Soo many AK's sure heavy
It is necessary to hold so many AKs at times, especially when covering weddings.
DX or FX (Nikon)
- Thread starter Vickon
- Start date
It is necessary to hold so many AKs at times, especially when covering weddings.
get an assistant to carry other stuff . . .
Can get a part time Golf Caddie for the gears ;p
I'm still waiting for the day when there is a FX camera with 100% VF in the size of the D700. The D3s I'm using now is nice, but heavy.
DX or FX = smaller sensor or larger sensor.
DX if your priorities are smaller and lighter bodies/lenses aka cheaper to buy, and don't print beyond 4R/8R prints.
FX if low light performance is critical, big prints (beyond 8R), greater details/resolution in your pictures, more flexibility in cropping w/o losing details.
(trade off is heavier equipment - bodies and lenses are bigger and heavier, and more expensive to buy.)
My personal experience - I shoot fully FX and find it offers much more flexibility esp in low light - still get decent pictures when DX would probably not produce similar image quality. My setup comprises D700, AF-S 14-24/2.8G, 24-70/2.8G, 70-200/2.8G VRII, 50/1.4G.
I do not mix FX and DX equipment or lenses. This allows me to really get to know my equipment and how far I can push the limits.
Hope this helps.
Fred
DX if your priorities are smaller and lighter bodies/lenses aka cheaper to buy, and don't print beyond 4R/8R prints.
FX if low light performance is critical, big prints (beyond 8R), greater details/resolution in your pictures, more flexibility in cropping w/o losing details.
(trade off is heavier equipment - bodies and lenses are bigger and heavier, and more expensive to buy.)
My personal experience - I shoot fully FX and find it offers much more flexibility esp in low light - still get decent pictures when DX would probably not produce similar image quality. My setup comprises D700, AF-S 14-24/2.8G, 24-70/2.8G, 70-200/2.8G VRII, 50/1.4G.
I do not mix FX and DX equipment or lenses. This allows me to really get to know my equipment and how far I can push the limits.
Hope this helps.
Fred
Would like so make some conclusion until now:
Am i right to say that (I know is a bit foolish to mention), FX lenses were designed for FX bodies and same for DX. Even though FX lenses can be used on DX but that is not the purpose of FX lenses. I know this will be arguable but given these 2 cases, which one can describe the situation better?:
1) Using 70-200 2.8 (should be FX lenses) with D90
2) Using 14-24 / 16-35 with D90
Please note that FX lenses can be used on DX bodies but not vice versa.
-------------------
With the emerging of new DX bodies, e.g.: D7k, does the advantages of FX still stand? E.g.: better performance at high ISO, bigger megapixel (even though no useful enough), bigger OVF etc. etc. (for time being, not talking about FX successor).
Am i right to say that (I know is a bit foolish to mention), FX lenses were designed for FX bodies and same for DX. Even though FX lenses can be used on DX but that is not the purpose of FX lenses. I know this will be arguable but given these 2 cases, which one can describe the situation better?:
1) Using 70-200 2.8 (should be FX lenses) with D90
2) Using 14-24 / 16-35 with D90
Please note that FX lenses can be used on DX bodies but not vice versa.
-------------------
With the emerging of new DX bodies, e.g.: D7k, does the advantages of FX still stand? E.g.: better performance at high ISO, bigger megapixel (even though no useful enough), bigger OVF etc. etc. (for time being, not talking about FX successor).
Hi 007, don't make life difficult for yourself...
1) DX lenses are IDEALLY made for DX bodies.
2) FX lenses are IDEALLY made for FX bodies.
DX systems (DX bodies and DX lenses) have their advantages and disadvantages.
FX systems also have their advantages and disadvantages.
IDEALLY, you decide whether you want to go DX or FX.
Now, FX lenses CAN be used on DX bodies. It is a 'waste' as the DX body will utilise only the 'middle' portion of the FX lens image. The middle of the image circle usually produces high image quality too. So nothing wrong with using FX lenses on DX bodies. IMHO, it's 'overkill'.
You can also use DX lenses on FX bodies, but you may not get the full FX size image or may experience vignetting, so this is not the ideal situation (like you can wear a shoe that is oversize [FX lens on DX body], but it'll be difficult to get your feet into a shoe that is undersized [DX lens on a FX body]
Keep it simple. If you like DX, stay with DX bodies and lenses. If you like FX, then go for FX bodies and FX lenses. Spend more time shooting and improving your shooting skills instead of trying endlessly to figure between DX or FX.
For me, as I have been shooting Nikons for over 35 years from the days of 35mm film format (which is equivalent to FX), and I have many older 35mm format lenses (which are all suitable for FX), I just stay totally with FX bodies.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
hi all, i am intending to get D90, because i believe it will be cheaper for my wallet. i thinking of getting a prime len. Currently research on the AF 50mm f/1.4D and AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G as they fit my budget for a prime len. i can't really compare them as one is 35mm and the other is 50mm, i like the 35mm wideness but i also like f/1.4 bokeh... FX or DX
:think::think::think::think::think:
:think::think::think::think::think:
Yup. But he said cannot be used.
Maybe some people do tt on purpose also. Haha
Sorry, my bad. Should be will cause vignetting.
Yeap, bro. I just tried to make a conclusion from previous discussion. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Why not? But do note that it's at the expense of the resolution and ISO noise control. And it depends on the cameras used.
You may also just crop off from your D700 image to get the same effect.
Similar threads
