Working with both DX and FX

[johne37179]

<p>I have been wedded to digital photography since my D-1. For the last ten years or so, I have been exclusively in the DX world and very happy there and expect that to continue. I currently use a D7000 and am pleased with it. I do expect to go to the next generation (D9300?) when it comes out. That has just been my pattern. By the time I skip two generations not only has the technology advanced, but the hard wear on my camera begins to show. <br>

My current thought is to add an FX body and one or two pieces of wide glass. I have a 10.5 and a 10-20 for my D7000 and like them, but think that the larger image of FX would make an appreciable difference for those shots. I will stay with DX for longer shots.<br>

Are there any of my colleagues out there who regularly use both formats? What has been your experience? Would you continue in both formats or us only FX?<br>

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.</p>

<p>John</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I've got both FX and DX gear, but find that I'm shooting FX almost all the time, now. Not least because I can simply crop the results down to what the DX body would have produced anyway, and I really like the dynamic range and low-light advantages of the larger sensor. The DX gear is starting to get lonely!</p>

[Two23]

<p>I doubt you'll see any difference at all unless you regularly are shooting above ISO 3200. Even though I am a night shooter, I've not gone that route. Instead, I've put those thousands of dollars towards travel to interesting places. If anything, I'm on the verge of going to a smaller camera system--micro 4/3. Smaller camera/smaller lenses/smaller tripod/smaller bag. Small is a virtue for travel.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Matt, that is what I am thinking as well. The expense of an additional FX body over a DX body could go to glass for the FX, but that is a minor consideration. I'm one of the few here, I think, who prefers a heavy body -- which is why I always add battery grips. In my mind it makes for a steadier platform for handheld shots. I have shot at 3200 and have generally been pleased with the results, but not entirely. It is pixel density when I make the occasional 50 inch print that I expect to see the greatest improvement.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I figured to use my D300 alongside my D700 (once I got that one), and leverage the advantage of each. Effectively, I've used the D300 twice since, and for now friends are using it and I really don't miss it. That said, I am using long lenses less and less.<br /> It is a bit too easy to dismiss the advantages of FX as "just" ISO3200 performance; there are more and likewise DX has its advantages. For me, two things make me stick to FX mostly: first, shallower depth of field; I use wide aperture lenses a lot, and they simply render a lot better on FX. Maybe most people won't really notice the differences (they aren't huge), but to me it matters.Second and much more important, it is the viewfinder that keeps me firmly with the FX toys.<br /> The one things I do miss occassionally about the D300 are the AF points all over the frame; I liked that and find them a bit too clustered in the centre on the D700. But since I use MF most of the time, it's not too big a deal for my uses.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I regularly use both APS-C and 35mm-sensor cameras. If you carry extra lenses anyway, the addition of a body for it to sit on is not much more of strain. If I need to shoot, both cameras are ready, no lens swapping under field environments.</p>

<p>I own 'trailing edge' versions of both formats. My 100-400mm stabilized lens lives on the 'DX' (with a Black Rapid strap) and my 24-105mm lens on the 'full-frame' (FX).<br>

I'll admit that it's a fair load, but the strap makes the heavy rig much easier to carry.</p>

<p> </p>

[johne37179]

<p>I really don't have a need for the shallow depth of field anymore. Maybe I'll come back to it, but f4 is sufficiently fast for me. I do like the idea of not changing lenses in the field, but using identical FX bodies, with one set for crop mode seems to accomplish the same thing with the redundancy if one goes down. I operate pretty close to the car these days -- due to carrying around so many birthdays as much as anything else. So the extra weight would not be that much of a burden -- I am going to haul the tripod anyway.</p>

[jonb]

<p>I do use both formats, but I've also spent time, and travel, using only one format or the other. For most people, either format will handle the vast majority of the needs. There are specific cases where one format has an advantage, but unless those cases are critical to your shooting, you can use either format to good effect.</p>

<p>For me, having the high-ISO capabilities of FX is useful since I shoot a lot of night high-school football and games in poorly lit gyms. If I didn't have that particular need, I think I could be satisfied with a DX-only bag. Conversely, I like the pixel density of my D7100 paired with my 400 f/2.8 lens, but if I had to shoot FX-only with "just" the D810, I'm sure I could. How well this relates to your needs, I can't say.</p>

[confindelmundo]

<p>Both format FX for landscape and DX for fauna or some landscapes as my sigma 120-400 mm wil transform into a 600 mm. And anyway always good to have 2 or 3 bodies. I have 7000, D800 and DF. Good luck.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have to agree with Matt. I have a d7100 as well as a new d810 and recently the d810 has been getting almost all of the action. When shooting close in portraits the 7100 still comes out of the bag because my 50mm 1.4 is a wonderful length for that kind of work. Down the road when and if I get a 105 2.8 that may change.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i use both formats regularly. the main benefit to FX IMO is the low-light/high-ISO capabilities which just arent possible on DX. i get great wide-angle shots with both formats, and DX can actually be a plus when shooting landscape since the DoF is greater. FX does give you a little better shallow DoF when using fast lenses; the combination of shallow DoF and high-ISO often gives shots a unique look which helps my pics stand out. DX also has the benefit of more reach with longer lenses. but it's kind of a hassle much of the time to use hybrid formats and also to maintain full DX/FX kits.</p>

[huntrbll]

<p>I shoot with both, a D7100 and a D600. I like to use the D600 for lower light and wide angle shots, the D7100 for wildlife and other telephoto work. Batteries are interchangeable, and the feel and controls are almost identical. I usually carry the f4 lenses....16-35, 24-120 and 70-200....and a 105 macro. This combination gives me an effective field of view of 16-300, and a backup camera body.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I find it strange that almost nobody points out the depth-of-field implications of changing formats. Full-frame allows noticeably shallower D-o-F to be got for the same aperture, subject distance and subject size within the frame. Whereas DX allows greater D-o-F for macro and telephoto subjects. Admittedly the difference isn't <em>that</em> great, but it amounts to about the equivalent of one stop in aperture. So with an f/1.4 lens on FX you can get a shallow D-o-F that would require f/1 in a DX lens - with all the expense and loss of image quality that would go with an f/1 lens. But even a modest f/2.8 lens on FX will narrow the D-o-F to what would have required an expensive f/2 lens on DX - while keeping the better IQ you can expect by working at f/2.8 over f/2.</p>

<p>IMHO, it's simply a case of "horses for courses", or picking the right tool for the job. Any job that demands high magnification of any sort would be better off shot on a smaller format; while shallow D-o-F or low light work is better done with a larger format. Why there are no dedicated bellows units available for the 4/3rds format I just can't fathom. If ever there was a format just crying out to be used for macro work....</p>

<p>This "format wars" type of debate never raged in the film era, except among the most narrow-minded users. Most professionals had an armoury of 35mm, rollfilm and maybe a 5x4 technical camera at their disposal as a matter of course. The job dictated what was needed, or what provided the best solution. To be wedded to one format seems to be a very new idea to me.</p>

[miguel_martinez4]

<p>We shoot both formats at home, with a D7k and a D700, and we do it "the wrong way". The D7k is almost always with the Nikkor 10-24, and we tend to have the 70-200/4 on the D700. When we travel, my wife & me carry a body each with the 50/1.8G and the speedlight on the bag, and it's pretty versatile. You can argue that buying the 16-35/4 VR would give us better wide-angle quality but we can find better uses for those £1000.</p>

<p>We like the flexibility of having two bodies while travelling (the 50 doubles as 75, if we need extra reach the 70-200 goes to the D7k, you get the idea). In terms of performance, the FX ISO advantage is real, and the DoF is narrower if you want it to. I the extra DoF in wide angle DX shots quite helpful though, and the dynamic range of the D7k at ISO100 is nice as well. You may need to be careful with the different camera operation. For example, the AutoISO with a speedlight works differently in both cameras, and there are a few extra nuisances. Another point is that, in postprocessing, the LR sharpness values that both sensors may take are quite different.</p>

<p>At home, after all is said and done, the D700 gets used more, especially since we got the 70-200/4. It's too long on the D7k when trying to take pictures of our toddler. Additionally, we feel its AF is much more reliable. The D7k still got quite a few thousand clicks last year though.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I have been without two formats for 3 years now and can't take it, so I will add a DX in the coming year. I prefer FX for architecture/landscapes (Nikon 8/2.8, Canon 17 TS-E) and DX for sports (Canon EF 300/4 L, Nikon 400/2.8 AIS).</p>

<p>My choice would be a lot easier if Canon would catch up to Nikon!</p>

<p>Since I do not buy camera bodies very often it is beneficial to spread the wear and tear over two bodies as well.</p>