User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  2
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: To Fx or dx?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2010
    Location
    Leura
    Posts
    136
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    To Fx or dx?

    I have been thinking this year is time for a second body. I have been working with a D200 for some years, (mostly)quite happy with it.
    My usual work combination is d200 with 17-55dx and
    d100 with 70-200- fx.
    I am unsure about going to full frame with one body only or staying with the dx format with 2.

    If I buy a d700 I cannot use the 17-55 and will have to buy another lens as well.
    If i buy a d700 it would be a waste to only use it on the 70-200 which doesnt get as much use. (though being 70 instead of 110 would be more useful)
    If I buy a d300s I can use the 17-55 for a few more years but fairly soon everything will be full frame and I will have to buy 2 new bodies and a lens.
    I know some people will be saying get the body and the lens, but I dont think that would be a good financial decison at the mo.
    Buy a 2nd hand d200?
    It seems we are in a decade of flux really, one step forward or one step back?
    Anyone have any good ideas?
    Togs are what my son wears to go swimming.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Beaches, Sydney
    Posts
    2,338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What do you shoot?

    On the upside, that 17-55DX should have retained its value well.

  3. #3
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    We have done much the same thing johndom but we had a fair variety of FX lenses to cover focal ranges.
    The D700 is proving to be a "giant leap forward" and in no way do I see this decade as anything like one step back.
    Dx will continue for quite some time and has a very handy place in the scheme of things so we won't be getting rid of the 2 D200 bodies, they still work very well in most areas but the D700 really does shine for low light work and after the first real try out with a 70-200 on it at the weekend it becomes an extremely useful focal length on FX.
    My vote would go for the D700 and a 24-70 for you.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  4. #4
    Ausphotography Veteran rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,570
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Interesting debate this, from a Canon user's viewpoint I went through the same thought processes too. In the end I came to the conclusion that the F/F and Crop frame cameras do different things well and sometimes the same things badly!
    All a matter of choice but I use both side by side quite happily and most of my lenses are interchangeable anyway so it doesn't worry me now, I just pick the machine that I think will do the best job for the circumstances.
    It is a time of flux and it is healthy to have the competition between the various manufacturers but can bring about some confusion in the mind of a potential buyer
    Richard
    I've been wrong before!! Happy to have constructive criticism though.Gear used Canon 50D, 7D & 5DMkII plus expensive things hanging off their fronts and of course a "nifty fifty".

  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    14 Feb 2010
    Location
    Leura
    Posts
    136
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A mix, some events, some corporate portraits, some weddings.

  6. #6
    A. P's Culinary Indiscriminant mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Cronulla, Sydney
    Posts
    8,610
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mongo has a D200 and has been thinking of FX instead. He decided to get the D700 when it is upgraded and use his wide angles on FX mode with that camera and his long lenses mostly in DX mode when necessary. You do not have to sell your lenses !!!
    Nikon and Pentax user



  7. #7
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,188
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I suppose an alternative argument could be:

    Why not use the 17-55 on the D700?

    Do you need to print extremely large prints? as in larger than approximately 1meter, or more, on the longest side?
    The 6Mp of my D70s is capable of printing prints up to about 1 meter on the longest edge, without a worry(I'm told, not that I ever tried it) so the 6Mp of the D700 in Dx mode will be capable of better quality at those print sizes.

    The 17-55 definitely works on the D700 in Dx mode, and at some focal lengths it even covers the Fx sensor too(according to BR.. 35-55mm is OK on Fx with the 17-55mm).

    That could be an interesting perspective to have on Fx anyhow, and may make for good images(on Fx).

    Then as financial situation improves, you could update/upgrade/add another lens to your kit as a complement in the near future.. but you have the benefit of the D700's superior performance where it may matter most(ISO, DOF, whatever else...)

    I have no lens shorter than 28mm that would cover the Fx sensor, and that fact has never been an issue for me in whether or not to get a D700! Most of my images seem to be at the very wide end
    A lack of sufficient funding due to an incessant need to acquire interesting lenses to my kit... that's my problem!
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  8. #8
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    10 Aug 2008
    Location
    Lake Macquarie
    Posts
    1,413
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    agree with Mongo........ DX cameras and long lens give you a touch more reach

  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    14 Feb 2010
    Location
    Leura
    Posts
    136
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The low light capabilities are quite attractive on the new bodies. A friend advised me not to sell my 12-24 which is 4-5.6 (i find it too slow at those stops) as iso 1200 will look fine pretty soon.

  10. #10
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,188
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by johndom View Post
    The low light capabilities are quite attractive on the new bodies. A friend advised me not to sell my 12-24 which is 4-5.6 (i find it too slow at those stops) as iso 1200 will look fine pretty soon.
    which 12-24 is that?

    I only know of a few and they'd be the Sigma 4.5-5.6 which is fullframe capable, and would be an awesome lens on fullframe

    the other two I know of are the constant f/4 lenses from Nikon and Tokina and only work on the Dx format(and minimally on the Fx format for the Nikon version).

    Any other 12-24mm lenses, are a mystery to me

    If you have the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6(the one that has the bulbuous front element that doesn't accept filters.. get the D700!

    widescapes don't come any more groovy than with that lens (unless you use a fisheye lens)

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    20 Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane, AU
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is one debate where you need to go back to creation. Fx/DX is essentially a marketing tool and either camera will produce results in excess of what most here can possibly achieve.
    DX will be around for ages. I've never seen a manufacturer kill the goose that lays the golden egg. DX has a huge proportion of the consumer market, so forget that issue.
    I bought a D300 to second my D3x but found that inconvenient on the job so I recently replaced the D300 with a D700 (I want a smaller body for some situations). In this regard I'm a proponent for the same format because I don't have to think as hard.
    It's pretty clear that the FX format only comes into its own with specialist work and DX is a most practical format for just about anything else.
    When I started my career in 1985 I had one camera and two lens and seemed to survive for a couple of decades with that hardware. The bottom line is you buy what you can afford and not what other people suggest and you enjoy your photography. I can almost guarantee the results will be the same.
    Photojournalist | Filmmaker | Writer | National Geographic | Royal Geographic

    D3x and other gear.


  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Beaches, Sydney
    Posts
    2,338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cheers for that Redgum. I'm a recreational shooter with currently with a DX format camera, and although comfortable with that there is so much marketing and media which suggests that going to FX is a must if you're serious, so buy FX lenses, etc, but I think what you have articulated there is the true situation cutting through the crap.

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    27 Nov 2008
    Location
    Wunghnu Victoria
    Posts
    1,436
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Given what you shoot, FX is a no brainer IMO, if you can afford the switch. The 24-70 & 70-200 should cover 99% of your needs.

    Cheers
    Leigh
    Nikon D600, 24-70, 300 VR1 2.8, Tamron 60 f2 macro + Kenko tubes. SB800.



    My Nikonians Gallery

  14. #14
    Ausphotography Regular swifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,440
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm of the opinion that you might be better off with both FX or both DX. That way there should be less confusion about focal lengths and how the lens behaves on either camera.
    But I see the upside to mixing FX and DX in that you have 2 effective focal lengths for each lens and u can pick the right combo for the desired shoot.
    Personally i'd be inclined to shoot FX only but for me that's mainly for DOF/perspective reasons and less so for high iso performance. I don't even own a tele lens atm so my bias towards the shorter fl's shows. Without the need for extra reach it kinda negates one of main advantages of cropped sensors.
    If I were in your situation I'd decide on DX or FX now and work towards that goal. If u can't afford 2 FX bodies now, buy a used D200 or D300. Then when it comes to upgrade time, upgrade both bodies and the 17-55. Buying used should mean a far smaller hit in depreciation.
    Nikon FX

  15. #15
    Perpetually Bewildered
    Join Date
    13 Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,169
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tough decision for sure. If you decide to stay DX and don't mind buying used I think a used D300 (cheaper than D300s) in good nick would be preferable to a used D200 because you get some technological advancement for your money - better high iso handling, improved AF, bigger lcd, etc.

    However for what you shoot - "some events, some corporate portraits, some weddings" - I think the D700 would be ideal, particularly for events and weddings where I'd imagine the light is quite variable and often inadequate for low iso. It might be worth checking through your current images to see how often you use the long end of the 17-55. The 70-200 on an FX will actually go wider than 55mm on a DX, so you might find that the 70-200 is a lot more useful on FX than it currently is on your D100. The D200 with 17-55 and a D700 with 70-200 will give you a good range of coverage with some overlap in the middle. (Note that there are some reports of, I think, edge softness or vignetting with the earlier 70-200 on FX - you might want to do some googling on this).

    Down the track you could sell your 17-55 and put the funds towards an FX lens such as a 24-70 or 16-35, etc.


    Good luck with the hunt...
    Phil.

    Some Nikon stuff. I shoot Mirrorless and Mirrorlessless.


  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    271
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    it all comes down to money...
    if you can afford FX and the top lenses to go with it, do it. budget $5k for d700 and 24-70 to replace your d200+17-55. IQ and performance is fantastic for sure. but that's what it'll cost.

    if you can't afford the body and the good lenses as well, then don't sweat it. replace the d100 with a d300 to go with the great glass you already have and be happy.

    that's where i am at the moment. the d300,17-55,70-200 suit me to a tee. i don't need the stratospheric high iso performance for what i shoot. but your requirements will be different.
    Thanks,
    Nam

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    271
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ps... from my own tests with the 17-55 on the f100, you stop vignetting at 28mm. so you get a 28-55 in an emergency. you could get a 35-70/2.8 as a stop gap, but i think you're best off budgeting for a 24-70 straight up.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    20 Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane, AU
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by N*A*M View Post
    it all comes down to money...
    if you can afford FX and the top lenses to go with it, do it. budget $5k for d700 and 24-70 to replace your d200+17-55. IQ and performance is fantastic for sure. but that's what it'll cost.

    if you can't afford the body and the good lenses as well, then don't sweat it. replace the d100 with a d300 to go with the great glass you already have and be happy.

    that's where i am at the moment. the d300,17-55,70-200 suit me to a tee. i don't need the stratospheric high iso performance for what i shoot. but your requirements will be different.
    Ain't that true and I bet you're happy too, NAM?
    Great setup.

  19. #19
    Amor fati!
    Join Date
    28 Jun 2007
    Location
    St Helens Park
    Posts
    7,275
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hmm... fx i think... but if you get one and done like it i'll swap ya for my d40

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    30 Oct 2006
    Location
    Bris Vegas
    Posts
    1,102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    you nikon owners are really nasty... poor newbies on here are now looking for FX and DX on their lenses, cameras and more...
    just like Toyota sports car owners talking about 1JZ 2JZ 4AG 1UZ engines.. if the newbies dont know what your talking about they will never learn

    why not explain to the newbies or (idiots) people who dont have Nikons that we are talking about Full frame or crop...

    hmmmmmm

    sounds much simpler to me...

    M
    Last edited by Clubmanmc; 09-03-2010 at 5:18pm.
    www.pbase.com/mcphotographics loooots of pictures!
    hmmm Eq list... 1D II, 5D II, 7D, 100-400 LIS F4.5-5.6, 70-200 F2.8L, 135 F2, 85 F1.8, 24-70 F2.8L, 16-35 F2.8L, 420EX, 580EX II x2 ST-E2 Cir polar filters and much much more all in a neat back pack that kills my back!

    Adobe CS5
    Week 16 Sheep Winner
    If you have a question about car / action / sports photography or Canon Cameras PM me...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •