Want to go FX but afraid of extra weight

[Hotphotons]

If you are trying to visualize what a nice FX camera and some nice lenses will be like to carry around, just start adding weight to your bag. Once the novelty and thrill of having a new camera wears off, you'll tend to take it for granted and start noticing all that weight.

That said, it's not all that much heavier than a DX camera. It's the lenses that really add up. And you can put all those heavy, expensive lenses on your current camera too.

My question, and others wonder the same, is why you want an FX camera? It's not a 'natural progression' to change formats on cameras, just like you don't necessarily move from a 35mm film camera to medium format. If you need the functions that an FX camera is good at, you choose an FX camera. They are bigger (a bit), heavier (a bit) and better at some things, worse at others, compared to DX. You'll notice the differences with lenses at the extreme focal lengths, where you will end up with much, much bigger lenses than with a DX camera. There are penalties to be paid with FX...

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net

So FX cameras are only good at certain things? Why do they command such a premium?

What things are DX cameras better at than FX cameras?

What things are FX cameras better at?

I am genuinely curious as I was under the impression the FX cameras would overall produce superior images than DX.

 

[Steve Bingham]

What things are DX cameras better at than FX cameras?

Better in low light. Smoother sky transitions. Better dynamic range and richer colors in the shadows - until the D7000 came along and reversed all this . Usually built to take more abuse. Longer shutter life.

What things are FX cameras better at?

Wildlife photography (better reach). Birders (better reach). Hikers (smaller and lighter). Travelers (smaller and lighter). Older users (smaller and lighter). Ditto for a lot of females. Lenses are smaller and much lighter. Greater dynamic range at base ISO if talking about the D7000. I have spent a ton of time shooting the D200, D300, and my wonderful D700. In a print of 2' x 3' I see no difference, except maybe in the sky. As I NEVER sharpen the sky (I quick mask it out), this too is not a detriment. You would be VERY hard pressed to tell me which camera made one of my 16 x 24 inch prints - my D700 or D7000. Heck, I can't even tell and I know what to look for.

Lots of huey on dpreview. Careful.

I am genuinely curious as I was under the impression the FX cameras would overall produce superior images than DX.

--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

 

[KenBuse]

incredible post, thank you and happy holidays. i'm on my way to heidelburg, germany for three days with my d7000 and lenses and will be going solo (wife staying behind). I will get a chance to try some things again and hopefully improve on my skills. will respond with a few questions once i'm back in the states.

 

[CriticalI]

If you are trying to visualize what a nice FX camera and some nice lenses will be like to carry around, just start adding weight to your bag. Once the novelty and thrill of having a new camera wears off, you'll tend to take it for granted and start noticing all that weight.

That said, it's not all that much heavier than a DX camera. It's the lenses that really add up. And you can put all those heavy, expensive lenses on your current camera too.

My question, and others wonder the same, is why you want an FX camera? It's not a 'natural progression' to change formats on cameras, just like you don't necessarily move from a 35mm film camera to medium format. If you need the functions that an FX camera is good at, you choose an FX camera. They are bigger (a bit), heavier (a bit) and better at some things, worse at others, compared to DX. You'll notice the differences with lenses at the extreme focal lengths, where you will end up with much, much bigger lenses than with a DX camera. There are penalties to be paid with FX...

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net

So FX cameras are only good at certain things? Why do they command such a premium?

Because they are more specialised, sell in smaller quantities, and are more expensive to make because the sensors, mirror boxes and viewfinders are all much larger.

What things are DX cameras better at than FX cameras?

Being cheaper, smaller and lighter and giving the same IQ under most normal everyday conditions.

They have greater DOF which makes them good for macro.

They require smaller lenses for the same view angle, which means they are better for birding and anything that requires long lenses.

They only use the centre portion of the lens image circle so they work well with a lot of lenses that are much trickier to use on FX cameras because of edge effects.

What things are FX cameras better at?

A D3x or 5D2 will provide more resolution for the same pixel noise (allows bigger prints) but don't bother if you only print up to A3 because the difference over a D7000 is all but invisible. Print larger say 24" and up and it becomes more obvious though more so in very detailed subjects like landscapes.

A D3s or D700 will provide similar resolution with less noise at high ISO, allowing you to make decent size prints of subjects in low light, like stage performers, indoor sports players or musicians, especially if they are moving and you need a fast shutter speed.

Of course with a D3X you can crop (which means you can enlarge the subject) or downsize the image (which means less noise) if you are happy with a smaller print.

All FX cameras have less DOF which means you isolate some subjects better from the background, quite nice if you are doing portraits or subject photography.

I am genuinely curious as I was under the impression the FX cameras would overall produce superior images than DX.

Not really, they have what you might call a "larger shooting envelope" which means they are more capable in extreme conditions, but at ISO 100-400 and prints up to A3, you are going to get great results from your D7000.

--
Regards,
Steve

 

[cosmicnode]

This is the extra weight that a D700 and 24-70 would weigh compared to the D7000 with 18-200, keep the 70-300vr which is a highly rated lens, the Tokina will still work on dx mode and the 12mm end is equivalent to 18mm field of view on fx. Is 540 grams going to kill you, the 70-200 is heavier if you go that way either for dx or fx ,remember you do not need to carry around all your lenses at the same time.

Mike

 

[Vincent Kwan]

Last month I've been to Tokyo, Yokohama for 1 week tour. I carried D700 + 16-35/4VR + 50/1.8G + SB900. The weight was too heavy and I was completely exhausted and back pain. This made me not so enjoy the tour. I think FX system is too heavy for travelling. I think D7000 is ideal carmera for sightseeing.

Vincent

 

[Brooke A]

fuji x10, sony nex5 or nex7
--
Brooke

 

[moving_comfort]

fuji x10, sony nex5 or nex7

If weight is really a problem, this ^^ is something that should be considered, IMO. Even traditional DSLRs and lenses feel bulky and heavy compared to these increasingly excellent mirrorless alternatives.

An FX system for general photography combined with a mirrorless option for travel makes a lot of sense, if expensive.

.
--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 

[moving_comfort]

Been lugging around a D7000 and usually one or two lenses, a few filters, and a flash in my fanny pack and find that to be a bit heavy. I'm thinking I want to go FX soon, perhaps a used D700 or the new D800 whenever that comes out, but worried that I will just be adding weight and not liking it much. Just spent 4 days in Paris and those days were long, like 14 hours on ones feet and running around like crazy to catch Metros, standing in line at the Eiffel tower, ect.

.

Something like a D700 + a smaller prime isn't that much heavier than your DX system, but for a walkabout day on a trip, I don't know if there's much point in you going FX.

FX is really for folks who have shot for a while with DX and start to run into IQ or usage barriers with that format - sounds like you haven't hit any of those barriers yet, and until/unless you do, you probably won't see any real improvement in your photography by going FX.

Where FX is really going to help you is if you are having problems locking focus in low light, or you need an extra stop of ISO, or you want to achieve some neat-looking FOV/DOF combos that DX can't easily match. If you can't think of any times when you've felt limited in these areas, I'd say stick with DX, especially for travel.

In fact, if you say your D7000 is already feeling heavy, I'd say investigate the Fuji X10 or X100, Sony NEX cameras, the Panasonic m43 bodies, maybe the Samsung NX cameras. In the next couple years, I think we'll see the lower-end DX DSLRs feeling the crunch from these excellent mirrorless cameras - especially because of the issue you bring up here.

.

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 

[CriticalI]

This is the extra weight that a D700 and 24-70 would weigh compared to the D7000 with 18-200, keep the 70-300vr which is a highly rated lens, the Tokina will still work on dx mode and the 12mm end is equivalent to 18mm field of view on fx. Is 540 grams going to kill you, the 70-200 is heavier if you go that way either for dx or fx ,remember you do not need to carry around all your lenses at the same time.

Mike

Yes but why bother? The D7000 has better low ISO IQ than the D700. When do you need the FX difference and what for?
--
Regards,
Steve

 

[xsimplyjosh]

on fx just be prepared for extra weight.. the lightest FX body is a nikon d700 body which is 995g without the battery in it. but that shouldn't be too troublesome* . don't let weight be a distraction/limiting factor... The difference between D7000 to D700 is 690g w/o battery to 995g w/o battery which is 305g difference.

only focus on what the D700 provides that D7000 may lack, and use that to your advantage*
--
Josh - D7000 ; Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ; SB-900

 

[peterclark55]

As an ex Parisian, I know that its a tourist killer, particularly with a big gun.

Unless you really need high iso or a wider field, would stay dx or better still, get yourself a Nikon V1, a killer box and lots of fun. Peter
--
http://www.pbase.com/peter55/galleries

 

[tyb599807]

If you are afraid of weight two route

1) Hit the gym

2) Nikon 1

I do both! D3s and 2.8 lense when the fastest in focus and low light are required
When out and about having fun the Nikon 1 is the "one"

 

[260684]

Fanny pack? LOL love it. Fanny means something different over here in Scotland...

Been lugging around a D7000 and usually one or two lenses, a few filters, and a flash in my fanny pack and find that to be a bit heavy. I'm thinking I want to go FX soon, perhaps a used D700 or the new D800 whenever that comes out, but worried that I will just be adding weight and not liking it much. Just spent 4 days in Paris and those days were long, like 14 hours on ones feet and running around like crazy to catch Metros, standing in line at the Eiffel tower, ect. Was trying to visualize what it might be like to have a nice FX camera and a few nice lenses (which are heavier too than my DX equivalents). Any suggestions?

 

[RickD]

Hi Ken

If you like to shoot in low/available light, I agree with the suggestion to start with the faster lenses. The following are were taken with a D700 and 24-70 F2.8 wide open. They could have been taken with a D7000, but not with a slower lens.

ISO 6400 with 24-70 at F2.8



ISO 6400 with 24-70 F 2.8



ISO 5000 with 24-70 at F2.8



I found that upgrading my fanny pack to a LowePro Slingshot made it much easier to carry my equipment (and protected it better). This may reduce your hesitation of "going FX".

Good luck.

--
RickD

 

[Lance B]

Been lugging around a D7000 and usually one or two lenses, a few filters, and a flash in my fanny pack and find that to be a bit heavy. I'm thinking I want to go FX soon, perhaps a used D700 or the new D800 whenever that comes out, but worried that I will just be adding weight and not liking it much. Just spent 4 days in Paris and those days were long, like 14 hours on ones feet and running around like crazy to catch Metros, standing in line at the Eiffel tower, ect. Was trying to visualize what it might be like to have a nice FX camera and a few nice lenses (which are heavier too than my DX equivalents). Any suggestions?

I doubt whether you won't like FX, but as others have suggested, you really need to look to why you want to go that way. There have been many good posts advising why you don't need to, so I will not add my opinion on that one way or the other, other than to say that I am more than happy with my decision to go FF with a D700 18 months ago. Having said that, I also do have the D7000 as well now for crop factor "reach".

I have done lots of travel with my D700 and the following kit:
16-36 f4 VR
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 VRII
1.4x TCII
2x TCIII
either a flash or macro

All packed into my Lowepro Flipside 400 which is the best back pack for this kit and for travel, IMO. I have recently added the Lowepro Lens Exchange case 200 and put that on the waist belt of the Flipside 400 for quick easy lens changes. This is a great idea and I would use the Lowepro Lens Exchange case 200 even on a "fanny pack" (as you put it) or similar as it makes lens swapping so easy.

I have walked all day touring cities in Europe with this kit on my back and never felt any more fatigued with it on as if I had without anything on my back at all.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 

[lnbolch]

I have walked all day touring cities in Europe with this kit on my back and never felt any more fatigued with it on as if I had without anything on my back at all.

Age makes a big difference. In my early 30s I got a travel assignment and my lighter medium-format body was in the shop. I shot it with a Mamiya RB67 with a prism finder—with two lenses, probably more than five kilos, plus tripod. No problem other than having to buy new shirts three sizes larger to accommodate upper torso development. Now with most joints telling me that my body is not as young as my mind, I must carefully consider how much weight and how much walking I will be doing.

Age happens.

--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/

 

[Pat Melone]

I am the odd one out here I would think. But I carry a D3 with a 24-70 2.8 or a 16-35 f4 or a Zeiss 21mm(great lens) or a 70-200 VR1 or a combo of these lens with me most times as a walk around kit. I have no issues with weight or fatigue i am in my late 30's I am used to the weight and it does not bother me. I get a lot of looks from passers by "look at that strange man with the big camera" LOL but I do not really care what others think of me I enjoy using the D3 it is fantastic and so of course is the D700. I will most likely get a D800 if it ever comes out.

Having said that if you find the D7000 starting to get a bit heavy for you the FX is going to be no better.
All the best to you.
Cheers
Scott
--
All post by Scott Bowman
Please check out my Flickr page at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ttocs/

 

[larrywilson]

I am not a young man, actually just turned 67 ugh!!! I still love my d3s with L bracket which adds some weight. I bought a d7000 a few weeks ago and will use it for wildlife with a long lens. Under really dark conditions I will go back to my d3s when I have to push the ISO limits. I live here in western Oregon so we have many, many days that are dark with heavy cloud cover and rains a lot.

The d3s has less noise at high ISO's and the layout of the body is better with more buttons for quick adjustments than the d7000.

By the time I put on my Nikon 300mm f2.8 vrII lens with the tc2.0III on the d3s mounted on a carbon tripod it is heavy when I am hiking into a wildlife area, but I ain't finished yet ha ha!!!!

The FX Nikon cameras are built tougher, better water resistant, but of course heavier. I had the d700 and it is a fantistic camera.

Larry

 

[michaeljberman]

Ken,

I have spent a lot of time working/thinking on the weight issues, for me it was the other way around. I have a D700, my weight problem was when I travel, I like to travel and the weight of the stuff does get heavy. I was looking at replacing my 70-> 200 f2.8 and or my 17-> 35 f2.8 with lighter lens,bBut end the end, I found that a good case, bag solved the problem for me and I can keep the lens that I love.

Now I do not know where you live, but there has been a very sharp drop in "good camera" stores in the last 10 to 15 years, I live in Arizona and only know of two good stores, both are > 125 miles from my home, so that makes it hard to try on the different bags.

When I had my D200, it with my 70-> 200 fit just great in the center of my Kata sling bag, leaving me two other big slots for lens/flash and a few zippers for small stuff. With the D700, the old Kata would not work (they have new bags out that look like they may work but my old bag was like the LighTri-314 PL.) I got a different bag, the Tamrac Velocity 10x, but I did not like the way it fits on a long day, also there is a lot less foam on the walls bottom to protect the camera & lens inside. So I ended up going back to Kata with a 3N1 33, it holds all my stuff plus a laptop & more, that sounds to big for your needs, but I very much like sling to get to the stuff on the walk (I do not run), I have found that a shoulder or fanny bag is hard on me my after only a few hours.

In the last 4 months, I did 2 weeks in Mexico (the Yucatán) and 10 days in Eastern Europe. There were many days with 12 hour+ of me and the Kata, and it worked fine, even for a person of my weight (way to much) and my years getting very close to 60.

It sounds to me more like a bag type problem not a weight of the camera. Also when you are out shooting, the camera and one lens should be on your neck. (by the way get a neoprene camera strap, they do help with the weight of the camera.)

I have found the the high ISO on the D700 is great, I was in Mexico on Sep.15th (the 4th of July in Mexico) and was down at the town square shooting at mid-night and got a lot of photos that I like, yes, ISO 3200 is not as good as ISO 200, but I got the shoots.

Mike
--
If you have low standards, you can take a look:
http://michaeljberman.zenfolio.com