Rationale of moving from DX to FX

[Mike_R1664876643]

<p>I shoot mainly landscapes, but use my camera for travel/personal photos as well. I have a Zenfolio site where I offer my prints for sale and after I retire in the next 6 months I hope to expand my business sales, possibly selling at craft fairs, framed prints directly to businesses, etc. Currently I shoot with my D300s which I've only owned for 3 years. It seems like technology has already passed my camera by yet I feel I've hardly broken it in. Maybe the moral is to stay off the internet, and not read all the posts and articles saying you need the latest and greatest camera, and only the most expensive lenses to take a decent photo. <br>

The only lenses I have are the 16-85VR DX, 70-300VR, 80-200 2.8 AF-ED, 35mm f2.0, and 50mm F1.8 AFD. I don't know at this point whether I should "upgrade" to the FX format, either to a D600 or D800, or do I just continue shooting with my D300s for now? Would FX offer a whole lot more for landscape photography over DX, but at 2-3 times the price when you factor in top lenses? I'm sure there are many others in the same boat as I am, shooting D200's, D300/s's, and possibly D7000's, and not sure whether we should move up to FX, just keep what we have and be happy, or wait and see where Nikon goes with the DX format. So far Nikon doesn't seem to want to show its hand on the DX format. I've been looking at the D800 and D600. I'm just not sure of the rationale of moving up from DX, or is it really moving up at all? </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>With FX you can access higher resolution, greater dynamic range, smoother tones, and better quality wide angle lenses (all small differences in isolation, but put together may be significant). It costs money, yes. Do you need it? I do not know. You already have many FX lenses, so all you need is something like a 24-70 to cover the wide angle end. Although the 24-85 and 24-120 are good lenses their corner sharpness is not all that great, which is why, money permitting, I would get the 24-70 which is my most often used lens for landscape.</p>

<p>Whether you should get an FX camera you can decide best by trying one out (either D600 or D800 would be good choices) if you have a local store that lets you test it outdoors, or a friend. Without trying it out yourself, it's difficult to make these kinds of subjective determinations since one person's significant difference may not be it for another.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Moving up? Yes, from a smaller to a bigger format. It will be more expensive but as I see it there are several advantages, some of which have corresponding disadvantages.<br>

First there is the advantage/disadvantage of smaller depth of field. This is great for isolating subjects - 35mm and bigger is great for portraiture. It's easier to throw the background out of focus. But for macro work smaller formats are better.<br>

Secondly there is the difference in reach. DX is probably better for birds and wildlife, FX for landscapes which will suit you.<br>

Nikon seems to have a more comprehensive range of lenses/accessories for FX.</p>

 

[angkordave]

<p>I moved from a D300s to FF (Canon 5D2 rather than Nikon) The higher resolution of 24mp for the D600 is going to be a big leap forward for landscape or portrait for that matter. Also the low light performance; the D300s was disappointing over 1000ISO.<br>

Low light may not be so important; but if you go for a 20+mp FF camera with good lenses; you will realize that the D300S was not as good as you thought it was.<br>

You could consider a D7000 which has a bit more resolution; or wait and see whether Nikon upgrade the D300S with a much better performing sensor.</p>

[doug andrews]

<p>Mike I'm in a similar situation as you. I'm a landscape shooter with a six year old D200 and am considering making the move to FX. I only have one DX lens (Tokina 12-24mm) and am still using my old FX lenses I acquired when I was a film shooter. Being tight on funding, I just can't swing a new FX body and upgrading my lenses as well. I'm greatly tempted by the D600 but am also curious to see if Nikon will bring out a D400. If I've held on this long with the D200, I guess I can wait a little longer to see what comes out. But the upgrade bug is really starting to bite down on me.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Isn't the D3200 currently the Nikon DSLR with the highest resolution: 24MP on DX equates to 54MP on FX? Isn't the pixel pitch what ultimately determines resolution - provided the lenses hold up (and they should have a bigger problem with the D3200 sensor than with the one in the D800? I'm sure one can find an outfit to remove the AA filter from the D3200 sensor - to give you an additional edge. Given all the reports that only the best lenses work well on the D800 and that many were taxed to work well on the D7000 - the question seems whether there actually is any lens that will work well with the D3200 sensor.</p>

<p>I'm reluctant to make the move to FX as I don't see advantages for my kind of shooting - my "serious" side of photography benefits from DX. I don't even want a mixed DX/FX setup - it's just more to carry and to spend money on. I might jump at an opportunity to pick up a used D700 if the price comes down more - but I'm not even sure about that. Seems that I will only move to FX if Nikon forces my hand by not providing me with a high-end DX camera any more. I have quite a few FX lenses - but most of them I expect to work really well on an FX camera. And it appears that Nikon's mid-priced FX lenses are indeed second tier only while still demanding high (> $1000) prices (almost as if intentionally not designed for optimum optical quality to drive people to spend top dollar on the top tier). If Nikon can design a lens like the 14-24/2.8 and sell it for $2000, can't I expect them to produce a 16-35/4 for $1300 that is optically as good?</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Generally speaking, FX has two advantages: better high ISO results (especially after down sampling) and better wide-angle lenses. If you don't also have budget for some good lenses, I see little point to upgrade to FX.</p>

<p>Speaking of lenses, for landscape photography, I am not entirely happy with the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S, which is weak into the corners. I haven't used the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR, but it looks like it has a lot of distortion and other issues on the wide end. The 14-24mm/f2.8 is good but cannot take filters. For wide angle lenses, my favorite for landscape photography is the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E. Perhaps some of those third-party manual focus (Zeiss, etc.) 25mm, 21mm are good for landscape work, but I haven't tried those myself.</p>

[andreas_manessinger]

I see only one real reason why I would go for FX, and that is shallow DOF. If your landscape photography is

not VERY non-traditional, this will most likely not apply. Wide angle lenses are something to consider, but

with the Sigma 8-16 around I don't see a reason either. It's not as good as the Nikon 14-24, but for less

than half the price it does not fall short by that much. And high ISO? For landscapes? Not really.

 

Personally I went the other way: I am currently selling my Nikon gear, D300 and about 20 lenses, and

completely switch to the Olympus OM-D. Its performance is equal to or better than that of the D300, and

its weight literally takes away a burden. One camera and four lenses in a small bag at 1kg total? Try that

with a DSLR!

 

That's just for a counterpoint :)

[john_a5]

<p>I think the reasons to move from DX to FX have been covered. Any advantages are moot if you don't need them though. Most landscape shooters don't care that much about high ISO, you just expose longer as you are generally on a tripod anyway. Moving the ISO up is only advantageous if long exposure noise has caused you problems, the wind is blowing and/or the noise is not an issue at that higher ISO you are using. Wider lenses aren't needed unless you always feel you don't have a lens that is wide enough.</p>

<p>Yes, stop searching the web or reading consumer photo magazines, they are all about selling the latest greatest--well, advertising dollars and being friendly to the advertisers. If you are getting the results you want with the cameras you have, then why change? If you know you have some deficiency of results--or for how you want to shoot--then find equipment that will solve those issues. Bottom line, you only need equipment good enough to do what you want to do or be able to use your equipment (and be happy) in a way that it optimizes what it can do.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The question of "upgrading" to FX is very much like the old film question of whether you should shoot 35mm or 6x4.5cm.<br>

They are two <em>different</em> formats.<br>

If you compare within the same generation of each, then some of the advantages of FX over DX are less important, at least so far as number of pixels and image quality go.</p>

<p>The best of all worlds is to have one of each, just as some of us still shoot both 35mm and 120 film to this day, even though we also shoot digital.</p>

<p>For people who already have a large library of DX-only lenses, that should be a consideration. Otherwise, just keep the DX camera for telephoto work and such, and get a nice FX body for wideangle, etc.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>It's probably worth summarising at this point because there are some conflicting/confusing statements: Ilkka says you get higher resolution with FX, Dieter says you get higher resolution with DX. Shun says there are (generally speaking) two advantages to FX but several others have been mentioned too.</p>

<p>FX advantages:<br>

higher resolution<br>

greater dynamic range<br>

smoother tones<br>

better quality wide angle lenses<br>

smaller depth of field<br>

better high ISO results</p>

<p>DX advantages:<br>

Cheaper<br>

greater depth of field<br>

longer reach<br>

greater resolution.</p>

<p>As regards resolution Ilkka and Dieter are both right. Currently the D3200 has the greatest resolution but FX has the greater potential for high resolution.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It's moving sideways, I think. DX has distinct advantages, as does FX. Both formats have their time and place. Given the kind of use you specify, I think the question really comes down to the lenses.</p>

<p>The 16-85VR is not exactly cheap, but it is a very good lens, in my view, excellent for landscapes: ideal range and optically very good. Replacing it on FX is either going to cost more (24-120 f/4 VR is about twice the price and quite a bit bigger and heavier), or give you less range (24-85VR) - it's not the easiest lens to replace (one of the reasons I am not selling my D300 yet).<br>

The argument for wide angles - well, yes, there may be better FX wide angle lenses. But those better lenses all have price tags to match. There is nothing close to the price/performance of the Tokina 12-24 f/4 I have.... it's again going to cost at least double to replace it (which is the Tokina 17-35 f/4, which can hardly be found in shops, else the Nikon 16-35VR). And those DX wide angles are really not that bad. Or at least, mine isn't.</p>

<p>For me, the rationale in getting FX was depth of field control - less DoF with very wide apertures, and a better viewfinder for manual focus - and on both accounts, the D700 delivers plenty (as would a D600 or D800). But for landscapes, the advantages of the D700 aren't nearly as profound for me, I must say. If it would be only for landscape work, I would not have bought FX.</p>

[orcama60]

<p><strong><em>The best of all worlds is to have one of each, just as some of us still shoot both 35mm and 120 film to this day, even though we also shoot digital.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em><br /></em></strong>I do agree with JDM von Weinberg. </p>

[Mike_R1664876643]

<p>Thanks everyone for your comments. All are excellent and give me something to think about. Wouter, I've been thinking the same thing about super wide-angle zooms. I've read where some say FX is better suited for wide angle photography, but it seems like the options for wide angle on DX are as least good as FX for a lot less money (other than the Nikon 14-24mm, quality-wise). I had the Tokina 12-24 version I, which was outstanding and sharper than my Nikno lenses, but regretably I sold it thinking my 16-85DX would be wide enough. I would buy another in a heartbeat, or maybe even the Nikon 10-24, but I have no idea if Nikon will ever come out with an updated DX camera even at the D7000 level. I hesitate buying any more DX glass right now. Maybe the smart thing to do is to just wait another 6-12 months to see what's on the horizon, then decide which path to take. Maybe I could even pick up a 2nd hand super wide angle zoom to get me through.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I have no idea if Nikon will ever come out with an updated DX camera even at the D7000 level. I hesitate buying any more DX glass right now. Maybe the smart thing to do is to just wait another 6-12 months to see what's on the horizon, then decide which path to take.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the part that Nikon seems to overlook in its current marketing strategy. Nikon's plan/hope seems to be that people will buy into FX because there is no news about the future of DX - and many oblige. I'm with you here, I'll wait. Hope there are more. DX might indeed be dying by being choked by its own makers. <strong><br /></strong></p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The only lenses I have are the 16-85VR DX, 70-300VR, 80-200 2.8 AF-ED, 35mm f2.0, and 50mm F1.8 AFD.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>fact of the matter is, moving to FX would leave you with no suitable wide angle option, so you'd have to add that to the cost. FX UWAs are generally much more expensive than their DX counterparts; for instance, the tokina 11-16 is about $700 new, less used. the sigma 8-16 is $650. OtOH, the nikon 16-35 is $1259 at B&H; the nikon 14-24 around $2000. which brings us to:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would FX offer a whole lot more for landscape photography over DX, but at 2-3 times the price when you factor in top lenses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really. You'd get 1 stop more DoF with DX and if you need more resolution, the d3200 is only $500. I say not really, because while FX has a different "look" than DX, at base ISO the difference will only be apparent to pixel peepers.</p>

<p>Of course, Nikon's marketing department doesn't really want you to know this. With the resultant buzz stemming from the d600/d800 releases, they're counting on NAS to push their profit margins higher. I'm not sure you even need a new camera; sounds to me like you could add the 11-16 and/or 8-16 and have a pretty good setup with your current camera. Remember, the FX format was introduced before these two lenses came out; prior to that, the conventional wisdom was that FX made more sense for wide-angle landscape shooters. Today, that philosophy is somewhat antiquated, although opinions still persist otherwise. Besides better UWA DX glass, the introduction of higher-resolution DX bodies underlines this point. Correct technique,i.e. tripod-mounted, and post-processing will be as much of a factor in creating great photos. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>FX advantages:<br />higher resolution</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not always the case. Within this year, Nikon introduced the 16MP FX-format D4 but a 24MP DX-format D3200. In other words, DX can have a higher resolution than FX. In fact, there is only one Nikon DSLR, namely the D800/D800E twin, that has higher resolution than the D3200.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>there is only one Nikon DSLR, namely the D800/D800E twin, that has higher resolution than the D3200.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's more MP but IMO, it isn't higher resolution - the 24MP of the D3200 are the equivalent of 54MP on FX. The D800 has very similar resolution to the D7000. Or what am I seeing wrong here?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Too add to the above - if I'm not mistaken, then the spatial resolution of the D3200 is about 130 lp/mm and the one for the D800 sensor is 103 lp/mm. Even higher is the resolution of the 10.1 MP V1: 147 lp/mm.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Dieter, thanks for those numbers. That explains why shots on my V1 with my 300mm f4 AF-S @ f 6.3 are some of the sharpest I've ever taken. Nice still day on a good tripod, electronic shutter, using the best centre area of coverage.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>As far as price goes, the Nikon 18-35 is, what, $600 new? The Sigma 12-24 is $875, Tokina's 16-28 is on sale for $750, their 17-35 — $600. IMO it's a bit silly to compare the price of third party DX lenses to Nikkor FX lenses. Even Nikon's DX wide zooms (ex: 12-24) are quite pricey. The DX lenses are, however, a fair bit lighter.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Like many, I'm biding my time while we see what Nikon does with DX. I'm not a landscape guy, but shoot some in that mode as needs arise.<br /><br />So, I'm still using the D300 when I need its very good AF performance and frame rate. And for a lightweight go-body, I've been playing with the new D3200. I can tell you that when you use the D3200 carefully, and use half decent glass ... it's really quite surprising. Those 24mp are <em>not</em> wasted. Quality is meaningfully limited by - in my experience - AF performance more than anything else. Which is to say, it would be no concern at all for a thoughtful landscape photographer. <br /><br />With proper exposure, the D3200's output is really quite glorious. Skin tones are certainly better than on the D300 in similar circumstances, and the extra cropability makes for lots of compositional options. For me, that cute little D3200 has already paid for itself a few times over. Just on a macro-intensive product shoot alone, those 6000-pixels of horizontal output data were a huge help. So it's earned its keep, is doing some video stunts for me now, and I'm just holding my breath for whatever happens next, DX-wise. Not ruling out a D600 or D800 for certain tasks, but I'm not in love with either of them, yet. Always little compromises that give pause. A D3200's sensor in a D300's body with an even better-than-D300 AF module would be terrific.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Even Nikon's DX wide zooms (ex: 12-24) are quite pricey</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really liked that lens - I bought it 2005 used for $800 and just recently traded it in, together with a 80-200/2.8, for a 70-200/2.8 VR. Exorbitantly overpriced at its current price though - it doesn't have much more going for it over the Tokina 12-24 than a slightly better resistance to flare. Makes it a tough sell too - even used it costs more than a Tokina new (but around half price from new even for excellent condition copies).</p>

[angkordave]

<blockquote>

<p>As far as price goes, the Nikon 18-35 is, what, $600 new? The Sigma 12-24 is $875, Tokina's 16-28 is on sale for $750, their 17-35 — $600. IMO it's a bit silly to compare the price of third party DX lenses to Nikkor FX lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It don't see the relevance of the price comparison. I have used Nikon and Canon Pro glass and several Sigma wides and from an image quality point of view the IQ are just as good. For DX the Sig 10-20 and 8-16 are excellent with low barrel distortion.<br>

I'll endorse the Sigma 12-24 (I have 2 one for Nikon and another for Canon) For Full frame the Sig 12-24 is widest available. Its a slow lens but as a landscape and architectural lens it is very sharp across the frame at F8 and very usable wide open at 24mm.<br>

Once you get into FF lens distortion is more noticeable and that goes for Nikon and Canon L lenses as well.<br>

A sigma 12-24 has virtually no distortion on DX; but if you put one on an FX body you will get a degree of Barrel distortion at 15 -12mm; but at 24mm virtually none. I use the 12-24 in preference to any other for wide landscape shots because it has no significant distortion or vignetting at the longer end.<br>

Overall I think that for Landscape photography pixel count is more important than Sensor format. you will get sharper results with a 24mp DX than a 12mp FX. But if you do have the cash a hi res FX like D800 would be my preference.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>IMO it's a bit silly to compare the price of third party DX lenses to Nikkor FX lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not if you're contemplating a move from DX to FX. why is it silly? the 8-16 and 11-16 have excellent IQ. </p>