is FX really recommended over DX?

Started Sep 19, 2012 | Discussions thread
dgreene196 Regular Member • Posts: 121
Re: is FX really recommended over DX?

Lots of good answers in this thread already, so I don't have a lot more to add.

All formats have their inherit advantages and disadvantages. For the same approximate field of view, FX bodies and lenses are likely to somewhat bigger than their DX counterparts. High ISO is going to be better with FX. These may matter for a travel photographer (depending how how much equipment you care to carry around). Have to wait for some reviews to see how the buffer speeds are for the D600, but that might matter to someone interested in high-speed action. To me, one huge advantage of FX is the availability of some nice wide-angle primes (new and older models) - perfect for certain people and as small or smaller than DX wide-angle options. Nikon hasn't been very giving to DX users as far as wide-angle primes are concerned.

When I got back into photography several years ago, I built up my lens collection with an eye towards eventually moving to FX. However, I despaired that Nikon would never release a cheaper FX option or DX wide-angle primes, so I jumped ship to µ4/3, which has several good wide-angle lenses. Love the compactness of the system, miss the high-ISO, brilliant build quality, and more natural (to me) manual focusing of my D7000. I hope that, in a couple of years, I'll be able to rejoin the Nikon family - the D600 looks to be a great value in a body and my favorite film lens was the 25-85 zoom; big fan of Nikon's efforts to modernize that lens.

 dgreene196's gear list:dgreene196's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow