DX vs FX


UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,454
37
48
Singapore
#1
As a person who started with DX (and hence not having zero lens to start with), I am wondering if going FX is worth it.

DX cameras are getting really good at high ISO and the pixel counts are increasing significantly. Hence for a person who will never go pro, is it worthwhile to go to FX?

Opinions?
 

wdEvA

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2006
6,284
0
36
etanphotography.com
#3
Alot of factors to consider between DX and FX

1) Affordable - besides the more expensive FX camera, you'll need to get better lenses as well.
2) Do you need the 'extra' range from DX sensors?
3) is high ISO performance very important to you?
4) Do you mind carry a heavier body around (most of the time)

there could be more that I've not listed.
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,538
33
48
Pasir Ris
#4
The dead horse unearthed again? Search for "full frame advantage" for all the previous discussions. It's not a question of "going pro" but rather a careful examination of your needs, your photographic style and your budget.
 

Alan Chan

New Member
Dec 13, 2009
561
0
0
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#5
i think its all about money, not about pro or not. i'm sure the camera makers wished all customers to buy FX.

1) are you loaded and dont mind even if you regret buying it? if yes go ahead!
2) are you concern about money well-spend? this would mean you have to evaluate your needs and style to proceed.
3) are you struggling with money and would set you way back financially? if yes then dont even think about it.

i'm at 2, so i sticked to D90. my 2cts.
 

KY1977

New Member
Jan 3, 2008
947
0
0
#6
Why not go MF then?
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#7
The dead horse unearthed again? Search for "full frame advantage" for all the previous discussions. It's not a question of "going pro" but rather a careful examination of your needs, your photographic style and your budget.
this dead horse is immortal. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

everyone has learn to live with it.
 

Legoz

New Member
Mar 7, 2008
1,003
0
0
#8
As a person who started with DX (and hence not having zero lens to start with), I am wondering if going FX is worth it.

DX cameras are getting really good at high ISO and the pixel counts are increasing significantly. Hence for a person who will never go pro, is it worthwhile to go to FX?

Opinions?
im in the opinion that the DX ISO is not as good as the FX ISO. It most prob will never be.

Regards
 

NikF601

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2010
1,541
0
36
52
CCK
#9
If you always take photos at low light area, Fx sensor is better under this enviro...
 

weegk

Senior Member
Jul 16, 2010
2,700
0
0
Singapore
#10
both got its pro and con.

Think it is up to individuals then . . . :)
 

Jan 27, 2010
809
0
0
#11
If you shoot sports, FX is out. Low FPS and less reach. A bane to sports shooters.
 

#12
I believe it depends on what type of photography
you're into.. as for me, if I'm into portraiture, most
likely I will choose a dx cam for the tighter field of
view.. however, for landscape photog, I will go for fx..

my 2cts, would like to hear from others too.. :)
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#13
there is lots of good argument for getting the DX or the FX, balanced with how much u think u want to spend in this hobby, no right or wrong.

ryan
 

torak

New Member
Sep 4, 2009
678
0
0
#14
If you shoot sports, FX is out. Low FPS and less reach. A bane to sports shooters.
Rubbish...

1D mk4 can shoot 10fps right? And its a FF

Besides sony's A55 (10fps as well), i don think any aps-c can reach this speed

For those that says aps-c has more "zoom", u r getting it wrong...

If I take a photo using a 24mp FF, then I crop it by 33%, I would have the same fov (or zoom if u like to use newbie terms) as an aps-c of a 1.5x crop, and still hv a slightly bigger file size to work with as well. So its an entirely misconception that aps-c allows u to "close up" more. it doesn't.

Anyway nikon and Sony FF dslr has the option to go into an aps-c mode, so its pretty convenient if they don wanna crop in post processing.

The main advantage of a FF sensor, besides having a better IQ and higher resolution, is the depth of field. An aps-c will never be able to achieve the shallow dof of an FF in the same fov and distance to subject. thus if u r those who love working with shallow dof, to blur the background and isolate the subject/model, then FF is the way to go.

I don see any aps-c advantage over an FF sensor, besides cost.
 

torak

New Member
Sep 4, 2009
678
0
0
#15
I believe it depends on what type of photography
you're into.. as for me, if I'm into portraiture, most
likely I will choose a dx cam for the tighter field of
view.. however, for landscape photog, I will go for fx..

my 2cts, would like to hear from others too.. :)
Portraiture photography will find FF more useful than aps-c.

Shallower dof to isolate subject. If u don wan a shallow dof in certain shots, u can simply close down the aperture.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#16
1D mk4 can shoot 10fps right? And its a FF
Agree on ur general sentiments. But 1DMk4 is still not FF, it carries an APS-H sensor (1.3x crop ratio) unlike the 1DsMk3 for instance.

ryan
 

#17
Rubbish...

1D mk4 can shoot 10fps right? And its a FF

Besides sony's A55 (10fps as well), i don think any aps-c can reach this speed

For those that says aps-c has more "zoom", u r getting it wrong...

If I take a photo using a 24mp FF, then I crop it by 33%, I would have the same fov (or zoom if u like to use newbie terms) as an aps-c of a 1.5x crop, and still hv a slightly bigger file size to work with as well. So its an entirely misconception that aps-c allows u to "close up" more. it doesn't.

Anyway nikon and Sony FF dslr has the option to go into an aps-c mode, so its pretty convenient if they don wanna crop in post processing.

The main advantage of a FF sensor, besides having a better IQ and higher resolution, is the depth of field. An aps-c will never be able to achieve the shallow dof of an FF in the same fov and distance to subject. thus if u r those who love working with shallow dof, to blur the background and isolate the subject/model, then FF is the way to go.

I don see any aps-c advantage over an FF sensor, besides cost.
i agree with u on the zoom point.. it's actually just giving u a zoom-ed effect..

on the other hand, how it is that a aps user maintain the same fov as an aps-c user when they are at the same distance? unless they are using a different focal length at the same distance from the subject to achieve the same fov..

p.s. pardon my ignorance
 

Last edited:

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#18
As a person who started with DX (and hence not having zero lens to start with), I am wondering if going FX is worth it.

DX cameras are getting really good at high ISO and the pixel counts are increasing significantly. Hence for a person who will never go pro, is it worthwhile to go to FX?

Opinions?
for me, DX forever until the price of FX comes down to DX levels or lower.

anyways, this is also another topic to be included into the Clubsnap Hall of Honour for Repetitive Thread Topics when i start it in 2011. :bsmilie:
 

torak

New Member
Sep 4, 2009
678
0
0
#19
Agree on ur general sentiments. But 1DMk4 is still not FF, it carries an APS-H sensor (1.3x crop ratio) unlike the 1DsMk3 for instance.

ryan
Apologies for the wrong info.

So its the 1Dsmk3 which is ff and shoots at 10fps.

But anyway the point is that saying ff is slow, is totally wrong.
 

Top Bottom