Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2016 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?

  
 
zippylock
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


Hello All,
I am looking to add a backup camera to my equipment and looking for some advice. I currently shoot with a D700, plus 24-70, 70-200 VR2, 50mm 1.8. My wife shoots with a D7000, so we also have a 18-55 55-200, and 18-140, I think. While its mostly for fun, I do also shoot a couple paid weddings a year, family portraits, and tons of nature stuff, basically a little of everything.

I hike often now, and my D700 + lenses are really too heavy so I don't carry it much. I have been looking to make my bag lighter so ill carry it more, but also add a good back up body. Looking at the Nikon options now, there are many. I was originally set on a D750 which seemed like the logical choice, however, I'm still stuck with a heavy FX body and lenses. I then held a D7200 which I liked, going this route would allow for much lighter DX lenses, correct? Now I see there is the D500, which would be the perfect DX backup i'd assume. Ive been shooting more landscapes now because of my increased outdoor style. For landscape shots though, the 7200 seems like a cheaper, but still good DX choice, paired for the 18-35 or 10-24 which people seems to like?

However, where I'm stuck is, is it just me or is there really an IQ difference between the FX and DX cameras? Maybe this is old thinking since new DX models have come a long way, but I have always loved FX shots more. I'm not sure if its the overall smoother bokeh and backgrounds, better ISO or what... this has made me afraid to try a DX again for the fear I wont like the images. When comparing a landscape shot with my wife's D7000 and my D700, the D700 pictures clearly take the cake, especially when golden light is used/sunsets. If I was to get a D7200 or D500, would this be closer to my D700s smoothness and IQ? I looked at the D7200 image thread but its mostly animals, not landscapes. Has anyone who has gone from a FX to DX been disappointed? Am I crazy, or now that I love FX, I will not be able to go down and shot the same stuff in the same way? Does any one else think like this? What did you do or what did you decide?

If I went D750, I'm assuming id have to go prime to be lighter, so 20mm 1.8 or something? Would this produce better images across the board then a D7200 with XX? I don't have endless funds so I have to be body and lens conscious...

Sorry for the ramble, Im just lost with my next choice and looking for help on what you have all done in the last couple years...



Jan 31, 2016 at 04:08 PM
Bruce_T
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


For wide-angle lenses, the weight differences may be less than you think. The D750 weighs approximately 750g; the D7200 weighs approximately 675g.

For DX, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 II (550g) or 11-20mm f/2.8 (560g) are well-regarded lenses. I have used the 11-16 v1, and it is quite sharp.

For FX, the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G (385g) or 20mm 1.8G (357g) are well-regarded lenses.

Looking at overall weight, the D7200 plus one of the Tokina wide-angle zooms would be around 1,200 grams; the D750 and 20/1.8 or 18-35/3.5-4.5 would be around 1,100 grams.

With these examples, weight would not be a factor so you could choose your hiking kit based on other considerations. For longer lenses, of course, FX will be heavier for equivalent focal lengths.

I hope that helps?



Jan 31, 2016 at 04:37 PM
zippylock
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


Thanks for the info, I didn't realize the weights were so close when you added those lenses. I had looked at the Nikon 18-35 for my D700, but many reviews seem to say it does not do well on the FX bodies, maybe I'm wrong though... the 11-20 is also a DX lens it seems. Both of these setup would save me some weight it appears (I get it will never be super light, btw, which his why I'm not looking at the entry bodies).

So weight aside, which you basically just made that same between those two. There is still a difference in $$, and the fact one is FX and one if DX. If I was shooting mostly landscape, or friends/dogs outside on the trails (or in foreground of scenes), would the FX always tend to look better then the same shot from a DX body? This is what I'm stuck on, am I crazy and its all in my head or is there always a smoother IQ or DOF look from an FX? DX always seems to look flat to me. This is what makes me so weary about getting even a good DX, even though it seems it would meet what I want more for less $$. I would hate to take a step 'back' if that makes sense?



Jan 31, 2016 at 05:03 PM
Steve Perry
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


zippylock wrote:
Thanks for the info, I didn't realize the weights were so close when you added those lenses. I had looked at the Nikon 18-35 for my D700, but many reviews seem to say it does not do well on the FX bodies, maybe I'm wrong though... the 11-20 is also a DX lens it seems. Both of these setup would save me some weight it appears (I get it will never be super light, btw, which his why I'm not looking at the entry bodies).

So weight aside, which you basically just made that same between those two. There is
...Show more

This is the problem - in most circumstances the camera (or camera's format) isn't the deciding factor in a good photo. Most of the time, FX or DX will capture the shot just fine. I'd hesitate to say one format was always better than the other. They are just different tools in your photographic toolbox. I use both formats and choose the camera I need for the job at hand.

FX will tend to give you better ISO performance (usually 1~1.5 stops better) and you'll have shallower depth of field (you have to use a longer lens or get closer in order to get the same crop you'd get with a shorter lens / further distance on a DX body). However, DX gives you more "reach" so you have to decide which is more important to you.



Jan 31, 2016 at 06:24 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


zippylock wrote:
I had looked at the Nikon 18-35 for my D700, but many reviews seem to say it does not do well on the FX bodies....


From the research I've done, along with testimonials on this forum, the 18-35 is actually a pretty outstanding optic for it's price/size/weight. The biggest complaint is that it doesn't get as wide, so weight that as you will, but it's almost as wide as the Tokina 11-XX/2.8 lenses, and when stopped down it's a great landscape lens (which is where you'd use it for landscapes).

That and that the D750 is basically the perfect 'all around' camera, plus being compact and lightweight for a higher performance FF body. Decent high-ISO performance (better than D700, but not quite D3s) and great low-light AF make it versatile.

If you're going to put money into the system, might as well go that far at least. The D7200 has it's place as a cropper, and if you were looking for supertelephoto work it'd get a bigger mention, and the D500 while looking to be a first-class DX camera is going to be larger and heavier, more like your D700 than your D7000.



Jan 31, 2016 at 07:10 PM
elkhornsun
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


It still comes down to the subjects, best lenses, and then the camera best suited for use with those lenses.

A 14-24mm, 16-35mm, 18-35mm are all going to provide better image quality on an FX body than the 10-24mm DX lens on a DX. Conversely a 70-200mm or 200-500mm lens will focus as well or better on the $1100 D7200 camera than a FX camera and provide a higher resolution resulting image. By the time a D810 image is cropped to DX size the image area adds up to that of a 15.3 megapixel camera, a lot less than the 24MP provided by the D7200.

I use both FX and DX cameras and have a D500 on order. The lenses up to 105mm are on the FX camera and the ones longer than 105mm are used on the DX camera. For macro the DX camera is better as it provides better working distance. For people shots indoors the 24-70mm on a FX body provides the field of view range and the working distance needed.

There is the mistaken assumption that FX is an automatic upgrade from DX and it really depends on the lens and the type of use.



Jan 31, 2016 at 08:03 PM
bobmcg
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


Why not consider the Df? Very lightweight, great high ISO performance, and beautiful files?


Jan 31, 2016 at 09:13 PM
nolaguy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


zippylock wrote:
Hello All,
I am looking to add a backup camera to my equipment and looking for some advice. I currently shoot with a D700, plus 24-70, 70-200 VR2, 50mm 1.8. My wife shoots with a D7000, so we also have a 18-55 55-200, and 18-140, I think. While its mostly for fun, I do also shoot a couple paid weddings a year, family portraits, and tons of nature stuff, basically a little of everything.

I hike often now, and my D700 + lenses are really too heavy so I don't carry it much. I have been looking to make my bag lighter
...Show more

Zippy, I shoot both and in my opinion, assuming ISO similarities, for 90% of what we capture and how the shots are used, the image quality difference between the two is negligible. Nevertheless, emotionally, FX gives me more warm and fuzzies.

So I use DX for reach and FX when I like to imagine I'm drowning the image in bigger buckets of photons and want to leave no portrait stone unturned. But I think the truth is, very few people can discern the difference. There are too many other factors that affect image quality more and if I had to shoot DX forever, it really wouldn't bother me.

Whatever advantage I gain with FX I probably screw up in post anyway.


Regards,

Chuck



Jan 31, 2016 at 09:36 PM
ImagePass
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


hi,
According to what you express, the Nikon D750 seems to be the logical choice.
it’s a good compromise between weight, iso performance, high resolution…. for hiking, you can pair it with a 18-35 or a 24-120 F4 vr for example.
and you can go on using your current lenses when you want!
good luck!
Fabien.



Feb 01, 2016 at 04:34 AM
Two23
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


zippylock wrote:
However, where I'm stuck is, is it just me or is there really an IQ difference between the FX and DX cameras?



Not one of my paying clients can tell the difference between a shot made with my D800E and D7100. At least, until I start making prints bigger than ~20 inches. If you do a lot of that, then a used D800E is the way to go. Otherwise, no one will see any difference. I would not buy a D500 unless you are heavy into sports or wildlife. I would not buy one for weddings, certainly.


Kent in SD




Feb 01, 2016 at 08:45 AM
pr4photos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


D750 is a superb camera


Feb 01, 2016 at 08:50 AM
zippylock
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


Thanks guys for all the advice above, I just got through reading everyone's posts! I guess I should add that I did used to have dx cameras before moving to my D700 and the pictures from either system never looked close to as good as my D700. They weren't bad, but just seemed flatter, or lacked DOF. That was with a D80(1st dslr body) and then D300 paired with the 17-55 and 70-200 VR1. Now I supposed it's very possible either dx has come along way, or because I was still new, I just never learned the formulas for proper DOF, etc... Like I do now to get he desired effect and bokeh. I just wanted to share that for some of my history.

However, I think you have talked me into it, and the best choice seems to be to get the D750 and add the 18-35 lens for a wide angle and maybe through my 50mm in the bag also since it weighs nothing. Then when I do something paid or more important, I can run my trinity lenses Iike I do now and not have to worry about crop factors, etc.

In terms of action shots, I take a lot of my dogs running which I often post here, but nothing crazy or paid that would required the real purpose of the D500, so I will pass on that, after reading and thinking more, I really don't need it for what I like to shot now. Even if a new D700 replacement comes out, I think the D750 will still suit me well based on the specs. I am nervous about the missing features though, like 1/8000 shutter. I'm trying to see how much people really miss that.



Feb 01, 2016 at 09:54 PM
JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


zippylock wrote:
I am nervous about the missing features though, like 1/8000 shutter. I'm trying to see how much people really miss that.


I really don't see how other people can make a camera choice for you? You are the one shooting it. Whether its' DX or FX, whether it has a top shutter speed of 1/4000th or 1/8000th it's all personal choices based on each of our needs and desires.

When you decide to buy a camera because of the people that had commented in here had talked you into one, what happens when you end up not being happy with it? Who is it fault then?

So back the to shutter speed, while the cameras I use have 1/8000th shutter speed, I never use it. So I could tell you not to worry about it. But I am not shooting what you are, so perhaps you would miss it. In the bodies that only go up to 1/4000th shutter speed, you will see lot's of people that make that a negative. Are they wrong? Are they right? For themselves both choices are right, because it's for them.

But what about you? Only you can truly decide what you want or need. Do you shoot 1/8000th of a sec now? Is there any reason why you would shoot 1/8000th of a sec?

People here can be very helpful, but I would encourage you to make your own choice for yourself, and not based on what others think, because ultimately we all think something different. So who is right? Who is wrong? No one.

Jim




Feb 01, 2016 at 10:18 PM
sonofjesse2010
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


If you want lighter get a mirrorless for fun and go out their and take some pictures


Feb 07, 2016 at 10:47 PM
Andrew Pece Photography
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


I have been thinking about this switch a lot too. Dx is really coming up not only in terms of its sensors, but you have dx glass like this sigma art 18 to 35 that we just did not have before, at that level of quality. I think that dx lens trend is going to continue. It really makes it a tough choice because for me the reason to go fx is lenses. But you're paying on the order of twice as much to go fx, so is it worth it?

Anyway, I would tend to base my choice on the lenses you really want after researching them. If they are fx then you'll have to go that way and vice versa.



Feb 08, 2016 at 11:49 AM
ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


It will be interesting to see if the new D500 lives up to the expectations built up over the last six years. I hope it does!


Feb 08, 2016 at 11:59 AM
sjms
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


i shoot both DX and FX

my DX setup is simple
D7200
Tokina 11-20 f2.8

either Sigma 16-70 f2.8-4 or if you want to go up there the Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4
(i have sample images using both lenses)
16-70/2.8-4 https://sjms.smugmug.com/Trips/Japan-for-a-few-more-days
16-80/2.8-4 https://sjms.smugmug.com/Trips/Down-to-New-Orleans/

lastly Nikon 70-200/2.8

this covers just about everything you need on general photography



Feb 08, 2016 at 01:04 PM
deterpawson09
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


Just go mirrorless and use your smaller lighter Nikon lenses with and adapter and im sure you will be more than happy with the image quality...just my 2 cents worth...peace to all


Feb 09, 2016 at 01:07 PM
sjms
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


maybe in a few more years when they get it settled out and efficient and all the excited enthusiasts have funded it.


Feb 09, 2016 at 01:21 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · FX vs DX for next body...? Im stuck...?


deterpawson09 wrote:
Just go mirrorless and use your smaller lighter Nikon lenses with and adapter and im sure you will be more than happy with the image quality...just my 2 cents worth...peace to all


As long as he would not have to shoot any moving subjects.



Feb 09, 2016 at 01:33 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.