Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 45

Thread: Moving from DX to FX

  1. #21

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Quote Originally Posted by baggiolee View Post
    you buy your D4 because you are rich?
    If that makes you happy, yes.

    Else, no.

  2. #22
    Member zoom3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lenslust View Post

    If that makes you happy, yes.

    Else, no.
    Damn good reason I say.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    The main reason that I need the 1/8000 is when I shoot at f1.4 outdoors, sunny day. Actually I think this is the scenario that will affect most people.

    I am quite surprised nobody mentioned this...

  4. #24

    Default

    If the previous generation of D3/D3s/D700 users have managed to get by with 1/8000s at base iso of 200, surely a D600 user can get by with 1/4000s since its base iso is 100

  5. #25

    Default

    Sorry Guys and Girls,

    But enlighten me with the talk on 1/8000 at 200 and 1/4000 at 200. I'm confused.

  6. #26

    Default

    Let's say you are taking a picture in bright sun and you wish to use a wide aperture. You are currently at iso 200, f1.4, 1/4000s and you find that you are 1 stop overexposed.

    If you are using a D700, you can't lower your iso anymore (unless you go to lo 1), but you can raise shutter speed to 1/8000s to get the correct exposure.

    If you are using a D600 you can't raise your shutter speed anymore but you can lower your iso to 100 for thr same effect.

    What I am saying is that the lower base iso of the D600 helps to make up for the lower max shutter speed.

  7. #27

    Default

    Ahh!! I see!! Thanks for explaining..

  8. #28
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Max shutter speed is not that big a problem due to the lower base ISO. I would think people will have more problems with the lower flash sync speed.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    Max shutter speed is not that big a problem due to the lower base ISO. I would think people will have more problems with the lower flash sync speed.
    Am pretty fine with it actually.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Quote Originally Posted by CorneliusK View Post
    If the previous generation of D3/D3s/D700 users have managed to get by with 1/8000s at base iso of 200, surely a D600 user can get by with 1/4000s since its base iso is 100
    ?? when I am using D700, f1.4 ISO200 with 1/8000 I get overexposed shots in bright sunlight.

    I don't see how you "get by" other than not shooting f1.4. I usually shoot at ISO200 f2.0 1/8000 in bright sunlight with D700.

  11. #31
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Quote Originally Posted by dniwkh View Post
    ?? when I am using D700, f1.4 ISO200 with 1/8000 I get overexposed shots in bright sunlight.

    I don't see how you "get by" other than not shooting f1.4. I usually shoot at ISO200 f2.0 1/8000 in bright sunlight with D700.
    I think CorneliusK is just throwing some numbers out as an example... It also depends on the angle of the light, cloud cover, time of the day, etc etc etc.. don't think there is a need to go nuts over some numbers.

  12. #32

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    If it's really such a problem, can go Lo1 (ISO100 for D700 and ISO50 for D600) and shoot 1/3 to 2/3 stop underexposed, then recover shadows during post.

  13. #33
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Quote Originally Posted by avsquare View Post
    If it's really such a problem, can go Lo1 (ISO100 for D700 and ISO50 for D600) and shoot 1/3 to 2/3 stop underexposed, then recover shadows during post.
    The problem is overexposure.. why need to shoot underexposed?

  14. #34

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    The problem is overexposure.. why need to shoot underexposed?
    Hmm correct me if I'm wrong, I remembered that while the Lo1 of our cameras shared the same DR as the cam's base ISO, but the DR band shifts towards the shadows (ie. more sensitive at the shadows, less sensitive at the highlights). If bro dniwkh is shooting at ISO200, f/1.4 and 1/8000s on his D700 and still gets overexposure, maybe going Lo1 helps but he may lose about 1 stop of highlights (but gain 1 stop of shadows). So shooting slightly underexposed RAW at ISO100 to maintain the highlights while recovering the shadow would get the same thing as if shooting at base ISO, but without overexposure.

    Well that's what I read before I think... haha..

  15. #35

    Default

    For wildlife I prefer a smaller sensor than FX to get more detail and reach at lower weight. I'm not a big fan of 600mm FX primes and longer. Also, sometimes you need more DoF where FX doesn't help you. For everything else FX is the best choice. File size is no concern these days.

  16. #36
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Quote Originally Posted by avsquare View Post
    Hmm correct me if I'm wrong, I remembered that while the Lo1 of our cameras shared the same DR as the cam's base ISO, but the DR band shifts towards the shadows (ie. more sensitive at the shadows, less sensitive at the highlights). If bro dniwkh is shooting at ISO200, f/1.4 and 1/8000s on his D700 and still gets overexposure, maybe going Lo1 helps but he may lose about 1 stop of highlights (but gain 1 stop of shadows). So shooting slightly underexposed RAW at ISO100 to maintain the highlights while recovering the shadow would get the same thing as if shooting at base ISO, but without overexposure.

    Well that's what I read before I think... haha..
    This is the first time I heard that moving to Lo1 you gain shadow detail. Sounds interesting though care to share where you read that?

    Anyway, my experience is that for D700/D3, you can recover more from highlights than shadows. At Lo1, I see even more shadow details is lost. That is why I try to expose to the right more than often when shooting landscapes. For D800, never tried it myself since I don't own the camera, from what I read so far, it seems it favors shadows slightly more than highlights.

    But I never heard that by shifting to Lo1, you gain more details in shadows.
    Last edited by daredevil123; 31st January 2013 at 01:56 PM.

  17. #37

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    This is the first time I heard that moving to Lo1 you gain shadow detail. Sounds interesting though care to share where you read that?

    Anyway, my experience is that for D700/D3, you can recover more from highlights than shadows. At Lo1, I see even more shadow details is lost. That is why I try to expose to the right more than often when shooting landscapes. For D800, never tried it myself since I don't own the camera, from what I read so far, it seems it favors shadows slightly more than highlights.

    But I never heard that by shifting to Lo1, you gain more details in shadows.
    Hmm I read about it on dpreview forums, there was a discussion about whether there are any losses in IQ if ISO50/Lo1 was used on the D600

    Here's the thread and the exact post that says that: A little clarification: Nikon FX SLR (D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

    And a histogram illustration between ISO100 and ISO50:

    Re: Interesting... question...: Nikon FX SLR (D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Alexandra
    Posts
    267

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Ray, get the camera. I recently moved to a D600 from a D7000 (and i had about 3 Canons before that) and i have no regrets. Don't worry about SD cards - $30 gets you a 16GB Sandisk which gets you ~220 photos in RAW. Maybe you need more or maybe that is enough but its small $ compared to the camera and lenses that you are referencing.

    If one really needs to shoot at f/1.4 on a sunny day, then as the others mention you can take the D600 down to ISO 50, but, i have neve found the need to shoot like this. With a full frame camera you have a narrower depth of field than your 5100 so taking the aperture to f/2 or f/2.5 will a) increase the quality of the photo and b) still leave some bokeh. Need more? Add a little in the processing.

    You mention a wide array of shooting needs ... street, wildlife, etc. that's ok but remember that you are essentially saying that you want it all. I have found that i shoot less action/sports and more portrait/family/landscape/city etc and in doing so, WIDE and DEEP is better. I love my cheapo 24 mm f/2.8 on the D600, and often it is set at about f/8. But when i need to shoot sports (I play and shoot Ultimate) then i rent a zoom lens, pick a shutter speed accordingly (1/1000?) and RARELY take it below f/5.6. I still get background blur - from the zoom not the aperature - and i am pleased with the results. low light? thats ok the D600 can go to ISO 1600 and still be better than by D7000 at 400. Yep. Serious.

    Happy shooting.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Quote Originally Posted by ballwackers View Post
    Ray, get the camera. I recently moved to a D600 from a D7000 (and i had about 3 Canons before that) and i have no regrets. Don't worry about SD cards - $30 gets you a 16GB Sandisk which gets you ~220 photos in RAW. Maybe you need more or maybe that is enough but its small $ compared to the camera and lenses that you are referencing.

    If one really needs to shoot at f/1.4 on a sunny day, then as the others mention you can take the D600 down to ISO 50, but, i have neve found the need to shoot like this. With a full frame camera you have a narrower depth of field than your 5100 so taking the aperture to f/2 or f/2.5 will a) increase the quality of the photo and b) still leave some bokeh. Need more? Add a little in the processing.

    You mention a wide array of shooting needs ... street, wildlife, etc. that's ok but remember that you are essentially saying that you want it all. I have found that i shoot less action/sports and more portrait/family/landscape/city etc and in doing so, WIDE and DEEP is better. I love my cheapo 24 mm f/2.8 on the D600, and often it is set at about f/8. But when i need to shoot sports (I play and shoot Ultimate) then i rent a zoom lens, pick a shutter speed accordingly (1/1000?) and RARELY take it below f/5.6. I still get background blur - from the zoom not the aperature - and i am pleased with the results. low light? thats ok the D600 can go to ISO 1600 and still be better than by D7000 at 400. Yep. Serious.

    Happy shooting.
    Have already stocked 4 x 32GB in prep of getting the D600 myself. $38 can get you one piece of 32GB.

    D600 has a max calibrated ISO of 6400, not 1600, expendable up to ISO25,600.

  20. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Alexandra
    Posts
    267

    Default Re: Moving from DX to FX

    Yes you are right about the ISO. I was trying to say that the quality is still great up to 1600 (some people would even say higher...?) and trying to draw a comparison to ability of the D7000

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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