How really is FX better....

I have been reading that FX is better especially on the wide end.  But how?  Seems we have more cheaper, lighter, but still good wide lenses down -- 10-24 and even an 8-16!  FX does not have that many UWA  - just a few and they are heavy.

Granted FX will be better low light, better overall image quality for pixel peeping, and better DOF choises.

I have a D200 and am looking to upgrade - I have a lot of nice FX glass like 70-200, 105 vr, 35 f2, 70-300vr, 180 D 2.8.  My main DX investment is 10.5 fish.  I do shoot sports a lot but also tons of family stuff and vacations with the kids.

And I can afford FX - the main reason i dont want it is extra weight and size

--- For all those FX converts - is it fair to say that without pixel peeping or say on an 18x12 print with FX you get a little better IQ, thinner DOF, better low light. I have a feeling that except for extreem iso's that many shots would look similar (not as good but very close).

I mean in reality for non paid work whats the real difference for you?

Lately I have been using my Fuji X100 and the IQ is great up to iso 3200.  Its silent and that has real benefits that are not often thought about.  Sure iso 250000 would be great but i can pretty much get everything that is "meaningful" at iso 3200 and below.

So I want a D4000, but I was thinking of buying something like a D5100 for the meantime since its soooo cheap.... and wait.

Or do some of you have FX and DX?

thanks

My main reason for upgrading was low light/high ISO performance. ISO 6400 on my D600 is totally useable whereas on my Sony NEX 5N it looked terrible. Even 3200 on APS-C looks disgusting to me. Dynamic range is much better as well, I'm able to recover a lot more out of overblown areas than I ever could on APS-C. It's astounding to be honest.



12800 iso and -.67ev

I try not to go above 6400 which is very useable, but 12800 works in a pinch. And the DOF is terrific. AF is also quicker, sometimes remarkably so. It is heavier, no doubt. But if you need the lowlight capabilities, it's remarkable.

The D600 isn't much bigger than my D7000.

I'm very impressed with the IQ and the 28-85 is just as sharp as the 18-105.

A D700/16-35 f4 combination and a D300/10-24 f3.5-4.5 deliver an identical 7 P-Mpix.

--
Jim

Regarding wide-angle - the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF-D is very small, and faster than any WA zoom for aps-c.

I used to shoot the Tokina 12-24 f4 on my D90, and the D800 + 20 f2.8 feels like a smaller combo and fits into a smaller bag. So if you like to use small wide primes, FF can be very fun in that way as well.

By the way your 180 2.8 is fantastic on FF - probably my favorite lens on my D800.

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

High ISO, you can compare yourself on this site.

DOF advantage for isolation is about 1 stop over DX

DR  Another big advantage over earlier generations such as the D200 / D300 but not the D7000

You can save money by buying F4 lenses instead of f2.8 and still come out with a performance advantage (assuming lens performance is equal). According to the new DXO lens numbers you can't buy a commonly available lens that will resolve much over 18mp. Even so the new sensors are still better than the older generation of 12mp sensors.

On the other hand you lose reach which can be very expensive when you go over 200mm.

--
Sincerely
Ron J

That right there is why most people choose FX. And in my opinion the difference is much more noticeable than just for pixel peeping, especially at higher ISO's, DR, and the colors at higher ISO's. I came from a D300 and FX is a larger step up than I thought, I am truly blown away by the D600. It's not for everyone though, the pixel density of the latest DX sensors combined with the crop factor are good for bird photographers or those wanting to travel as light as possible (although the D600 isn't exactly heavy, the lenses can be).

There are plenty of positives about DX bodies and lenses. If those positives appeal to you (i.e., smaller size, increased reach with telephoto lenses just to name two), then I can't really tell you that FX would be a better fit for you.

For some people, the even smaller portability of mirrorless is worth the tradeoff. It all depends on what best fits your everyday shooting needs.

The inexpensive D600 has a DX mode.

This let's you use both formats. 

DXO is out to lunch on this, imo.

you pretty much listed the reasons in your first post.  (and a note.  do not write anything important/main-body after three dashes or else it will be hidden as your signature.  didn't realize your post continued until I hit reply with quote.)

I got my D800 since I wanted a more solid DSLR with OVF (was mainly using an E-M5 prior), wanted even crazier OOF effects (so got a 1.4/85), better low-light capabilities, and higher resolution for easier cropping and such.  for the type of photography that I like to do, it is a much better fit for me and has better implementations of the equipment I want to have.

if you print 18x12 and are not heavily cropping your current-gen DX shots, then IMO you have enough pixels to make a sharp print.

Thinner DOF is relative to what other thin-DOF shot you are comparing it to, but if you go for the extreme, it should be noticeable that you took it with something that offers a better effect that is normally expected.

The D4 has very good high ISO performance  the D800 not as much.  some crop sensors are good at high ISO while others aren't as good.  so with this, it all depends on what we are comparing.  look at some sample shots and compare yourself.  some body images deteriorate quickly at super high ISO, while others tend to keep things together.  but just because it is FX is not a reason its high ISO will be superb.  if everything is the same other than sensor size, then yes... but there is a lot more to it.

btw, I still have my E-M5 and extensive lens collection.  have a more complete m43 lens kit than for my D800.  it's all a matter of what I'm shooting and how much gear I want to carry.  D800 is great if I want the best possible shot or am doing something unique, but for most purposes the E-M5 holds its own.  other times, I just like shooting with a nice body like the D800 so I bring it regardless of activity.

thanks everyone - man I am tempted to get the D600 since I can use crop mode when needed - i just heard it was not easy to use in the VF

as the poster mentioned above here is some info i wrote that was tuck in my signature  - not sure how to edit my original post

--- For all those FX converts - is it fair to say that without pixel peeping or say on an 18x12 print with FX you get a little better IQ, thinner DOF, better low light. I have a feeling that except for extreem iso's that many shots would look similar (not as good but very close).

I mean in reality for non paid work whats the real difference for you?

Lately I have been using my Fuji X100 and the IQ is great up to iso 3200. Its silent and that has real benefits that are not often thought about. Sure iso 250000 would be great but i can pretty much get everything that is "meaningful" at iso 3200 and below.

So I want a D4000, but I was thinking of buying something like a D5100 for the meantime since its soooo cheap.... and wait.

Or do some of you have FX and DX?

thanks

FX has cheaper and lighter UWA options because of primes, especially when counting third party lens makers. The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 has great performance for under $400. The 20mm Nikon lenses are smaller than any DX UWA zoom.

On the other side of things, there are extremely high quality UWA options like the 14-24mm, 24mm 1.4, and the various Zeiss UWA primes.

Other than the fisheye, there aren't really any UWA primes for DX. Heck, there aren't really any primes for DX that are wider than a 50mm equivalent. Sure you can use FX glass, but it won't be as wide as on an FX camera. You can use a zoom, but then the size argument starts to go away.

Well, I have a D300S and a D800. The D300S is about the same size as the D200 I think, and both are of a similar size as the D800. Actually, the D800 weighs 25 grams less than the D300S!

And if you're interested in a smaller camera, there's the D600 which is smaller and lighter than all the above cameras.

High ISO and AF performance have been the real noticeable differences in going from the D300S to the D800. It's been great and I wish I moved to FX sooner. I actually haven't even shot a paid job with my D800 yet.

All that said, if DX works for you, that's fine. In my opinion if size is your concern, mirror-less would be a better way to go.

Holy mother of edge detection.

Your bold text is still below what dpreview considers a signature line. Don't use multiple dash characters. Use an emdash (Shift-Option-dash on a Mac) if you need that kind of character. You can also use the bullet list from the toolbar above.

Different format sizes have different characteristics. Whether they are advantages or disadvantages often comes down to the user. Thinner DOF is a disadvantage to me.

Some of the things I find advantageous about FX are:

• Dynamic Range is greater on FX
• The viewfinder is larger

I don't see the wide ange advantage. The Nikon 12-24mm f/4 DX was a good lens on the D2x. With FX, finding wide lenses that will produce sharp corners is a challenge. The lenses are larger, more expensive, and most have some issues. The 14-24mm is subject to flare, wont take filters without an awkward adaptor, and is large. The Zeiss 15mm and 21mm are manual focus only and very expensive for primes. The 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor has sever field curvature in the corners so you have to focus stack to get sharp corners...

If you are shooting telephoto, DX has the advantage. For a specific field of view you need less focal length on DX.

If you want to use both DX and FX, the D800 is a better choice than the D600. DX on a D800 is about 16 MP where it is only 10 MP on a D600.

--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html

I was waiting for that.

For me, full-frame is not unequivocally better than crop (I shoot both). Yes, you get the shallower DOF, more 'natural' FOV with most prime lenses, and lower noise at higher ISO. But crop setups have the potential to be much smaller and lighter which helps for travel (This may not apply to the OP since he shoots with a D200 and mostly FX lenses). For wide angle landscape shots stopped down and tripod-mounted, sensor size makes little difference IMO.

I think the marketing machines by Canon/Nikon/Sony lead you to believe there is this whole new world once you get into full frame but that's simply not the case. If you look at user galleries on the web for the D600 for example, you'll see a lot of close-up pictures of inanimate objects or photos taken in very dim light to show off the user's newfound capabilities with his/her D600, but those photos get boring after a while.

Once you focus back on composition and lighting to take good pictures, the abilities of the camera to have thinner DOF or super-high ISOs lessen in importance. Some of the best pictures I've seen lately were taken by pro photographers on their Olympus OM-D, which has a sensor smaller than your D200. The sensor of the OM-D, although smaller, has DR and noise levels comparable or better than APS-C DSLRs from a few years back. The real benefit is the freedom of taking your camera everywhere. I know more often than not I'll leave my heavier equipment at home for casual outings and just take my NEX. It's a pain lugging around a DSLR and heavy glass on vacations as well.

Of course, nothing is going to replace a FF DSLR if you need it for its capabilities. But outside of shooting portraits or in very dark places, I think crop can mostly get you there in a smaller package.

Yes DX is lighter overall, but I wonder why you have a 70-200 if weight is an issue?

Thanks everyone for the replies.  I am tempted to go d600 and use crop mode when i need reach

For the above post, I do shoot a lot of sports and thus use the 70-200 vr version 1