If you were starting over from scratch.. DX or FX?

[sloth]

No doubt this question has been raised in the thoughts of many... was wondering if I could tap your thoughts

I'm an experienced DSLR/FSLR shooter who does a lot of wide angle (landscape) and low light (event) shoots as a hobbyist, non professional. (Day job pays the bills ). I need and value a system that can deliver both excellent wideangle (WA) performance and very clean high ISO as well as a good flash system. Telephoto and high FPS, around 5-6fps, is useful but not always needed.

Recently I've had the opportunity to shoot a D300 and I have been very, very impressed. Enough to consider investing in a Nikon system. Thumbs up to Nikon to having caught up and slightly surpassed the king of the ISO hill. And I've been very impressed by Nikon's iTTL flash system on the SB-800 as well.

The question on my mind though, is that if I am starting to build a new system of lenses, should I start with FX or DX? Cost is always a concern, as you can imagine.

Right now I know the only FX platform is the D3, but I suspect Nikon will be following up with a midrange FX platform - imagine a FX-D300 or something like that. Or to take a leaf from the competitor's book - a 5D. Full frame has lots of advantages including making all the primes behave like they were really intended to, and larger pixels with better noise tolerance. All this has been demonstrated by the D3. ISO 25600.....wow.

I actually like the D300 and have no intention of buying the D3 (too expensive). Of course I would buy a 17-55/2.8. But if Nikon goes FX, the lens does not live up to its full potential - I would have to use DX Crop and lose a lot of the sensor's resolution, which defeats the purpose of buying FX to begin with.

Should I start with the 24-70 f/2.8 instead since it is a FX lens? The 1.5x crop would be really painful though, I need my lenses to start from 24-28mm (FX, or equivalent) and a 24-70 on D300 would be 36mm.

Or should I just stay with the 17-55 and stay DX? Conversely, the DX platform makes it difficult to get really high quality and really wide wide angle. The 14-24 only delivers a 14mm FOV on FX the 12-24 is a 18-36, which isn't very impressive if you are used to say, a 16 or 17mm FOV. Every mm tends to count at the wide end.

If you had the opportunity to start over again, what would you do?

[asdfg]

Depends on your budget really, but I'd go for a D300 cause I personally prefer the crop factor. Well if you plan to go FF when Nikon comes out with a cheaper FF camera, I'd say go for the 24-70mm. The 17-55mm is good but since its a DX lens, yeah theres no point. A possible reason why Nikon made the DX format possible on the D3 is to allow a wider range of lenses to be used and to make it easier for DX lens users to make a transition to FF. Who knows the D3x or something may have sufficent MP that even a DX crop would give 8mp or so.

I love the 24-70mm and would go for it if i had the cash. But being a DX user the 17-55mm just fits the bill for a lens of that range. I agree with the wideangle thing, and since the 14-24mm isnt wide enough for the Dx format, check out the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. I'm not sure if it works with the FF cameras properly (no crop) but its an amazing lens nonetheless (according to reviews).

A FX-D300 is virtually a D3, maybe a FX D80 lol.

[Yapster]

You may need to note that 14-24 cannot fit any external filters. Somehow, although you got a wider perspective, you are limiting yourself to the use of ND, GND and CPL filters that i suppose more landscape shooters use. Unless you wanna do it this way. Here.

And if so, i guess, remain in DX will be better. At least you still have at least a 15mm (from Sigma 10-20) or 16mm (from tokina or nikon 12-24) mm perspective. And this is wider than a 14mm fixed on a DX platform. Not to mention the extra reach for telephoto and macro lenses.

Only disadvantage will be the use of popular prime lens like 85mm. No prime lens can produce close to that range on a DX body. For example, for 50mm FF, i guess the 35mm can do a rather close one (52.5mm in FF perspective) and 24mm (36mm in FF perspective) can cover the 35mm FF. But the closest to 85mm FF will be the 50mm at 75mm in FF perspective.

And if you are staying in DX for the time being, i feel, maybe you should stick to cheaper third party lens than to spend over 1.5k to get the 17-55. The tamron 17-50 f2.8 is not that bad i guess. The price depreciation for more expensive lenses is quite a lot. This range gives you the 24-70mm on a FF perspective as well, you can practise with the perspective first. But if you use the 24-70 on a DX, it is 35-105mm. Kinda on the tight side.

As for FF wide angle, i believe Nikon will come out with solution to the fittings of filters or maybe a new model or something in future.

Just my view. Cos i did thought of going FF wide angle as well.

[agape01]

Originally Posted by sloth No doubt this question has been raised in the thoughts of many... was wondering if I could tap your thoughts I'm an experienced DSLR/FSLR shooter who does a lot of wide angle (landscape) and low light (event) shoots as a hobbyist, non professional. (Day job pays the bills ). I need and value a system that can deliver both excellent wideangle (WA) performance and very clean high ISO as well as a good flash system. Telephoto and high FPS, around 5-6fps, is useful but not always needed. Recently I've had the opportunity to shoot a D300 and I have been very, very impressed. Enough to consider investing in a Nikon system. Thumbs up to Nikon to having caught up and slightly surpassed the king of the ISO hill. And I've been very impressed by Nikon's iTTL flash system on the SB-800 as well. The question on my mind though, is that if I am starting to build a new system of lenses, should I start with FX or DX? Cost is always a concern, as you can imagine. Right now I know the only FX platform is the D3, but I suspect Nikon will be following up with a midrange FX platform - imagine a FX-D300 or something like that. Or to take a leaf from the competitor's book - a 5D. Full frame has lots of advantages including making all the primes behave like they were really intended to, and larger pixels with better noise tolerance. All this has been demonstrated by the D3. ISO 25600.....wow. I actually like the D300 and have no intention of buying the D3 (too expensive). Of course I would buy a 17-55/2.8. But if Nikon goes FX, the lens does not live up to its full potential - I would have to use DX Crop and lose a lot of the sensor's resolution, which defeats the purpose of buying FX to begin with. Should I start with the 24-70 f/2.8 instead since it is a FX lens? The 1.5x crop would be really painful though, I need my lenses to start from 24-28mm (FX, or equivalent) and a 24-70 on D300 would be 36mm. Or should I just stay with the 17-55 and stay DX? Conversely, the DX platform makes it difficult to get really high quality and really wide wide angle. The 14-24 only delivers a 14mm FOV on FX the 12-24 is a 18-36, which isn't very impressive if you are used to say, a 16 or 17mm FOV. Every mm tends to count at the wide end. If you had the opportunity to start over again, what would you do?

I'd say wait till October after photokina before you make up your mind.

[sloth]

Thanks for the advice

The 11-16 looks like a very interesting lens. Seems like a perfect complement to the 17-55. Agreed that the DX Crop format is a good idea to ease the transition for existing DX shooters.


14-24 no external filter.. aiyoh, may have to pass. It is a superb piece of glass from what I see but a GND filter is very useful in landscape work. Shot some of my favorites using a Cokin 8X. I could probably supersize to the Cokin Z instead of the Cokin P I use, but those pics of the super size setup are just scary


Good idea about waiting till after Photokina unless I want to commit and definitely go DX right now.

[sammedia]

For FX, I would choose the good old 17-35 F2.8 over the 12-24 F2.8 due to the filter issue. Anyway, the 17-35 F2.8 would be another good choice for both FX & DX.

[sanith]

Depends on three things
-> your budget
-> what do you shoot?
-> Are you a pro or not?

If you have a decent budget and dont mind spend more for pro features and best of breed quality go FX - D3 is making even the Pros' drool

If you shoot birds, nature anything that involves a lot of telephoto requirement, DX is better because of the 1.5 crop factor. But if you are into landscapes, architecture etc, FX gives you better wide angle options.

And finally Pro body gives you pro features, do you need it ? Only you can answer that.

Good luck, D300 and D3 are both extremely good from what i hear, for their respective price range, you cant go wrong with either.

[blive]

Actually, I am not sure, as I only buy when I need it, at the current technology. So it really depends on what's available and what I could afford. Of course, I never bother much as I don't spend alot.

So if I were to start over again at this point in time.....I would go DX still, as I don't want to spend above what I want to spend and I am not really bothered...knwo what i mean.

[sloth]

Hmm....

Given what I've learned about the system DX presents potentially better value.

The 17-55 is outstandingly good, and the 70-200 VR doesn't work so great on FX due to poor edge performance. Better to crop out the edges

And 11-16 Tokina to round up my ultrawide requirements. No AF-S, but hardly needed on a landscape lens that is this wide.

Just my personal thoughts. There is nothing wrong buying FX if you feel it works for you. I am a "FX" owner on a different platform at this time so I've gone through it before

[Ansel]

If you really must buy now, go get a set of D300 with 2nd hand 17-55 and enjoy shooting while waiting for more affordable FX body and lens. When they do arrive, just sell off the DX set and buy the FX set.

That way you can start shooting/enjoying your photography while waiting for technology to sort out itself.

Remember that nothing lasts forever. So what if you get a perfect future proof system right now, when eventually they all will still kaput and you still need to buy new equipment. Modern high-tech things are not built to last. Just seize the day, and enjoy what is available now.

[lumcm]

I fully agree with Ansel. That is exactly what I am doing. Enjoying my D200 plus DX pro lens. I plan to wait till the FX-D300 comes, wait 1 year plus, then sell my DX system for hopefully $1500 and buy the FX-D300 plus the FX lens for hopefuly $4000. That would be more affordable for me. No point paying $10k for D3 + FX lens now. Let the pros or rich do that.

[DeadEnd]

Something have been puzzling me about the latest craze over the D3. Apart from the better ISO noise. What is the advantage of FX over the DX?

If compare the wideness achievable by a 14-24mm on a FX compared to a 10-22mm on a DX, it should be about the same right? Beside the DX is a cheap built in high quality 1.5x teleconvertor.

Assuming all the performance are the same, eg ISO noise and resolution, will the perpective from a 35mm f2 on a DX be the same from a 50mm f2 on a FX? Will the DOF be the same on both lenses if the subject distance have been adjusted to compensate for the same image size on the output?

[giantcanopy]

Originally Posted by DeadEnd Something have been puzzling me about the latest craze over the D3. Apart from the better ISO noise. What is the advantage of FX over the DX? If compare the wideness achievable by a 14-24mm on a FX compared to a 10-22mm on a DX, it should be about the same right? Beside the DX is a cheap built in high quality 1.5x teleconvertor. Assuming all the performance are the same, eg ISO noise and resolution, will the perpective from a 35mm f2 on a DX be the same from a 50mm f2 on a FX? Will the DOF be the same on both lenses if the subject distance have been adjusted to compensate for the same image size on the output?

You have already stated some of the obvious advantages.

Assuming money is not an issue and you are at the cross roads of choosing either. Which will you choose?

Ryan

[An drew]

Originally Posted by sloth No doubt this question has been raised in the thoughts of many... was wondering if I could tap your thoughts I'm an experienced DSLR/FSLR shooter who does a lot of wide angle (landscape) and low light (event) shoots as a hobbyist, non professional. (Day job pays the bills ). I need and value a system that can deliver both excellent wideangle (WA) performance and very clean high ISO as well as a good flash system. Telephoto and high FPS, around 5-6fps, is useful but not always needed. Recently I've had the opportunity to shoot a D300 and I have been very, very impressed. Enough to consider investing in a Nikon system. Thumbs up to Nikon to having caught up and slightly surpassed the king of the ISO hill. And I've been very impressed by Nikon's iTTL flash system on the SB-800 as well. The question on my mind though, is that if I am starting to build a new system of lenses, should I start with FX or DX? Cost is always a concern, as you can imagine. Right now I know the only FX platform is the D3, but I suspect Nikon will be following up with a midrange FX platform - imagine a FX-D300 or something like that. Or to take a leaf from the competitor's book - a 5D. Full frame has lots of advantages including making all the primes behave like they were really intended to, and larger pixels with better noise tolerance. All this has been demonstrated by the D3. ISO 25600.....wow. I actually like the D300 and have no intention of buying the D3 (too expensive). Of course I would buy a 17-55/2.8. But if Nikon goes FX, the lens does not live up to its full potential - I would have to use DX Crop and lose a lot of the sensor's resolution, which defeats the purpose of buying FX to begin with. Should I start with the 24-70 f/2.8 instead since it is a FX lens? The 1.5x crop would be really painful though, I need my lenses to start from 24-28mm (FX, or equivalent) and a 24-70 on D300 would be 36mm. Or should I just stay with the 17-55 and stay DX? Conversely, the DX platform makes it difficult to get really high quality and really wide wide angle. The 14-24 only delivers a 14mm FOV on FX the 12-24 is a 18-36, which isn't very impressive if you are used to say, a 16 or 17mm FOV. Every mm tends to count at the wide end. If you had the opportunity to start over again, what would you do?

FX. Stick with your existing till Nikon's next annoucements.

[mcn]

Originally Posted by An drew FX. Stick with your existing till Nikon's next annoucements.

guess you smell somthing coming real soon

[An drew]

Originally Posted by mcn guess you smell somthing coming real soon

I'm just yabbling yabbling. Don't take me seriously...I'm often wrong.

[sloth]

Originally Posted by An drew FX. Stick with your existing till Nikon's next annoucements.

Good points