# FX or DX



## arny385 (Jul 6, 2014)

I have owned my Nikon D300 for a couple years now which was my first DSLR camera. I am overall pretty happy with it however I am really considering breaking the piggy bank and stepping up into the world of full frames (D3, D3s, D4, D4s). I am considering doing photography as a side job not just a hobby. I assume the majority of professional photographers use full frame cameras, my question is what are the main advantages/disadvantages of a FX camera compared to a DX? I have noticed some photographers carry both FX and DX during their shootings. I realize lens has a huge impact on the quality of the image, not just the camera itself. I am trying to decide if it will be absolutely necessary to upgrade to a 6k camera plus lens cost or stick with the d300 and invest in better lens. I mainly shoot outdoors and sports now but I would like to shoot weddings, portraits (modeling) in the future. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 6, 2014)

Ok, well in a nutshell, advantages of full frame are better low light, wider field of view.

Advantages of crop sensor are less expensive body leaving more in your budget for lenses, and if you shoot telephoto the crop factor can be a nice advantage to have.

That's non-camera specific of course, since full frames are more expensive and designed for a specific market they often have additional features that not all crop sensors offer.


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 6, 2014)

DX for situations when you need telephoto, FX for more contrasting depth of field and wide angle shots.

Means DX will be better for sports, far reaching wildlife and macro. Under the same megapixel and focal length, DX gives you more "reach". FX is better for landscape, portraits and street photography(50mm). Compared to DX, it gives  you more width and more contrasting depth of field using the same megapixel and focal length.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 6, 2014)

Full-frame cameras "leverage" the majority of the prime lenses, as well as the pro-grade zooms. 24 is a 24mm is a VERY WIDE; 28 is a WIDE;35mm is a semi-wide; 50mm is a normal; 85mm is a shotrt tele, 105 is a medium tele, 135 is a telephoto, 180 is a longer tele; 300 is VERY handy on full-frame. For example: 85mm prime lens: at 20 feet, it gets an 8.47 foot tall field of view, enough for a 6 foot tall bride and groom; on APS-C or DX, with the SAME 85mm lens, you need to be about 34 feet away to get the SAME picture height.

In a crowded reception or even, you can be 20 feet away and still be SEEN as being photographing a couple; when you're 34 feet away, you are an outsider, not even associated with the people.

In a lving room, an 85mm on DX is wayyy too narrow to use for much except headshots; on a patio, same thing; FX is designed for the lenses that are in the majority of Nikon and Canon's lineups.

With a Nikon FX body, a 24/35/50/85 setup can handle 85% of all assignments. A 24-70 is a very wide to short tele. A 70-200 is a workhorse.

The D300's overall image quality is visibly below the newer FX sensor cameras and their image quality, especially at higher ISO values, or when cropping is needed.


----------



## ruifo (Jul 6, 2014)

Consider the Nikon DF (same sensor of the D4 - 16MPix, $2.9K), or the brand new and semi-pro Nikon D810 (36MPix, $3.3K), or even the entry level full frame Nikon D610 (24MPix, $2K), as other powerhouse options to the D3 and D4 families.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 7, 2014)

Before I finished reading your post, I would have guessed that you shot sports and nature but were looking to get into shooting weddings, portraits and every other field of photography. It seems to be the common thread with most "I wanna be a photographer, not full time, but to make money on the side"

I would go with a D4s, 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8 and something wide for the weddings. Why not just jump in with both feet. This way you'll have everything you need as you learn how to shoot.:er:


----------



## tirediron (Jul 7, 2014)

molested_cow said:


> ... Under the same megapixel and focal length, DX gives you more "reach". ...


Just to clarify as that statement is, IMO, a bit misleading... there is no extra "magnification" when using a DX/APS-C sensor, rather the lenses provide the field of view of a longer lens.  That is, on a DX/APS-C body a 50mm lens will give you the approximate field of view of a 75mm lens but it will NOT make the subjects appear closer.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 7, 2014)

tirediron said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> > ... Under the same megapixel and focal length, DX gives you more "reach". ...
> ...



^^ what he said

here's a visual example of the sensor size in relation to the image size ... aka FOV from one of our members.
FX - DX Lens Crop Factor


----------

