"FX is heavier than DX" myth

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Zlik
Contributing MemberPosts: 988
Like?
"FX is heavier than DX" myth
1 month ago

I posted this as a reply to another thread but I think it's worth discussing it in a thread of its own. Many people keep saying that FX is heavier than DX. Well...

The D700/D800 are only 60-100g heavier than the D300s was

The D610 is only 85g heavier than the D7100.

The 50/1.8G is about the same weight as the 35/1.8DX and will give you a 1.5 stop advantage because of FX

The 70-200/4 is much lighter than the sigma 50-150/2.8 for and equivalent result

The 70-200/2.8 is about the same weight as the sigma 50-150/2.8 and will give you a 1.5 stop advantage because of FX

The Nikon 18-35/3.5-4.5 is much lighter AND brighter than the Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 and will give you a 2.5 stop advantage because of the lens aperture + FX.

etc...

Which means that:

[D6x0 or D700/D8x0] + [18-35/3.5-4.5 or 70-200/4]

is lighter than

[D7x00 or D300] + [12-24/4.5-5.6 or 70-200/2.8]

FX being necessarily heavier than DX is a huge myth. It can sometimes be (especially for reach), but not always. Of course, DX gives you the option of lower end bodies that truly are cheaper and ligher, but then again, they lack a bunch of features and are less well built VS the D7x00 and D6x00 series, and their price/weignt advantage has actually nothing to do with being DX or FX.

FX bodies are still slightly more expensive, but as we saw, they allow you to use cheaper lenses for equal or better quality.

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow