+1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere

Started Jun 2, 2012 | Discussions
WD
WD
Regular MemberPosts: 482
Like?
+1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
Jun 2, 2012

I've shot Nikon for 10 years. Other brands, too. My current favorite camera is D300 because:
1) Fast, accurate, top-notch auto focus and exposure. (Absolutely important!!)
2) High fps
3) Terrific choice of DX lenses from many mfrs. (I'm heavily invested.)
4) Outstanding ergonomics, handling, customability. (Very important.)
5) Very good (not the best today) image quality. Certainly usable!
6) Superb flash system. Nikon's is the BEST.
6) Rugged and dependable.
7) It's still capable after all these years.

I DO NOT want to move from DX to FX. I DO NOT want to remain with D300 forever but I will, until:

1) There is a D* with, preferably, more compact (Pentax K-5?) size.
2) D800 quality DR, focusing, resolution and color.
3) No loss in any category or function other than SIZE & WEIGHT!
4) Video not necessary for me, but probably not salable today without it.

To go FX, I have to sell my stuff and deal with the higher size/weight/prices. I'd rather look around at other options. I'm not unhappy with my D300 (yet). Just sayin'.

-- hide signature --

Warren

Nikon D300 Nikon D800 Pentax K-5
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Iain Harper
Contributing MemberPosts: 674Gear list
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to WD, Jun 2, 2012

WD, look at he discussions we've been having about the forthcoming D400.

In my mind, at least, it has to be a certainty (and a killer DX camera)

Iain.

 Iain Harper's gear list:Iain Harper's gear list
Olympus E-1 Nikon D300S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,120
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to WD, Jun 2, 2012

WD wrote:

2) D800 quality DR, focusing, resolution and color.
3) No loss in any category or function other than SIZE & WEIGHT!

Unfortunately, physics is against you. 2.25 times the sensor area will always tell. The best you can hope is that if you take the same photo (same AOV, shutter speed, DOF) you'll only lose a little in resolution. The FX body will always have an absolute advantage in DR and colour, technology being equal.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Tangney
Senior MemberPosts: 1,372
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to WD, Jun 2, 2012

Totally agree! My wife & I have a D300 & D7000. I like the resolution of the D7000, but it is not a D300 when the overall camera is judged. I strongly hope that the top of the line DX will not be a D7000 successor, but a real advance from the D300! While I do shoot other things, reach for wildlife is critical for me. I do NOT want to buy a D800 only to use the central area of the sensor!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
n057
Senior MemberPosts: 2,686Gear list
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to bobn2, Jun 2, 2012

bobn2 wrote:

WD wrote:

2) D800 quality DR, focusing, resolution and color.
3) No loss in any category or function other than SIZE & WEIGHT!

Unfortunately, physics is against you. 2.25 times the sensor area will always tell. The best you can hope is that if you take the same photo (same AOV, shutter speed, DOF) you'll only lose a little in resolution. The FX body will always have an absolute advantage in DR and colour, technology being equal.

Pics or it did not happen.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,120
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to n057, Jun 2, 2012

n057 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

WD wrote:

2) D800 quality DR, focusing, resolution and color.
3) No loss in any category or function other than SIZE & WEIGHT!

Unfortunately, physics is against you. 2.25 times the sensor area will always tell. The best you can hope is that if you take the same photo (same AOV, shutter speed, DOF) you'll only lose a little in resolution. The FX body will always have an absolute advantage in DR and colour, technology being equal.

Pics or it did not happen.

What 'did not happen'?
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
n057
Senior MemberPosts: 2,686Gear list
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to WD, Jun 2, 2012

WD wrote:

I DO NOT want to move from DX to FX. I DO NOT want to remain with D300 forever but I will, until:
1) There is a D* with, preferably, more compact (Pentax K-5?) size.
2) D800 quality DR, focusing, resolution and color.
3) No loss in any category or function other than SIZE & WEIGHT!
4) Video not necessary for me, but probably not salable today without it.

To go FX, I have to sell my stuff and deal with the higher size/weight/prices. I'd rather look around at other options. I'm not unhappy with my D300 (yet). Just sayin'.

+1, although I drive a D200

Although I believe the best move is to send you opinion to Nikon via their site. Go there and register your equipment, then send an email to service.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
n057
Senior MemberPosts: 2,686Gear list
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to bobn2, Jun 2, 2012

bobn2 wrote:

n057 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

WD wrote:

2) D800 quality DR, focusing, resolution and color.
3) No loss in any category or function other than SIZE & WEIGHT!

Unfortunately, physics is against you. 2.25 times the sensor area will always tell. The best you can hope is that if you take the same photo (same AOV, shutter speed, DOF) you'll only lose a little in resolution. The FX body will always have an absolute advantage in DR and colour, technology being equal.

Pics or it did not happen.

What 'did not happen'?

Your claim that DX is not worth it, because your way of presenting things is tantamount to that. Show real world images, not graphs. Compare a well exposed and focused actual D7000 real world image (not a D800 DX mode image) with your D800, and show us why the D800 image is better.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JimPearce
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,212Gear list
Like?
You speak with forked tongue Bob...
In reply to bobn2, Jun 2, 2012

You admitted within the last 24 hours that in many cases you can take a more or less exactly equivalent image (including DR) with DX. Both in theory and in the real world DX is better for reach, FX is better for shallow DOF or low light. In many cases, one simply cashes in the greater DOF with DX for one stop lower ISO and we end up with equivalent shots (given equivalent resolution). And just how is resolution tied to format? Will a D600 have more resolution than the new DX designs? Based on the D3200, it seems not.
--
Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,120
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to n057, Jun 2, 2012

n057 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

n057 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

WD wrote:

2) D800 quality DR, focusing, resolution and color.
3) No loss in any category or function other than SIZE & WEIGHT!

Unfortunately, physics is against you. 2.25 times the sensor area will always tell. The best you can hope is that if you take the same photo (same AOV, shutter speed, DOF) you'll only lose a little in resolution. The FX body will always have an absolute advantage in DR and colour, technology being equal.

Pics or it did not happen.

What 'did not happen'?

Your claim that DX is not worth it, because your way of presenting things is tantamount to that.

I have never, ever, anywhere said that DX is 'not worth it'. Sensor size is a design decision with trade-offs. On the positive side of the balance is the ability to make things smaller and cheaper and for the vast majority of photographic applications will produce results pretty much indistinguishable from FX. On the minus side is a loss of absolute light collection capacity, which means that it won't measure up in a few applications. I value the few for FX, and the D800 in particular to be a good bet for me.

Show real world images, not graphs. Compare a well exposed and focused actual D7000 real world image (not a D800 DX mode image) with your D800, and show us why the D800 image is better.

Well, for a start you are asking me to prove something that I never asserted. For a second, your demanded test is based on enough misapprehensions as to be futile. So, you say 'not a D800 DX mode image, well, a D800 DX mode image will be better fractionally than a D7000 image, because the sensor is more efficient, Then you demand that it be 'well exposed', but that does not mean anything. Do you mean to make a comparison with

  • the same exposure, in which case the D800 must inevitably win since it captures 2.25 times more light or

  • taking the same photo, in which case the the D800 will be only slightly ahead (just its slightly more efficient sensor) in noise since both sensors will intercept the same amount of light, but will generally win on resolution unless the D7000 is fitted with a lens so much better than the D800's that it produces enough additional resolution to overcome the additional 1.5x magnification and more than double the pixel count.

However, in most cases, unless printing very large or exploring the edges of exposure capability, then the limitation is likely to be the output medium, not either camera.
But as for your comparison, using DPR's studio scene:
Both cameras at 6400 ISO raw
D800

D7000

Note the slightly better noise in the D800 in corresponding colour squares at 100%, which means viewed the same size it will produce much better noise. Of course, 'same photo' conditions would mean comparing D800 with D7000 at 3200 ISO, which more or less equalises the difference.
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
n057
Senior MemberPosts: 2,686Gear list
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to bobn2, Jun 2, 2012

Real world images , Bob. You are skirting the issue again. Grab your cameras and go out on the town

bobn2 wrote:

n057 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

n057 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

WD wrote:

2) D800 quality DR, focusing, resolution and color.
3) No loss in any category or function other than SIZE & WEIGHT!

Unfortunately, physics is against you. 2.25 times the sensor area will always tell. The best you can hope is that if you take the same photo (same AOV, shutter speed, DOF) you'll only lose a little in resolution. The FX body will always have an absolute advantage in DR and colour, technology being equal.

Pics or it did not happen.

What 'did not happen'?

Your claim that DX is not worth it, because your way of presenting things is tantamount to that.

I have never, ever, anywhere said that DX is 'not worth it'. Sensor size is a design decision with trade-offs. On the positive side of the balance is the ability to make things smaller and cheaper and for the vast majority of photographic applications will produce results pretty much indistinguishable from FX. On the minus side is a loss of absolute light collection capacity, which means that it won't measure up in a few applications. I value the few for FX, and the D800 in particular to be a good bet for me.

Show real world images, not graphs.

D7000

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,120
Like?
Re: You speak with forked tongue Bob...
In reply to JimPearce, Jun 2, 2012

No forked tongue at all.

JimPearce wrote:

You admitted within the last 24 hours that in many cases you can take a more or less exactly equivalent image (including DR) with DX.

Yes, if you stick to 'same photo' comparisons. Not for 'same exposure comparisons', and not in an absolute sense. If you demand the most DR you can have, which is how I interpreted the point being made here, then we are talking about 'same exposure' comparisons at base ISO. Which the FX will always win, all else being equal.

Both in theory and in the real world DX is better for reach,

not true. A camera is better for reach the more pixels it can put behind the subject, and that depends on pixel size, not sensor size. In any case, with the simple addition of a 1.4x TC, the D800 will beat any DX camera for reach.

FX is better for shallow DOF or low light.

and absolute DR.

In many cases, one simply cashes in the greater DOF with DX for one stop lower ISO and we end up with equivalent shots (given equivalent resolution).

Exactly, and for equivalent shots there is little between them, unless its the D800 when the resolution advantage of all those pixels comes into play, but you need to be really critical for resolution for that to be much of a consideration.

And just how is resolution tied to format? Will a D600 have more resolution than the new DX designs? Based on the D3200, it seems not.

Resolution is simply resolution. The only real format based constraint is availability of lenses sufficiently good to deliver the same resolution on DX as FX, and there are not a lot.

However, for most I think that the cost/size/quality tradeoff of DX is probably a better one.
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,120
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to n057, Jun 2, 2012

n057 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

n057 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

n057 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

WD wrote:

2) D800 quality DR, focusing, resolution and color.
3) No loss in any category or function other than SIZE & WEIGHT!

Unfortunately, physics is against you. 2.25 times the sensor area will always tell. The best you can hope is that if you take the same photo (same AOV, shutter speed, DOF) you'll only lose a little in resolution. The FX body will always have an absolute advantage in DR and colour, technology being equal.

Pics or it did not happen.

What 'did not happen'?

Your claim that DX is not worth it, because your way of presenting things is tantamount to that.

I have never, ever, anywhere said that DX is 'not worth it'. Sensor size is a design decision with trade-offs. On the positive side of the balance is the ability to make things smaller and cheaper and for the vast majority of photographic applications will produce results pretty much indistinguishable from FX. On the minus side is a loss of absolute light collection capacity, which means that it won't measure up in a few applications. I value the few for FX, and the D800 in particular to be a good bet for me.

Show real world images, not graphs.

D7000

Real world images , Bob. You are skirting the issue again. Grab your cameras and go out on the town.

Those show everything relevant to 'real world images', that is why DPR does them. It is you skirting the issue.

And in any case, as I said, since I never made the suggestion that you attributed to me, disproving it is futile.

Let me turn your challenge round. You post an image of such quality that you believe that it could not be exceeded by a D800.
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
n057
Senior MemberPosts: 2,686Gear list
Like?
Re: You speak with forked tongue Bob...
In reply to bobn2, Jun 2, 2012

Real World Pics or it did not happen

bobn2 wrote:
No forked tongue at all.

JimPearce wrote:

You admitted within the last 24 hours that in many cases you can take a more or less exactly equivalent image (including DR) with DX.

Yes, if you stick to 'same photo' comparisons. Not for 'same exposure comparisons', and not in an absolute sense. If you demand the most DR you can have, which is how I interpreted the point being made here, then we are talking about 'same exposure' comparisons at base ISO. Which the FX will always win, all else being equal.

Both in theory and in the real world DX is better for reach,

not true. A camera is better for reach the more pixels it can put behind the subject, and that depends on pixel size, not sensor size. In any case, with the simple addition of a 1.4x TC, the D800 will beat any DX camera for reach.

FX is better for shallow DOF or low light.

and absolute DR.

In many cases, one simply cashes in the greater DOF with DX for one stop lower ISO and we end up with equivalent shots (given equivalent resolution).

Exactly, and for equivalent shots there is little between them, unless its the D800 when the resolution advantage of all those pixels comes into play, but you need to be really critical for resolution for that to be much of a consideration.

And just how is resolution tied to format? Will a D600 have more resolution than the new DX designs? Based on the D3200, it seems not.

Resolution is simply resolution. The only real format based constraint is availability of lenses sufficiently good to deliver the same resolution on DX as FX, and there are not a lot.

However, for most I think that the cost/size/quality tradeoff of DX is probably a better one.
--
Bob

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JimPearce
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,212Gear list
Like?
Good grief!
In reply to bobn2, Jun 2, 2012

In any case, with the simple addition of a 1.4x TC, the D800 will beat any DX camera for reach.
--
Bob

With the simple addition of a TC-14E, the D300 beats the D800 for reach. And what does that prove?

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
n057
Senior MemberPosts: 2,686Gear list
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to bobn2, Jun 2, 2012

bobn2 wrote:

Let me turn your challenge round. You post an image of such quality that you believe that it could not be exceeded by a D800.

You are the challenger Bob. You are the one saying we are wasting our time wishing for a better DX cam. You are the one who do not use a DX camera. You aer the one specifically throwing numbers and marketese at us.

Show us that we are teh ones wasting our time and spewing biological fluid into the wind.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,120
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to n057, Jun 2, 2012

n057 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Let me turn your challenge round. You post an image of such quality that you believe that it could not be exceeded by a D800.

You are the challenger Bob. You are the one saying we are wasting our time wishing for a better DX cam.

I have never said that you are wasting your time wishing for a better DX cam. I have said that I believe that the to end DX camera will be the D7x00 range, which is a different proposition entirely. I think it likely that the D7000 replacement will truly be a better DX camera.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JimPearce
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,212Gear list
Like?
I'd be happy to post several hundred Bob...
In reply to bobn2, Jun 2, 2012

This is really the crux of the argument. I see no reason to believe that for wildlife shots in normal daylight (shooting the D300 at ISO 400 or lower) at web sizes D800 shots will be any better than D300 shots. I do expect them to have a slightly different look, for better or worse. Now, 24" x 36" prints are a different matter.
--
Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,120
Like?
Re: Good grief!
In reply to JimPearce, Jun 2, 2012

JimPearce wrote:

In any case, with the simple addition of a 1.4x TC, the D800 will beat any DX camera for reach.
--
Bob

With the simple addition of a TC-14E, the D300 beats the D800 for reach. And what does that prove?

What it proves is that the 'reach' issue is over-rated. If reach is an issue there are many ways to get it.

The best reach 'native' Nikon is a D3200, which will put 24MP behind a subject. Take the same lens, put it on a 1.4x TC and put that on a D800 and you have 30MP behind the subject. So the D800 now has more reach.

You might object that you can put a TC on the D3200 too, but you can put a 2x (or another 1.4x) on the D800. Whatever you do you can match the magnification of the D3200 and the D800 gets more pixels behind the subject.
Of course, the DX camera is a cheaper and more compact solution.
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
n057
Senior MemberPosts: 2,686Gear list
Like?
Re: +1 if you agree. FX not for me. Stayin' with DX...somewhere
In reply to bobn2, Jun 2, 2012

bobn2 wrote:

n057 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Let me turn your challenge round. You post an image of such quality that you believe that it could not be exceeded by a D800.

You are the challenger Bob. You are the one saying we are wasting our time wishing for a better DX cam.

I have never said that you are wasting your time wishing for a better DX cam. I have said that I believe that the to end DX camera will be the D7x00 range, which is a different proposition entirely. I think it likely that the D7000 replacement will truly be a better DX camera.

You do it by doing presenting what you think as the only possible outcome.

If you truly believe that your newly acquired D800 is the best possible successor to DX, prove it.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads