The DX vs. FX false choice

Tony Beach · Dec 22, 2010

moving_comfort said:
Well, as long as we're giving examples...

I have a D700 and D90 currently. My D90 + 300 f/4 AF produces remarkable results, and I bought my near-mint 300 f4 used for $491 on ebay. You can get a D90 new these days for around $750. That's $750 + $500 = $1250 to get you 300mm with 12MP on the target.

[Snip.]

moving_comfort said:
Now - My D700 + little $280 20mm f/2.8D gives me the aps-c equivalent (FOV) of a 13mm f/2.8 lens. I don't think you'll find a 13 f/2.8 in Nikon mount. If you want to go further with equivalence, you need a 13mm f/1.9 to match FOV and DOF, in aps-c.

Lets step back and look at the entirety of your approach instead of looking at it in pieces, and I appreciate it that you have all your gear in your profile (I'm big on trying to be transparent too).

What you neglected to mention is that you also spent about $200 on the 35/1.8, $400 on a Tokina 12-24/4 (the newer model costs $500), another $600 for a Tamron 17-50/2.8, and $750 for the Sigma 50-150/2.8, so you are spending another $1950 on DX lenses for the DX part of your two systems, but you could have extended the reach of that 300/4 to match what it does on your D90 for $300 by buying an imported TC-14eII. That's $300 against the $2700 you spent on your D90 and four DX lenses.

moving_comfort said:
I'm not a pro, so I don't need a backup body that exactly mirrors my main body. I'm a hobbyist, in it for the fun, and I enjoy having these options, and I'm happy that I can take advantage of the two formats to bring these options without breaking the bank by trying to stretch a format - I can just switch to the other format to pick up the advantage.

Still, if you saved all that money you spent on the DX system, you could easily have bought another D700 and a TC-14eII to get close to the full range of focal lengths. You would lose about 5° of AOV at the wide end and about 7% reach at the long end, and perhaps a stop of DOF by using that teleconverter on your 300/4. Interestingly, for less money you are getting ever so slightly more focal length range with your DX system than with what you could get with your current FX system; that's the trade-off, more money for the FX system which has generally better image quality.

WalterH · Dec 22, 2010

Such advise is not a law.

As a blanket statement there is some truth to it but of course you can always find good reasons to object.

The truth is that it is not cost efficient to support two similar systems. Yes this is a very general statement ^^.

But there are unlimited exceptions. E.g a D7000 with a fast 300mm lens may be cheaper and more useful than an FX body with a fast 500mm lens .-)

So use whatever works for you.

Carl Maiorino · Dec 22, 2010

Although some reviewers are comparing the D7000's perfomance to the D3-series, it would probably better to wait until the D4 comes out before anyone can really make a practical comparison of high-ISO performance of DX v FX sensors...the D7000 is new and the D3-series is 3+ years old (almost an eternity in this industry)

--
http://www.carlmphotography.com

'I'd knock on wood for good luck, but it just gives me a headache!!!'

RomanJohnston · Dec 22, 2010

DX has more super wide options (albeit 3rd party) than FX does.

Nikon 10-24
Nikon 12-24
Nikon 10.5 Fisheye
Tokina 12-24
Tokina 11-16
Tokina 10-17 Fisheye
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 8-16
Tamron 11-18

I wouldn't mind a few super fast primes for night sky shooting, but I see more options for DX and super wides than for the FX.

Roman

--

“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”
~ Ernst Haas

We are officially live!!!!
http://www.commercialfineart.com/
Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

SUPERHOKIE · Dec 22, 2010

Forget all this crop factor, equivalence theory, you can get the same FOV on FX with a TC etc... but DX has higher MP count etc... Unless you are a serious amateur or a pro who actually needs the best image quality and need to print big,, all that technical stuff don't matter. Honestly, even 6MP of a D40 or 4MP of the D2HS is plenty for 95% of folks on this forum, including me.

The reason why I shoot DX is for SMALLER LENSES. The Tokina 11-16 is heckuva lot smaller than the FX 16-28 2.8, and the Nikon 12-24 is also heckuva lot smaller than the 16-35. (I don't need VR in ths focal range, I use a tripod). The Nikon FX 18-35 is about as small as the DX 12-24, but it's IQ is not as good. And the Tokina 50-135 is also much smaller than any FX 70-200 2.8.

My DX kit consists of: D7000, Nikon 12-24, 35 1.8, Tokina 50-135. Total cost for lenses is $1300, and the D7000 is $1200, for a toal of $2500. So, for the cost of one brand new D700, I have a complete system that does not give up much of anything to FX, but is much more portable. I have this set up in a small bag, ready to go at any moment.

Now, the reason I will shoot FX is for COMPOSITIONAL PURPOSES. (As soon as the D700 replacement is available). FX provides so much more subject isolation at normal "people shooting" distances compared to DX, it gives the image a whole different look. I was blown away by a simple group shot taken with the $200 35mmD on a D700. It is dramatically different from an identical shot taken with the 24mmD on a DX body. I really like the 24D on a DX body becaue the 35mm FOV is perfect for the streets. But the 35D on FX provides the same FOV but with MUCH more subject isolation for those times when I want to capture "people moments". And with that small prime on FX, there is no size or weight penalty either. In fact, the 35D is lighter than the 24D.

Also, the bokeh from the 24-70 on FX is much more pleasing than from the 17-55 on DX, and there is no size or weight advantage with DX as both lenses are equally big and heavy.

Since the cropped 6MP of a D700 is more than enough for my purposes, I could just use my DX lenses on the D700 too if I really wanted a consolidated system. But I don't like the reduced VF size and I actually like video in a DSLR, it comes in handy from time to time.

moving_comfort · Dec 22, 2010

Tony Beach said:
moving_comfort said:

Well, as long as we're giving examples...

I have a D700 and D90 currently. My D90 + 300 f/4 AF produces remarkable results, and I bought my near-mint 300 f4 used for $491 on ebay. You can get a D90 new these days for around $750. That's $750 + $500 = $1250 to get you 300mm with 12MP on the target.

Click to expand...

[Snip.]

Tony Beach said:

Now - My D700 + little $280 20mm f/2.8D gives me the aps-c equivalent (FOV) of a 13mm f/2.8 lens. I don't think you'll find a 13 f/2.8 in Nikon mount. If you want to go further with equivalence, you need a 13mm f/1.9 to match FOV and DOF, in aps-c.

Click to expand...

Lets step back and look at the entirety of your approach instead of looking at it in pieces, and I appreciate it that you have all your gear in your profile (I'm big on trying to be transparent too).

You're assuming that my current equipment holds an 'entirety of approach,'. ( Want vs. Need is a whole other aspect of this we need to keep in mind.) Thom seems to have been writing from a need perspective, another thing he realizes is not a hard target. Need is just a sliding scale of Want for 99% of the folks in this forum, for example.

Tony Beach said:
What you neglected to mention is that you also spent about $200 on the 35/1.8, $400 on a Tokina 12-24/4 (the newer model costs $500), another $600 for a Tamron 17-50/2.8, and $750 for the Sigma 50-150/2.8, so you are spending another $1950 on DX lenses for the DX part of your two systems, but you could have extended the reach of that 300/4 to match what it does on your D90 for $300 by buying an imported TC-14eII. That's $300 against the $2700 you spent on your D90 and four DX lenses.

How are those lenses applicable to my telephoto example? Why is it a foregone conclusion that I would give up what those lenses bring me to invest more in one telephoto application? (Also, I've tried that TC - compared to the native D90, it was slightly soft, a tad less contrast, and some subtle but weird effects in the OOF transition - didn't like it. If I were FX-only, it would be fine, but I've left myself a choice!)

For one thing, the 35 1.8, Tokina 12-24, Tamron 17-50 were bought when I was misguidedly trying to label myself: "I'm a DX" !

Also, that Sigma 50-150 2.8 gives me a real size advantage the D700 + 70-200 2.8 gets me about the same IQ, but is not as pleasing for me to shoot. I love the D90 + Sigma 50-150 for backyard kid shooting, picnics, etc, and the big 70-200 2.8 just felt like very expensive, very large overkill, and seemed to draw a lot of unwanted attention. Size is still a definite DX advantage.

I feel that Thom, in that section of the review, was borrowing from a potential future a bit. Give me a small-bodied FX with a lot of MP and incredible SNR, and I might very well be FX only. Or, a mag alloy DX with fantastic ergo, lightning-fast AF and tracking, with equally incredible SNR, and I might be DX only. (call me when either body exists.

)

.

RomanJohnston · Dec 22, 2010

SUPERHOKIE said:
Forget all this crop factor, equivalence theory, you can get the same FOV on FX with a TC etc... but DX has higher MP count etc... Unless you are a serious amateur or a pro who actually needs the best image quality and need to print big,, all that technical stuff don't matter. Honestly, even 6MP of a D40 or 4MP of the D2HS is plenty for 95% of folks on this forum, including me.

Well I do shoot pro, and I do print big. Probably why I threw in my .02.

SUPERHOKIE said:
The reason why I shoot DX is for SMALLER LENSES. The Tokina 11-16 is heckuva lot smaller than the FX 16-28 2.8, and the Nikon 12-24 is also heckuva lot smaller than the 16-35. (I don't need VR in ths focal range, I use a tripod). The Nikon FX 18-35 is about as small as the DX 12-24, but it's IQ is not as good. And the Tokina 50-135 is also much smaller than any FX 70-200 2.8.

Currently shooting DX myself. If the D800 amazes me, I will open my wallet...break down and shoot FX....but not for the sensor sizes, but what it can give me (ISO, DR, etc) If it isn't amazing...I will go with the D7000 as well and keep shooting with my current lenses. I shoot landscape so don't need the super shallow DOF.

SUPERHOKIE said:
My DX kit consists of: D7000, Nikon 12-24, 35 1.8, Tokina 50-135. Total cost for lenses is $1300, and the D7000 is $1200, for a toal of $2500. So, for the cost of one brand new D700, I have a complete system that does not give up much of anything to FX, but is much more portable. I have this set up in a small bag, ready to go at any moment.

Mine is D300, Tokina 12-24, Nikon 24-70 and Sigma 70-200. It serves me well. I am not feeling any FX calling....yet.

SUPERHOKIE said:
Now, the reason I will shoot FX is for COMPOSITIONAL PURPOSES. (As soon as the D700 replacement is available). FX provides so much more subject isolation at normal "people shooting" distances compared to DX, it gives the image a whole different look. I was blown away by a simple group shot taken with the $200 35mmD on a D700. It is dramatically different from an identical shot taken with the 24mmD on a DX body. I really like the 24D on a DX body becaue the 35mm FOV is perfect for the streets. But the 35D on FX provides the same FOV but with MUCH more subject isolation for those times when I want to capture "people moments". And with that small prime on FX, there is no size or weight penalty either. In fact, the 35D is lighter than the 24D.

Agreed...if I were shooting portrait/studio work, I would shoot FX with fast primes and a few choice zooms.

SUPERHOKIE said:
Also, the bokeh from the 24-70 on FX is much more pleasing than from the 17-55 on DX, and there is no size or weight advantage with DX as both lenses are equally big and heavy.

Yep...thats why I bought the 24-70 as well. And DX uses the sweet spot of this sweet lens. I'm a happy camper.

SUPERHOKIE said:
Since the cropped 6MP of a D700 is more than enough for my purposes, I could just use my DX lenses on the D700 too if I really wanted a consolidated system. But I don't like the reduced VF size and I actually like video in a DSLR, it comes in handy from time to time.

I am interested in dabbling with video too. But either option (D7000, or D800) will have that.

Roman

--

“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”
~ Ernst Haas

We are officially live!!!!
http://www.commercialfineart.com/
Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

RedFox88 · Dec 22, 2010

Tony Beach said:
Tony Beach said:

This is why 1/(over)2 to 3 times focal length is good practice with 16 to 18 MP aps-c image sensors. With full frame you are dealing with 8 to 9 MP aps-c (if FF image sensor cropped to aps-c size) you don't need to deal with any faster shutter speed for hand held sharpness!

Click to expand...

This is why you are so confused. Again, you will get the same resolution from either one at the same focal length with the same amount of shake. However, if your shutter speed and/or shake is low enough, when you reach the limits of the lower MP sensor you will still be gaining more resolution with the higher MP sensor.

Here's an illustration of what happens when shake limits resolution on two different density sensors (both taken with a 50mm lens, the D200 file re-sized to match the D70 file so you can make direct comparisons of the relative resolution of the two shots):

You've proved camera shake. Your 10 MP image is more out of focus than the 6MP. So amplify the image sensor up to 16 and 18 MP and you'll get even a blurrier image and sell actual resolution captured! With 16 to 18 MP aps-c image sensors, consider them to be very high resolution in a pretty small area when compared to that same resolution spread out over a FF sensor (which is 2.5 times larger than aps-c). You will then realize you must be more careful in techniques because your image sensor is smaller and thus less forgiving than FF. End of story!

Tony Beach · Dec 22, 2010

moving_comfort said:
Tony Beach said:

What you neglected to mention is that you also spent about $200 on the 35/1.8, $400 on a Tokina 12-24/4 (the newer model costs $500), another $600 for a Tamron 17-50/2.8, and $750 for the Sigma 50-150/2.8, so you are spending another $1950 on DX lenses for the DX part of your two systems, but you could have extended the reach of that 300/4 to match what it does on your D90 for $300 by buying an imported TC-14eII. That's $300 against the $2700 you spent on your D90 and four DX lenses.

Click to expand...

How are those lenses applicable to my telephoto example?

They are applicable to the costs you have incurred to use two systems instead of one.

moving_comfort said:
Why is it a foregone conclusion that I would give up what those lenses bring me to invest more in one telephoto application?

Do what you want, but I would question just what those lenses are giving you on a DX camera that you can't get with an FX camera.

moving_comfort said:
(Also, I've tried that TC - compared to the native D90, it was slightly soft, a tad less contrast, and some subtle but weird effects in the OOF transition - didn't like it. If I were FX-only, it would be fine, but I've left myself a choice!)

In your own words, if you were FX-only you would be fine, and that's my point. What are you really gaining with DX? [I already spelled that out in my previous reply.] Another option is to just go full-DX, which the D7000 moves you one step closer to doing, and buying some faster primes would buy you another effective stop of ISO as well as DOF.

moving_comfort said:
For one thing, the 35 1.8, Tokina 12-24, Tamron 17-50 were bought when I was misguidedly trying to label myself: "I'm a DX" ! Also, that Sigma 50-150 2.8 gives me a real size advantage the D700 + 70-200 2.8 gets me about the same IQ, but is not as pleasing for me to shoot. I love the D90 + Sigma 50-150 for backyard kid shooting, picnics, etc, and the big 70-200 2.8 just felt like very expensive, very large overkill, and seemed to draw a lot of unwanted attention. Size is still a definite DX advantage.

Yes, DX is smaller and it's less expensive too. Now if there was a smaller FX body and a 70-200/4, your reasons for liking the D90 and Sigma 50-150 would go away, and if the FX body has 24+ MP, you could just use it in DX crop mode and keep using the Sigma 50-150. These sorts of choices are coming, which is why I wrote in my first reply in this thread that the advantages of one format over another will become significantly diminished in the next couple of years, and the importance of those advantages is already debatable.

There a lot of trade-offs when you choose a system, regardless of the format and/or brand; at some point we all have to prioritize, otherwise we end up owning every camera and every lens everyone makes so that we can say we have the absolute best gear for any conceivable application. We would be able to say it, but then most of that gear would rarely get used, and that's why I asked somewhere else in this thread whether we consider ourselves photographers or gearheads.

moving_comfort said:
I feel that Thom, in that section of the review, was borrowing from a potential future a bit. Give me a small-bodied FX with a lot of MP and incredible SNR, and I might very well be FX only. Or, a mag alloy DX with fantastic ergo, lightning-fast AF and tracking, with equally incredible SNR, and I might be DX only. (call me when either body exists. )

If you wait for your current cameras to wear out, then probably when it comes time for you to upgrade either your D90 or D700, you will have both those choices you just outlined (at least you will have the second one, if by equal image quality you mean equal to the D700). In the meantime, as you buy and sell lenses (assuming you do that), If I were you I would keep that in mind.

The bottom line is that more money on FX buys you better image quality, but how much do you want to pay and how much image quality do you demand? At some point, even among the most demanding users, DX is going to be enough. For shooters like Thom Hogan (and Thom thinks his mentor Galen Rowell would also be in that camp) DX is already there as far as sensors are concerned.

noirdesir · Dec 22, 2010

Several people in this thread have said that they use most of their lenses on both DX and FX bodies. I beg to differ, I have moved from DX to FX, my DX line-up was:

Nikon 12-24 mm, useless on FX (yes, you can use as a 19-24 mm lens on FX but the corners suck and if you limit yourself further to, eg, 21-24 mm, to improve the corners it is hardly a zoom anymore)
Sigma 20 mm f/1.8, fast wide-angle for indoor shots (way too wide for general purpose indoor shots on FX)
Nikon 50 mm f/1.4, my portrait prime on DX (this focal length gets much less use on FX, only as an emergency really low-light lens)
85 mm f/1.8 & 105 mm f/2, while there were nice DX, I rarely used them, the 105 mm was way too long for people shots and the 85 mm equally had me constantly backing into corners
18-200 mm
Sigma 90 mm MF macro (use it only for technical shots, very rarely)

My FX line-up now is:

Zeiss 18 mm f/3.5, my ultra-wide, landscape lens
Zeiss 28 mm f/2, my fast wide, landscape, interior, people
50 mm f/1.4 (emergency low-light lens)
105 mm f/2, my people lens
180 mm f/2.8 my 'tele'
90 mm macro

Yes, I used (and am using) the 50 mm f/1.4, the 105 mm f/2 and the 90 mm macro on both DX and FX but my typical DX kit was 12-24 + 50, my typical FX kit is 18+28+105. So, a lot of lenses do not get useless when moving formats but the get used-a-lot-less.

In short, to have both a useful DX and FX lens line-up you almost need two separate line-ups.

Tony Beach · Dec 22, 2010

Carl Maiorino said:
Although some reviewers are comparing the D7000's perfomance to the D3-series, it would probably better to wait until the D4 comes out before anyone can really make a practical comparison of high-ISO performance of DX v FX sensors...the D7000 is new and the D3-series is 3+ years old (almost an eternity in this industry)

Well, if you don't think you can get enough from a D700, and you are waiting for more than even a D3s sensor can give you, then you would fall into the FX shooter camp. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just in light of that your reasons for maintaining a DX system are going to be questionable.

Tony Beach · Dec 22, 2010

RedFox88 said:
Tony Beach said:

Click to expand...

You've proved camera shake. Your 10 MP image is more out of focus than the 6MP.

They are comparable, and that's the point. Take ten shots with each and some will be sharper with the 10 MP and some will be sharper with the 6 MP, that's the nature of camera shake.

RedFox88 said:
So amplify the image sensor up to 16 and 18 MP and you'll get even a blurrier image and sell actual resolution captured!

No, you will get the same blurry image you get with a 6 MP sensor.

RedFox88 said:
You will then realize you must be more careful in techniques because your image sensor is smaller and thus less forgiving than FF. End of story!

There's no point in arguing with you about this, you clearly don't understand.

noirdesir · Dec 22, 2010

moving_comfort said:
Tony Beach said:

It wasn't "versus," it was that you should ask yourself "am I DX or FX?"

Click to expand...

But Tony, that's a false choice to make - there are advantages to each

The actual question is: "Am I more of a DX or FX shooter" and then start building a system for either system. Once you have a useable kit for one format (which can be two or three lenses small), you can ask yourself whether you want another format body or another lens (or both).

The question is not whether it is nice too have both systems, the question is whether it necessary to spend that much money to have two systems and whether you would ever want to carry two systems around with you (or take on a vacation)?

Barry Kelsall210330 · Dec 22, 2010

35mm shooters never owned a 2-1/4 or (shockingly) a 4x5 camera... Ha!
Man I wish I could have used one lens system for two formats back then!
--
-BK

moving_comfort · Dec 22, 2010

noirdesir said:
moving_comfort said:

Tony Beach said:

It wasn't "versus," it was that you should ask yourself "am I DX or FX?"

Click to expand...

But Tony, that's a false choice to make - there are advantages to each

Click to expand...

The actual question is: "Am I more of a DX or FX shooter" and then start building a system for either system. Once you have a useable kit for one format (which can be two or three lenses small), you can ask yourself whether you want another format body or another lens (or both).

Exactly! And the answer could come back... " yes, I do. " Thom (and I think, Tony) have been suggesting that your "yes, I do" conclusion is somehow faulty, tied somehow to the introduction of the D7000.

noirdesir said:
The question is not whether it is nice too have both systems, the question is whether it necessary to spend that much money to have two systems and whether you would ever want to carry two systems around with you (or take on a vacation)?

But you have to define "necessary". It's not necessary for 99% folks who view this forum to even own a DSLR. And one of my points is that if you take advantage of each format, it's possible to spend a lot less money than you'd think.

Of course, DX is better for travel in most cases. Which is why someone who says "I'm FX!" should maybe think again about a system supplementation if they're going to be travelling.

(which speaks to my point.)

.

.

eNo · Dec 22, 2010

Tony Beach said:
eNo said:

Today some folks still have a need for both DX and FX systems.

Click to expand...

Quite possibly by next year you won't.

Keep talking about next year all you want, but

Thom's quote (the original point of the OP) is past/present tense, not about some future development, and
When the next FX camera comes out, with its own leap in performance, will you then point us to next-next year?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .

Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.com/store
Wedding & Portrait: http://esfotoclix.com/wedevent
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

noirdesir · Dec 22, 2010

moving_comfort said:
noirdesir said:

moving_comfort said:

Tony Beach said:

It wasn't "versus," it was that you should ask yourself "am I DX or FX?"

Click to expand...

But Tony, that's a false choice to make - there are advantages to each

Click to expand...

The actual question is: "Am I more of a DX or FX shooter" and then start building a system for either system. Once you have a useable kit for one format (which can be two or three lenses small), you can ask yourself whether you want another format body or another lens (or both).

Click to expand...

Exactly! And the answer could come back... " yes, I do. " Thom (and I think, Tony) have been suggesting that your "yes, I do" conclusion is somehow faulty, tied somehow to the introduction of the D7000.

The problem is, the "Yes, I do" answer comes only after you have answered the first question ("Am I more of a DX or FX shooter"). So, first things first, that is all that Thom says. Naturally, if you want to disagree with somebody, you can always interpret their statements in way that allows you to do this.

moving_comfort said:
moving_comfort said:

The question is not whether it is nice too have both systems, the question is whether it necessary to spend that much money to have two systems and whether you would ever want to carry two systems around with you (or take on a vacation)?

Click to expand...

But you have to define "necessary".

Necessary to do 99% (or 90% or whatever) of the photos you want to take.

In my post below, I described my main DX and FX kits:

DX: 12-24 mm + 20 mm f/1.8 + 50 mm f/1.4
FX: 18 mm f/3.5 + 28 mm f/2 + 105 mm f/2

Not much overlap there. Of couse one can use, eg, a 14-24 mm f/2.8 on both DX and FX. But if you want DX for a lighter package, you will get a much smaller wide-angle zoom for it.

BTW, I sold all my DX stuff (except for the 50 mm f/1.4 lens) when I went for FX. Too much dead capital, too much duplification. I got a small m4/3 kit instead (7+14 mm + 20 mm).

eNo · Dec 22, 2010

Tony Beach said:
eNo said:

Tony Beach said:

We are fast approaching the point where the right tool can be either one, and that was Thom's point.

Click to expand...

Well, it happens to be a technically incorrect point. Which system will give you the longest reach at the same focal length? The answer will always be: DX.

Click to expand...

That is actually incorrect for two reasons. In practical terms we went about two years where you could get the same "reach" with a D3x as you could with any of the 12 MP DSLRs sold by Nikon. The bar has been moved by the D7000, but that is likely temporary as the D3x successor will again likely have comparable reach. Also, just stick a TC14eII on the end of your lens and you have essentially the same reach with a FX or DX assuming they both have the same number of megapixels.

This is wrong on so many levels.... where to start? Let's just point out that when you stick a converter between camera and lens you no longer have a fast lens, and let's leave it at that.

Tony Beach said:
Tony Beach said:

Which system will give you shallower DOF at the same aperture? The answer will always be: FX.

Click to expand...

Buy a faster lens for your DX camera. How often does the DOF on an f/1.4 or f/2 lens really leave you wanting more on a DX camera? If you are that person, then you are probably an FX shooter.

So to get the same DOF I get at f/1.4 on FX, I need a f/1.0 lens for DX... is this happening next year? Please, stop. It's beginning to look silly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .

Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.com/store
Wedding & Portrait: http://esfotoclix.com/wedevent
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

Tony Beach · Dec 22, 2010

eNo said:
Tony Beach said:

That is actually incorrect for two reasons. In practical terms we went about two years where you could get the same "reach" with a D3x as you could with any of the 12 MP DSLRs sold by Nikon. The bar has been moved by the D7000, but that is likely temporary as the D3x successor will again likely have comparable reach. Also, just stick a TC14eII on the end of your lens and you have essentially the same reach with a FX or DX assuming they both have the same number of megapixels.

Click to expand...

This is wrong on so many levels.... where to start? Let's just point out that when you stick a converter between camera and lens you no longer have a fast lens, and let's leave it at that.

No, lets not leave it at that. First the DOF is about the same with the teleconverter on FX as it is without the teleconverter on DX. Second, if we are to presume that D700 has a stop or more of ISO capability relative to the 12 MP DX DSLRs, then you can get the same shutter speed with the same image quality by just turning up the ISO.

eNo said:
eNo said:

eNo said:

Which system will give you shallower DOF at the same aperture? The answer will always be: FX.

Click to expand...

Buy a faster lens for your DX camera. How often does the DOF on an f/1.4 or f/2 lens really leave you wanting more on a DX camera? If you are that person, then you are probably an FX shooter.

Click to expand...

So to get the same DOF I get at f/1.4 on FX, I need a f/1.0 lens for DX... is this happening next year? Please, stop. It's beginning to look silly.

Like I said before, how often is f/1.4 or even f/2 a limitation on the DOF of a DX camera for you? If that's really that important to you, then you are an FX shooter.

TOF guy · Dec 22, 2010

a 24 MP FF camera can be used as a 10MP or so DX camera simply by cropping to the desired composition. And 10 MPs is enough for many applications. Plus resolution on FF cameras is bound to increase as well.

Advantages: ability to choosse the crop in post, better high ISO performance of a FX body.

In other words people with a D3x already have both an excellent DX and "FX" camera in one body.
--
Thierry

The DX vs. FX false choice

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Community Leader

Keyboard shortcuts