FX and who uses it?

[kylebybee]

<p>This is not a question about FX vs DX, I'm just curious as to who uses the FX format for Nature and Landscape photography. Like are there any professional photographers that use DX or do they all use FX? <br>

Kyle</p>

[rossb]

<p> I do not know what Professionals use that much as they do not really say that often. However my favorite Landscape photographer is Clyde Butcher and he uses Large Format and shoots B/W. Joel Sartore a freelance photographer uses top end FX Nikon camera's for his nature and environmental photos. . I do not know what anyone else uses. </p>

[SCL]

<p>Not professional, but I use what I have...in digital it is DX...so it gets used for landscape. In film, it is the equivalent of FX, so it gets used in landscape. If I had a FX digital camera, I'd use it for landscape. For me, the advantage of a FX digital camera is the ability to get wider shots with my lenses (all of mine are FX). For the most part, I don't think it matters much though, it is all in the vision and ability to use the tools at hand.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>And the <em>advantage</em> of DX is the so-called "multiplication factor" (1.5X on Nikon) for your telephoto lenses.</p>

<p>Of course, its advantage over a crop of the FX, depends on the cameras being relatively the same generation, etc. ....</p>

<p>I am a professional who uses photography, but not a professional photographer, if you please.</p>

[jwallphoto]

<p>I use a Nikon D300s (DX) for all my nature photography needs, from macro to landscape to wildlife. I'm not a professional, but I have produced photos with this equipment that have been sold as framed prints and used in magazines. If I were loaded with $$ and time, I would like to have an 8x10 view camera. Maybe someday. In the near term I am thinking about getting a D800 and the next (hopefully) D400. I would use the D400 with its reach and hopefully better frame rate for birds/wildlife and its smaller file sizes for focus-stacking macro images. I'd use the D800 for landscapes and straight macro. But really, the D300s has been and continues to be an excellent camera for my needs. (I do like to snag the occasional video clip.)</p>

[Two23]

<p>I've gone back to using 4x5 for landscapes and architecture. It's very satisfying to work with.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[starshooter]

<p>The camera manufacturers and the photo magazines make a big todo about the number of megapixels but that number is only incidental to image quality. The size of the sensor, everything else being equal, is important. The bigger the better. Full frame camera should deliver more quality. Another persistant myth is that there are "pro" photogs and the rest of us. A person who makes his living with a camera might use the grungiest old low resolution camera you can think of. Some people take photos that are rarely blown up to 8x10 inch and size and others make prints measured in feet. A "pro" doesn't necessarily do it better. I have a dozen and a half film cameras and a digital Nikon DSLR with lenses from 19mm to 500mm. If I was going to seriously take landscape photographs and blow them up big I'd find me a nice 120-size film camera.<br>

I spent a full year photographing fields of flowers in Santa Barbara County, CA where they grow 3,000 acres for seeds and my best shots were on 120 film. I had a 120 SLR with lenses up to 400mm and another panoram camera that shot slides 2 1/4 inches by seven inches. They knock your socks off.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>The answer is all of the formats. Large and medium format film, medium format digital, FF and APSc, even high end point and shoots. Professional and amateur landscape/nature photographers use what is required for a given situation. For publication, high end P&S can often do the job. For large gallery prints FF, stitched APSc images, MF film or digital. And MF/LF film, although finding really good processing labs is becoming more of a challenge. It's all good in the right hands.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Wayne--<br>

Bigger is not necessarily better. The bigger the format, the less DoF there is. The bigger the format, the less pixel density there is (important for wildlife.) The bigger the format, the heavier the camera system. Each format has its own advantages and disadvantages. Since about 1878, the size of the preferred format has been getting ever smaller. Think of the Deardorff 8x10 in the 1920s giving way to the Graphic 4x5 in the 1940s, and then the Hassleblad/Rolleiflex supplanting that in the 1950s, followed by the Leica and Nikon 35mm taking over in the 1970s, then around 2002. Now, the fastest selling cameras are the M4/3. Actual image quality only needs to be "good enough." If our only criteria for choosing a camera format was image quality, we would all still be shooting Deardorff 8x10 and drum scanning the negs. For me, DX just makes a lot more sense than FX, and I'm beginning to take a very close look at M4/3.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>John W Wall said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I were loaded with $$ and time, I would like to have an 8x10 view camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A D800 is more expensive than a used 8x10 camera and lens. However, the process of shooting with large format is extremely different, as you would imagine. Heavy to carry, must use heavy tripod, expensive sheet film in holders, focus on upside down image with dark cloth over your head, processing, scanning, etc. Its a different art form altogether that you really would want to dedicate yourself to. </p>

[starshooter]

<p>Kent -- I grew up in your neck of the woods but got out a log time ago. You need to get out more.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>The bigger the format, the less DoF there is.</em></p>

<p>This may have been the case if you're fixed to a given film speed like things were in the times when there were labs that processed such ancient materials to any reasonable standard (it was always rare to find a good lab but today they're practically nonexistent).</p>

<p>But given digital technology, FX can always in any given (reasonable i.e. I'm not talking about f/45) practical situation match the DOF of DX when the aim is to produce a shot of the same angle of view, depth of field, tonal quality and shutter speed. What's more the detail tends to remain higher even in the deep DOF case (in the FX shot) given the availability of cameras such as the D800 and the fact that lenses resolve the more coarse spatial frequencies required to make a given print from an FX original at higher contrast than those higher frequencies required to make the same image on DX. On the other end of the DOF scale FX offers much better options of making images with shallower depth of field and better tonality. In practice DX camera users, to get high quality images, are limited to a few ISO and aperture choices that can be reasonably used, whereas FX users can choose very broadly both in the aperture and ISO scale.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If you're interested in seeing what some of the top nature photographers (both amateur and professional) in the world use, see the BBC Wildlife Magazine / Veolia Environnement / Natural History Museum Wildlife Photographer of the Year book (or the corresponding online gallery). They list gear details for each prized shot. FX is very popular even among wildlife photographers at this level (though 1.3x/1.5x/1.6x also are commonly used). MF is almost nonexistent in this competition (one or two shots per year, typically).</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>MFD is primarily a landscape or studio format although with patience and luck it can be used almost anywhere. The Pentax 645D, like the Pentax 645 film bodies before it, was designed primarily as a landscape/nature camera rather than a wedding or wildlife camera. A prepared photographer uses the appropriate tools for a given job. That's why my gear room still has medium and large format film, an Olympus point and shoot, a 645D and a K-5. I use what works best for a given situation that I'm likely to encounter.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If it wasn't obvious, landscape photography does have a category of its own in the competition I mentioned (also there are several other categories where they may be submitted). But the main landscape category is specified in such a way that it favours people who go to extreme locations. </p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>My take on it is that "in general" when you pack the same number of pixels into a smaller sensor, the more noise is generated, especially at the higher ISO's</p>

<p>Yes cameras / sensors have made strides, but some of the strides comes from post processing - the noise reduction algorithms have gotten better, but there is a loss, IMHO, of detail as a result.</p>

<p>Some talk about the crop being an advantage with telephoto, but it's a MAJOR dis advantage when it comes to wide angle shots. Many of my landscapes are shot with a very wide angle. Some examples:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7910446904/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7596838244/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7588644534/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7588204544/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7585004710/</p>

<p>Getting these shots would have been difficult with a cropped sensor, or buying yet another, very expensive lense</p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Most have both, especially if Nature means birds or action shooting. They will use the FX if they can afford the FX cameras and top quality lenses lenses they need. And they will probably still have a DX body if they need the mag factor of the sensor and/or the higher frame rates of the shutter. <br>

Joe Smith</p>

[kylebybee]

<p>I find the discussion of FX and DX use for landscape interesting and confusing at the same time. There are those who say that it doesn't matter and those that say it does. Maybe what I eventually will do is rent an FX camera and lens and go out and determine this for my self. Thank you for everyone's input.<br>

Kyle</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>While APS and FF cameras coexist, the FF will likely always exert a siren call for those obsessed with quality: this is a long standing tradition. Of course APS can work very nicely for landscape...but most people feel that FF is better. In practice it probably makes little difference except that Canon and Nikon, the 2 professional big boys, put their best eggs in the FF basket: also helping to stamp these systems with the "professional" label.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I own both full-frame and crop-sensor bodies and use the full-frame for birds and wildlife because its AF is superior to the crop sensor by a couple of orders of magnitude. If the crop-sensor had equal AF, then I'd use it for birds and wildlife because it's higher pixel-density can yield better detailed shots. Still, AF precision, speed and consistency is more important than pixel density.</p>

<p>So, the answer will vary by the bodies being compared.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>For what nature photography I do in digital, I use FX (Nikon D700) and my AIS Nikkor lenses but I also still like shooting 35mm and 6x6/6x4.5 medium format with my Hasselblad.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>I have never used anything but FX in digital, and only use it for color, since printing color slides or negatives is getting very expensive and paper and chemicals getting harder to find all the time. My default for black and white, however, is a Hasselblad and Kodak T-MAX 100 film.</p>