yours, it is the ONLY way.</p>

<p>BTW, why is it an 'upgrade' to 'go full-frame'? I cannot remember hearing the word 'upgrade' applied to photography before about 1998-2000.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>DX lenses are useless.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That was a pretty good place to stop reading.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>couldn't agree more. Curtis, your statements don't have much to back them up except rhetoric. And your experiences don't reflect a HECK of a lot of people here on photo.net, many of whom are working pros...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>After I bought my first FX camera in Jan 2007, I held onto my DX camera for about six months until an affordable FX backup became available, at which point I sold the DX camera and my only DX lens, the 17-55. I did take a hit on it, but since I had bought it for $1100 the hit wasn't so bad.</p>

<p>Since I used 35mm film before DX and was mostly a prime shooter I didn't consider DX a viable replacement for 35mm film as they never made proper wide angle primes for DX; it seemed like Nikon was only half-committed to the format. I still think that way and thanks to the D800's high pixel density there is no longer a significant motivation to keep a DX camera around for reach purposes (for me), so I just use FX now for everything. I'm very happy about the FX lens lineup which is very thorough; a few lenses could use updates such as the 300/4 to VR, and 135/2 to AF-S, and I'm hoping to see those lenses soon. Other than that I do not have further photography equipment needs and expect only very minor changes in the next decade or two; autofocus technology will certainly evolve, but sensors are very close to theoretical ideal. I can just forget the gear and focus on the content of my photography, which is the best state of affairs as far as I'm concerned.</p>

<p>Regarding primes vs. zooms; I have both, and use them both, depending on the requirements of the situation I pack the lenses that I expect to need during the day in my bag. If I had to choose only primes or zooms, I would pick the primes, but don't necessarily recommend that choice to others. </p>

[vrankin]

<p>Smaller/less expensive DX bodies and lenses have been good to me. I'm not a pro, just shoot around 6k images per year. No need for an FX here. By the way, one of my favorite lenses is a DX 35mm/1.8 but it doesn't have to make me a prime shooter exclusively. My zooms shoot just as satisfying images as the "prime". There are so many ways to go and get truly great images. Why be doctrinaire? </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the motivation behind choosing either a set of primes or a set of zooms is not doctrine but cost. If you have to get both then building the system may seem like a never-ending, and costly venture.</p>

[edwardchen]

<p>i was in DX system. There are pros and cons in both DX and FX systems. In my line of work, 90% i don't use tripod so high iso performance is essential to me and in that regard, FX system has more advantage than DX (for now).<br>

<br />Have been using FX system for 2 years and i never looking back.</p>

[western_isles]

<p>I came to Nikon digital after 20+ years of shooting medium format including Hassellblad and Mamiya. I still own to two Mamiya 7 bodies plus a set of wide to short tele lens and I still enjoy using them. It is my intention to keep them. For those who are not familiar with Mamiya 7 they are all prime lens and are stunning quality.<br>

The move to digital started with a D200 and a kit lens, 18-70 and added a 55-200 which I recently sold on. At the time finance was a factor but the DX lenses were ok and even sold images commercially although not as many as my Mamiya kit.<br>

I have now converted to a D700 and prime lenses as I feel that a prime give the best quality. However, there are some very good DX lens around and I think they have a place for a lot of people. If they did not, Nikon would not develop and sell them, nor would Canon and other camera manufacturere. These are hard nosed buisness people and they do not squander resources. <br>

Primes mean that you have to move around a potential shot looking for different angles and trying to see how close or far away is best. You also you need to carry more of them but I believe that the quality more than makes up for this drawback.<br>

I only have one DX lens left for the D200 which I still use but I also use the primes on the DX body and they work a treat.<br>

If you are on a budget DX are fine and you always add primes when finances allow the way I did. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Curtis, look at your original post again, please...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>DX lenses are useless... They are complete garbage and in no way compare to my professional full frame primes... </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A 17-55 f2.8 is not "garbage". Different tools for different tasks... not everyone who posts here is a working pro, and even many of those simply can't afford the "dream rig" you describe.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You will commonly hear all kinds of nonsense about how wild life photographers enjoy cropped sensors for the so called "extra reach"... </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Nonsense? Some of them do indeed find it much more practical to use a DX sensor with a long tele lens and find the advantage of the crop to be a benefit that helps them get shots they wouldn't otherwise easily obtain. We see it all the time, from the serious amateurs on this page (we've had this discussion before), to some of the pros whose work we enjoy in magazines and such.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /><br />...If having multiple focal lengths on the fly is a must then carry 2 professional bodies. Each one containing a different lens. Again this is what a lot of big pros do... ...I also see it regularly at weddings. I guy will run two D3s bodies, with a 24 F1.4 on one and an 85 F1.4 on the other...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>First, again... not everyone here is a working pro, and many of those who are would rather use zooms for one reason or another. Your wedding ceremony is a perfect example. I worked at a church for several years (2005 - 11), and was the guy who provided technical support (for sound, lights, etc.) for the facility for those events. I can count on one hand the number of photographers who came through and shot weddings who used even ONE prime... in fact, on one finger. Every one of those "regular workaday photographers" had a pair of cameras (almost always crop sensor), one with a wide to short tele zoom (like a 17-55) and the other with a tele zoom (70/80-200). One of them pulled out a macro for close shots. Not one of them used a tele prime or wide prime or even standard prime.</p>

<p>I have to ask, is your tone always this inflammatory?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>How many DX lenses do you see here?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Poor examples that don't prove a thing - how many DX tele zooms or primes can you list? DX by now may not be the format of choice for working pros - but that doesn't justify the asinine "DX lenses are useless" statement.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Curtis - </p>

<p>I guess I'm the idiot - because I regularly shoot weddings with a D700, D300 and D7000. And get great results. </p>

<p>I use the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 DX - but I know a lot of Dx shooters who swear by the 17-55 f2.8 Nikon. (it weighs about the same as my 28-70 f2.8) and is a great lens - but oh - wait - it's dx - so that makes it garbage? I don't think so. </p>

<p>Most dx lenses are squarely in the consumer glass realm - would I shoot a paying gig with them? No - but for what they are designed for - they do the job quite well. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Curtis<br>

All of the lenses you show will are as it where DX lenses. Any Nikon lens AI or newer will mount and produce images on any Nikon DX camera. <br>

But then you probably know that and are just interested in stirring the pot.<br>

DX works well for me and most of the folks I shoot against and with are using crop cameras. Makes life easier to only have to carry a 300 f/2.8 instead of a 400 f/2.8. Less cost less weight so where is the down side?<br>

As an aside I would bet you that 95% of the Canon cameras you see in those shots are crop cameras.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>None because Nikon and Canon couldn't be bothered to make any</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are missing the point - there is very little advantage to make a DX tele zoom or prime to begin with. OK, a 50-150/2.8 VR DX lens would be nice (but not if is as big and heavy as Sigma's latest offering). But a 70-200/2.8 DX or 300/4 (or anything longer) DX is pointless. Other than price, I don't see a compelling reason for the 55-300 DX as well - I'd certainly get the 70-300 VR instead. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing will ever top the usual primes, 24, 50, 85 in ƒ1.4</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not if you need to shoot a f/1.4 - but I doubt you'd see a meaningful difference between them and the 28/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 once you stop down a couple of f-stops. And the whole set can be had for less than the price of the 24/1.4 or 85/1.4.</p>

<p>And yes, for some, price is an issue.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>As to the OP's question - did I take a hit when I switched to a D700? No - because I kept my D200, D300 and D7000 and still use them to this day as 2nd bodies, 1st bodies and backups. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Ahh yes and back to the original question and not the trolling. I do not take a hit from my lenses because I still shoot D,X FX, 35mm film, medium format as well as 4X5 and 8X10.<br>

Granted not a one of the lenses I own is DX specific. Never could understand buying a F mount lens that would not work on all of my F mount body's </p>