DX or FX (Nikon)


So much debate still despite these were so commonly discussed previously.. :)

Ulitimately it boils down to a matter of wants vs needs.
I will say get what u need and the best u can afford.

In summary, i felt :-
For true "Wideness" and Shallower DOF -> FX
For things u cant close to and require additional reach or take adv of the crop (1.5 mag)-> DX

So for me the choice is simple..
I am a landscape/portrait/abstracts/macro shooter.
So meaning to say, i need both..

Bottomline being, TS, have you outgrow ur equipment?
 

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?

yeah is true too... for electronic items seldom see the prices will go up after 1st owner usage. :bsmilie:.

I think choice of DX and FX is depend on photographer budget and need. :bsmilie:

Cheers... :sweat:
 

firstly if using purely FX lenses on DX, you will never be able to get UWA range.

secondly, FX lenses are more expensive and heavier.

thirdly, DX lenses are cheaper, and if bought used, when upgrading to FX, most people will not lose much money when selling them again. Buying lower end FX lenses will give issues when really moving to a FX body. Since it is lower end, it works ok on DX, but will work badly on FX. So that logic doesn't stand as well. Since when upgraded to FX body, need to get another better performing FX lens and sell the low quality FX lens and it will even a lot harder to sell a low quality FX lens than a DX lens. Seriously speaking, many DX lenses are available now at good pricing with very good edge performance.

Actually it is comparatively easier to sell lower cost DX lenses in BnS nowadays (eg. selling a Tamron 17-50/2.8 vs a Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM). You may argue that a Nikon 24-70/2.8 is easy to sell. But think, if you are on DX moving to FX, will you sell a 24-70? No. Irregardless of DX or FX lenses, there will be lenses that will sell very well and there will be lenses that will not move. It is pretty much the same DX vs FX.

Personally, I believe in living in the present. With enough research, one can get good quality glass at good prices and good resale value, be it FX or DX lenses.

When time comes when one decides to move to FX, there might be new lenses that work better and replacement models. E.g. VR1 vs VR2. D vs G. So need to buy again anyway. And depreciation is a percentage of total value. And the lower value option will always depreciate less in absolute value compared to the pricier option.

And lets not even go into present value and future value of money.

So if you really factor it in, you do not really lose that much money if you factor it in and have a good buying strategy. FYI, I sold my 35/1.8 with almost no loss after using it for 6 months. But you really need to know how to pull that one off, which I do. And no, I did not sell it overpriced like what many people do in BnS. Sold it at fair value.

So that is why I believe what I said, to compromise and use solely FX lenses on DX bodies is illogical and a waste of money and resources. Should not even think of buying for upgrade progression. Just buy what you need in terms of shooting needs. If buy FX lenses in anticipation, might as well just bite the bullet and get the FX body right away. Will save more money that way, seeing how the thing that depreciates the fastest is the camera body itself.

That is ur logic... :thumbsd:
 

FX.

no doubt
 

So much debate still despite these were so commonly discussed previously.. :)

Ulitimately it boils down to a matter of wants vs needs.
I will say get what u need and the best u can afford.

In summary, i felt :-
For true "Wideness" and Shallower DOF -> FX
For things u cant close to and require additional reach or take adv of the crop (1.5 mag)-> DX

So for me the choice is simple..
I am a landscape/portrait/abstracts/macro shooter.
So meaning to say, i need both..

Bottomline being, TS, have you outgrow ur equipment?

Seriously Bro...I have a FX and DX but I find that at the end of the day despite whatever reason I use to convince myself, DX is still just as good. To say FX is better is only a state of the mind. :cool:
 

I know. I will be speechless too if I were you. :bsmilie:

It is ok bro..
To me, buying FX lens will be good. Beside the quality..... I can use both FX and DX.
No need to buy extra lens if I'm using FX or DX. 1 for all.
 

I buy DX cos i can only afford DX. FX? Maybe when my boss gives me a huge raise then i might consider. But am pretty happy with what i have now...
 


Seriously Bro...I have a FX and DX but I find that at the end of the day despite whatever reason I use to convince myself, DX is still just as good. To say FX is better is only a state of the mind. :cool:

:thumbsup:

i still enjoy my DX . . . best of all, i like the weight . . . most important to me. ;)
Sold off my FX cos i find that it is too heavy for me . . . why torture myself.

Disclaimer : not saying FX is bad but i prefer to move about with less weight. ;)
 

Other than those differences that the bros have stated in this thread, can I ask if there are any difference in the colors produced from DX & FX?
 

For pros, the decision will lie in what they need. Some pros use FX, some use just a D90 and they can make do with it.

For consumers like the most of us, it's all about what we want and what we can afford. It's about the pleasure of owning stuff. That's why people are tempted to upgrade cameras, lenses etc. when they don't really need to (do we really need high ISO performance, do we really need that wide angle of view etc or are those just good to have). For us, the "ultimate goal" is to upgrade slowly towards FX. So, to save money, go to FX straightaway :bsmilie:
 

For us, the "ultimate goal" is to upgrade slowly towards FX. So, to save money, go to FX straightaway :bsmilie:

I have held D3X with 24-70, 1DMkIII with 24-70, D700 with 24-70, all with flashes. The first thing I said was ****.

I shoot with 2 bodies, sometimes 3. Triple ****

I am very sure my knuckles and lower back cannot take it with consecutive days.
 

I have held D3X with 24-70, 1DMkIII with 24-70, D700 with 24-70, all with flashes. The first thing I said was ****.

I shoot with 2 bodies, sometimes 3. Triple ****

I am very sure my knuckles and lower back cannot take it with consecutive days.

Soo many AK's sure heavy :cool:
 

Hi guys,

Thank you all for respond on this thread :sweat:
Seems like this debate will never ending. Since now I have the telephoto and normal range, maybe I will jump to a FX body. Only need to cover some wide angle lens will do. :bsmilie:

Know the question is: Should I wait for Sitex to buy the body? Any advise from you guys? :thumbsup:

Cheers... :angel:
 

The best is to have FX with a high MP count such as D3X so that we'll still have 10~12 MP even when switched to DX mode. Then we can have the best of both worlds...except for the weight :p
 

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

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.

sorry to cut in and pick on this point, but I thought I should correct this misconception.
the 14-24/2.8 (fx camera) gives 21mm (35mm equiv) FOV at widest on a DX camera.
The 18-55 gives 27mm (35mm equiv) FOV at widest on a DX camera.
So the 14-24 is not tighter. It is wider, though certainly not as wide as it was designed to be, on an FX camera.
 

Know the question is: Should I wait for Sitex to buy the body? Any advise from you guys? :thumbsup:

Cheers... :angel:

It's never cheaper buying in IT show.

U can checked here for pricing :
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=458315

My prefer stores are MS, SLRR & Parisilk.

And of course, if u pay by cash, the price will be cheaper.
 

It's never cheaper buying in IT show.

U can checked here for pricing :
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=458315

My prefer stores are MS, SLRR & Parisilk.

And of course, if u pay by cash, the price will be cheaper.

Thanks for replied on this. Usually the prices on the IT Show they will throw in the freebies charges to the cost right? am I right on this? :sweat:

Cheers... :bsmilie:
 

Thanks for replied on this. Usually the prices on the IT Show they will throw in the freebies charges to the cost right? am I right on this? :sweat:

Cheers... :bsmilie:

Err that's one way to look at it lah. If you really want to wait till IT fair, wait till IT fair and buy from the camera shops. They also have their own freebies and stuff, at lower prices :)
 

It is ok bro..
To me, buying FX lens will be good. Beside the quality..... I can use both FX and DX.
No need to buy extra lens if I'm using FX or DX. 1 for all.

Whatever floats your boat buddy. Hope your pics are quality too. ;)