Could a DX format camera be used for professional use?

[dopamine_cookie]

Hi, I shoot photos as hobby and I was looking into some 'D500 vs D750' articles around the world, then I fell into some concern whether 'full frame = professional'.

In many forums I can see that DX formats a recommended for entry level or hobby photographers whereas FX formats are for semi-pro or professional uses.

In short, are photos taken from DX format really inadequate for professional uses or is it the matter that generally FX format bodies has better functionality and/or usability?

My idea is that even when FF format DSLR didn't come out to world, professional photographers of that time would had been using cameras with smaller sensors. I think I understand the difference between sensor sizes and I think the difference between sensors are smaller than other factors(digital retouching, lights, and so on).

If I have chance I would like to hear ideas from professional photographers(photographer as a job). Thank you!

 

[n057]

Hi, I shoot photos as hobby and I was looking into some 'D500 vs D750' articles around the world, then I fell into some concern whether 'full frame = professional'.

In many forums I can see that DX formats a recommended for entry level or hobby photographers whereas FX formats are for semi-pro or professional uses.

In short, are photos taken from DX format really inadequate for professional uses or is it the matter that generally FX format bodies has better functionality and/or usability?

My idea is that even when FF format DSLR didn't come out to world, professional photographers of that time would had been using cameras with smaller sensors. I think I understand the difference between sensor sizes and I think the difference between sensors are smaller than other factors(digital retouching, lights, and so on).

If I have chance I would like to hear ideas from professional photographers(photographer as a job). Thank you!

This can be a long protracted discussion

One can argue that even an old Kodak Instamatic can be put to good use by a professional photographer. What makes a camera "professional" is entirely arbitrary. As long as the photographer can make great pictures, it does not matter.

And to make things simple, look at the manufacturer of our beloved cameras. They have a service called "Nikon Professional Services, NPS. They have a list of which cameras they support in that service, and it has DX cameras in there. Here is the listing for Canada:

https://en.nikon.ca/service-and-support/nps/equipment-list.page

It is true that generally those cameras listed there, FX or DX, have better functionality than the other ones, however for Canada at least, all the FX cameras are there, even the D600 which has the same functionality as the D7000. Maybe the amount of money you spend on your equipment also matters


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 

[Dbltfarmer]

There are a lot of different ways to look at it. In my sports shooting, I have seen pros carrying two bodies one a D5 and the other a D500. I also know a a guy who has published several books on bird identification in Texas using many of his own photos an he is exclusively DX shooter. I also know a couple of wedding photogs that shoot exclusively D600 and D750. These are considered enthusiast cameras and not professional.

There is various reasons why a professional photographer uses the cameras they use. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are stuck on one camera or system but more about getting the shots they need and if they actually need to professional grade cameras to get the job done.

Mirrorless cameras may be the best example of professional photographers getting the best camera to fit their needs. At this point wedding photogs may want the quietest camera they can get with good IQ but at the same time still want a D750 for its low light performance. At the same time a sports photographer may not want the mirrorless because of autofocus speed and or low light performance, FPS and buffer.

On top of this is the investment in lenses which opens up another can of worms when discussing the subject.

 

[Doug Haag]

Hi, I shoot photos as hobby and I was looking into some 'D500 vs D750' articles around the world, then I fell into some concern whether 'full frame = professional'.

In many forums I can see that DX formats a recommended for entry level or hobby photographers whereas FX formats are for semi-pro or professional uses.

In short, are photos taken from DX format really inadequate for professional uses or is it the matter that generally FX format bodies has better functionality and/or usability?

My idea is that even when FF format DSLR didn't come out to world, professional photographers of that time would had been using cameras with smaller sensors. I think I understand the difference between sensor sizes and I think the difference between sensors are smaller than other factors(digital retouching, lights, and so on).

If I have chance I would like to hear ideas from professional photographers(photographer as a job). Thank you!

Perhaps you didn't notice that the title of the forum section to which you posted includes the word "Pro", And the D500 is a Dx camera.

That having been said, n057 gave you the proper answer by saying that any camera, whether full-frame or Dx can be used to successfully produce images that are worthy of publication and being paid for.

But where does this Pro versus non-Pro idea in the forum title come from. One of the most prolific bloggers about Nikon cameras over many years and the publisher of popular user manuals for Nikon cameras is a man named Thom Hogan. Several years ago he published a write-up about the "Pro" versus "Consumer" categorization that he employs in describing the Nikon lineup of DSLR's. I have provided a link below.

He says that while this is not "official" Nikon terminology, in unofficial conversations, even Nikon employees tend to adopt these distinctions. One of the differentiating features of the two categories is the nature of the user interface -- how the user manages the camera operation either through menus versus buttons and dials. One of the distinctions that I find useful to pay attention to is the way back-button auto focus operation is handled. In ALL the "Consumer" models, back button focus requires the re-purpose or reassignment of a button meant mainly to control a different function. But in ALL the "Pro" models, Nikon has added a separate button dedicated to this purpose called "AF On". The Nikon D500 has such a button.

It appears that another differentiating feature is that all the "Consumer" models have a PASM dial while the "Pro" models do not have such a dial. The D500 does not have a PASM dial.

If you follow this convention to determining categorization, you will find that some full frame models like the D610 and the D750 would fall into the "consumer" category. And you will see in the link below, that Thom Hogan does classify these models as NOT being in the "Pro" category.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews...6-nikon-news/my-use-of-the-terms-pro-and.html

But again, as n057 has said, you can use any of these cameras successfully in a professional environment. Even Thom who uses the Pro vs Consumer terminology emphasizes this same point in his write-up.

 

[Wahrsager]

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9216678258/olympus-introduces-durable-sports-oriented-e-m1x

 

[rumple]

In short, are photos taken from DX format really inadequate for professional uses

In short, no, you've been sold a bill of goods by internet heroes.

 

[Voyager7777]

As long as the camera delivers the results a pro needs, it can be used for a professional.

My D500 will deliver what i need for certain situation, so will my D2X, both are DX. In some cases my D800 or D850 will be more suited.

A professional uses the tool needed, that's it.

 

[Ronan_M]

Hi, I shoot photos as hobby and I was looking into some 'D500 vs D750' articles around the world, then I fell into some concern whether 'full frame = professional'.

In many forums I can see that DX formats a recommended for entry level or hobby photographers whereas FX formats are for semi-pro or professional uses.

In short, are photos taken from DX format really inadequate for professional uses or is it the matter that generally FX format bodies has better functionality and/or usability?

My idea is that even when FF format DSLR didn't come out to world, professional photographers of that time would had been using cameras with smaller sensors. I think I understand the difference between sensor sizes and I think the difference between sensors are smaller than other factors(digital retouching, lights, and so on).

If I have chance I would like to hear ideas from professional photographers(photographer as a job). Thank you!

Short answer (which you know already) - The person makes the photo, not the camera. Its the person that's "pro" or "not pro". The gear just makes it easier to achieve a result.

There is purpose-built gear that might be particularly good for certain circumstances, such as high FPS cameras for sports or solid-built to withstand harsh weather. This makes the job easier (or sometimes even plain possible). So, you have an argument that such gear is "pro" as it enables the shot. All fine there.

However, the SENSOR format, IMHO, is one of the less relevant factors for achieving any particular outcome. That's why a camera such as the D500 exists. Purpose-built for sports / birding / fast action. Sensor? not relevant at all.

Dpreview is a gear forum, full of gear snobs. So that's what you're hearing. Pay no attention to the mob and make your own conclusions.

 

[David Lal]

Hi, I shoot photos as hobby and I was looking into some 'D500 vs D750' articles around the world, then I fell into some concern whether 'full frame = professional'.

I'm not a professional photographer, merely a [hopefully skilled] hobbyist but I have been paid, quite often, to take photographs or otherwise received financial remuneration for my efforts. Surely, that's what 'professional' in this context means?

This has included D70 images used at trade exhibitions and publications in the travel industry. Ditto D300 images and now lately a D750.

Even with the best FX lenses I have, mounted on my D750 I find my 6x6 (Kowa) and 6x4.5 (Mamiya) images on film from 4 decades ago can't be matched! At least, not by me. If a friend or family member asks me to cover his/her wedding I always include one of those old film cameras - and the results are always appreciated.

 

[Dyun27]

Hi, I shoot photos as hobby and I was looking into some 'D500 vs D750' articles around the world, then I fell into some concern whether 'full frame = professional'.

In many forums I can see that DX formats a recommended for entry level or hobby photographers whereas FX formats are for semi-pro or professional uses.

In short, are photos taken from DX format really inadequate for professional uses or is it the matter that generally FX format bodies has better functionality and/or usability?

My idea is that even when FF format DSLR didn't come out to world, professional photographers of that time would had been using cameras with smaller sensors. I think I understand the difference between sensor sizes and I think the difference between sensors are smaller than other factors(digital retouching, lights, and so on).

If I have chance I would like to hear ideas from professional photographers(photographer as a job). Thank you!

It's kind of simple. When comparing same generation FX and DX, the FX sensor will produce better image quality due to having better dynamic range and better high ISO performance. Pros usually need the best image quality they can get no matter what kind of lighting they're shooting in, so they usually go for a full frame camera that also has a good, fast and accurate AF module.

DX sensors have progressed a lot over the years, and a D500 for example, can match a D700 in dynamic range and high ISO performance, in addition to having all the pro features that photographers are looking for. It can't quite catch up to the D750 in that respect. I have both, and I can tell the difference. I would prefer to use the D750 for most images for that reason.

What specific body you select to do professional work depends on what you plan to shoot. If you need fast FPS and more reach for sports, you either go with a D500, or one of the pro FX bodies with a longer lens. Depends on what you can afford and what expectations your client happens to have.

Plenty of people use DX bodies for professional work. Some photographers can produce high quality professional work with any camera.

 

[MK]

It's not the eqiupment that makes the pro, it's the end results.

 

[Flashlight]

Hi, I shoot photos as hobby and I was looking into some 'D500 vs D750' articles around the world, then I fell into some concern whether 'full frame = professional'.

In many forums I can see that DX formats a recommended for entry level or hobby photographers whereas FX formats are for semi-pro or professional uses.

In short, are photos taken from DX format really inadequate for professional uses or is it the matter that generally FX format bodies has better functionality and/or usability?

My idea is that even when FF format DSLR didn't come out to world, professional photographers of that time would had been using cameras with smaller sensors. I think I understand the difference between sensor sizes and I think the difference between sensors are smaller than other factors(digital retouching, lights, and so on).

If I have chance I would like to hear ideas from professional photographers(photographer as a job). Thank you!

I've used the D1, D1x, D100, D200, D80, D300, for work and still use the D7200. I also used and use a number of FX cameras starting with the D700.

If you look at same technology sensors cameras with FX sensors can, if desired, shoot images with a stop less DoF and/or a stop more DR. Cameras with DX sensors have more 'reach' with long telephoto lenses and are usually much cheaper.

 

[FingerPainter]

It's kind of simple. When comparing same generation FX and DX, the FX sensor will produce better image quality due to having better dynamic range and better high ISO performance.

It only has that performance advantage if you are willing to live with reduced DOF.

Pros usually need the best image quality they can get no matter what kind of lighting they're shooting in, so they usually go for a full frame camera that also has a good, fast and accurate AF module.

IQ depends on the size of the usable portion of the sensor. For many images, that's whole sensor, so FF is better, but for distant subjects you may need to crop a larger sensor more than a smaller sensor. Then the higher pixel density of the smaller sensor may result in better IQ

DX sensors have progressed a lot over the years, and a D500 for example, can match a D700 in dynamic range and high ISO performance, in addition to having all the pro features that photographers are looking for. It can't quite catch up to the D750 in that respect. I have both, and I can tell the difference. I would prefer to use the D750 for most images for that reason.

But a Pro that needs to tightly frame a distant, erratically moving subject would probably prefer to use a D500 than a D750.

What specific body you select to do professional work depends on what you plan to shoot. If you need fast FPS and more reach for sports, you either go with a D500, or one of the pro FX bodies with a longer lens. Depends on what you can afford and what expectations your client happens to have.

Plenty of people use DX bodies for professional work. Some photographers can produce high quality professional work with any camera.

 

[lightandaprayer]

FWIW, I shot professionally for well-known publications, newspapers and photo agencies in the states and Europe for over 30 years. My first DSLR was a DX Nikon. DX is fine for professional use and your D500 is arguably one of the best DX cameras ever. As long as whatever gear you use is capable of doing what you need it to do, you are good to go.

Instead of worrying so much about their gear I think many photographers would benefit more from using their money to be able to shoot more and take advantage of workshops, etc. that improve their skills. That certainly made all the difference for me, making it possible to compete for space in the top publications. When I began getting into the more desirable venues my kit was still pretty darn basic compared to a lot of the gear lists I see on DPR.

 

[Dyun27]

It's kind of simple. When comparing same generation FX and DX, the FX sensor will produce better image quality due to having better dynamic range and better high ISO performance.

It only has that performance advantage if you are willing to live with reduced DOF.

Not being able to get a shallower DOF is also a drawback for certain types of photography. I can always use a narrower aperture on full frame, but I can't open the lens any wider than it is on DX to get me less DOF at max aperture. There's a whole distance-to-subject debate as well, but I don't feel like getting into it that deep right now.

Pros usually need the best image quality they can get no matter what kind of lighting they're shooting in, so they usually go for a full frame camera that also has a good, fast and accurate AF module.

IQ depends on the size of the usable portion of the sensor. For many images, that's whole sensor, so FF is better, but for distant subjects you may need to crop a larger sensor more than a smaller sensor. Then the higher pixel density of the smaller sensor may result in better IQ

Are you talking about the 1.5x magnification of the DX sensor? Yes, it will get you closer to your subject, but I would prefer using an FX sensor with a longer lens to using DX and losing some DR or high ISO IQ. Since most of us can't afford a Nikon D5 or D850 + grip with an 800mm f/5.6 prime, we buy the D500 and one of the recent super-zooms that are actually somewhat affordable for the average hobby/enthusiast/semi-pro photographer.

DX sensors have progressed a lot over the years, and a D500 for example, can match a D700 in dynamic range and high ISO performance, in addition to having all the pro features that photographers are looking for. It can't quite catch up to the D750 in that respect. I have both, and I can tell the difference. I would prefer to use the D750 for most images for that reason.

But a Pro that needs to tightly frame a distant, erratically moving subject would probably prefer to use a D500 than a D750.

Or he/she may use a D850, or D5 with a longer lens. Pros have lots of options, as long as their budgets are big enough.

The D750 is my budget all-in-one and it is very capable. I shoot the D500 and D750 side-by-side almost every weekend and from my experience, the D750 AF is right there with the D500. Doesn't feel like it sometimes while shooting, feels a little mushier during use, but when I come home and look at the shots, they both give me the same keeper rate. Yes, this surprises me every time, and I have to give a lot of credit to the D750 for being able to keep up like that.
Like I insinuated,... you can use any camera to get paid, as long as you know what you're doing and you can make the best of it. Most people will not notice the difference. They just want a pretty picture.

 

[FingerPainter]

It's kind of simple. When comparing same generation FX and DX, the FX sensor will produce better image quality due to having better dynamic range and better high ISO performance.

It only has that performance advantage if you are willing to live with reduced DOF.

Not being able to get a shallower DOF is also a drawback for certain types of photography.

Yes, that's the point Each sensor size will have advantages for certain types of photography. Therefore a pro will chose the one which advantages the particular type of work he wishes to do. There is no blanket "FX sensor will produce better image quality" that you stated.

I can always use a narrower aperture on full frame, but I can't open the lens any wider than it is on DX to get me less DOF at max aperture.

Sure, yet most landscapes are taken with lenses stopped down, in order to get a particular DoF. In that case an FX camera with the same base ISO has no noise or DR advantage.

There's a whole distance-to-subject debate as well, but I don't feel like getting into it that deep right now.

Pros usually need the best image quality they can get no matter what kind of lighting they're shooting in, so they usually go for a full frame camera that also has a good, fast and accurate AF module.

IQ depends on the size of the usable portion of the sensor. For many images, that's whole sensor, so FF is better, but for distant subjects you may need to crop a larger sensor more than a smaller sensor. Then the higher pixel density of the smaller sensor may result in better IQ

Are you talking about the 1.5x magnification of the DX sensor? Yes, it will get you closer to your subject, but I would prefer using an FX sensor with a longer lens to using DX and losing some DR or high ISO IQ.

If you can use the longer lens on FX, you can use it on DX too. It comes down to whether you can frame the subject on FX without cropping. If you need to crop to DX size, you are better off using a D500 than a D750, because you will get more resolution and equal or better DR.

Since most of us can't afford a Nikon D5 or D850 + grip with an 800mm f/5.6 prime, we buy the D500 and one of the recent super-zooms that are actually somewhat affordable for the average hobby/enthusiast/semi-pro photographer.

You don't see too many pro sport photogrpahers using an 800mm lens, either. If they need the reach, most Nikon users pick a D500.

DX sensors have progressed a lot over the years, and a D500 for example, can match a D700 in dynamic range and high ISO performance, in addition to having all the pro features that photographers are looking for. It can't quite catch up to the D750 in that respect. I have both, and I can tell the difference. I would prefer to use the D750 for most images for that reason.

But a Pro that needs to tightly frame a distant, erratically moving subject would probably prefer to use a D500 than a D750.

Or he/she may use a D850, or D5 with a longer lens.

Only if that gives the framing they need without cropping.

Pros have lots of options, as long as their budgets are big enough.

The D750 is my budget all-in-one and it is very capable. I shoot the D500 and D750 side-by-side almost every weekend and from my experience, the D750 AF is right there with the D500. Doesn't feel like it sometimes while shooting, feels a little mushier during use, but when I come home and look at the shots, they both give me the same keeper rate. Yes, this surprises me every time, and I have to give a lot of credit to the D750 for being able to keep up like that.

Like I insinuated,... you can use any camera to get paid, as long as you know what you're doing and you can make the best of it. Most people will not notice the difference. They just want a pretty picture.

 

[David Lal]

I have followed your learnéd debate with great interest. You both make good points and I have learned something. I am a new D750 user but I still love my D300. I now have a much better idea of when to use which and why. Thanks.

 

[Flashlight]

I have followed your learnéd debate with great interest. You both make good points and I have learned something. I am a new D750 user but I still love my D300. I now have a much better idea of when to use which and why. Thanks.

Except that the D300 has 12MP and the DX crop of the D750 is 11MP, so there is not much point in using your D300 for more 'reach'. It's like the D850 and D500, they have about the same pixel pitch so the DX crop of the D850 has the same amount of MP as the D500.

Now if you compare the D750 and D7200 there is a significant difference of 11 vs 24 MP for the DX area.

--
Philip

 

[dopamine_cookie]

It's nearly a week since i made this thread and I've been reading all opinions. Reading the thread was interesting and I would like to thank you for your interest.

In conclusion, I think I got what I wanted to know; that both DX and FX format can be used as long as the photographer can produce result that client wants.

 

[David Lal]

I have followed your learnéd debate with great interest. You both make good points and I have learned something. I am a new D750 user but I still love my D300. I now have a much better idea of when to use which and why. Thanks.

Except that the D300 has 12MP and the DX crop of the D750 is 11MP, so there is not much point in using your D300 for more 'reach'. It's like the D850 and D500, they have about the same pixel pitch so the DX crop of the D850 has the same amount of MP as the D500.

Now if you compare the D750 and D7200 there is a significant difference of 11 vs 24 MP for the DX area.

Thanks Philip, another informative and interesting insight. One reason I still like to use the D300 is that it is so robust - so I tend to carry it around even when pursuing outdoor activities such as skiing and sailing. The D750 does not quite give me that impression but I got it mainly for low light situations (a D300 weakness) - it can see in the dark or so it seems!