FX or DX? Thoughts?
 

Hi All - has anyone any thoughts about the above? Full Frame or Cropped Frame Digital sensors? Because I find the Nikon D3 so good I am seriously thinking of getting rid of all my crop frame gear - D300; D200; D2X; D2H - to be replaced by a D700 - and all my DX lenses. Has anyone any thoughts on the matter? All opinions will be appreciated.

All depends on the type of photography that you specialise in. I believe that DX cropped sensors would be advantageous for the wildlife and aviation photographer. However wedding and portraiture styles would benefit from full frame FX sensors due to better wide angle performance and low light characteristics.

Personally as I specilise in aviation photography I would have to get close to the subject as for safety reason I cannot do that. FX is the only option for me.

Technically there would be more vignetting on a full frame FX sensor and the DX benefits from any lens central sweet spot.

Horses for courses!

Andy,

I will go away and put down my thoughts, but in the mean time let me throw this one in your direction.

Full frame 35mm or full frame 6 x 4.5 ( a la Hasselblad H3D ), or Leaf or Phase backs on old mechanical Mamiya RZ, or Hassies 501 or 503.

Its a similar sort of question.

Don

Thanks Steve, Don, appreciated - What you say strikes a particular cord - I suppose I'm at the digital stage I reached with 35mm many years ago - I then started using a Rollei TLR and a Mamiya TLR plus the Nikons - as you say Steve - Horses for courses. In those days I owned PC lenses and my main subjects were Landscape and Architecture - Thanks again both of you - more thinking to do!:eek: :confused: :)

Andy, I think that your best course would be to keep to full frame only and make me a present of the D300 and that excellent sigma 12-24 lens. Think how good you'll feel knowing that you have made an old man so happy; and there's the bonus that you will have converted me from Canon to Nikon - no mean feat. Think on it and you'll see how much sense that it makes. Let me know when you're ready and I'll come and collect.

LOL :D :D

Andy did set himself up for that :D

Hi Mike - sorry - no coconut - its a Sigma 10-20 and a Nikkor 12-24 DX - mind you - in my calling - as you must be aware - the thought of a "convert" is a very big carrot!! :D :D :D

I'll say 10 'hail mary's' and convert, can I have your D300? I'll even renounce my days as a baby eater (Mike knows).

Why the D700? You would be better off buying some top class glass. Mind you as soon as I saw the announcement of the D700 I thought of you and wondered if a) you would regret buying the D3 when you could now get the same performance IQ wise in a smaller lighter body much cheaper and b) if you could resist one. Looks like I won the bet with myself on b). :) I also wonder if you have both D3 and D700 if the D3 will mostly remain at home as it is so much heavier, in which case I will be first to put my name down for your D3 so it is not wasted! :D There, and I am a Canon man too!

A D3 isn't heavy.....try lugging around a 10x8 large plate Linhof around with a tripod looking more like an over grown car trolley jack...because your tutor "wants it pure" (kinda put me off landscaping)..
I will quite happily sling a much older (but a similar weight and size) D1h (or F5 for that matter), one fitted with 80-200 2.8 and the other with 300 2.8 over each shoulder...size and weights are only perceptions...which is what I kept telling myself walking around in the heat recently!

I'd echo exactly what Stephen posted RE; fx vs dx formats.

Andy, definately ditch your dx gear. It's nothing to do with Mike getting the D300 as a pressy or if I can bagsie the D2h :) :) :)

You mean like this?

This is the brother in law of a friend of mine. He hauls his Linhof up the hills in the lake district at silly-o'clock in the middle of winter. He gets the shots. Not because he has a Linhof (though it helps), but because he drags himself out of bed at silly times and climbs mountains in mid winter. I would post an example but I don't hold the copyright....

That's the sort of dedication I admire but can't muster.

Andy,

Not actually having an FX camera any comments would be based on old film days and various film sizes and using top glass. Nikon F2 (35mm) v Bronica SQA ( 6x6 cm ) v Sinar 5x4.
So I have had a bit of a rummage around the net to try and put the comment into a digital context. Good for a laugh as some are already writing off the D300 as old hat technology. D2X is now rated by many as an antique. All that appears to be on the basis that latest is best, and starts to fall apart when people start posting actual pictures :D . If I believed all I read the D100 should be in the bin by now. :rolleyes:

I think we all accept the horses for courses and so your choice is dependant on the type of pics you take. Luckily in your case you can do direct comparisons, and it would be interesting if you posted some results from such a shoot out at base ISO. No point in trying to pitch say a D2X against a D3 at higher ISO.

I have had a good read of Bjørn Rørsletts D3 review and if you go to chapter 9 and then in the conclusion then he discusses the subject of FX v DX. His conclusion is that for some DX is alive and well, certainly until the D2X replacement.

Link to Bjørn's web site. Click Reviews on the left pane.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Don

PS : Still scope to reduce your DX camera collection though. :D

Thanks Don - Just visited Bjørn's site and the chapter on FX Vs DX - most interesting - may well hold onto D300 and just slim down some DX lenses. Thanks again.

Very interesting comparison, I thought it would be more clear cut than that. No doubt it will all change when a D3+ with 20 odd mp comes out.

Nice post Duncan.
It is very good to see someone with that level of dedication (and fitness)
Linhofs are lovely cameras, an worthy to those with that level of dedication.

Back to the thread topic.....perhaps worth a mention that it's probably a good idea to have full frame lenses (fx), even if using crop (dx) bodies. Apart from the theoretical optical quality (using centre of lens etc) advantage, they're work on either format....Unless, we go back to the weight and bulk thing (dx lenses do tend to be much lighter and smaller)

D300, D200, D2X, D2H plus D3 - Andy, that's five cameras in just a very few years. You're a dealer's best friend! And, as Miketoll hints, when the 24Mp body comes out you'll find a reason to justify having one of those as well, so in a couple of years or so you're going to have at least five bodies again (D3, D700 plus the 24Mp version of each plus the high-speed version of the D3+, plus the one which will have the latest 'must-have' feature which we don't know about yet, so what don't yet know what it is that we must have!).

'More equipment = less pictures' is the old adage and there's more than a hint of truth in it! If you don't have a specialist interest that requires a specific lens (macro, etc.,) then a singly body with 2 or 3 lenses (plus a second body if you don't want to keep changing lenses 'in the field') will get you every picture you're ever likely to need.

There, that's saved you thousands of pounds in the future, so you can donate some of that to my fund for my next camera bo...oops, what a giveaway:)

So true Adey, and that technology ball just keeps rolling along.

Nikon are now offereing a buffer upgrade for the D3. Hints at D2X replacement buffer capacity to handle those expected large files.
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/c..._faqid=25465&p

Don

If you crop that full frame back to DX on a regular basis then its going to be an expensive tool for the job, unless it offers another must have feature.

While I agree with Joe's comment on full frame lenses, with this format if you use the full frame it can be a costly business at the telephoto end. Here the similarity exists with the old M/F slr's. Those lenses by comparison with 35mm equivalent fov were hugely expensive.

Re FX v DX : example my 180mm f2.8 = 270mm in DX ( ok it is not AFS or have VR ) cost around £500.
FX 300mm equivalent is the 300AFS VR f2.8 @ £2900. Even the f4 version of the 300mm is £300 more than the 180mm.

Expensive bees knees camera and budget glass is a different issue. ;) :D

Don

I didn't think I had strayed from topic. The point I was trying to make, is that it's the dedication you put in, rather than the equipment you have (to a certain extent), that gets you the shot.

FX or DX, it all depends on whether you need the long reach, as Stephen needs, or otherwise. Either way, I can't see that you need quite so much stuff, as Adey implies.

Duncan

I can't see how this makes any sense. More kit = more photos, as you'll want to try it all out??
...there's always room for more kit in the bag/s....even if much of it is only older secondhand stuff ;)

With a static subject, maybe you'll have time to set it up properly and choose the right piece of kit from your extensive range.

But, if you've got lots of kit and it's all packed away neatly into a rucksack-type camera bag and a subject presents itself briefly - well, you can fill in the rest of the scenario yourself! The photographer with just one camera with one lens attached and another in his pocket will get two photos - one of the subject and the other of his mate faffing about trying to sort out his kit from his neatly-packed rucksack (and he'll then move onto yet another subject whilst his mate is packing it all together again!).

There's also the situation where there might be a photo in a subject but without the right lens on at the time you decide it's perhaps not worth the effort of going through the rigmarole of sorting out the right kit - and, of course, the next time you pass that way the light has changed or the farmer has cut down that photogenic dead tree, etc., etc.

Back to FX / DX, during a moment of boredom I looked for D3X rumours and found this interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n77Obs9r14Q

It was an assumption of mine that the 'X' would have a DX but it seems this rumour has it as FX sensor with a 17M odd FX crop.

Other interesting rumoured spec's its the max shutter of 1/2000 and sync speed of 1/1000 and ISO 12-640 without any boost. It would appear the D3X rumoured here would be definitely a studio camera.

If true, its not for me!

I started out with a D80 and kit lens and got plenty of great shots. However I remember covering a Cyclo-Cross race and couldn't get any pictuires in the woods due to poor light. Thats now a situation I have remedied with my new kit - so I'd say for what I do (sports) then yes, it is required.

The reason I don't post as much is because of time, I'm taking more pictures but spending a lot of time downloading and processing them, like now. I have been asked to cover a friends wedding so I'm learning this side of photography as I don't want to let them down. I spent all day yesterday with a professional (I admire anyone who does weddings - it was the hardest day I have ever done with my camera) who shot with a Canon 30D and kit lens. She has often been asked by guests who turn up with much better equipment why she uses such basic kit and her answer is always the same - "look at my work, I don't need anything else." I agree entirely and felt uncomfortable with all my kit, because I would never have used much of it.

So it's clear, decide what you need - not what you want.

And just to jump back on topic, FX or DX? For me both. For sports and wildlife the extra reach makes it a must, as cropping FX just does not work the same.

Well that was good for a laugh. :D

Looks more like write a load of specs on a sheet of paper, cut it up, dump bits in a box then have a lucky dip to gradually fill in the blanks. :rolleyes: :D

Fear not Foxy, although the replacement will be FX I am sure that HS crop equivalent will be at least 1 stop better than the X for noise.

D2X ............... well that was designed as a studio job that was also able to do a lot more. Expect similar from its replacement.

Don

Front page ad banner suggests a good plot for one of your DX cameras Andy. IR conversion. Those pics should be right up your street.

Somewhere Wolfie posted that he had had that done with one of his Canon cameras.

Well worth a look at Sassans gallery as he has some good IR pics. :)

Don

PS : Link to Harrys thread http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...ead.php?t=3134

Thanks Don, I normally wander about with two bodies, and one or two extra lenses depending upon what I'm expecting to see and shoot, but converting one to IR is a great idea. For the time being I've decided to stick with D3, D300 and D2x. The D2H and D200 are going. I'm also going to thin out the glass a bit so watch this space for some bargains in the near future. I think the D2X would be great as an IR Body and I saw the post about IR conversion. I will be off the forum for quite some time shortly as Lindsay and I are moving to North Wales - to a bungalow which will make things easier for her and for me. Take care everyone and I look forward to getting back among you all as soon as possible.:) :)

Hope the move goes well and you settle into your new home quickly and happily.

Echo Mikes post Andy. Good luck with your move.

Don

I recently got a D700 having gone into shop to get D300. As an older nearly 57 years the old eyes start to dim and the much brighter viewfinder image of the full frame did it for me before any consideration made as to larger sensor. Which I suppose compares to large frame film equivalents of old - best for big blow ups. As a non techie who thinks art rather than numbers I have found the D700 just gets me good results I what I used to consider impossible situations. I found the D3 (apart from cost) far to heavy - you would be very happy with D700.

Well done Andy you seem to have quite a few converts to the Nikon cause.

Alan