DX FX or even FF

Over twenty years ago it was easy, a pro told me that what I wanted was a Nikon FE. I got one and then another. I have used them with 50 iso film usually with a tripod and either 35 mm, 50 mm or a 135 mm primes for landscapes mainly, only occasionally as a P&S. I only really take pictures when I travel, and when I do decide on a shot I ‘try’ to get one worth framing. Although photography is never my main purpose (seeing is), to companions it can seem so!

Last week, for several reasons, I decided to get my first DSLR bod; mainly because the D300 finally seemed to give what I ‘thought’ I wanted in terms of build quality, features, pixels (fps unimportant) (the DSLR FE). And its price has dropped a lot in the UK. So I bought one last week, BUT it is still in the unopened box. I joined Dpreview and posted a question about starter DX lenses on the Nikon lens forum. I got useful replies (thanks), Tokina 12-24, 18-70 and no disagreement with my desire for the 50 (1.8). However, I then started looking around the forums and I am now TOTALLY confused.

My local stores can reel off the features of every model they stock but cannot seem to tell me their strengths and weaknesses in the field.

My mental debate now is, should I get the D300 out or postpone my move to DSLR for another 18 months until the arrival of amateur FX, which is a trivial length of time seeing how long I have waited so far? I really don’t want to get into the ‘trade up continuously’ or buy into DX lenses and then find they are redundant. I want a system for my needs that will last. I would be happy with the images Roman Johnston gets with DX format, which is perhaps my answer.

My following ‘internal arguments’ will no doubt show my ignorance and confusion.

12Mp on a Dx will suite better for landscape than the likely entry of 12Mp on a Fx ‘D400’.

Do I believe what I have read, that Dx is less suitable for landscape and better for telephoto

25Mp Fx will eventually be better than 12Mp DX for landscape, but probably a long wait at the amateur level.

Dx lenses are designed for digital Dx sensors (collimated) and with 35 mm lenses you get to use the ‘sweet spot’. Dx format advantage ?

Current 35 mm lenses designed for film will be suboptimal on Fx sensors (Fx lens range) ???? Dx format advantage ?

25Mp RAW Fx images may be too large for an amateur’s computer processing power ?

Dx offers me an advantage for travel as lenses are smaller and can be lighter (packability is increasingly important as travel now only really occurs through work).

And then there is the Canon 5D which is now the same price as the D300☹

I should say that for work I use digital a lot in photomiocroscopy, although here noise is more of an issue than Mp and images for publication are rarely printed at more than 5 cm x 4 cm (300dpi). I can use CS2. I also do some photomicroscopy for fun/public understanding of science. To lighten this post I have attached an irrelevant image (zoea larva of the spider crab, Maia squinado, mag x 30).



Thanks for any advice.

Just one advice, you do not have to buy into DX lenses. FF lenses works as good on DX cameras and that also gives you the chance to use them later on on the next body that might be FF/FX.

My only DX lens i have is the 18-70 that came with my camera, the rest are FF lenses and i will keep it that way.

You can of course use the DX lenses on the D3 today, but then it will be in cropped mode and you will not benefit or the resolution of the camera.

--
Rickard Hansson
Sweden

rrkirby said:

My mental debate now is, should I get the D300 out or postpone my
move to DSLR for another 18 months until the arrival of amateur FX,
which is a trivial length of time seeing how long I have waited so
far? I really don’t want to get into the ‘trade up continuously’ or
buy into DX lenses and then find they are redundant. I want a system
for my needs that will last. I would be happy with the images Roman
Johnston gets with DX format, which is perhaps my answer.

My following ‘internal arguments’ will no doubt show my ignorance and
confusion.

12Mp on a Dx will suite better for landscape than the likely entry of
12Mp on a Fx ‘D400’.

Do I believe what I have read, that Dx is less suitable for landscape
and better for telephoto

Click to expand...

From what I've seen at base ISO the D3 files are a little cleaner and seem a little better when upsizing, although not by much. D3 has slightly more DR. In the end no one will be able to tell what camera made a (low iso) photo even if you show them a very large print.

With a 12-24mm you can have the same FOV as a 18mm lens on 35mm, which is a huge wide angle. Never used wider than 24mm myself on my FM.

rrkirby said:

25Mp Fx will eventually be better than 12Mp DX for landscape, but
probably a long wait at the amateur level.

Click to expand...

It will take a long time before we see a D300 body with a 25MP chip under $2000 I'm afraid.

rrkirby said:

Dx lenses are designed for digital Dx sensors (collimated) and with
35 mm lenses you get to use the ‘sweet spot’. Dx format advantage ?

Click to expand...

This is true. Edge- and corner performance is always less on lenses.

rrkirby said:

Current 35 mm lenses designed for film will be suboptimal on Fx
sensors (Fx lens range) ???? Dx format advantage ?

Click to expand...

The latest pro lenses combined with CA removal in software give astounding results.

rrkirby said:

25Mp RAW Fx images may be too large for an amateur’s computer
processing power ?

Click to expand...

Even now you need a real fast computer if you want to use Capture NX fluently with 12MP files.

rrkirby said:

Dx offers me an advantage for travel as lenses are smaller and can be
lighter (packability is increasingly important as travel now only
really occurs through work).

Click to expand...

It also depends on lens quality. If you combine the 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 AF-D with the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D (both FF) you have better IQ and more weight than with the 18-70. If you get the new 14-24 plus 24-70 you get much more weight but the very best IQ.

rrkirby said:

And then there is the Canon 5D which is now the same price as the
D300☹

Click to expand...

Buy into a system rather than be guided by specific camera offerings at this moment. Cameras change quickly, systems don't.

--
Philip

rrkirby said:

My mental debate now is, should I get the D300 out or postpone my
move to DSLR for another 18 months until the arrival of amateur FX,

Click to expand...

Just take it out and shoot. Since you are able to shoot with FE, 35-50-135 and slide film you already have a lot of knowledge about photography.

To replace your 35mm wide you can get a 24/2.8 since you are used to primes. Yur other lenses will be fine on the D300, maybe you will add later an 85 to replace the 135mm angle.

What I am saying is your FF kit of 35 - 50 - 135 will need to became 24 -35 - 85 to have almost the same Field of View on DX cameras.

Your tripod will be fine too

Of course, if you fancy trying some "PJ" style photography with your new DSLR you can get a pretty affordable Nikon 18-70 DX or Tamron 17-50/2.8 and an SB 800 flash but for your style I think that the 24 + 85 would make more sense.

I have to say that I admire your determination to stick to primes and tripod using a film camera in this age of DSLRs and dark consumer kit zoom lenses.

--
Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

Most lenses are only capable of resolving in the 6-12 mp range on the DX format. Any camera shake will just act to reduce this resolution even more. Due to it's larger format, that means that the FX format should be capable of just about doubling the total system resolution to the 12-24mp range. So, on the surface, it would seem that the FX format does have a distinct advantage in shooting landsape type images.

BUT, and it's a big one, you also have to consider what your doing with your images. The simple fact is the human eye is only capable of resolving 6 to 12 lines per milllimeter on paper without assistance. So, you can make a pretty good looking print from just 180 dpi if you do a bit of tweaking with sharpening. As you have already seen, we don't need that many mp to make a stunning image that is displayed as a small reproduction. In practical terms, I have found that the DX format can make an excellent looking 16x24 inch print. So, if your not going to be printing larger than 16x24 inches, you can go with the DX format now and not concern yourself with getting stuck in an endless loop of upgrades. BTW, that 16x24 that I referred to was taken with the 18-70 on a 6mp D70, so 20 or 30 mp really isn't needed. That 18-70 is a fantastic lens for it's price and I plan on keeping mine until it wears out.

So, if your prints are going to be 16x24 inches or smaller, get the D300 out of it's box and start learning how to use it. It's perfectly suitable for that task and you CAN make larger prints with it as long as you don't get nose to print with the prints. A 24x36 inch print will still look excellent as long as it's viewed at a distance of 3 feet or more. The simple fact is that the DX format is pretty darn good and will produce prints that are basically a match for what you were doing with your FE. As for the D300 specifically, it's a 30 year camera as long as you don't burn up the shutter. In simple terms, shoot it like you were using film and it will take at least 30 years before you wear out the shutter and the image quality will stand up with whatever is available 30 years from now.

Now, what about the FX format? It will be more forgiving with a poor quality lens. So it will make a 35 dollar 135mm f3.5 Nikkor look just great when used on a 5000 dollar D3. The reason for this is simple, the larger format will require less magnifiction for a given print size so any flaws will be magnified less. However, with a good, or better, quality lens you won't be able to see any visible difference in a print of 11x17 inches or smaller. At 16x24 inches there may be a slight advantage to the larger format but you'll have to nitpick the images do death to see the differences. So, why all the fuss about the FX format? Mainly because Canon had it and Nikon didn't, the grass is always greener. To be realistic, you need to be using a very short focal length before the FX format has a real advantage for most of us. For example, my 12mm yields the view of an 18mm lens on the DX format, on the FX format it's 12mm and that is one WIDE angle of view. There is also the fact that the D3 does have an advantage in terms of noise due to it's larger photosites but I don't think that will relate to your typical landscapes, however I'll bet the D3 is killer at night cityscapes.

Bottomline, that D300 you bought is probably a near ideal replacement for your FE. However, it will be quite challenging to learn how to use properly because a TON of new features have been added.

rrkirby said:

I got useful replies (thanks), Tokina 12-24, 18-70 and no
disagreement with my desire for the 50 (1.8).

Click to expand...

While they all are very good lenses, they don't act the way the corresponding "full frame" lenses do. You probably do know what kind of lenses you like to use regarding focal lengths and apertures. Then, if you happen to like, say, the Nikkor 35 f/1.4 on a film camera, it becomes more or less the equivalent of a 50mm f/1.4 with a greater depth of field at respective apertures if you put in front of a DX camera. Now, it's up to you to decide if you like that.

I don't. That's why I'll wait, even if the prosumer FX Nikon takes three to five years to emerge.

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

25.12.07
I've just gathered up the cutest TV- and movie characters
on this planet - in my humble opinion, that is, but of course:
http://jannemankila.googlepages.com

I would like to thank all those who replied. Very helpful. After posting I was worried I had asked an all too frequent question.

Your response has prompted a follow up. I will be renewing my lenses, my kit is all manual focus and has been in everything from rainforest to desert. It is well used and tired.

From a microscopy point of view (with no DSLR experience), I am scared of dust. It can take hours to locate a bit of dust in the optical path and then clean a system and get it back together dust free. Often cleaning itself just creates more problems. Consequently I tend to never disassemble a system once I am happy.

On my DSLR I would likely prefer good primes to zooms, although I will probably get the 18-70 kit lens as a P&S, it is so cheap. I would never expect a zoom to perform well near the extremes of its range, so if I got the Tokina 12-24 DX (or Nikon equivalent) I would expect to use it most around 16-20.

Tool a long tome to get to the maon question, but, should I really worry about swapping prime lenses on and off in the 'environment' ?

Thanks.

This article might be helpful for your decision between formats:
http://www.bythom.com/d3ord300.htm

--
'Miles to go before I sleep.'
--Robert Frost
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

Thanks, I had missed that completely.

Ignore me if you feel you have answered the following too often

Can I ask you for a quick answer about the near double price difference between the Tokina 12-24 and the Nikon 12-24. I see you are obviously very happy and successfulu with the former. I can't handle either locally as no shop stocks or will order for me on 'spec'.

Thanks

I chose the Nikkor over the Tokina because it seemed less prone to flare in the tests I saw. Besides, because it's my profession, I like to have my whole range in lenses from the same brand so the color is equal. If I remeber correctly there was also a distortion level a bit easier to adjust in one of them but I forgot which one. I seldom use a WA for my work but if I do it's most likely indoors with windows in the frame. Therefore flare is important to me. I would not hesitate to use the Tokina though, if I had it.

About dust, just blow out the chamber once in a while with a rocket blower, be careful when changing lenses and keep your bag clean. Get a wet set for the 'stickies'. There is no dust problem if you're a bit cautious.

--
Philip

I tested both....in truth the Nikon has a VERY slight edge on the Tokina....but were talking 97% vs. 100%....micro hair splitting. Throw into this that the Tokina has a lot better build (which I like as I am often out in the elements shooting not in a studio) so pretty much equal performance, better build...1/2 the price. Its a no brainer. The other thing is....I have not seen much web based conversation about people getting a bad copy of the Tokina....I HAVE heard of people getting a bad copy of the Nikon....AND the Sigma 10-20....now...dont get me wrong...I am sure Tokina did have a few bad copys get out....but not in enough numbers to raise a ruckas on the web. : )

To put you at ease......at 12-14MM, the Tokina is just a hair less sharp than my 17-55 is at 17MM, from 14-24MM...it is AS sharp. My 17-55 is a $1,400 lens.

I would say your pretty safe pulling the trigger on the 12-24.

Now....but I must give you one warning....eventually I will trade in both my 12-24 AND my 17-55 for the new 14-24 and the 24-70 that nikon just released...these lenses are nothing short of amazing from the sources I have heard. This includes dedicated Zeiss users. If you can find the money for them......they would be amazing lenses to buy and get past that hurdle while you can.

Just my suggestion...otherwise...the tokina will definitly make you a happy camper.

Roman

rrkirby said:

Thanks, I had missed that completely.

Ignore me if you feel you have answered the following too often

Can I ask you for a quick answer about the near double price
difference between the Tokina 12-24 and the Nikon 12-24. I see you
are obviously very happy and successfulu with the former. I can't
handle either locally as no shop stocks or will order for me on
'spec'.

Thanks

Click to expand...

--
'Miles to go before I sleep.'
--Robert Frost
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

Thank you. Good to have something to aim for, so to speak. I think I might even open that box........tomorrow

rrkirby said:

I should say that for work I use digital a lot in photomiocroscopy,
although here noise is more of an issue than Mp and images for
publication are rarely printed at more than 5 cm x 4 cm (300dpi). I
can use CS2. I also do some photomicroscopy for fun/public
understanding of science. To lighten this post I have attached an
irrelevant image (zoea larva of the spider crab, Maia squinado, mag x
30).

Thanks for any advice.

Click to expand...

Hi

I liked your photomicrograph. I've been assessing the D300 on a Zeiss 1970s research microscope (as a hobbyist) for some weeks and certainly find the Live View control with Control Pro 2 software a very useful feature for critical focus and instant post capture image appraisal even when the DSLR is parfocal with my microscope.

As the Live View can apparently safely be left on for up to an hour, enjoying the antics of live critters on a TV screen in high quality is fun as well.

Hopefully the dust removal system will keep the dust down, I've yet to do the blank wall high f number check to see how effective it is after a month of extensive Live View and taking it on and off the 'scope.
regards
David

Hi,

I didn't mean to get 'into' the photo I attached. But, I am glad you liked the image. Thanks for the comments. For info (I don't have the EXIF !) it was taken with a Canon Powershot g5 (I have these attached to all my Zeiss light microscopes unless I need a cooled CCD) using a 4x Achroplan 0.1 objective. It was the last camera in that range that gave RAW until the most recent model. Captured using PSremote. Manual Exposure and aperture etc. The uploaded image is JUST the camera raw image downsampled to 72 dpi in PS, no other PP at all. Just attached as a bonus (?) for those who read the post.

[REPOST -- This is a repost of a reply lost in the recent disk crash at DPReview. Original Posting Date: 1/17/08]
...

rrkirby said:

My mental debate now is, should I get the D300 out or postpone my
move to DSLR for another 18 months until the arrival of amateur FX,
which is a trivial length of time seeing how long I have waited so
far?

Click to expand...

This presupposes that "amateur FX" will indeed arrive in 18 months. Whether or not that is true depends largely on how you define "amateur FX".

Full-frame (a.k.a. "FX") DSLRs have been around for some time, tho' not from Nikon until the recent introduction of the D3. Some of them (such as the Canon EOS-5D you mentioned) are even relatively affordable (well, to the extent that any of this stuff is "affordable" to an amateur of moderate means). There is no requirement to be a "professional" in order to buy any of these cameras; so in that sense, "amateur FX" is already here.

So what I suspect you are referring to is the completely fictional FX-format D300-replacement from Nikon that has been "imagineered" by the kibitzers almost from the day the D300 and D3 were initially announced. But note the term "completely fictional" -- that's the bottom line. The D3 and D300 are brand new models. It is not reasonable to expect them to be replaced any time soon; and until they actually are replaced, no one here has ANY idea what those replacements will look like, what features they will or won't offer, etc. -- it's ALL just pointless conjecture, and will remain so until such time as the replacement models are actually announced.

If you constantly defer buying/using what is available now because you expect "something better" to come along later (be that in a month, or a year, or ten years, or whatever), then you will NEVER actually pull the trigger, because there will ALWAYS be "something better" either on the horizon or just over it.

rrkirby said:

I really don’t want to get into the ‘trade up continuously’ or
buy into DX lenses and then find they are redundant. I want a system
for my needs that will last.

Click to expand...

Understandable. But the key word there is "system". The camera body is just one part of the whole system -- and a relatively minor and unimportant one, at that. This is one of the things you need to get your head wrapped around with respect to digital, as opposed to film. It is the lens which forms the image, not the camera; hence the lens(es) is where you need to invest the most money and shopping effort, to ensure that you get the right lens(es) for the images you want to make. The camera body is almost an afterthought, as long as it is well-built, convenient to use, and will support/preserve what the lens(es) can create. While this has always been true, going back to the earliest interchangeable-lens film cameras, it is especially so with digital. As you will no doubt have observed if you've been following the DSLR scene for any length of time, the bodies tend to depreciate rapidly, due mostly to so quickly becoming "old tech". But lenses are lenses, and they tend to hold their value (and their usability) more-or-less indefinitely (at least, as long as then-current bodies continue to support them). The lesson to glean from this is that whatever body you buy today will be obsolete within (at most) 18 months. And the body you buy 18 months from now will be obsolete in (at most) another 18 months. And so on, and so on, ad nauseum. Hence, it would be a large mistake to choose a system based on the specific features/specs/whatever of the particular bodies available at any given moment.

rrkirby said:

I would be happy with the images Roman
Johnston gets with DX format, which is perhaps my answer.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it might be.

You opened your post by saying that you'd bought the D300 because it offered what you felt you needed now . Has that assessment changed or in any way become less valid today than it was the day before you bought the D300? Based on your comments en toto, I really don't see how it could have. If anything, you already bought far "too much" camera, not too little. For the type of shooting you do, a D80 or similar would very likely be more than adequate for your current needs; and by the time that statement is no longer true, something "better than" the D300 may well be available. Meanwhile, you get to climb the learning curve with respect to digital in general (there is a LOT to learn!), flesh out your lens complement, etc.

rrkirby said:

My following ‘internal arguments’ will no doubt show my ignorance and
confusion.

12Mp on a Dx will suite better for landscape than the likely entry of
12Mp on a Fx ‘D400’.

Click to expand...

Well, first, this is moot because there is no such thing as a D400, nor do we have any idea if there ever will be, or what its features, specifications and performance might be if/when it does come to exist. But to indulge your imagination for just a moment... In theory (which is all we have), the opposite would actually be the case. If we presume the resolution to be the same (12MP in both cases), the larger individual photosites enabled by the physically larger sensor would presumably provide lower noise (more accurately, a higher native S/N ratio) and therefore greater dynamic range. The tangible real-world comparison to make here is the D300 vs. the D3 -- the latter being the low-noise king of DSLRs right now, especially at higher ISOs (tho' the need for high ISOs for landscape work is questionable, at best).

(continued in next post...)

(...continued from previous post)

rrkirby said:

Do I believe what I have read, that Dx is less suitable for landscape
and better for telephoto

Click to expand...

That is at best a gross oversimplification.

We already covered the noise/performance issue above; so I presume you mean this question strictly with regard to the so-called "crop factor" of DX-format DSLRs.

That crop factor will cause any given focal-length lens you might use to exhibit an effective field of view which is 2/3 what it would be on a film body or full-frame DSLR. The upshot of this is that your existing "wide angle" lenses are no longer quite so wide-angle. This was more of a problem in the very early days of DSLRs, before very high-performance extreme wide-angle lenses (such as the Tokina 12-24 you mentioned, or the Nikon 10.5mm f/4) were developed to address this very issue. How and to what degree it will affect you will depend in large part on what lenses you have now, and how you (usually) shoot with them. But worst-case, it means you'll need to buy one more lens to flesh out the wide-angle-end of whatever focal-length gamut you wish to cover.

rrkirby said:

25Mp Fx will eventually be better than 12Mp DX for landscape, but
probably a long wait at the amateur level.

Click to expand...

Now you're really getting into fantasy land. Remember what I said above about there always being something "better" on or just over the horizon. You also seem to be getting caught up in "Megapixel Mania" -- a common mistake for first-time Digicam buyers.

There is no such thing as a 25MP DSLR. The closest approximation to that is the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III, at 21MP -- and $8,000. And even at that, I would not begin to claim that it is necessarily "better" than a D300, be that for landscape work or anything else. It's a matter of choosing the tool which best fits the job at hand -- and (at least within reason) the pixel count is almost always one of the LEAST important things to consider when making that selection.

rrkirby said:

Dx lenses are designed for digital Dx sensors (collimated) and with
35 mm lenses you get to use the ‘sweet spot’. Dx format advantage ?

Click to expand...

It can be, sometimes. But this is not a very good reason to pick one format over the other. It's really more about having a wide selection of suitable lenses available to choose from, to best suit the specific job of the moment. In this sense, DX does have an advantage, since it can use both full-frame/FX lenses and those specifically designed for the DX format.

rrkirby said:

Current 35 mm lenses designed for film will be suboptimal on Fx
sensors (Fx lens range) ???? Dx format advantage ?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're getting that -- or even what you're really trying to say here. Assuming we're not just talking about a particular focal length, a "35mm lens" is an "FX lens". "FX" and "full 35mm frame" are synonymous terms.

rrkirby said:

25Mp RAW Fx images may be too large for an amateur’s computer
processing power ?

Click to expand...

Depends on said amateur's particular computer.

That said, by the time 25MP camera bodies marketed specifically toward amateurs become available, I have little doubt that "sufficiently" powerful consumer-grade PCs will also be available. Whether or not you would want such a consumer-grade PC (or such a camera body, for that matter) is another question entirely.

The larger issue is one of software compatibility, and it is not nearly so simple. This was one of the big reasons I recently bought a D200 instead of a D300. Despite all the "really cool whiz-bang new stuff" the D300 offers, what it demands on the support-computer side (which boils down to either running "un-fixable" versions of MS crapware, or dropping another $3.5-6K on a Mac Pro Workstation and matching monitor) was more than I was willing to bear.

rrkirby said:

Dx offers me an advantage for travel as lenses are smaller and can be
lighter (packability is increasingly important as travel now only
really occurs through work).

Click to expand...

Potentially, yes. But to realize this advantage, you'd have to limit yourself (at least mostly) to so-called "DX" lenses, which you probably don't want to do. Better to make that decision on a lens-by-lens basis; and if "packability" is an important consideration, use that as one of the criteria in choosing that individual lens.

rrkirby said:

And then there is the Canon 5D which is now the same price as the
D300?

Click to expand...

Yes... What of it?