DX or FX (Nikon)
- Thread starter Vickon
- Start date
Hi guys,
What will you choose? a DX body or FX body?
Which one is better to invest in?
Cheers
both are good their own purpose...
Welcome. 
Either one is good to invest in... depends on what you really want, which is of course we don't know. Correction, invest is an incorrect term... more like SPEND...
If you don't know the difference between FX and DX have you spend your time doing a search / google on them yet? If not, better get cracking - if you want to get a DSLR body soon that is!... :bsmilie:
Either one is good to invest in... depends on what you really want, which is of course we don't know. Correction, invest is an incorrect term... more like SPEND...If you don't know the difference between FX and DX have you spend your time doing a search / google on them yet? If not, better get cracking - if you want to get a DSLR body soon that is!... :bsmilie:
Hi guys,
What will you choose? a DX body or FX body?
Which one is better to invest in?
Cheers
Frankly, if you need to ask, then it makes no difference atm to you.
FX is more expensive, bulkier and heavier. With it comes the advantage of a larger viewfinder, low noise at high ISO, a bit more dynamic range and less DOF (for better or worse depending on needs)
DX is usually cheaper, smaller, lighter. DOF will be more for the same focal length lens used (for better or worse)
High ISO performance has caught up a lot with the newer APS-C cameras being able to do ISO6400 without much problems and some going as high as ISO51200, with some online results showing that it can be cleaned up very well from RAW.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...19157-last-one-now-i-promise-iso-51200-a.html
Of course the new FF sensors will be better the APS-C sensors in high ISO performance, but that will not be cheap when it comes out.
At the end of the day, its a matter of purchasing power and wants/needs.
Last edited:
Override2Zion
Senior Member
Depends on what you shoot. Landscapes and wide angle stuff you'd be better off with a FX, if you intend to shoot wildlife then DX is the way to go for extra reach. Both DX and FX image qualities are rather close nowadays. Before choosing between DX or FX, do your homework on what lenses you intend to get. Buy a range of DX lenses and should you decide to change to FX in future then be prepared to visit the B&S section of the forum.
depends on your requirements.
if you know the difference between FX and DX (google can help you on this), then you'll know what you need.
if you still don't know what you need, you'll need to read, see and shoot more.
if you know the difference between FX and DX (google can help you on this), then you'll know what you need.
if you still don't know what you need, you'll need to read, see and shoot more.
If you treat it as investment then it's very stressed. very other day keep you busy by monitoring and "sayang" your camera body. No time to take photos.
Of course your best bet is FX camera, giving you the best quality in build and photos if you intend to take some. So when you get your investment, forget about your lenses.
Of course your best bet is FX camera, giving you the best quality in build and photos if you intend to take some. So when you get your investment, forget about your lenses.
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.
Wait!!! You wrong already hor! Buy a FX first and then when got money left than buy DX also. So anytime want to go out shoot shoot then hang both round the neck until long long. Sure very shiok one.
:bsmilie: :bigeyes: :bsmilie:
Hi Guys,
I currently have the prime AF 50mm f/1.8 and the AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, Does these lens enough already?
or I add one more prime lens like AF 24mm f/2.8?
Cheers.
You wanna invest.... nothing more cooler to invest in 24mm f/1.4 instead...
Hi Guys,
I currently have the prime AF 50mm f/1.8 and the AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, Does these lens enough already?
or I add one more prime lens like AF 24mm f/2.8?
Cheers.
What do you think you lack. Do you need the 24mm ?
Ryan
You wanna invest.... nothing more cooler to invest in 24mm f/1.4 instead...
I agree, 24mm F1.8 FTW...
Why bother with the 24/2.8? might as well just get a Tamron 17-50/2.8 then. It will include 24/1.8 and a whole lot of other focal lengths at 2.8 as well.
Holy macaroni.... he did??
yup, he sold his D90 and D5k. He only left with 2 lenses and a flash. :dunno:
Why so?? If you are on a progression plan, then getting FX lenses is a good way to save money in the long run.
If you buy DX lenses, the re-sale price is often pretty low and honestly pretty hard to sell off.
With a FX lens, I can be assured that the crop will give me a very good image quality as the centre preformance is always the best. The fringe or edge issues will not affect me at all. I can even buy the lower end ones and still have very good images out of it. Examples will be the 70-210 f4-5.6, while it is a full frame lens, it is very good when stopped down and used on a DX body. Can't say the same for a 55-200 (DX lens) which may be about the same price range though.
Similar threads
