DX or FX?

[davidevans1]

Up to now I've been a bit of a pixel fiend and have bought cameras on the basis that bigger sensor and more pixels is better because it gives me more options to print big etc.

But I'm starting to doubt this. For a start although I'd like to print big, it really very rarely happens, and when I do print the largest size is A2.

Secondly pixels have caught up on DX anyway, unless you need the 36mp to print really big. Reckon 24mp is plenty for me.

Thirdly, and probably the point that has started this line of thought, is that lenses seem to work better with DX than FX as less of the glass diameter is used, plus there is a bigger choice of DX and FX lenses.

So I'm at the stage of buying a new camera and was planning on a D800. However when I look for a 'normal' everyday zoom there doesn't seem to be one that is really good and also decent value. The nearest is the 24-70 but in reality for that to be really good it's a 30-60.

Then the D7100 has come out, and I'm seriously thinking about getting this instead of a D800.

The one part I haven't investigated fully is what to do about a wide angle lens. I mainly shoot landscape but rarely go wider than 24mm in FX terms, so 16mm in DX.

Two final points that are important to me. I hike so weight is important (probably another plus for DX) and I want to broaden my photography beyond landscapes (I don't think DX or FX makes any difference with this).

So what do you think? Is my logic flawed?

 

[Lightpath48]

Some shoot DX for lower cost in both bodies and lenses. If FF depth of field control advantage isn't critical for you, and you don't require the higher ISO image quality of FF you might be happy in DX. DX-only lenses won't carry over, if you ever switch to FF down the road. FF has more wide angle zoom and prime lens choices for your landscape work. DX is popular with some for its crop advantage for wildlife and sports. But opinions vary, whether a crop is actually an advantage. So my answer would be, "Depends."

 

[Bailey151]

Lightpath48 wrote:

................."Depends."

Which is probably the best answer anyone can give for a "which" choice - it all depends (for all the reasons listed)

And you're correct if there's a hole in the DX lineup it's an "everyday zoom". The best two are slow (16-85 & 18-105). There's 3rd party 17-70 but you lose on both ends. FX aren't the right focal length (i.e. 24-70).

There are a couple of good choices for UWA. Nikon, Sigma, and Tonika make good ones.

If weight is an issue then DX rules, only you can say how much weight you're willing to haul around.

On the + side I doubt you'll be sorry with either choice.

 

[Bill Rees]

davidevans1 wrote:

Up to now I've been a bit of a pixel fiend and have bought cameras on the basis that bigger sensor and more pixels is better because it gives me more options to print big etc.

But I'm starting to doubt this. For a start although I'd like to print big, it really very rarely happens, and when I do print the largest size is A2.

Secondly pixels have caught up on DX anyway, unless you need the 36mp to print really big. Reckon 24mp is plenty for me.

Thirdly, and probably the point that has started this line of thought, is that lenses seem to work better with DX than FX as less of the glass diameter is used, plus there is a bigger choice of DX and FX lenses.

So I'm at the stage of buying a new camera and was planning on a D800. However when I look for a 'normal' everyday zoom there doesn't seem to be one that is really good and also decent value. The nearest is the 24-70 but in reality for that to be really good it's a 30-60.

Then the D7100 has come out, and I'm seriously thinking about getting this instead of a D800.

The one part I haven't investigated fully is what to do about a wide angle lens. I mainly shoot landscape but rarely go wider than 24mm in FX terms, so 16mm in DX.

Two final points that are important to me. I hike so weight is important (probably another plus for DX) and I want to broaden my photography beyond landscapes (I don't think DX or FX makes any difference with this).

So what do you think? Is my logic flawed?

 

[sirraj]

No one mentioned the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens, my favorite lens. It is big and heavy, but not as big as the 24-70mm. It's a really great lens and you can find them used for a reasonable price, $800 - 900. There are several good wide angle DX lenses available in the 10-24mm range. I was considering buying a D600, but decided to stay with DX because I already have DX lenses I am happy with.

 

[DavidPonting]

The one part I haven't investigated fully is what to do about a wide angle lens. I mainly shoot landscape but rarely go wider than 24mm in FX terms, so 16mm in DX.
Two final points that are important to me. I hike so weight is important (probably another plus for DX) and I want to broaden my photography beyond landscapes (I don't think DX or FX makes any difference with this).

So what do you think? Is my logic flawed?