The great NIKON DX vs. FX debate - Share your opinions, please.

Naboo32

Naboo32

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,278
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, first off, I know that some of you will be tired of this topic and will want to post comments like ...

:bang: "USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION, NEWBIE"!

Well, I've tried that, but the words (if we can call them that) "DX" and "FX" are too short, at only two characters long and yield no results, making finding threads on this topic a bit hit or miss.

So, apologies taken care of ;), here is what I would like discuss:

As experienced users of both full frame and cropped frame DSLRs (in particular the NIKON range, as that's what I'm interested in moving to), which system of sensor and range of lenses do you feel offers the greatest choice, performance and value?

Personally, I am really struggling with which way to go between buying the D300 and the D700 body :shrug:. Apart from the slight improvement in noise reduction above ISO 1600 on the D700, there's not much else separating these two models for me (apart from the obvious £600 :D). What it really comes down to is the choice of lenses available for each and the compatibility with other manufacturers' (Tamron, Sigma et al)) lenses :|.

I'd be really grateful to hear your thoughts on the pros and cons of the range of lenses for DX and FX Nikons, more than starting any general debate about the sensor size itself and resolution/noise issues (as that's been done to death in another current thread :p). I'm more interested to hear how the optics compare and what the possibilities are for using FX lenses with DX sensors (although I know that it doesn't really work the other way around).

If it helps, I plan to do a lot of low light shooting, without flash or tripod (in as far as possible) and am intrigued by the merits of the VR system vs. the faster primes. Having a good "walk about" lens, with VR and a range around 28-70mm is very appealing, but doesn't seem to exist in the Nikon range :(.

Thanks in advance for any helpful input :).
 
Quick google of D700 Vs D300!

http://www.photo.net.ph/blogalicious/2008/07/04/nikon-d700-vs-d300-which-one-is-right-for-you/

http://www.neutralday.com/nikon-d700-against-nikon-d300-full-frame-matters/

There isn't too much difference accept for the ISO and image quality improvement associated with a FX sensor. I tried the D300, D700 and D3 when choosing a new camera the D300 wasn't even close to returning home with me!

The noise thing really is another level, i wouldn't dare use the d300 at 1600 the D3 or D700 sits there all day and the results are perfectly usable at 6400. (10,000 aint too bad either)

If your doing anything lowlight the D700 is the way to go
 
As above - go for the new full frame sensor - or hang fire for whatever is next in the offing in about 6 months time.......and get a reasonable used D700 for the time being. You will probably still be able to sell it for a biggish chunk of the purchase price.
 
Thanks for all the replies, so far :).

I've read all the linked articles and can see that there are some very real improvements in super-high ISO settings on the D700, compared to the D300. Thing is ... I already knew that :lol:!

Can anyone give me some specific insight into what kind of lenses (from the Nikkor range) are required to pull off sharp images with limited distortion/vignetting on the two systems, please :|? This is the area where I am having trouble with my Internet research, but I'm sure that some of you here will have had experiences (and therefore some useful opinions :)) with both DX and full frame Nikkon lenses.

(On a side note, does anyone know how Sigma and Tamron designate their lenses for use on cropped sensor bodies (the DX equivalent), or don't they have such a thing)?

It partly comes down to cost, in the end - although I can swallow the extra £600 for the D700 body, I really can't work out whether it would allow me a broader, better quality range of lenses to choose from (at a similar cost to the DX lenses, I don't mean the £1k+ big boys toys ;)), or whether I would simply be entering a world of pain :p, where everything costs more and doesn't perform any better than DX specific lenses :thinking:.

So confused right now ..... :help:.
 
well i would say dont buy a fx body if you want to use dx glass, big no no for me, but fx glass is usually quite expensive so you could be opening a world of expense, i did it the other way round, i got the glass first
 
cannockwolf said:
well i would say dont buy a fx body if you want to use dx glass, big no no for me, but fx glass is usually quite expensive so you could be opening a world of expense, i did it the other way round, i got the glass first
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't be using DX lenses on an FX body, as I said in the OP. As I haven't bought any Nikon gear yet, I'm really trying to weigh up which format (DX or FX) is really going to be the most future-proof and offer a good level of image quality/£. I can't ever see me getting to the stage of having a bag full of 4 or 5 £1,500 lenses, but by the same token, I'd like to think that I could find a lens for (almost) every application in whichever format I choose, as well as having the option to invest in a high quality lens of a particular type, if I end up specializing in one type of photography.

As far as I can work out, so far, the DX range seems to offer more slower lenses with built-in VR, whereas the FX (normal) range of lenses have either equally slow lenses without the VR, or pricier but faster zooms. The primes can, as far as I know, be used effectively with both sensor sizes, but I'm really not clear on how much benefit there is from using just the centre portion of an FX lens on a DX sensor :thinking:!?

Need some opinions from users on that one (hint, hint ;)).

Joe T said:
Sigma cropped lenses are DC. Tamron ones are Di II (I think).
Click to expand...

Thanks! Yes, you're right about the Tamron being Di II, I've just found a link on their website (which I missed the last time), that explains things :). "Di" are for 35mm film and FF sensors, apparently.
 
Joe T said:
Using FX lenses on a DX sensor means just using the sweetest sharpest part of the lens. :)
Click to expand...

... thereby making the decision ever harder :|.

Gonna have to toss that coin again :p.
 
Not really.
The Nikkor lenses with f-stops that alter with zoom ratio are quite affordable and I know a lot of top end professional photographers who use some of them.

It is true, most pros will use the fixed f2.8 aperture lenses - but the others are perfectly acceptable. I don't know about modern Sigma and Tamron for comparison, other than I expect they will be lighter!

Older Nikkors will produce first rate images on the modern cameras too, of either sensor size. I use a 17-35 f2.8 rather than update to the new 14-24 which weighs a tonne and is a huge thing to find a home for in a bag. My 17-35 will go in a pocket if I want it to.

Don't discount getting used glass - 80-200f2.8 AFS lenses can be had for around £450. That is a great value compared to the new version at £1100, VR or no.

It would help if we knew what you are photographing and what the final use was for.

The D2X still produces images capable of top notch A3 publishing images and larger posters, without interpolation. Put those images through genuine fractels or something similar and the images will go up 200%.

Where the DX sensor really starts to fall down is with the wide angles. I know, I had a pair of D2x bodies and the difference the D3 makes is remarkable, to say nothing of the other improvements that have been incorporated into the new sensor and processing - don't forget the processing differences between the two options. It isn't just the size of the sensor that is the difference between them.
 
I'm one who has now gone FX 100%, sold all my DX bodies and am glad to have done so .. almost.

The one, and only, reason for going FX is the hight ISO capabilities. There was nothing that the D700 had to offer me, over the D300, other than the high ISO quality, which is something I need for my shooting style.

It, the D700, being FX also means that my 24-70/2.8 is truely wide at the 24mm end, a nice to have feature, but something I could have arranged by using a slightly wider lens. Nothing that the D300 couldn't have pulled off.

Supposedly, the D700 is better sealed than the D300; but I am no longer that adventurous with my bodies, especially after the D200 episode I had .. so this isn't a big deal for me.

Ironically, all my lenses are the same, 24-70/2.8, 70-300VR, 50/1.8, 58/1.4, 105/2.8 .. but will be selling my Sigma 10-20 right after the New Year. What will replace this lens? Well, no way I am going to spend £1,000 on the 14-24/2.8, so I am still searching. I will also look for a fast medium telephoto lens, in the rage of 85-135mm, I am looking at the 135/2 DC, but am still undecided on that. Until then, I am very pleased with the combination of lenses that I have for FX.



Now, the one very important element missing in this thread is input from the Nikon guru, puddleduck!
 
For future proofing you need to have FX lens for whichever body you buy.
 
I went from a DX to an FX body this year and its been great. ISO noise is amazing on the D700 and with the right glass its a winner.

If I didnt do night time work, club work and suck like a D300 would probably have done ***.
 
Lensflare said:
Not really.
The Nikkor lenses with f-stops that alter with zoom ratio are quite affordable and I know a lot of top end professional photographers who use some of them.

It is true, most pros will use the fixed f2.8 aperture lenses - but the others are perfectly acceptable. I don't know about modern Sigma and Tamron for comparison, other than I expect they will be lighter!

Older Nikkors will produce first rate images on the modern cameras too, of either sensor size. I use a 17-35 f2.8 rather than update to the new 14-24 which weighs a tonne and is a huge thing to find a home for in a bag. My 17-35 will go in a pocket if I want it to.

Don't discount getting used glass - 80-200f2.8 AFS lenses can be had for around £450. That is a great value compared to the new version at £1100, VR or no.

It would help if we knew what you are photographing and what the final use was for.

The D2X still produces images capable of top notch A3 publishing images and larger posters, without interpolation. Put those images through genuine fractels or something similar and the images will go up 200%.

Where the DX sensor really starts to fall down is with the wide angles. I know, I had a pair of D2x bodies and the difference the D3 makes is remarkable, to say nothing of the other improvements that have been incorporated into the new sensor and processing - don't forget the processing differences between the two options. It isn't just the size of the sensor that is the difference between them.
Click to expand...

:) As I indicated in the OP, I'm really hankering after a set-up that will let me roam around the city without a tripod (probably at dawn/dusk) and shoot hand-held candids and architechture shots. High ISO capabilites, vibration reduction or even faster glass would be required to counter camera shake, although since I'm mostly looking to capture static or slow moving objects, premium speed lenses could be passed up in favour of good image stabilisation. Wider angles would probably prove more useful than crazy amounts of "zoom", too.

I'm really starting to answer my own question here, regarding the D300/D700 choice, aren't I ;)!?

Ted said:
This thread might be of interest if you havn't seen it already. Explains some cheaper lens options for full frame

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=99325&highlight=tamron+twins
Click to expand...

Actually Ted, I read that thread when I was wrestling with the choice between a Canon EOS40/50D or a Nikon D300 (that all seems like a long time ago now :D). Reading it again in the context of D300 vs. D700 makes me think (again) that the D700 is the way forward (those Tamron lenses look like they would save me some money too).

Wail said:
I'm one who has now gone FX 100%, sold all my DX bodies and am glad to have done so .. almost.

The one, and only, reason for going FX is the hight ISO capabilities. There was nothing that the D700 had to offer me, over the D300, other than the high ISO quality, which is something I need for my shooting style.

It, the D700, being FX also means that my 24-70/2.8 is truely wide at the 24mm end, a nice to have feature, but something I could have arranged by using a slightly wider lens. Nothing that the D300 couldn't have pulled off.

Supposedly, the D700 is better sealed than the D300; but I am no longer that adventurous with my bodies, especially after the D200 episode I had .. so this isn't a big deal for me.

Ironically, all my lenses are the same, 24-70/2.8, 70-300VR, 50/1.8, 58/1.4, 105/2.8 .. but will be selling my Sigma 10-20 right after the New Year. What will replace this lens? Well, no way I am going to spend £1,000 on the 14-24/2.8, so I am still searching. I will also look for a fast medium telephoto lens, in the rage of 85-135mm, I am looking at the 135/2 DC, but am still undecided on that. Until then, I am very pleased with the combination of lenses that I have for FX.



Now, the one very important element missing in this thread is input from the Nikon guru, puddleduck!
Click to expand...

I'm sure Mr. Puddleduck will come to my rescue, in due course :p.

So Wail, how does the 70-300m Nikon VR lens perform on your D700? That's the lens I plan to get for all of my long distance photographic experiments, whichever sensor size I end up with.

RogDen31 said:
For future proofing you need to have FX lens for whichever body you buy.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking, but I'm pretty new to the DSLR game, so I wanted to see what the general thinking was on this one. I imagine that Nikon's next model (D800?) will be a D700 with a 25MP FX sensor and then many of the "lower" new models will find themselves being equipped with the current 12.3MP FX sensor :shrug:!? I worry a bit about the DX format not being supported in the long term and maybe going the way of Betamax, or the APS film camera :D.

What I'm shopping for here is a camera body around which I can build a high performance bundle of lenses and accessories, over a long period of time, without having to upgrade the body every other year. That's why, despite being something of a noob, I'm seriously thinking of diving in at the deep end of the Nikon range.

Rikki said:
I went from a DX to an FX body this year and its been great. ISO noise is amazing on the D700 and with the right glass its a winner.

If I didnt do night time work, club work and such like, a D300 would probably have done ***.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the D300 would "out-do" all of my immediate needs and I know that it's ISO performance is way better than my Olympus E420 (which craps out at around 400+, IMO :(). Like you, I want a camera that I can use at times when my current cameras and lenses wouldn't even make it out of the house :lol:!


All things considered, I'm coming to the conclusion that it has to be the D700 for me :). Just gotta be patient now and see what the New Year sales bring, price-wise :naughty:!

Any tips on the best/cheapest places to find a new/boxed D700 body?
 
The problem is so far you haven't given any clues as to your photography level, or what you're going to be shooting. So far all you've mentioned is street photography. That being the case you just need a D60+50mm 1.4 AFS and you're laughing all the way to the bank since you'll have spent a fraction of the price of a D700.

Pete
 
In a nut shell, I'm loving the combination (D700 & 70-30VR).

The size is easily manageable, not intimidating to the public (when I had the 70-200VR on, people were often too intimidated by the size of that lens), and the range is fantastic. VR does help, a lot.

Still, I am not ruling out getting the 70-200VR with a 1.4tc, but I am holding back for a while.
 
Rather than spending the max on the latest Pro lens 14-24, 24-70, 70-200vr all f2.8 You could always look for the older f2.8 models 20-35, 35-70, and 80-200 secondhand for a lot less.
And i would have said 20mm was wide enough on a D700

[Mind i do have 20-35 for sale at the moment]
 
oops - sorry, didn't read your post properly then did I? !

All the more reason to go full frame and standard zoom. Job virtually done.

The whole ethos behind the Nikon system with their pro lenses is that you have from wide andgle to mid telephoto with just 2 lenses - the 24-70 and the 70-200. The 14-24 fits into the system but is a big chunk and way to cumbersome in my mind. I have had one for a few days and couldn't get on with it long term - glorious quality, incredible rectilinear control, but front heavy, even on the D3 and you cannot fit filters to it (not that you would want to often on a 14mm, but it is nice to have the option.)

An FX with 2 lenses and off you go. 1.7 conv better bet - more versatility than the 1.4.
 
russbates said:
i wouldn't dare use the d300 at 1600
Click to expand...


Being somewhat intrigued by this comment - I thought I'd go try & see just how unusable the D300 is at 1600 ISO, so as the light all around is crap today I just opened a bedroom window and shot this with my 70-200 at 135 mm (202mm on the crop body) f8

So forgive me for choosing such a crap subject, but I thought it'd do for the comparison

I also think this helps illustrate another point too - the ISO 200 image was shot at 1/25th sec, which for a crop equivalent of 200mm is way too low. Good then that I have steady hands and its the VR lens; but any subject movement and ISO 200 would have been unusable. At 1600 I shot at 1/200th so not only easier to handhold, but many moving subjects would be captured okay at that speed too

As part of my usual process is to run raw images through DxO software I did that too, they've had nothing other than a quick auto-process and resized

Meaning - if you have a D300 but daren't shoot at 1600 ISO you're gonna miss some shots - looking at these 'non-scientific' tests, these show why I'm happy with the D300 for the rare occasions I need to push it to 1600

For my work, such high ISO requirements are uncommon (just Weddings really), and even then such shots aren't going to be big ones in any album. Sure if I fell over a spare £10,000 replacing everything with D3s would be on the cards, but for now - I'm fine with the D2Xs & D300

Cheers

DD


Here's the image I shot at both 200 & 1600 ISO

Original_image.jpg


and here are the respective 100% crops

ISO_200.jpg


and

ISO1600.jpg
 
TBH Diddy, that shows why I wouldn't get a D300 for high ISO specifically. I'd be looking a used Canon 5D (superb bargain) or a used D700 (coming out nice and cheap second hand)

No noise, but no detail. Now imagine that brickwork was something with really fine critical detail. You've just turned it to plastic - look at bricks top right and bottom right.

Personally I don't get too wound up by the whole noise thing - but if you want to retain detail at these higher ISOs, FX is WAY ahead right now.
 
puddleduck said:
Personally I don't get too wound up by the whole noise thing - but if you want to retain detail at these higher ISOs, FX is WAY ahead right now.
Click to expand...

At the same resolution, it always will be (until the hypothetical point when noise is no longer an issue, anyway). A lower pixel density will always be less noisy, so FX will always have that edge.
 
robmiller said:
At the same resolution, it always will be (until the hypothetical point when noise is no longer an issue, anyway). A lower pixel density will always be less noisy, so FX will always have that edge.
Click to expand...



No argument with that, but I do think it's daft to say you 'daren't' use a D300 at 1600 ISO

I also repeated this 'test' on a face and the results printed at full 300 dpi (which means bigger than A4 sized) are perfectly acceptable

DD
 
Having just taken the plunge and gone for a D700, all I can add to the above is GO FOR IT! I went for the kit from Jessops with the Nikkor 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 VR lens which seems to perform well. Not yet done exhaustive testing but shall be doing so.

My main reason for going the Fx route was to get the full benefit from my wide angle zoom (Sigma 12-24) and fisheye (Sigma 8mm) but I would have been happy using film for the time being. Then I saw some high ISO images from the D700 and was hooked!

Give me a while and I'll take, process and post an assortment of pix through what lenses I have to see what sort of vignetting (if any) occurs with any of them and how they perform on it in the corners.

I was a little fortunate (well, far seeing!) in that almost all my lenses are suitable for 35mm (and hence Fx) since I still am (or was!!!) a film user. The only Dx lens I have is the 18-70 that came as the kit lens with my old D70 and that lens (along with my D200) is well on the way to being sold, its place in the bag being taken by the new 24-120 VR. I'm keeping the D70 as a backup body and for telephoto use, where the crop factor will give me an effective 1.5x boost at a slightly higher resolution than cropping D700 images.
 
So Wail, how does the 70-300m Nikon VR lens perform on your D700?
Click to expand...

I had planned to sell the Nikon 70-300 VR which I had got for my D40x, when I recently acquired a D700. However, having used this lens on the D700 I am having second thoughts about selling it. It gives good sharp images, and works well with the different focus modes on the D700.

My original plan was to replace the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 with a 70-20 f2.8 VR + 1.7 teleconverter, but I am having to rethink this.

So, you could try the 70-300 on the D700 first, before deciding on an upgrade lens.

In a recent post, http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=99941, three of the pictures were taken with the 70-300 and the rest were the 70-200 f2.8.

Cheers,

Edward
 
Edward Bancroft said:
I had planned to sell the Nikon 70-300 VR which I had got for my D40x, when I recently acquired a D700. However, having used this lens on the D700 I am having second thoughts about selling it. It gives good sharp images, and works well with the different focus modes on the D700.

My original plan was to replace the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 with a 70-20 f2.8 VR + 1.7 teleconverter, but I am having to rethink this.

So, you could try the 70-300 on the D700 first, before deciding on an upgrade lens.

In a recent post, http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=99941, three of the pictures were taken with the 70-300 and the rest were the 70-200 f2.8.

Cheers,

Edward
Click to expand...

Great pics, Ed :).

The 70-300 with VR is a no-brainer for me - I'd buy one for the D700 or the D300. As I doubt that I'll ever get into sports photography and will mostly be shooting static/slow moving subjects, I don't have to go mad on f2.8 long lenses - it's my body movement that's the problem :D! The price of that lens is OK too, I think.

The harder part, for me, has been working out what sort of lenses I would buy to cover everything up to 70mm. From what I've read here (and elsewhere), I'm pretty sure that the FX sensor will allow me the widest possible choice and needn't necessarily be the most expensive option either (if I buy used, or go for Sigma/Tamron lenses).

Thanks to everyone for their input in this thread :thumbs:. As soon as Xmas is out of the way, I'll start my D700 bargain hunting ;).

Merry Xmas all!
 
Just a random thought, which may be too late, but anyway ....

Why is this thread all about Nikon, if you don't have an existing investment in Nikon gear?

The reason I mention it is that your requirements would seem to be met better by a couple of lenses in the Canon range than anything Nikon makes. These are:
* EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (crop sensors only)
* EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM (full frame)

It seems a bit backward to decide on the body before the lenses.
 
StewartR said:
Just a random thought, which may be too late, but anyway ....

Why is this thread all about Nikon, if you don't have an existing investment in Nikon gear?

The reason I mention it is that your requirements would seem to be met better by a couple of lenses in the Canon range than anything Nikon makes. These are:
* EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (crop sensors only)
* EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM (full frame)

It seems a bit backward to decide on the body before the lenses.
Click to expand...

Perfectly fair question, Stewart :).

I was considering Canon, from the beginning of my quest for the perfect camera :D. On paper, everything looked good; the range of models, the wide choice of lenses and accessories etc. Then, I took a piece of advice that is flaunted about this forum more than just about any other, when it comes to camera body choice and ... went and tried a few out with my own hands!

As the only competition, choice-wise, was Nikon, I tried the D300 alongside the Canon 450D and 50D, which were both possibles at that stage. Quite simply, the Nikon felt much better put together (obviously it was a higher spec than the 450D) and crucially, the horizontal thumb wheels were much easier for my (very) large hands to manage than the awkward vertically positioned thumbwheels on the Canons :(. I actually have arthritis in most of my middle finger joints and so curling my index finger over past the shutter release button and onto the top wheel was actually a little painful (especially in cold and damp weather).

Ergonomics are the what's mostly behind the switch up form the Olympus E420 in the first place. I only bought that camera as an introduction to DSLR photography because I was able to get one dirt cheap. Now that the bug has bitten, I want to invest in one high quality, comfortable to use camera body and then just get on with the business of learning the craft, without spending all my spare time day-dreaming about which body I might buy next.

Having looked more closely at the specs, I also now think that the Nikon D700 would out-perform the Canon 50D in the areas of auto focus and noise control at high ISO and those seem like pretty worthy advantages to have :). Although I haven't tried a Canon 5D body (now selling for the same as the Nikon D700, which I favour), as the control layout is the same as the other Canons, I doubt that I would like that much either.

Besides, I think that the between the Nikon, Sigma and Tamron brands, there is more than enough choice of lenses to suit whichever direction my photographic appetite takes me in and as the ranges are evolving all the time, who's to say what will come along in 6 months time ;).

Hope that explains things a little better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top