FF vs DX

Started Jan 12, 2013 | Discussions
kpaschall
New MemberPosts: 8
Like?
FF vs DX
Jan 12, 2013

I'm sure either direction will be fine but i'm struggling over which platform to move to.  I've got a D90 with the kit lens that i'm going to pass down to my son and leaning toward getting a full frame.  The size and price of D600 appeals to me but could always go with a used body.  But i'm at a point where I want to get some good lenses so i'm not clear if FF is a better fit than DX for me.  Camera will be used for the broad range of family pictures, travel, but also a lot of kids sports, both indoors (basketball) and outdoor football and baseball.  I may rent the 70-200 2.8 lens for catching some of the indoor sports initially and get a couple good primes to start.

Video isn't a primary concern as I use my Canon HF G10 for sports video.

Can anyone who has experience with both give me the high points on FF vs DX and a D600 vs. a new D7000 for example based on my needs?

Thanks.

Nikon D600 Nikon D7000 Nikon D90
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Robin Casady
Forum ProPosts: 11,715
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to kpaschall, Jan 12, 2013

The main thing you will experience with FX is that a particular focal length lens gives you a wider field of view than it did on a DX body. If you are used to using a 200mm lens on DX, you would need a 300mm lens on FX to get the same field of view you are used to.

Another thing is that your depth of field with FX will be a bit narrower for the same field of view.

An advantage to FX is that it has greater dynamic range. Here is a link to a chart showing DR in relation to ISO on different cameras. You can turn cameras on or off from the list on the right.

That's about it. It isn't earthshaking, and you may not see much improvement in your images just from switching formats.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yray
Contributing MemberPosts: 903
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to kpaschall, Jan 12, 2013

kpaschall wrote:

I'm sure either direction will be fine but i'm struggling over which platform to move to. I've got a D90 with the kit lens that i'm going to pass down to my son and leaning toward getting a full frame. The size and price of D600 appeals to me but could always go with a used body. But i'm at a point where I want to get some good lenses so i'm not clear if FF is a better fit than DX for me. Camera will be used for the broad range of family pictures, travel, but also a lot of kids sports, both indoors (basketball) and outdoor football and baseball. I may rent the 70-200 2.8 lens for catching some of the indoor sports initially and get a couple good primes to start.

Video isn't a primary concern as I use my Canon HF G10 for sports video.

Can anyone who has experience with both give me the high points on FF vs DX and a D600 vs. a new D7000 for example based on my needs?

Thanks.

From my perspective, there are really two aspects to your question: reach and low light capability.

For indoor sports you'll need an FX in my opinion. To get the shutter speed to freeze action in basketball, that is to say at least 1/500 but better 1/640 or 1/800, you'll be shooting at ISO somewhere between 3200 and 6400 in a typical gym, assuming 70-200 2.8. Maybe there are brighter gyms, but I haven't come across them yet. I don't think any DX camera would deliver particularly good quality at this ISO, D7000 not excepting. Maybe D400 will be it, but I doubt it. Even the best FX cameras might be struggling a bit in these conditions, in part not so much because of the high ISO as such, but because the artificial light in a gym tends to be very flat and uninteresting, so all imperfections related to high ISO noise and detail loss related to it will become all the more apparent.

For outdoor football and baseball, it is the opposite. You'll get a whole lot more reach with a DX camera, though D7000 wouldn't be my first pick for sports. Given that you're coming from D90, you're probably already used to it, so the loss of reach from acquiring an FX camera might not be something you'll welcome. But the bottom line, with DX you'll get just as far with much smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses (we might be talking a factor of two or three or even larger for all or some of these parameters depending on the lens choice).

So, your football and basketball needs work at cross purposes.

For travel, family and everything else FX generally works better. When you travel, you'll probably find that wide angle is more important than super telephoto, unless you're into wildlife and such. The extra headroom for low light shooting is always welcome, even for family pics, and so on. The greater depth of field for the same field of view in DX over FX might be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on what it is you're shooting, so I wouldn't base my decision on this, or only as a secondary factor.

I do have D7000 but rarely use it. I can't say that it is particularly bad in any way, it is just a little finicky with AF and exposure, so my confidence level in it is a bit low. It is also a little too small for comfortable handling, so I pretty much never take the vertical grip off. At the end of the day, I think my D7000 will be passed down to my daughter when she's ready for it. You can take excellent quality shots with it, no doubt, it just doesn't feel or handle right for me. From what I understand, D600 has similar handling characteristics, though, I'm sure it is also a great image-making apparatus. The consistent oil/dust threads on this and other forums would give me a pause though.

Personally, I would give you an unconventional advice that you're probably not likely to take. For just a little over what you would pay for a new D600 (assuming its price doesn't continue falling), you can get a used D700 and a used D300 in very good condition. This is what I would do, but it is predicated on my specific needs and preferences.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Bingham
Forum ProPosts: 20,520Gear list
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to yray, Jan 12, 2013

Having just come from 2+ years of DX - and loving it - let me make a suggestion. 99% of the casual photographers out there will benefit from DX!!!!!!! I am back with FX because I shoot for gallery presentation - like 40" + prints. Your needs sound fairly casual - shoot DX and save a TON of money on lenses.

-- hide signature --

Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com

 Steve Bingham's gear list:Steve Bingham's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D7100 Nikon D610 Nikon D5300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
anotherMike
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,029
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to kpaschall, Jan 12, 2013

These are always difficult decisions. Going FX is going to mean some outlay of cash, and since I don't know you or your style/experience/preferences, it's a tough call, right? So the only thing I can do is give you two examples of why I personally think FX is the best choice for BOTH an experienced photographer AND a beginner, but within the context of that photographer photographing a wider range of tasks than just scenic landscape and also being able to afford the move to FX. Obviously it would be better to have a decent DX kit with nice lenses than a D600 with one lens, right?

I'll start with myself. I'm extremely experienced and very technically astute. I've shot most Nikon DSLRS since 2003 when I switched over from film, so my DX experience is the D100, D70, D2X, D80, D300, D90 and D7000, and my FX experience is the D700 and D800E, and I've evaluated but do not own (yet, I expect to some day) a D600. I shoot some landscape but also a lot of studio/art personal work which is a mixture of fashion, sensuality, and movement. My studio work is not static - the models are almost constantly moving. What I'm about to type is really important and it keys in why I can't stand DX, and why. For ME, the most critical thing in my studio work is to get the shot. That trumps dynamic range, sharpness, flare resistance, having the coolest camera, and everything else. And to ME, "getting the shot" means two things: me being able to SEE the shot when it arrives (my subjects are moving) AND react properly to the moment in time, AND the camera being able to react properly and capture the shot. Where DX has let me down compared to FX, which hasn't let me down, is very much squarely within the discussion of getting the shot. With FX, you have a bigger/brighter/better viewfinder - and don't under-estimate this - it allows me to SEE what is happening in front of me. This to me is HUGE. I don't like liveview for this sort of thing - I want an optical viewfinder. I find the artistic quality of my work IMPROVED when I moved away from my D300/D7000 combo and went to the D700 (not to mention the technical aspects also improving) because I could see and react to what was happening in front of me. Now - obviously someone who is strictly a landscape photographer may feel differently - they are possibly using live view exclusively or they don't care about looking through what I deem is the miserable viewfinder present on every single DX camera out there. So hence it does, I think, come down to what YOU deem important.

That's the "see/react" part of the equation. The next thing which to me is lacking on the current DX line of Nikons is that none of them have a pro grade really good AF system. The last one that did was the now-aging D300. The D7000 has a much, much nicer sensor than the D300, but man, I HATED that body in the studio. LOUSY AF accuracy in low light (and I tested the hell out of it as I test for a living), and between that and the smaller viewfinder, I found that body, while obviously having a nice sensor, just a total abysmal failure as a TOOL that I could use to make my imagery. I hope that makes sense - for ME, the ability to react/see AND my requirement that the body AF properly and repeatedly to a decent degree was NOT met by the D7000 meant it wasn't the camera for me, while of course someone only doing landscape work might love the D7000.  So in my view, the DX lineup is in sore need of a better AF body, and I think 2013 will be the year for such a beast, and then the folks who prefer DX for some reason I think will be much happier. Obviously even with a proper AF system, you're still looking through a smaller viewfinder - so even if Nikon comes up with a killer D400 DX camera, it still won't be my preferred option. Notice I'm not even going to begin to discuss the technical advantages of FX over DX in this post  - I'm talking strictly usability here.

That's me. I have a friend up north, a straight up amateur of limited skill. Still doesn't understand what probably 90% of the people here get, so he's far from a pro or a skilled amateur. For years he used a D70 and then a D200. He's retired and not rich, so he struggled with the decision to go FX. Most here or the DX forum would strongly urge him to stick with DX. He shoots a variety of things, from the occasional bit of theater or gymnastics of his grandkids, to some portraits to some small group shots. He never shoots landscape. He finally saved up enough to get a D700. To say he's ecstatic would be an understatement. I asked him why he loved the camera so much and without any prompting he told me two things: One, that he can SEE through the viewfinder (hmmmm, where have I heard that before?) and he felt the camera just reacted better to what he needed to shoot, and that the AF system was much better than anything he used before. The interesting thing is that he test-drove a D7000 from another friend before making the FX decision. He didn't care much for the D7000. Secondly, he obviously recognized that sensor performance had come a long way from the D200. I find it highly interesting that a guy who has 1/10th the technical skill of most of this forums participants immediately found the one huge advantage to FX without ever being prompted as why he would feel that way. Perhaps this a lesson that is missed by many who get caught up in the DX argument...

Now - the big question of course always comes down to the coin. Within the larger goal of trying to improve ones photography, one has to be realistic about where, amongst many areas, they spend the money wisely. If one is a landscape photographer, one might be better off using money intended for a D600 and a few FX lenses to be able to go on 2 more landscape trips in a season if they feel, for example, that they aren't going out and shooting enough. Perhaps a beginner fashion photographer might be better off hiring a few REALLY good pro models for a few shoots to see the difference between their best friends daughter and a pro. Or perhaps spending money on a seminar to learn how to light, or how to post process, would be a better investment than buying more gear or changing formats just because it's cool or I myself like it better.

DX exists simply because of cost - don't think for a minute it's anything else. If Nikon had been able to produce an FX DSLR in 2003 at the same price as the D100 when it came out (the first somewhat reasonably affordable consumer Nikon DSLR), they would have done it. DX bodies today are a reasonable balance compromise between performance, usability, and cost. The thing is, in my view, FX is going down in price to the point where it's not quite as insane to get one. So I think one also has to weight how important the "getting the shot" part of the equation, as I've explained it in this post, is to their own process - as stated before, a guy shooting landscape isn't as reliant on the "getting the shot" process that a larger viewfinder and better AF system would benefit them, but a guy shooting his son in soccer, his daughter in gymnastics, his cousin in ballet and doing general event work for church would. Therefore, anyone who is considering the DX vs FX I propose has to include this aspect as well. I know if I had to rely on a D7000 to do my own studio work I'd be supremely frustrated - I probably would have punted back to the noisier/gritty D300 I had at the time because it got the shot more reliably, but now that I've been FX for a couple of years, I can't go back - I've seen the difference the usability aspect makes, in addition to the technical aspects. But I totally understand why a landscape guy might think his DX kit is good enough for what he does too.

-m

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alejandro Daz del Ro Fery
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,726
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to Steve Bingham, Jan 12, 2013

Steve Bingham wrote:

Having just come from 2+ years of DX - and loving it - let me make a suggestion. 99% of the casual photographers out there will benefit from DX!!!!!!! I am back with FX because I shoot for gallery presentation - like 40" + prints. Your needs sound fairly casual - shoot DX and save a TON of money on lenses.

-- hide signature --

Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com

Agreed, the FX for DR, tiny DoF & better noise @ low light ... the DX is lighter and cheaper ... but do not forget the future is CX & coolpixes ... 

-- hide signature --

Regards.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jfriend00
Forum ProPosts: 11,116
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to kpaschall, Jan 12, 2013

kpaschall wrote:

Can anyone who has experience with both give me the high points on FF vs DX and a D600 vs. a new D7000 for example based on my needs?

Video isn't a primary concern as I use my Canon HF G10 for sports video.

I'm sure either direction will be fine but i'm struggling over which platform to move to. I've got a D90 with the kit lens that i'm going to pass down to my son and leaning toward getting a full frame. The size and price of D600 appeals to me but could always go with a used body. But i'm at a point where I want to get some good lenses so i'm not clear if FF is a better fit than DX for me. Camera will be used for the broad range of family pictures, travel, but also a lot of kids sports, both indoors (basketball) and outdoor football and baseball. I may rent the 70-200 2.8 lens for catching some of the indoor sports initially and get a couple good primes to start.

What is your maximum budget for body and lenses?  If your budget is limited at all, then you're interested in the best tradeoff that gets you the right lenses for what you shoot and an appropriate body to fit in that budget.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Shepherd
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,556Gear list
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to kpaschall, Jan 12, 2013

Right now there is an issue in that Nikon have brought out upgraded FX bodies before DX bodies. Maybe in three months the playing field will be more level.

When the choice was mainly 12MP for either format results were usually close to indistinguishable to about 1600 ISO when making a 20 inch wide print.

Part off topic I am producing some good 20 inch wide prints from the much smaller format P7700. On close inspection although they are not the equal of the D800 they are more than good enough for many purposes.

A lot depends on the end use, your photographic needs, and your budget. Nikon give you choices. Nikon customers choose about 4 Coolpix to about each DX body, and about 9 DX bodies to each FX body.

-- hide signature --

Leonard Shepherd
Many problems turn out to be a lack of intimate knowledge of complex modern camera equipment.

 Leonard Shepherd's gear list:Leonard Shepherd's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Antony John
Senior MemberPosts: 1,034Gear list
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to kpaschall, Jan 12, 2013

I have a D90 and have added a D600 just prior to Christmas. So far have only shot around 200 pictures (mainly family etc) due to the time of year and other priorities.

Straight 'out of the box' the D600 image IQ is far better than the D90. Improved detail, much lower noise, better DR etc.

Caveat is that most of these images were shot with my Zeiss 35mm F2 lens.

Second caveat is that I have only invested in FX lenses for the last 7 years or so, so the migration wasn't that painful on the pocket.

Now I'm back in my expat flat I'll have more time to evaluate the 2 cameras one on one. However I can't see the D90 coming close. Frankly I'm really impressed with the D600 IQ.

If you can rent a D600 then give it a try. I think you'll find it's a worthwhile exercise.

Otherwise, there's a lot of excellent advice above and it's a matter of 'horses for courses'.

-- hide signature --

AJ
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

 Antony John's gear list:Antony John's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D90 Nikon D600 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Hogan
Senior MemberPosts: 3,943Gear list
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to Alejandro Daz del Ro Fery, Jan 12, 2013

Alejandro Daz del Ro Fery wrote:

Agreed, the FX for DR, tiny DoF & better noise @ low light ... the DX is lighter and cheaper ... but do not forget the future is CX & coolpixes ...

... all the way to camera-phones.

Or perhaps not  Heck twenty years ago folks were convinced that satellite TV would kill Cable in a matter of a few years.  Give the customer what he needs/wants and different delivery mechanisms can coexist happily as long as they each understand and serve well their niche of the market.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RP McMurphy
Contributing MemberPosts: 571
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to anotherMike, Jan 12, 2013

anotherMike wrote:

 With FX, you have a bigger/brighter/better viewfinder - and don't under-estimate this - it allows me to SEE what is happening in front of me. .

-m

+1, the huge viewfinder is great, I've even added a 1.2magnifyning eyepiece

As sai above this is a real impovement over DX to go along with DR and noise etc

When you are at closer distances, for telephoto use I'd say that the differences were not so great and for longer telephoto work the crop factr does give an advantage in lens choice

So depends on your primary type of photography ultimately

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,674Gear list
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to yray, Jan 12, 2013

yray wrote:

For indoor sports you'll need an FX in my opinion. To get the shutter speed to freeze action in basketball, that is to say at least 1/500 but better 1/640 or 1/800, you'll be shooting at ISO somewhere between 3200 and 6400 in a typical gym, assuming 70-200 2.8. Maybe there are brighter gyms, but I haven't come across them yet. I don't think any DX camera would deliver particularly good quality at this ISO, D7000 not excepting. Maybe D400 will be it, but I doubt it. Even the best FX cameras might be struggling a bit in these conditions, in part not so much because of the high ISO as such, but because the artificial light in a gym tends to be very flat and uninteresting, so all imperfections related to high ISO noise and detail loss related to it will become all the more apparent.

For outdoor football and baseball, it is the opposite. You'll get a whole lot more reach with a DX camera, though D7000 wouldn't be my first pick for sports. Given that you're coming from D90, you're probably already used to it, so the loss of reach from acquiring an FX camera might not be something you'll welcome. But the bottom line, with DX you'll get just as far with much smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses (we might be talking a factor of two or three or even larger for all or some of these parameters depending on the lens choice).

I mostly agree with yray.  A DX has advantages with respect to longer reach...yielding greater depth of field when you need it and more reach for the weight (and dollar.)  Indoors, the FX has the advantage of greater ISO performance.  Another area, where the FX shines, is outdoor landscape photography, where the greater dynamic range is also an advantage, though with a tripod, you can make up for it, on some days, and with some subjects, with HDR.

I will say, however, you can get by in dark gyms with even a DX camera, if you are willing to put up with the lower quality.  I took many picks in horribly dark natatoriums, with a 7D camera and a slow F5.6 lens (because the 100-400IS was all I had with enough reach.)  I shot in RAW and was able to recover decent enough quality for myself and other parents.

One other thing, in low light, sometimes, when you need more DOF, the FX's better ISO performance is nullified by the fact that it needs to be stopped down more and therefore you need to boost the ISO.  For example, in group shots and candids, where people are in different planes, the DX's greater DOF means it might be playing at ISO 1600 while the FX camera is at ISO 5000.

 Daniel Lauring's gear list:Daniel Lauring's gear list
Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alejandro Daz del Ro Fery
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,726
Like?
That's my point exactly.... Re: FF vs DX
In reply to Jack Hogan, Jan 12, 2013

Jack Hogan wrote:

Alejandro Daz del Ro Fery wrote:

Agreed, the FX for DR, tiny DoF & better noise @ low light ... the DX is lighter and cheaper ... but do not forget the future is CX & coolpixes ...

... all the way to camera-phones.

Or perhaps not Heck twenty years ago folks were convinced that satellite TV would kill Cable in a matter of a few years. Give the customer what he needs/wants and different delivery mechanisms can coexist happily as long as they each understand and serve well their niche of the market.

Video did not kill the radio star ... soon we'll have telephones with great viewfinders and Nikon1 and Coolpixes with videoconference... ah, the future, who were there ... 

-- hide signature --

Regards.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sjprintz
Regular MemberPosts: 382Gear list
Like?
FF vs DX
In reply to Alejandro Daz del Ro Fery, Jan 12, 2013

Having been a longtime DX shooter who just switched to FX (D800), I can say these are the differences:

FX Advantages:

Better in low light

Larger sensor, allows larger prints

Better dynamic range

Better lens selection (especially at the pro end)

FX Lenses seem to hold value better (just my observation)

Better viewfinders

DX Advantages:

Lighter cameras and lenses

Lenses are less expensive

Wrong information:

DX has more reach - the D800 switches to DX mode at the push of a button which essentially crops the photo before saving it to your card.  With the D800 you still get a 15 mp image.

Wider angle of view for FX.  True but if you buy DX lenses, you will get the same wide angle view (such as the 10-24mm DX gives you an effective 15-36mm FOV). The difference is if you use the SAME lens on the FX and DX, then the FX gets the wider view.

Which to choose?  That's up to the buyer based on needs, budget and interest level.  My only strong suggestion is to be careful with DX because it seems that long-term, NIkon may be supporting it only on the entry level.  You will see this marketing strategy manifested in the quality and variety of FX v. DX lenses.

SJP

 sjprintz's gear list:sjprintz's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leo360
Senior MemberPosts: 1,033
Like?
The true reasons for a FF camera (link to Falk Lumo)
In reply to sjprintz, Jan 12, 2013

sjprintz wrote:

DX Advantages:

Lenses are less expensive

Actually, getting the same IQ in DX is more expensive than in FX. Falk Lumo has a very nice article just about that.

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html

Leo

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yray
Contributing MemberPosts: 903
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to Daniel Lauring, Jan 12, 2013

Daniel Lauring wrote:

One other thing, in low light, sometimes, when you need more DOF, the FX's better ISO performance is nullified by the fact that it needs to be stopped down more and therefore you need to boost the ISO. For example, in group shots and candids, where people are in different planes, the DX's greater DOF means it might be playing at ISO 1600 while the FX camera is at ISO 5000.

This is an excellent point, and it is indeed very easy to trip over the narrow DOF at fast apertures shooting action in close quarters in the dark so to speak, particularly the requirement to nail the focus becomes much more stringent. It is always a dance around ISO, aperture and shutter speed with this type of shooting, trying to figure out what you can still get away with, and often not getting as many keepers as one would like. With this in mind, FX still gives you greater flexibility in terms of variables you can play with.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yray
Contributing MemberPosts: 903
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to sjprintz, Jan 12, 2013

sjprintz wrote:

Wrong information:

DX has more reach - the D800 switches to DX mode at the push of a button which essentially crops the photo before saving it to your card. With the D800 you still get a 15 mp image.


This is also only partially correct. The DX crop in the viewfinder is not very comfortable to work with, and this also affects your ability to focus correctly. Your high ISO advantage is also partially sacrificed in the process, you basically convert your D800 into D7000, and your noise levels when "viewed at the same size" (to reuse the popular mantra) are now essentially the D7000 noise levels. And you still don't have a high speed sports/action camera in the end, if this was the intent. So, yes, D800 can probably do it all, but only just.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Shepherd
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,556Gear list
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to yray, Jan 12, 2013

yray wrote:

This is also only partially correct. The DX crop in the viewfinder is not very comfortable to work with, and this also affects your ability to focus correctly.

You do you say this?

Because of the different viewfinder magnifications DX apparent image size is only about 15% smaller than FX, with DX being about one stop brighter than FX - useful in low light.

Overall I prefer the DX viewfinder image.

-- hide signature --

Leonard Shepherd
Many problems turn out to be a lack of intimate knowledge of complex modern camera equipment.

 Leonard Shepherd's gear list:Leonard Shepherd's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kpaschall
New MemberPosts: 8
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to yray, Jan 12, 2013

yray wrote:

kpaschall wrote:

I'm sure either direction will be fine but i'm struggling over which platform to move to. I've got a D90 with the kit lens that i'm going to pass down to my son and leaning toward getting a full frame. The size and price of D600 appeals to me but could always go with a used body. But i'm at a point where I want to get some good lenses so i'm not clear if FF is a better fit than DX for me. Camera will be used for the broad range of family pictures, travel, but also a lot of kids sports, both indoors (basketball) and outdoor football and baseball. I may rent the 70-200 2.8 lens for catching some of the indoor sports initially and get a couple good primes to start.

Video isn't a primary concern as I use my Canon HF G10 for sports video.

Can anyone who has experience with both give me the high points on FF vs DX and a D600 vs. a new D7000 for example based on my needs?

Thanks.

From my perspective, there are really two aspects to your question: reach and low light capability.

For indoor sports you'll need an FX in my opinion. To get the shutter speed to freeze action in basketball, that is to say at least 1/500 but better 1/640 or 1/800, you'll be shooting at ISO somewhere between 3200 and 6400 in a typical gym, assuming 70-200 2.8. Maybe there are brighter gyms, but I haven't come across them yet. I don't think any DX camera would deliver particularly good quality at this ISO, D7000 not excepting. Maybe D400 will be it, but I doubt it. Even the best FX cameras might be struggling a bit in these conditions, in part not so much because of the high ISO as such, but because the artificial light in a gym tends to be very flat and uninteresting, so all imperfections related to high ISO noise and detail loss related to it will become all the more apparent.

For outdoor football and baseball, it is the opposite. You'll get a whole lot more reach with a DX camera, though D7000 wouldn't be my first pick for sports. Given that you're coming from D90, you're probably already used to it, so the loss of reach from acquiring an FX camera might not be something you'll welcome. But the bottom line, with DX you'll get just as far with much smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses (we might be talking a factor of two or three or even larger for all or some of these parameters depending on the lens choice).

So, your football and basketball needs work at cross purposes.

For travel, family and everything else FX generally works better. When you travel, you'll probably find that wide angle is more important than super telephoto, unless you're into wildlife and such. The extra headroom for low light shooting is always welcome, even for family pics, and so on. The greater depth of field for the same field of view in DX over FX might be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on what it is you're shooting, so I wouldn't base my decision on this, or only as a secondary factor.

I do have D7000 but rarely use it. I can't say that it is particularly bad in any way, it is just a little finicky with AF and exposure, so my confidence level in it is a bit low. It is also a little too small for comfortable handling, so I pretty much never take the vertical grip off. At the end of the day, I think my D7000 will be passed down to my daughter when she's ready for it. You can take excellent quality shots with it, no doubt, it just doesn't feel or handle right for me. From what I understand, D600 has similar handling characteristics, though, I'm sure it is also a great image-making apparatus. The consistent oil/dust threads on this and other forums would give me a pause though.

Personally, I would give you an unconventional advice that you're probably not likely to take. For just a little over what you would pay for a new D600 (assuming its price doesn't continue falling), you can get a used D700 and a used D300 in very good condition. This is what I would do, but it is predicated on my specific needs and preferences.

Thanks, this is the type of info that will really help.

as I was getting to the middle of this I did start thinking maybe I keep the D90 and go after a used FX body and get the lenses that make sense.   I do have a 70-300 AF-S lens as well.

So I shot with a rented 6d today for some indoor basketball with the 70-200 f/4.  Felt like I got some good shots considering not that familiar with it and would only improve with more time.  Going to try out the D600 with the Nikon version lens next week.  Anything I can look for between the two brands?  I feel like indoor sports is the toughest thing I'll shoot so whichever does best here might be the choice.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Vincent O'Sullivan
Regular MemberPosts: 301
Like?
Re: FF vs DX
In reply to yray, Jan 12, 2013

yray wrote:

You'll get a whole lot more reach with a DX camera...

"Reach" is not related to whether a camera is FX or DX, only to the pixel density of the sensor.  Some DX cameras have greater reach than some FX cameras, some less.  A denser pixel arrangement results in sharper pictures (all else being equal), which is all "reach" is.

The D7000 has a 16.8 MP sensor.  The 24MP D600 has a 16.2 MP sensor (in DX mode).  The 36MP D800 has a 24.2 MP sensor (in DX mode).

On this basis, the DX D7000 has (fractionally) more "reach" than the FX D600 but a lot less "reach" than an FX D800.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads