FX or DX???

[rachel_rose1]

<p>Hi there,<br /><br />I am looking at a Nikon 3300 to replace my old Olympus E500 and I am looking at going back into the tog business. I used to shoot weddings and bands with my old Olympus DSLR's and they were great cameras to an extent. But it has been years since I last bought a digital SLD and the market is different now to what it was. </p>

<p>I am looking at the DX sensor, not FX (I cant affrod a full frame) and wondering how many (if any) professionals here use DX format for wedding photography, or professionally at all?<br>

<br />Anything other than sensors I should look for to give a more professional edge ?</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>For several years pro photographers have been using DX cameras; the D3 was the first FX, from 2007, the D700 was released in 2008.<br /> The D300 and D2X were perfectly capable cameras with their 12Mp, used by many wedding photographers, so I think any updated model will provide much better results.<br /> Another topic is the convenience or not of using DX for such task, where I`d say the FX format excels. Also, notice that most Nikon pro lenses are designed to be used with full format; if you look for, e.g., a wide angle f2.8 zoom, you`ll need to look at third party manufacturers.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I use two D300s bodies for all my pro work; events, concerts, catalogues, portraits. None of my clients have complained about the quality of the photos from my 12mp Dx cameras, in fact, they often comment that my gear is very impressive. As Jose mentioned, I do use Sigma, Tokina and Tamron f/2.8 Dx lenses. Before I bought the D300s, I used two 6mp D70s bodies for the same work. (What is tog?)</p>

[rachel_rose1]

<p>Thanks for the response. :)<br /><br />I;m not against third party lens maufacturers at this point and I am aware that if Idecided to swtch to FX later on my DX lenses wont be of use. <br /><br />So, would it be frowned upon to use Nikons 3200cor 3300 slr for professional work?</p>

[rachel_rose1]

<p>" tog" is abbreviation for photographer :)</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p><em>So, would it be frowned upon to use Nikons 3200cor 3300 slr for professional work?</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

If you can get consistent results of professional level (color, AF, exposure, and of course pictures) in the end no one will doubt your choice of camera, be it a D3300, D4s or D40.</p>

<p>Only thing that really could be an issue with the D3300 is that it's a entry level camera, so it lacks the sophistication in some respects of e.g. customization and AF. But it still has great IQ, reasonable high ISO, excellent batterylife, all things maybe not high on the priority list of pixelpeepers and gear nuts, but of importance for when you're actually taking pictures.</p>

<p>Of course there will be times you will be pohpoh-ed on by snobs about your 'non pro' looking gear, but again it's the end result that counts</p>

<p>Back in the film days I used to even shoot my pro fashion studio jobs with my Nikons, but I learned to avert any remarks over my equipment by prominently putting my Hasselblad on a tripod in the studio (even if I ony used it for Polaroids).<br />Nowadays though I'm having lots of fun shooting with my from a distance definitely outdated looking panda version DF with manual lenses (which inevitably slows me down), drawing indulgent and piteous looks from GWC's with the latest D810/D4S with 2.8/70-200 zooms who automatically assume their pictures will be 'better'. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding, and that afterwards always leaves me smiling.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>would it be frowned upon to use Nikons 3200cor 3300 slr for professional work?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you really care? It's the quality of the images that need to convince, not the camera you use. In a choice between spending money on lenses or bodies, I'd choose lenses. Since we all have a budget to respect, if that leaves you with a pair of D3200s, so be it. Pair them with good lenses, and they're capable of fabulous work in the right hands.<br>

That said, the better AF of the D5200/D5300 and certainly the D7100 (which also brings wireless flash) does have its advantages, specifically in lower light. Probably it is worth trying to stretch to get one of those, and then a D3200 as backup.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>" tog" is abbreviation for photographer :)</blockquote>

 

<p>It took me a little while to realise you weren't shooting sleeping bags. But I got there. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>So, would it be frowned upon to use Nikons 3200cor 3300 slr for professional work?</blockquote>

 

<p>By whom?<br />

<br />

Are Nikon's low-end DSLRs capable of doing quality work? Absolutely. They may be a little slower to use than the higher-end bodies - fewer direct controls meaning more time in the menus, less capable autofocus, etc. - they are a little less flexible (raw modes are limited, flash control is limited, worse support for older lenses) and they may be a little less robust (though a lighter body has less force on it if dropped), including only one memory card so there's no back-up. But they're way more capable than pro cameras were not that long ago. If you're careful to work within the limits of the camera, there's no reason they shouldn't be capable.<br />

<br />

That said... the extra dynamic range of the high-end bodies <i>is</i> useful for weddings (in my unprofessional experience), and I'd be a bit nervous about shooting a wedding without a camera that uses two cards, even if I've never had a card failure. For the same reason, always have two cameras, even if you have to rent.<br />

<br />

What I would say is that if you turn up to a wedding with a D3200, at least in some parts of the world, expect a lot of guests to have more expensive cameras than you. This doesn't mean they're more capable of getting a good photo, but it's a lot easier to persuade people that you're the official photographer with a D4 than with a D3200. This shouldn't matter - the quality of your work should speak for itself - but it might, especially when it comes to controlling a crowd. Hopefully a guest who's a keen photographer and spent money on a big camera will know that the camera doesn't much matter, but the subjects may have a different impression.<br />

<br />

So I don't think anyone would think worse of your results if you used a low-end DSLR, but you might find your life easier with something bigger. Ironically, this might be true even for something like a D2x, whose image quality is appreciably worse than a D3200. I'd at least look at whether a used D7000 was an option, I think.<br />

<br />

But I'm not a pro. I've just been to several weddings recently, and shot as a guest.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>If you can get consistent results of professional level (color, AF, exposure, and of course pictures) in the end no one will doubt your choice of camera, be it a D3300, D4s or D40.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. Depends on where you live, perhaps, but in a lot of areas, people are knowledgeable enough about photographic equipment that they might frown upon a very low-end camera being used. I have known young photographers who switched whole systems for this reason. People were asking for what was essentially gear lists. Nuts, I know, but I also know it happened.</p>

<p>That said, the higher end DX can often serve you well for this, imho. D7000/7100 would be where I'd go.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Just to square what Peter and I said with Wouter's advice about lenses... people at weddings (less so for some other occasions) do tend to look out for a "professional camera" - but a 70-200 f/2.8 with a D3200 on the back still looks like a "professional camera" to most people. Shooting a wedding with a kit 18-55 probably will make people think you're not equipped for the job, and unless conditions are favourable they may well be right - far more so than any discussion about the body. Of course, if you know your way around the body you're using, you can always hire big lenses...<br />

<br />

Shooting bands may be less of an issue - you might <i>want</i> to be inconspicuous and mobile. Though there's no doubt that an FX camera and a pro lens is more flexible, especially for lighting, than going entry level - but this hasn't stopped people shooting both weddings and bands with a Leica, so I'd just ensure that people are happy with your portfolio and they're clear what you can deliver to them.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have shot about 18 weddings in the past two years, along with outdoor portraits. I've been using the D7100. I have some thoughts. First, you are correct in that NO ONE will be able to tell if you used an FX camera or a DX camera. You will not get more business, you will not earn more money if you have an FX camera. At least, for weddings/portraits. Second, the cameras you are talking about do NOT have dual memory cards. The D7100 does. I consider this critical. Yes, it's rare that a card becomes corrupted and unusuable but.........it has happened to me twice. What would you do if you were using a camera that only had one memory card and you discovered that none of the wedding shots were retrievable from the card? You would be up "poo" creek! Weddings can't be done over. That means you MUST have redundancy in your equipment. That means YOU MUST have viable back up gear to take over. You are foolish if you do not. Here's what I consider the minimum:<br /> x2 Nikon D7100 (or D7000)<br /> x2 Nikon SB-900 (or SB-910)<br /> 17-55mm f2.8 zoom of some kind<br /> 70-200mm f2.8 imaged stabilized zoom of some kind<br /> two fast back up lenses (mine are Sigmas 30mm f1.4 & 85mm f1.4)<br /> x5 spare camera batteries<br /> x4 spare fast writing memory cards (32gb)<br /> x3 light stands, medium duty<br /> x3 softboxes or umbrellas (silver/reverse shoot through)<br /> x12 AA batteries for flash (I use the slow discharge rechargeable type)<br /> x4 radio slaves & a transmitter (I use CyberSynce.)</p>

<p>The beauty of the D7100 is it has extremely fast autofocus that can work in extremely low light levels. Both the D7000 and D7100 can use the flash off camera, which is CRITICAL. I repeat, CRITICAL. There are four major problems I see with using a D3300 etc. for weddings. First is no dual memory card. MAJOR PROBLEM! Second is somewhat weak autofocus. Third is it does not support Nikon's CLS off-camera flash. Fourth is there is only one dial, meaning that using the camera is very slow and tedious. You will be missing shots with it. You will make a mistake under pressure and have the camera set wrong at some point. Bad plan. Forget it!</p>

<p>The bottom line is this. While I agree that for business you want to have minimum dollars tied up in gear, there is certainly a point at which you don't have enough to do the job. YOU MUST HAVE BACK UP GEAR FOR WEDDINGS. THIS GEAR MUST BE TOP NOTCH. If you are trying to go cheap, you are being foolish. Yes, buy used when possible, but the above list is about the minimum I would want to show up at a wedding with. YOU MUST HAVE BACK UP GEAR.</p>

<p>--->YOU MUST HAVE BACK UP GEAR!!!</p>

<p>And, learn how to use flash. Inside & out. I mean, REALLY REALLY learn it.<br /> Finally, as someone who actually does shoot weddings, would I even consider using a D3300 for this?</p>

<p>NO WAY, NO WAY, NO WAY! Not even as a back up camera. It's asking for major trouble! It just isn't designed for this. D7000 is the cheapest I'd even look at, and you need a PAIR of them.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>So she'll be fine with a D3300 then, Kent? :-) (Impressive rant!)<br />

<br />

If constrained, I'd say a) rent what you can't afford until you can, and b) if you must use a single card camera, make sure you chimp a lot to ensure that everything is actually captured. Same applies to some extent even with two cards, of course - if you don't notice that you left the camera in manual focus mode for the whole day and all the shots are blurry, you're in trouble. Weddings are scary. I speak as someone who's been asked to shoot one for friends (who know exactly what they'd be getting); I'll definitely be taking two cameras, even if I have to rent to do so.<br />

<br />

Rachel: You indicated that you've had previous pro experience. Which Olympus bodies were you happy with? Are you just worried about the sensor size? (The high-end Olympus and Panasonic cameras aren't bad - I'm considering renting a GH4 for videoing the same wedding.)</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>As someone who actually had an Olympus E-500 I can tell you that you would be disappointed with the functioning of the D3300. I actually wrote about it a couple of years ago <a href="/equipment/product-detail?product_id=13624">HERE. </a>The first major issue was this. The Olympus E-500 has dedicated white balance, AF, ISO, metering, drive mode, one touch white balance and focus point buttons on the back of the camera. Neither the D3X00 or the D5X00 series has this and you will notice the difference every time you have to go into the menu and change something. It can take a lot of time. Even with a customized menu. I liked the D5100, the IQ was great. I should have bought the D7000, at the time. I kept the D5100 for about a year, got fed up and brought a D7100. I couldn't be happier. It does have a learning curve compared to the E-500, but it's a great camera. It takes time to get used to, the resolution is high (24mp). Not using stabilized lenses will be apparent if your handheld technique is not good and it will bring out every flaw in a cheap lens. I keep a grip on mine, gives better balance for me.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Things to consider when buying a camera body for professional work, at least for me are: Do I need weather sealing protection? How durable is the body to getting bumped and bruised (sports photographers and photo journalists)? What is the cycle time or load time for the buffer and its size? Remember it is a working tool and you need to consider where and how you will be using it.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>Forgot to add. The Nikon 3X00 and 5x00 series don't have a focusing pin, so you'll have to use AF-S lenses if you want autofocus and the viewfinders are so small that focusing manually is really not that great or accurate, IMO. </p>

[abbas_haider]

If you shoot with flashes where low light is not an

issue. And don't want to use AF-D lenses then put

your mony on decent glasses. Since all dslr,s can

shoot manual and raw.

 

It reminds me a session where RED camera was

brought to shoot a scene. But it was kept aside and

all footage were done with canon 5d mkii. I told my

brother that they brought RED for show only so

people say that they are professional. Its you, how

make the shot

[elliot1]

<p>IMHO, you should only consider a body that has two memory card slots for paid work. There are several very affordable DX bodies (both new and used) that offer this feature.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>would it be frowned upon to use Nikons 3200cor 3300 slr for professional work?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes. not that a veteran shooter couldn't coax good images out of them, but pros are supposed to have better gear than amateurs, and at a wedding, it's likely some guests might have DSLRs. what you dont want is the perception that just <em>anyone</em> could make the same images you do.<br>

<br>

perhaps even more important though, is the limited functionality entry-level bodies offer. these things may not make a difference so much in casual shooting, but when doing events, you want everything to be right at your fingertips. missing a shot because you have to menu-dive is not very professional. an entry-level body is also not going to balance well with a pro zoom, especially a telezoom.<br>

<br>

also, i agree with Kent, you really should be looking at redundant bodies if you want to shoot weddings professionally. 2x d7100 would be the way to go for a DX shooter (although d7000 would be almost as good); the main difference is going to be high-ISO performance in available light shooting, as well as no crop factor -- which may or may not matter, depending on what lenses you chose.</p>

[john_hawley4]

<p>I use and prefer DX, but if starting/re-starting with Nikon gear I would feel forced to go FX - I don't feel comfortable with Nikon's commitment to DX any more. Yes, there's a significant price hit (except FX wide angle lenses can be better/cheaper than their DX equivalents due to physical constraints), but looking even moderately long term FX seems the way to go for what you describe. The less expensive DX cameras will produce more than adequate quality at some slight loss of versatility, but the snob factor mentioned by others is a factor! You can do a lot with a fancy flash grip and a few other impressive-looking (even if ultimately useless) accessories! Sorry that this is not what you want to hear - I very much share your frustration.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>You need to look to your shooting plan. It has been a while, but back in the day I needed every thing from small cameras (about a dozen Nikon F bodies), a couple of Hasselblads and a several view cameras. The equipment owned by professionals today is a much smaller inventory. However, back in the day there was no way to work on a single format. Consider yourself lucky.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, there's a significant price hit (except FX wide angle lenses can be better/cheaper than their DX equivalents due to physical constraints), but looking even moderately long term FX seems the way to go for what you describe. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>you are aware that a d3300 kit costs $600 and a d610 kit costs $2400, right? and that the 17-35, 14-24, and 16-35 wide-angle FX zooms are 2 to 3x the cost of DX wide-angle zooms, no? and that a redundant set of 610s with the bells and whistles kent describes would cost $8-10k, while the same setup with 2x d7100 and DX/3rd party lenses would be about half that, yes? with that being the case, i dont think anyone is being 'forced' into FX, especially if it's cost-prohibitive. </p>

[dave_wilson1]

DX works fine for me so that's what I stayed with. My main kit is a pair of D7100s, dual cards, RAW and about 6 good

lenses. I also like the D5100 with the fold out screen for some things but that's only got single card so I use it for only

certain things. A few flashes and Gary Fong diffusers and I'm set. I'm out of the wedding biz, I would probably add one FX

body with a normal zoom if I was doing more.

[rachel_rose1]

<p>wow! what a huge response within 24hrs. Very impressive forum. I am listening to all your replies and taking everything into consideration. I did not know the Nikon 3300 only had one card slot for example, my Olympus E500 and E300 both have dual cards slots, I just assumed that was the norm. I know the nikon is an entry level camera and I am ok with that for now. The Olympus are both entry level too, but I can achieve fantastic results with them, I've used them both for many weddings and work comes out brilliantly. I have been borrowing a friends Nikon D90 and it's ok, but the RAW images aren't that great even at the highest megapixel settings, I feel the Olympus was just as good... that being said, the D90 has faults and won't be suitable for professional use. <br />Bit of a back story:<br />I have my own studio setup, I don't use off camera flash, I prefer continuous lighting any day. Most of my work will be shot in studio, where I can control the lighting. What I don't like about the D90 is that you can't drop to 100ISO. what is up with that?!?! Don't like that at all. I was going to get a D90, but a review I was reading said that a DSLR that is 2.5 yrs old is the equivalent of a film cam that is 65yrs old. So that was another reason I thought the Nikon 3300 was a good buy. But a few of you have said the WB might be a problem...this will be an issue for sure. Thankyou for informing me of this!I I only have $700, for a DSLR kit (and nothing left over for additional lenses) Single mumma here, full time uni student, so money is extremely tight. That being said, I need to get working as soon as I possibly can, even if its just in house studio work for now until I can save up for the thousand dollars cams. Just wondering, what is decent Canon (and don't say mark II or III...again, restricted funds!) :P <br /><br />On another note; I've never used Canons before, and wanting suggestions on what to look at instead of the Nikon? TIA, Rach.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Start with a used Nikon D7000 & used Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. For a a flash, buy a used SB-800. Still no back up--CRITICAL for wedding work, but it will be just fine in the studio and for portraits. You MUST have flash for weddings. Most of the shots are candids, on the fly. You might consider skipping weddings for now until you can buy the bare minimum gear needed (I listed previously,) and do work that is less time critical and lower pressure. I'm thinking portraits of kids, pets, maybe band photos (a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 will be capable of that on a D7000.) My advice is if you don't have the needed gear, don't take the job. </p>

<p>I just checked ebay and found a number of D7000 WITH a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 attached for under $800. Add a SB-800 flash for $110 and you have enough left over for some good SD cards.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Um, Kent? I'm not sure how we get from $700 to "$800 + $110 and having enough left over for some good SD cards". :-)<br />

<br />

The D90 is a perfectly good camera, but the sensor technology is very old now. A D7000 is reasonably competitive with a D7100 in terms of image quality except for the resolution difference - and it doesn't sound as though the autofocus improvements are going to be very important to you. While a D5200 or even a D3200 would get you closer to the D7100's resolution, I would suggest the D7000 is a better starting point, and one that means you won't have to replace the camera so quickly in the future. KEH suggests D7000 prices start around $550. (A D5100 would get you the same image quality, but is much less flexible.)<br />

<br />

While the 17-50 is a very capable lens, you might get away with something less capable in a studio setting until you get more finances. A 50mm f/1.8 is a cheap and (just, for the AF-D) okay portrait lens on DX - the AF-S version is better, but more expensive. Don't rule out manual focus lenses (most manual 50mm f/1.8 lenses have the same optics as the AF-D 50mm f/1.8) for static subjects. If (heh) the kids, pets and bands are moving, autofocus probably matters more. I'd also not rule out the kit (18-55) lens so long as you're shooting at smaller apertures - you'll need something faster for depth of field control and bad light, but there's something to be said for flexibility of composition. And it's cheap. Oh, and I'd try to pick up a cheap reflector just so you have a bit of lighting control in natural light.<br />

<br />

Kent is much more experienced than me about what's needed for pro shooting, and if you <i>can</i> afford his suggestions, they're extremely sound. I'm just trying to see if I can suggest something minimal that's closer to $700 - but I would expand on it when you can afford to. You can get more flexible lenses by going for a cheaper camera body, but that's a bigger thing to replace in the future. (And I wouldn't do weddings yet unless you're going to rent some gear.)</p>