Full Frame vs. DX

Larold · Aug 28, 2009

I have a D80, and a few lenses, (18-200, 50 1.8, Sigma 10-20). Is it worth going to a full frame camera? I don't think I could afford new lenses right away, and I think I'd be taking a hit on the megapixel count. Is that right?

Has anyone switched and regretted it? Anyone in the same predicament?

Thanks,
--
Larold

Brooks P · Aug 28, 2009

What do you hope to gain out of switching to a full-frame (FX) camera? Do you need wide angles? Because your 18-200 will be a true 18-200 rather than a 27-300, your 50 will be more of a normal lens rather than a 75mm telephoto, and your 10-20 will give you an honest 10mm wide angle rather than the 15mm view you are getting on your DX camera.

For me, I shoot more telephotos than wide angles and I sure hate to see my 70-300 actually only give me 300mm of reach – I really like getting the equivalent of 450mm out of it because there is no way I can afford a Nikon 400mm telephoto lens.
--
Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

altproto · Aug 28, 2009

Larold said:
I have a D80, and a few lenses, (18-200, 50 1.8, Sigma 10-20). Is it worth going to a full frame camera?

You take a lot of high ISO pictures and are not satisfied with the results?. Do you want shallower DOF than you are getting?. Do you need more pixels?. If any of those 3 is yes, FF might fit your bill.

Larold said:
I don't think I could afford new lenses right away, and I think I'd be taking a hit on the megapixel count. Is that right?

Unless you get a D3X, that is a resounding yes.

Larold said:
Has anyone switched and regretted it?

I have only read about one, a photog that reverted back to Oly (IIRC an E-30) after using a D700 for several months. He was an old-time Oly user that went FF with Nikon, but later realized he was carrying too much weight (one of the prices of FF) for his own good. Certainly he put more emphasis on weight than on VF size.

Larold said:
Anyone in the same predicament?

Yes, but not me.
--
Jose

I Beam · Aug 28, 2009

Brooks P said:
What do you hope to gain out of switching to a full-frame (FX) camera? Do you need wide angles? Because your 18-200 will be a true 18-200 rather than a 27-300, your 50 will be more of a normal lens rather than a 75mm telephoto, and your 10-20 will give you an honest 10mm wide angle rather than the 15mm view you are getting on your DX camera.

For me, I shoot more telephotos than wide angles and I sure hate to see my 70-300 actually only give me 300mm of reach – I really like getting the equivalent of 450mm out of it because there is no way I can afford a Nikon 400mm telephoto lens.
--

Brooks

I am surprised but I think for once I disagree or I am misunderstanding you.

The 18-200 and 10-20 are DX lenses. On a FX camera they will be true 18-200 and 10-20 but will vignette very badly at the wide end so there is no gain there.

The OP refers to taking a hit in MP so it seems the plan is to use the DX lenses in DX mode in which case the angle of view will be the same as on the D80. So no gain there either.

The only gain will be with the 50mm lens so I think buying an FX camera without additional lenses is a bad idea.

Regards

Paul

Larold · Aug 29, 2009

Thanks guys. I feel it's not worth it. I was unaware of some of those points.

I really appreciate all your answers. In the end, if I can't take beautiful shots with what I have now, it's not the hardware.

--
Larold

LeungPhotos · Aug 29, 2009

The cheapest FX camera you can buy would be $2700 + tax or more if you're in Europe.

Why would you buy that and use DX lenses so that you can only get 5mp images?

FX lenses in most cases are more expensive also....

--

http://leungphotography.smugmug.com
::: $5 smugmug discount on my site :::

Brooks P · Aug 29, 2009

More a misunderstanding on my part. It was late when I posted that reply and I didn’t take the time to check on whether the lenses mentioned were DX or FX. I was going more for the difference between FX and DX formats in general, but you are absolutely right in that the Nikon FX cameras switch to a DX mode when you mount a DX lens. In order to get the “benefits” of the FX sensor you need FX lenses.

Not everyone benefits from using an FX sensor, and many of those who would benefit, benefit even more by going to a medium format camera. My Brother, recently retired, was in advertising and employed professional photographers and I don’t think any of them ever used a SLR or DSLR camera, they all used medium format. For the last few years that generally meant a Hasselblad with a digital back between 30 and 50 MP. I know one of the photographers said that while he had well over six-figures tied up in cameras and lenses, that amount was but a drop in the bucket compared to what was invested in his studio lighting and equipment.

--
Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

eNo · Aug 29, 2009

altproto said:
Larold said:

I have a D80, and a few lenses, (18-200, 50 1.8, Sigma 10-20). Is it worth going to a full frame camera?

Click to expand...

You take a lot of high ISO pictures and are not satisfied with the results?. Do you want shallower DOF than you are getting?. Do you need more pixels?. If any of those 3 is yes, FF might fit your bill.

altproto said:

I don't think I could afford new lenses right away, and I think I'd be taking a hit on the megapixel count. Is that right?

Click to expand...

Unless you get a D3X, that is a resounding yes.

Can you clarify? The most affordable Nikon FF camera is the D700, and it has 12mp. The D80 has 10mp.

altproto said:
altproto said:

Has anyone switched and regretted it?

Click to expand...

Ask that question at the D300 forum. I've read at least one account there of folks that went back to a D300 from a D700. Others shoot both.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3
of the time.

D80/D90 gallery: http://esfotoclix.com
Photo blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1

eNo · Aug 29, 2009

LeungPhotos said:
The cheapest FX camera you can buy would be $2700 + tax or more if you're in Europe.

Why would you buy that and use DX lenses so that you can only get 5mp images?

FX lenses in most cases are more expensive also....

I used to think that also, but unless you're going for the pro, constant f/2.8 lenses (which are also heavier, btw), this need not be the case. Examples: AF 24-85 f/2.8-4 and VR70-300, two excellent, available-new lenses that are "FX ready." Since I own these, they are part of the reason I keep being tempted by the D700...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3
of the time.

D80/D90 gallery: http://esfotoclix.com
Photo blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1

James Sherman · Aug 29, 2009

eNo said:
I used to think that also, but unless you're going for the pro, constant f/2.8 lenses (which are also heavier, btw), this need not be the case. Examples: AF 24-85 f/2.8-4 and VR70-300, two excellent, available-new lenses that are "FX ready." Since I own these, they are part of the reason I keep being tempted by the D700...

The real problem, for me at least, is that I lose out at the long end. My 70-300VR loses so much on the long end and won't play nice with a TC. I have a Tokina 12-24 that at least partially will work on FX (perhaps enough) and I'd need a new walk around lens for my main lens to replace my 18-105VR, but at least there are choices there. Even if I could pay for a D700, I simply couldn't afford the long Nikons!

eNo · Aug 29, 2009

James Sherman said:
eNo said:

I used to think that also, but unless you're going for the pro, constant f/2.8 lenses (which are also heavier, btw), this need not be the case. Examples: AF 24-85 f/2.8-4 and VR70-300, two excellent, available-new lenses that are "FX ready." Since I own these, they are part of the reason I keep being tempted by the D700...

Click to expand...

The real problem, for me at least, is that I lose out at the long end. My 70-300VR loses so much on the long end and won't play nice with a TC. I have a Tokina 12-24 that at least partially will work on FX (perhaps enough) and I'd need a new walk around lens for my main lens to replace my 18-105VR, but at least there are choices there. Even if I could pay for a D700, I simply couldn't afford the long Nikons!

Length is why a lot of pros adopt the dual approach: D300 + D700. Personally, I shoot mostly on the wide end, so for me FF makes a lot more sense. You get the wide angles without the crazy distortion that a 10mm (15mm effective) gives, whereas you could be using a 14mm and be 1mm ahead.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3
of the time.

D80/D90 gallery: http://esfotoclix.com
Photo blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1

James Sherman · Aug 29, 2009

eNo said:
Personally, I shoot mostly on the wide end, so for me FF makes a lot more sense.

Me too, but I simply couldn't afford the glass ( if I could afford the body

). My Tokina 12-24 does a nice job and I'm happy with it. Also, there's always the time that nothing but a really long lens will do. I like races and airshows, for instance. Can't have everything..... Couldn't carry it if I did.

TFergus · Aug 29, 2009

I made the very step you're contemplating. I wasn't buying DX lenses though because I knew I wanted to upgrade at some point... I was also gifted a bunch of lenses too.
I'm glad I did but there is nothing wrong with your D80.

Thing is, for you... the cost will be greater than you think due to the lack of FF lenses.

As far as people that claim it's not worth it because they lose reach, don't understand the word "crop". You can crop your FF photos to get the same "reach" as a DX but with better resolution and a lot better high ISO performance... if you need that.

Yes you end up with less MP's but that would only be an issue if you're printing posters, etc. High MP counts are great for the cropping ability.... that's the best benefit in my opinion.

Also... like Eno says... your wide angles are nicer due to less distortion at equivalent focal lengths.

Larold said:
I have a D80, and a few lenses, (18-200, 50 1.8, Sigma 10-20). Is it worth going to a full frame camera? I don't think I could afford new lenses right away, and I think I'd be taking a hit on the megapixel count. Is that right?

Has anyone switched and regretted it? Anyone in the same predicament?

Thanks,
--
Larold

--
Don't taze me bro !

bflood · Aug 29, 2009

My take on this question is to simplify the decisionmaking. The camera body only records the image that the lens produces. Optical quality is controlled by the lens, and the body and its sensor cannot add anything to image quality. Whether you use film or digital, it's still the lens that is responsible for image quality. So I'd rather invest my limited precious dollars in glass rather than a more modern, upgraded body.

That said, there is an aspect of the sensor size that deserves special consideration. If you like to shoot in low light situations and noise is a concern for you, the larger sensor can't be beat. And there may be some advantage if you want to print some seriously large prints (over 16X20).

myzel · Aug 29, 2009

TFergus said:
Also... like Eno says... your wide angles are nicer due to less distortion at equivalent focal lengths.

According to photozone.de the 14-24 mm has around 4% barrel distortion on a FX camera.
The 10-24 DX has 3.1% barrel distortion on a DX lens.

Maybe I’m missing something, but from the photozone reviews I get the impression, that the distortion on DX is better (OK, one has a viewing angle of a 14mm (FX equivalent) and the other of 15 mm (FX equivalent) - so lets assume that they are almost the same at 15 mm (FX equivalent).

So where is the distortion advantage?

eNo · Aug 29, 2009

James Sherman said:
eNo said:

Personally, I shoot mostly on the wide end, so for me FF makes a lot more sense.

Click to expand...

Me too, but I simply couldn't afford the glass ( if I could afford the body ). My Tokina 12-24 does a nice job and I'm happy with it.

But... but... if you have a 24-85 or get one for way under $700USD, you have a pretty wide lens -- you would 16mm to get the same perspective in DX. Sure, if you want to get the 14-24, now things get expensive, though...

James Sherman said:
Also, there's always the time that nothing but a really long lens will do. I like races and airshows, for instance. Can't have everything..... Couldn't carry it if I did.

It sure is fun to shoot sporting events with a tele, isn't it? But for that, you can always keep your DX body. Different tools for different jobs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3
of the time.

D80/D90 gallery: http://esfotoclix.com
Photo blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1

eNo · Aug 29, 2009

myzel said:
TFergus said:

Also... like Eno says... your wide angles are nicer due to less distortion at equivalent focal lengths.

Click to expand...

According to photozone.de the 14-24 mm has around 4% barrel distortion on a FX camera.
The 10-24 DX has 3.1% barrel distortion on a DX lens.

Maybe I’m missing something, but from the photozone reviews I get the impression, that the distortion on DX is better (OK, one has a viewing angle of a 14mm (FX equivalent) and the other of 15 mm (FX equivalent) - so lets assume that they are almost the same at 15 mm (FX equivalent).

So where is the distortion advantage?

At around 24mm. Compare a the 24-70 to the 16-85VR. Do we get similar results?

I must say I am a little surprised that at the SWA there is little to no advantage, as you point out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3
of the time.

D80/D90 gallery: http://esfotoclix.com
Photo blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1

altproto · Aug 29, 2009

eNo said:
altproto said:

Larold said:

I don't think I could afford new lenses right away, and I think I'd be taking a hit on the megapixel count. Is that right?

Click to expand...

Unless you get a D3X, that is a resounding yes.

Click to expand...

Can you clarify? The most affordable Nikon FF camera is the D700, and it has 12mp. The D80 has 10mp.

Larold wants to keep using his Sigma 10-20 and Nikkor 18-200. Using DX/DC/DiII lenses, D3 & D700 cameras deliver only 5 MP, while on D3X deliver 10.5 MP. The only lens he could use full resolution is the Nikkor 50 f1.8.
--
Jose
We live in a DX world
16-24 is wide, 30-40 is normal, 50-70 is for portraits

TFergus · Aug 29, 2009

The natural distortion that a 10mm lens results in is only giving you 15mm "reach" on the DX camera... but as Eno pointed out... put a 15mm lens on the FX camera to equal the "reach" and you don't have the distortion of the 10mm lens.

myzel said:
TFergus said:

Also... like Eno says... your wide angles are nicer due to less distortion at equivalent focal lengths.

Click to expand...

According to photozone.de the 14-24 mm has around 4% barrel distortion on a FX camera.
The 10-24 DX has 3.1% barrel distortion on a DX lens.

Maybe I’m missing something, but from the photozone reviews I get the impression, that the distortion on DX is better (OK, one has a viewing angle of a 14mm (FX equivalent) and the other of 15 mm (FX equivalent) - so lets assume that they are almost the same at 15 mm (FX equivalent).

So where is the distortion advantage?

--
Don't taze me bro !

myzel · Aug 29, 2009

TFergus said:
The natural distortion that a 10mm lens results in is only giving you 15mm "reach" on the DX camera... but as Eno pointed out... put a 15mm lens on the FX camera to equal the "reach" and you don't have the distortion of the 10mm lens.

Are you talking about perspective distortion? That is identical between DX and FX at the same distance (perspective).

There is no wide angle advantage for FX if you are talking about perspective distortion.

Full Frame vs. DX

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts