DX or FX (Nikon)

[ZerocoolAstra]

IQ has nothing to do with build quality.

A heavier lens do not automatically mean it will give you better IQ.

Give you an example: The 35/1.8 vs 35/2.

some 'interesting' theories being spouted bro...



Just a point to put forward:
One camp says
1) buy APS-C camera with FF lenses if you plan to upgrade to FF camera in the future.

but then my question is:
Why buy APS-C camera in the first place instead of FF camera? You also lose money by selling off the APS-C camera when you upgrade.

In the end it's all about affordability.
If I buy an entry-level APS-C camera with say, a Tamron 17-50/2.8, I can get into photography quicker, and at a lower price level than trying to save up for a 24-70/2.8 and maybe taking another 6mths to a year to save that cash. So how much is that 'lost opportunity' worth?
Furthermore, in my opinion the 24-70 is a "neither here nor there" kind of focal range for an APS-C camera.

There's really no right and wrong here :dunno:

 

[kriegsketten]

To me the biggest crux about DX body being fitted with FF lenses is the UWA ... you loose out all the UW capabilities. Hence, if you're on a DX and wants the UWA, you HAVE to get the DX lenses. Using FF UWA zoom, you'll end up converting into a medium zoom (which is not a problem if you don't mind the weight and high price)

At first, I felt like rushing into FF, nowadays I kinda out-grew that urge... reason being, I recently felt the full brunt of handling Nikon best FF body with a powderful prime (300mm f/2.8, much thanks to one kind bro ) ... I think it will take the joy out of Photography if you can't bear the weight you have to log around... Especially for birding and other telephoto needs. Mind you, that's just the DSLR body and lens, what about other items that you have to carry with you as well? Well padded (and weighty) bag, heavy duty tripod, other lenses, drink, food, etc, etc)?

I kinda understand why DX bodies and lenses still exists and persists - so that older men (like me) and women can enjoy good photography. Unless FF bodies (and lenses) are able to reduce their weight, DX categories will still continue to enjoy success. And thank goodness for that! :bsmilie:

 

[daredevil123]

but then my question is:
Why buy APS-C camera in the first place instead of FF camera? You also lose money by selling off the APS-C camera when you upgrade.

In the end it's all about affordability.
If I buy an entry-level APS-C camera with say, a Tamron 17-50/2.8, I can get into photography quicker, and at a lower price level than trying to save up for a 24-70/2.8 and maybe taking another 6mths to a year to save that cash. So how much is that 'lost opportunity' worth?
Furthermore, in my opinion the 24-70 is a "neither here nor there" kind of focal range for an APS-C camera.

There's really no right and wrong here :dunno:

My point exactly bro.

I see people buying D90 or D300 and buy N24-70/2.8, N84/1.4, N17-35/2.8, N70-200/2.8VR. Those lenses are very very expensive. If can afford those lenses in the first place, why even bother with an "upgrade path"? Just pay 1-1.5k more and get a D700. You will lose a lot more money from the fast depreciation of camera bodies.

For those that get weaker FX lenses, like Tamron 17-35... the argument also do not hold, because although these lenses will work ok on cropped sensor camera bodies, once you move to FX body, you will notice how bad they perform on that FX. You will have to sell that lens away and buy another more expensive replacement anyway. For those that were using the Nikon 17-35... also now you are faced with more choices like the 16-35/4 and 14-24/2.8. If you go for those lenses, you need to sell your 17-35 anyway. If you had a 70-200VR1, and wants the best, then you would need to sell your VR1 anyway and buy the VR2. Same for 85/1.4D, you might have to sell that to get the new G version. You will lose money anyway.

I am not saying people are wrong using FX lenses with DX bodies. But there is a lot of misconception that they are "saving lots of money" by doing so compared to the next option.

 

[kwanhan]

My point exactly bro.

I see people buying D90 or D300 and buy N24-70/2.8, N84/1.4, N17-35/2.8, N70-200/2.8VR. Those lenses are very very expensive. If can afford those lenses in the first place, why even bother with an "upgrade path"? Just pay 1-1.5k more and get a D700. You will lose a lot more money from the fast depreciation of camera bodies.

For those that get weaker FX lenses, like Tamron 17-35... the argument also do not hold, because although these lenses will work ok on cropped sensor camera bodies, once you move to FX body, you will notice how bad they perform on that FX. You will have to sell that lens away and buy another more expensive replacement anyway. For those that were using the Nikon 17-35... also now you are faced with more choices like the 16-35/4 and 14-24/2.8. If you go for those lenses, you need to sell your 17-35 anyway. If you had a 70-200VR1, and wants the best, then you would need to sell your VR1 anyway and buy the VR2. Same for 85/1.4D, you might have to sell that to get the new G version. You will lose money anyway.

I am not saying people are wrong using FX lenses with DX bodies. But there is a lot of misconception that they are "saving lots of money" by doing so compared to the next option.

mmm i think the idea of "saving lots of money" is based on the fact that the glass will hold value better... so get a DX body... learn first... then go up to FX body next time when the next gen turns up (plus u still have a whole batch of FF lens to work with it)

but of course... it makes absolutely no sense to buy stuff that won't suit your requirements.

i personally learnt a lot from Thom Hogan's ideas about purchases (www.bythom.com)

2 things:
1) Buy what you NEED

and

2) what you can AFFORD

bearing in mind that good glass will last longer than body

personally i went from a D5000 + Nikkor 18-70 to a D300 + Tamron 17-50 (both 2nd hand)

i needed faster shooting...better AF... higher keeper rate...hence the D300

and i shoot indoors often so the constant aperture 2.8 was also a need ... AND the wide end for the DX body

hence my upgrade choice (also factoring in what I could afford... also I'm just a hobbyist)

......


then shoot some more... know your NEEDS... then plan your purchases... right now I hope for better colour reproduction and contrast from the lens .... and I know I could really do with better ISO performance

so what's next for me? (in order of priority)

1) a flash (for indoor)
2) a prime (for portraiture)
3) a next gen body when I start working a few years from now (DX or FX... depends on how my shooting habits evolve)
4) whatever else comes along and I finally give in to BBB virus when I have disposable income

hope this helps any newcomers who are reading and wondering about buying...

do your research, know your needs... and don't buy gear that you end up getting constrained by!!

 

[kwanhan]

(and of course work on your framing... composition... handholding techniques... your shot discipline... your post processing skills... all of this while waiting for next upgrade...)

work around constraints of current gear... upgrade only when you have outgrown and if you are hampered by current gear's physical and technical limitations

if for now don't have high ISO body or prime and no $$$ then.... bo pian... train to shoot still shots well with slightly slower shutter speed lor hahaha

 

[Jeremy1]

1) If buy DX & DX lenses & later upgrade to FX, u need to sell EVERYTHING. $$$ :sweat:
2) If buy DX & FX lenses & later upgrade to FX, u just need to sell only your DX body.

Why buy DX at the first place ?
But isn't a big saver if you can follow point 2 ?

Anyway, I actually asked my friend before buying my first DSLR which is a D700.

 

[george671]

:dunno:I see no Difference in angle of view between FF and DX lens capabilities...

Sigma 12-24 is FF
Sigma 8-16 is DX Same angle of view..
14mm in DX is same as 21 on FF...
If you have lots of money you can go crazy long on the telephoto lens side....

I continue to use mostly FF glass on my mixed bag of DX and FF cameras...several of my FF lenses even pull duty on my m4/3 camera's...By the way my FF camera is a 5d that is usually cross dressed in FF nikon glass.

Most of the time FF bodies are not necessary...I think one would be hard pressed to tell which 11X14 print was shot with a FF or a DX body. I think the biggest advantage of some FF bodies is the somewhat brighter view screen...

The FF/DX debate can get somewhat silly at times...but to each his own...:bsmilie:

Any way here is a pic of me with a real FF camera...

http://snakephoto.blogspot.com/2010/08/sometimes-i-have-to-work-with-real.html

Ha Ha, and I still make money with it on an occasion...And by the way, currently, my most fun camera system is the m4/3 system which is about 1/2 frame! Go figure!... So the moral of this story is, If you want to impress your friends, than go get the FF body...But if your main goal is to just take great photo's, the size of the sensor does not matter!

And probable the most important issue is this...If you want an investment than spend your hard earned cash on lenses first...They should last 20 plus years...Most Digital camera bodies get the boot at 5 or 6 years...though I have a couple of Fuji S3's that I intend to keep till they die! (they have a great sensor for skin tone, and use AA batteries...)

Cheers

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

1) If buy DX & DX lenses & later upgrade to FX, u need to sell EVERYTHING. $$$ :sweat:
2) If buy DX & FX lenses & later upgrade to FX, u just need to sell only your DX body.

Why buy DX at the first place ?
But isn't a big saver if you can follow point 2 ?

Anyway, I actually asked my friend before buying my first DSLR which is a D700.

Well, the whole point about buying the dx camera with fx lenses first is affordability. Not enough $$ to buy the fx cam from the get-go.
But how long the buyer intends to be "crippled" by this system is interesting to me. If one year, I feel that is quite long to be using, say... A D90 with 14-24/2.8 which isn't a UWA on dx.
But if it's a short time, then the loss of value in the dx body in that time is also money down the drain. Might as well have bitten the bullet and gotten an fx cam in the first place, as you have done.

 

[zac08]

:dunno:I see no Difference in angle of view between FF and DX lens capabilities...

Sigma 12-24 is FF
Sigma 8-16 is DX Same angle of view..
14mm in DX is same as 21 on FF...
If you have lots of money you can go crazy long on the telephoto lens side....

I continue to use mostly FF glass on my mixed bag of DX and FF cameras...several of my FF lenses even pull duty on my m4/3 camera's...By the way my FF camera is a 5d that is usually cross dressed in FF nikon glass.

Most of the time FF bodies are not necessary...I think one would be hard pressed to tell which 11X14 print was shot with a FF or a DX body. I think the biggest advantage of some FF bodies is the somewhat brighter view screen...

The FF/DX debate can get somewhat silly at times...but to each his own...:bsmilie:

Any way here is a pic of me with a real FF camera...

http://snakephoto.blogspot.com/2010/08/sometimes-i-have-to-work-with-real.html

Ha Ha, and I still make money with it on an occasion...And by the way, currently, my most fun camera system is the m4/3 system which is about 1/2 frame! Go figure!... So the moral of this story is, If you want to impress your friends, than go get the FF body...But if your main goal is to just take great photo's, the size of the sensor does not matter!

And probable the most important issue is this...If you want an investment than spend your hard earned cash on lenses first...They should last 20 plus years...Most Digital camera bodies get the boot at 5 or 6 years...though I have a couple of Fuji S3's that I intend to keep till they die! (they have a great sensor for skin tone, and use AA batteries...)

Cheers

Eh... a 14mm FF and a 14mm DX gives you the same angle of view on a DX camera. Both are cropped. And on a Nikon system as in this case, it'll still end up with a 21mm AOV.

The only difference is that you can use the FF glass on a FX camera and still have a 14mm AOV whereas the 14mm DX cannot be used without vignetting on a FX camera.

The cost is of course tremendously different.

 

[daredevil123]

1) If buy DX & DX lenses & later upgrade to FX, u need to sell EVERYTHING. $$$ :sweat:
2) If buy DX & FX lenses & later upgrade to FX, u just need to sell only your DX body.

Why buy DX at the first place ?
But isn't a big saver if you can follow point 2 ?

Anyway, I actually asked my friend before buying my first DSLR which is a D700.

Might as well do

3) Buy FX body and FX lenses and no need to sell anything!

Which is my point from the beginning.

And seriously, if buy used and sell them later, you really only lose very little. Unless you buy some obscure lens that nobody wants.

 

[007]

Using solely FX lenses on a DX body is not a good idea as well. In fact, I think it is a waste and illogical.

-1st post

Might as well do

3) Buy FX body and FX lenses and no need to sell anything!

Which is my point from the beginning.

And seriously, if buy used and sell them later, you really only lose very little. Unless you buy some obscure lens that nobody wants.

Bro, I was quite confused with your 1st post. When later, seeing other posting, then I understand. But isn't that safer if one can't decide whether to go for FX or DX to try cheaper alternative, which is DX first? Then isn't that DX plus FX lenses a better alternative? Just need to add an UWA lens? Then the rest of the lenses all FX lenses?

Body loss when change to FX can take it as rental fee/ usage fee etc. Well, if can afford FX lenses but cannot afford FX body maybe is due to try to save up a bit.

Btw, how are the FX lenses perform on DX bodies? Is it constrains by cropped sensor?

Also, previously I read that DX is more on birdshooting/ sports due to cropped sensor (more reach). FX more on potrait & landscape. How true is it?

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

-1st post



Bro, I was quite confused with your 1st post. When later, seeing other posting, then I understand. But isn't that safer if one can't decide whether to go for FX or DX to try cheaper alternative, which is DX first? Then isn't that DX plus FX lenses a better alternative? Just need to add an UWA lens? Then the rest of the lenses all FX lenses?

Body loss when change to FX can take it as rental fee/ usage fee etc. Well, if can afford FX lenses but cannot afford FX body maybe is due to try to save up a bit.

Btw, how are the FX lenses perform on DX bodies? Is it constrains by cropped sensor?

Also, previously I read that DX is more on birdshooting/ sports due to cropped sensor (more reach). FX more on potrait & landscape. How true is it?

I thought James Bond should know the answers to these sort of questions!


think of some "popular" FX lenses, perhaps 24-70/2.8, 50/1.4, etc...
they don't enjoy the same usage as intended, when mounted on a DX body. Hence I use the term 'crippled'.
That's probably the main reason why 17-50 kind of range has been popular on DX, and so has the 35mm prime.

So to me it seems illogical to persist with a DX body + FX lens combo for an extended period of time, with the intention of replacing with an FX body when finances are ready. It's just too troublesome

 

[007]

I thought James Bond should know the answers to these sort of questions!


think of some "popular" FX lenses, perhaps 24-70/2.8, 50/1.4, etc...
they don't enjoy the same usage as intended, when mounted on a DX body. Hence I use the term 'crippled'.
That's probably the main reason why 17-50 kind of range has been popular on DX, and so has the 35mm prime.

So to me it seems illogical to persist with a DX body + FX lens combo for an extended period of time, with the intention of replacing with an FX body when finances are ready. It's just too troublesome

Ah...I always focus on my mission and leave the gadget related issues to Q

Now I understood. But isn't that rumour saying D700's successor is around the corner? Hard decision.....(for those to intend to commit now)

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

when D700's replacement comes out, D700 will STILL be able to take truly wonderful pictures. Nothing will change.
It's only a question of whether people will be willing to pay more for the new feature-set.

 

[daredevil123]

-1st post



Bro, I was quite confused with your 1st post. When later, seeing other posting, then I understand. But isn't that safer if one can't decide whether to go for FX or DX to try cheaper alternative, which is DX first? Then isn't that DX plus FX lenses a better alternative? Just need to add an UWA lens? Then the rest of the lenses all FX lenses?

Body loss when change to FX can take it as rental fee/ usage fee etc. Well, if can afford FX lenses but cannot afford FX body maybe is due to try to save up a bit.

Btw, how are the FX lenses perform on DX bodies? Is it constrains by cropped sensor?

Also, previously I read that DX is more on birdshooting/ sports due to cropped sensor (more reach). FX more on potrait & landscape. How true is it?

Buy DX don't like it, sell. Buy FX don't like it, sell. Both ways you will lose money anyway.

Why bother with DX with an upgrade path to FX?

 

[daredevil123]

Ah...I always focus on my mission and leave the gadget related issues to Q

Now I understood. But isn't that rumour saying D700's successor is around the corner? Hard decision.....(for those to intend to commit now)

WEll... if so risk adverse to getting a camera before a replacement comes out, then don't buy anything till the replacement comes out. Buy it the first day it is released. Better than buying a DX first with an upgrade path to FX. If want to use the arguement of "Buy early shoot early", then just buy the D700.

 

[tehzeh]

I would get an FX any day if I had that budget for the body and 2 more FX lenses. If not, I would go for DX since DX is good enough already.

 

[daredevil123]

mmm i think the idea of "saving lots of money" is based on the fact that the glass will hold value better... so get a DX body... learn first... then go up to FX body next time when the next gen turns up (plus u still have a whole batch of FF lens to work with it)

Good glass will be higher demand, and 2nd hand prices will be better. This is true irregardless if the lens is a FX or DX lens.

The user base for DX camera body is not going to shrink. The number of people jumping into DSLR is growing very quickly. Much quicker than people going into FX. You are not going to see DX die off.

 

[TheChef]

If your purpose is to take pics of wildlife and close up shots without getting closer to the subject, then DX is for you. If you need to print very big posters, then FX should be marginally better. Get a walkabout zoom lens (16-85VR2 for DX or 24-70 for FX), a prime portrait lens (85, 105 or 135mm) or 70-200VR lens and a telephoto zoom lens (80-400VR).

 

[ovaltinemilo]

IQ has nothing to do with build quality.

A heavier lens do not automatically mean it will give you better IQ.

Give you an example: The 35/1.8 vs 35/2.

Agreed. A heavier lens just means...it's heavier:sweatsm: ...and of course better built... nothing that says about the glass.

Hi guys,
What will you choose? a DX body or FX body?
Which one is better to invest in?
Cheers

Bro, you got to look at what DX and FX can offer. An FX body brings about advantages(good iso/better dof control etc) and also disadvantages(heavier/no crop fov etc) at the same time.

Though I don't see myself getting a FX..but even if I do, I would only need to sell away my 17-70mm which I replaced for Kit lens. The rest of it still can be used on FX though I would lose the cropped fov and get back the soft corners:bsmilie:

I think this is akin to the strategy purchase like DD123 mentioned. If you wana invest(not indulge), you have got to think of the possible selling value in the future. I think he also pointed out that Apsc sensor dslrs are getting increasing popularity nowadays and BnS is dynamic. You will bound to have lesser problem selling off DX lenses. As an illustration say 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S- it is not cheap and if you intend to sell in a community of more DX user than FX, then the majority DX users definitely won't be able to appreciate the Ultra-Wide fov on the cropped sensor. 14mm just becomes a 21mm fov which is even tighter than the 18mm-55mm kit lens.