# Full Frame worth it for me?



## RDenhardt (Jan 26, 2016)

Honestly, I hate these types of threads for the most part, but im trying to decide between upgrading to a D7200 or a D610. But I have been researching for the better part of 6 months to try and decided whether it is worth it for myself to go Full Frame.  Im looking to upgrade from my D3200 as I feel it sometimes can hold me back with its somewhat low usable ISO range and other things. 

 I like the idea of the crop body as I do a lot of sports photography, as well as having a small selection of DX series lenses(I know they will work on the 610 as well).  Im looking to expand my lens selection and get some faster glass, and the normal AF glass which is slightly older but more affordable for the hobbyist like myself, so I am going to be a body with a built in focus motor.  The D7200 is honestly where im leaning as its cheaper and it will be a substantial upgrade from my current rig, but im really hoping that after I buy that I wont be wanting to go full frame in the next few years...  They are relatively close on price with the D610 being about $300 more locally.  I know people say to buy refurbished gear as I would probably be able to get a 610 for the price of a new 7200, but I like to know what stuff like this has been through in its life and thats worth the extra for myself.

I shoot about 80 percent sports and the other 20 percent landscape. 

I know there is a ton of info on here about both of these cameras and i'd like to think I have read a lot of that but I just think I need secondary opinions on my personal situation.  Sorry for the long read but I do appreciate it.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 26, 2016)

there's also the D500 to consider. 

Crop body's offer no advantage for sports. The Field of view is smaller, there's NO EXTRA REACH. 

That said, a full frame offers little advantage over a crop body (sports shooting) except for much better iso response due to the larger sensor and sometimes much better electronics in the full frame bodies. 

I went from DX to FX and it was day and night for me. I shoot portraiture primarily, landscape secondly.


----------



## dennybeall (Jan 26, 2016)

One thing to consider is that full frame cameras and lenses are just generally better machines. If you can afford it you want to go with full frame. As far as capturing photos it's the same old story - 80%, or more, of the shots you want can be made with any decent camera while just a small percentage will REQUIRE the full frame camera with fast glass. If you go to certain specialties, like Night Clubs, church weddings or indoor sports, the percentages change.


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 26, 2016)

Well, here are my 2 cents, for what they are worth.  You actually don't mention what "sports" you shoot, but you do mention ISO performance and the D7200 isn't really leaps and bounds above the D3200, maybe 1/6-1/3 of a stop.  If you want the most bang for your buck, you should be looking at a D800.  You can find good used ones in between the D7200 and the D610 like $1250 used with 15K clicks on it.  You have already been shooting at 4 FPS with your camera, you can do 5 FPS with the 1.2x crop mode or 6 FPS in DX mode with a grip and the right battery.  The 20% landscape you do will greatly benefit from the D800, plus you are getting great build quality, a "pro level" camera and a good buffer.   But I guess if you have to buy new as you say, then it is your loss...

You also don't mention what you are using for glass and glass will make a much bigger difference than the body if you are using slow lenses..  

OTOH I have shot with the D600 (same sensor as the D610) and the IQ is very good.  The D7200 will give you better AF than the D610 which could be beneficial in sports.  

You also don't mention if you are shooting in raw and extracting the most info possible out of your files?


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 26, 2016)

I have never owned a Nikon digital camera, so I probably shouldn't be jumping in here ... but here are some general thoughts on FF versus APS-C versus MFT and it is presented under the category of food for thought:

For me, when I try to think objectively in photography ... I generally end up thinking in terms of significance. In this case, the question will be "Will a full frame significantly improve my sports and landscape photography?" For additional clarity, I will define significantly in term of success ... "Will a full frame make my images more successful than a different format?"

For sports the difference between a FF and an APS-C is insignificant.  For landscape, potentially yes, but with a caveat. That caveat being that you are already capturing exceptional landscape images, already pushing the crop sensor to its limits.

The other day, while messing around my camera store, the store people had my web site up and we were discussing my images ... Then it dawned on me that it really wouldn't matter what camera system I was shooting, Canon FF, Nikon FF, Olympus MFT or Fuji APS-C ... I pretty much would have captured the same images with pretty much the equal success/impact. I really believe that with the high baseline IQ of most all modern digital cameras that cameras are really quite equal (up to a 11x14 or 16x20 and under ISO 3200).

I like Fuji ... Well ... Because I like Fuji. It is a bit of a niche camera, they are beautiful cameras, they are well built cameras, but the Fuji images are not significantly better, (in terms of IQ), than Canon or Nikon or Oly, et al. Years ago, during the early days of digital dSLR's, there were significant differences between sensor, cameras and IQ between the various manufacturers and significant IQ differences between sensor formats especially at elevated ISO's. But now, the playing field has quite leveled out in regards to IQ unless you're printing quite large and/or at very high ISO's.

At 100% you will see a difference between FF/APS-C/MFT ... But if you need a computer to see a difference, then there are no differences at all.

(Qualifier: For what I shoot and how I shoot. YMMV)

I am not a Nikon guy. But I have heard that Nikon's DX stuff, from cameras to lenses, is a notch or two down quality-wise from their FF stuff.  So another question is how serious are you about your photography? If you shoot a ton, if you shoot a ton in less than friendly environments/climates, then it probably makes sense to go FF just for the better build and better inside stuff. But if you're a semi-serious, happy as a hobbyist type of photog, then the DX should be fine. But the problem is that sports is an extreme photographic challenge requiring top notch lenses (long and fast), in order to consistently capture the exceptional image. So for sports you gotta go FX lenses if you want to consistently capture pro level images. So if you're spending top dollar going FX lenses you might as well spend a little more and go FX body as well.  If you're happy with your DX sports images, if you have no desires to consistently capture pro level images, then stay happy ... all the way to the bank.

But, once again, I really haven't any expertise with digital Nikon cameras, I'm just giving some general information/opinion. (But I do have Canon FF, Fuji APS-C and Olympus MFT cameras and lenses.)


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 26, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> I am not a Nikon guy. But I have heard that Nikon's DX stuff, from cameras to lenses, is a notch or two down quality-wise from their FF stuff.  So another question is how serious are you about your photography? If you shoot a ton, if you shoot a ton in less than friendly environments/climates, then it probably makes sense to go FF just for the better build and better inside stuff. But if you're a semi-serious, happy as a hobbyist type of photog, then the DX should be fine. But the problem is that sports is an extreme photographic challenge requiring top notch lenses (long and fast), in order to consistently capture the exceptional image. So for sports you gotta go FX lenses if you want to consistently capture pro level images. So if you're spending top dollar going FX lenses you might as well spend a little more and go FX body as well.  *If you're happy with your DX sports images, if you have no desires to consistently capture pro level images*, then stay happy ... all the way to the bank.
> 
> But, once again, I really haven't any expertise with digital Nikon cameras, I'm just giving some general information/opinion. (But I do have Canon FF, Fuji APS-C and Olympus MFT cameras and lenses.)


You do make some valid points, but I disagree with some of  the stuff I quoted.  What you have heard is probably because Nikon chose not to release a Pro DX Camera since 2007 with the D300 (and a minor upgrade in 2009 with the D300s) So time has marched on and anyone that kicks the snot out of their gear like I do was forced into either a D800 series or the D4 series.  With the impending release of the D500, that changes the playing feel a lot.  Now there is finally a Pro DX that is built to shoot in crap.   As far as lenses, anyone shooting sports would have a "FX" lens anyways as there really are no pro DX lenses designed for Sports.  What I put in bold is Jabberwocky, IMHO.  A good photographer can consistently produce "pro level images" regardless of DX or FX as long as they have a camera that is not hampered in AF or Frame rate.  Matched with the right glass in daylight sports, the DX can do just fine.  Of course if we are talking indoor sports then the ball goes back into FX's court.  And I have shot Nikon, D5000, D90, D300,D7100, D800, D600, D3s for bird photography that requires much of the same criteria as sports...


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 27, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a Nikon guy. But I have heard that Nikon's DX stuff, from cameras to lenses, is a notch or two down quality-wise from their FF stuff.  So another question is how serious are you about your photography? If you shoot a ton, if you shoot a ton in less than friendly environments/climates, then it probably makes sense to go FF just for the better build and better inside stuff. But if you're a semi-serious, happy as a hobbyist type of photog, then the DX should be fine. But the problem is that sports is an extreme photographic challenge requiring top notch lenses (long and fast), in order to consistently capture the exceptional image. So for sports you gotta go FX lenses if you want to consistently capture pro level images. So if you're spending top dollar going FX lenses you might as well spend a little more and go FX body as well.  *If you're happy with your DX sports images, if you have no desires to consistently capture pro level images*, then stay happy ... all the way to the bank.
> ...


With all due respect, Maybe I was clear, but I was addressing "sports" photography in particular. I believe that most modern pro level sports photography is generally highlighted by the use of long lenses with big apertures for subject isolation. I do not believe you'll be able to consistently replicate that feel with DX lenses. As you have the expertise in DX shooting, I will defer to that expertise and I guess I am wrong, thinking that a DX camera armed with DX lenses actually is equal to a FX camera with FX lenses in consistently capturing pro level sports images. 

BTW- In my opening remarks I did say "... For sports the difference between a FF and an APS-C is insignificant." when addressing FF and APS-C in general.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 27, 2016)

As a fellow d3200 user i can say that the d7100 or d7200 will be a major upgrade, i love mine. I know that money can be tight, but if i was you i would find a way to get some more cash and buy the d500. If i could do it over again that's the one i'd get, the thing blows many full frame camera away.

the advantages of full frame really show in the wide angle lens selection for landscaping. crop cameras (in comparison to full frame) have really been neglected in the quality department. I would really love to see a more modern version to the *Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 *and i would never have a reason again to go full frame. But i do believe that a art version is coming out since Nikon and Canon seem to be taking the crop market much more seriously.


----------



## Ihatemymoney (Jan 27, 2016)

I don't shoot much sports and I have never owned a Nikon camera.

I have one major regret when I started off in photography.
And that is I didn't buy a Full Framed camera to begin with ....


----------



## PaulWog (Jan 27, 2016)

If you're buying new and you shoot sports a ton, consider the D750 for the significantly better AF. If money is an issue, the D610 obviously is still a capable and excellent camera.

I upgraded from a D5200 to a D750. The difference is quite significant. For a lot sports, a shallower depth of field, and better high ISO performance are definitely two important things. Most lenses don't really utilize the pixel density on a crop sensor, so that "crop factor" (the "amazing" 50% extra reach!) quite often will not translate into any extra detail over cropping an image from a full frame camera with the same lens.

If you're doing sports and you're shooting between f6.3 and f11 and you need to top out at ISO 6400 or ISO 12800 for your desired shutter speeds, then full frame and a 150-600 (or 200-500) might be a way to go. If you are topping out at ISO 3200 or very occasionally ISO 6400, and you don't want a shallower depth of field, then maybe stick with crop.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 27, 2016)

The D7200 is a good sports camera, or maybe I should be more specific and say its doing very good sports onsidering its more of a general use camera and not a sports dedicated camera like the D500.

If low light performance is important for you then there is no substitute to full frame but as you know you are loosing the 1.5 crop factor.

The AF on the D610 is not as good as the D7200 but its still plenty good and is a whole level better then the one on your D3200, if you found the AF working good for you on the D3200 then the one on the D610 will be enough too.

I don't think I can tell you what is the better choice for you, you are the only one that can decide what is the way to go, I think from reading previous post on this thread you got plenty of good info so you should take this info, process it and decide.
I would go with FF, it was my dream till I got it and now I own DX and FX and the difference in low light performance (which is very important for me) is very big, well worth the the investment ni my eyes but that's me.

Good luck


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 27, 2016)

RDenhardt said:


> I like the idea of the crop body as I do a lot of sports photography, as well as having a small selection of DX series lenses(I know they will work on the 610 as well).


 The D610 is a poor choice for a sports camera, since its AF module is slow. Then again you've been happy with a D3200 so far, so you probably wont notice, or rather think the opposite. But for good sports AF you would definitely want a D750. Maybe a used D3 with not too much of a shuttercount if you really want to be cheaper. The D700 would definitely be very cheap and its AF module would be fine, too, but its high ISO is not as good as the one of the D3 (they use the same sensor, but its differently tuned).

Also, the ability of Nikon FX cameras to use Nikon DX lenses is mostly a marketing gimmick, not really anything anybody wants to actually use. If at all, one wants to equip a DX zoom lens and zoom it to whatever range it will cover the full FX frame (many DX zooms have such a spot, for example the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 can be used as a 16mm f2.8 pseudo-prime on FX, or the AF-S 12-24mm can be used as a 18-24mm, etc). Even some primes can be kind of used (the AF-S 35mm f1.8 DX can be used in 4:5 or 16:9 crop or likewise, on FX).




Trever1t said:


> Crop body's offer no advantage for sports. The Field of view is smaller, there's NO EXTRA REACH.


 Say what now ? Of course there is extra reach. Thats the practical consequence if you only use the center of the image circle. Thats what "crop factor" stands for.

Using a Nikon 1 camera with a Nikon F lens will give you even more extra reach, though it might challenge many optics because they arent sharp enough even in the center for such small pixels.




goodguy said:


> The D7200 is a good sports camera, or maybe I should be more specific and say its doing very good sports onsidering its more of a general use camera and not a sports dedicated camera like the D500.


 It lacks in fps. They gave it the top AF module of that time though and the lack of buffer issue was also resolved.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 27, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Crop body's offer no advantage for sports. The Field of view is smaller, there's NO EXTRA REACH.
> ...



FALSE.  A crop body only decreases the field of view. IT DOES NOT GIVE TELESCOPIC advantage IN ANY MANNER.  Please see this chart here linked.

http://www.nikonhq.com/images/2008/07/FX_DX_sizes1.jpg
or this one
http://sowrongbutfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FXvsDX-960x640.jpg

or am I misunderstanding that you are misunderstanding me?


----------



## RDenhardt (Jan 27, 2016)

Wow, thank you all for the responses!  Obviously money is a large factor here, but i've waited this long so waiting another 6 months to save up to get a different camera if the difference would be significant.  Im not one to go out and buy brand new stuff just because its the latest and greatest, and the D3200 has been great for the most parts.  As for my sports I shoot 75 percent motocross and 25 percent hockey.  My camera does pretty well in both cases, but I find i'm missing focuses sometimes out at the motocross track, and am getting some grain as ice rinks can be dark(this could also be my lack of experience as well as i've just started shooting this).  

As of right now I have a Tamron 10-24,kit lens for the d3200, and a nikon 55-300. I do shoot RAW, and FPS doesn't really matter to me, I have actually never used any more than single frame on my d3200, but I can see situations where I could possibly use it in the future. Obviously not ideal or fast glass for what I do but i've made due.  I had a budget of a around 2k, and thought that would get me a body and a used 70-200 2.8 which I feel would be a good general lens for what I do.  I suppose I really do need to look at used or refurb gear if I want to reach my goal any time sooner, as $3000 for a D810 certainly wont happen any time soon, and is probably a bit much for someone who currently doesn't make a dollar shooting.  My big thing is I really need to get some faster glass to compliment the body.  Thanks again guys


----------



## Birddogyz (Jan 27, 2016)

I was in the same boat as you. I started out with the D-60 and the kit lenses. I jumped up to the D-7100 and the difference was night and day. At this point, I started buying only FX Glass, this made even a larger improvement. I knew one day I would go FX so I made the investment in Glass. I recently purchased a refurb D-800 with less than 1k actions. Now, using the FX Glass on a FX body I see what all the fuss over FX is. Don't get me wrong, the D-7100 is a fantastic camera and served me well producing quality images, but FX is the way to go if you are serious about stepping up your images. For the Sports Photography, I would recommend looking at the D-750.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 27, 2016)

I shot a lot of my kids soccer sports.  And also indoor soccer.
I started with a d7000 and upgraded to a d600
I absolutely love the d600 for both indoor and outdoor.  Outdoor when games start in the evening it essentially is no problem for a good FF but a problem for a DX.

I use the same lenses as I used on my d7000 too.
I'd say make the jump to FullFrame esecially with your indoor hockey.

One big issue I had with my d7000 was on the sideline if the action got too close, I had to move back (80-200/2.8 lens).  On the FF I didn't have to do that as much.

The d7x00 or d6x00 or higher FX overall Focusing system will blow your mind compared to your d3300 especally for sports.


----------



## RDenhardt (Jan 27, 2016)

Thanks again for the replies guys.  I know for sure the D7200 will without a doubt be a huge improvement over my current camera, I just don't want to be back in this situation again come another year or two.  The D750 seems like its an extremely popular choice according to the people on here as well as all the folks I talked to down at the camera shop.  They suggested the 750 over the 610 as it is newer and other things, but its hard to tell with shops as they are trying to make a dollar which I can understand.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 27, 2016)

RDenhardt said:


> Thanks again for the replies guys.  I know for sure the D7200 will without a doubt be a huge improvement over my current camera, I just don't want to be back in this situation again come another year or two.  The D750 seems like its an extremely popular choice according to the people on here as well as all the folks I talked to down at the camera shop.  They suggested the 750 over the 610 as it is newer and other things, but its hard to tell with shops as they are trying to make a dollar which I can understand.


I'd upgrade to the d750 if I had the $$$
but the d6x0 is a modern FF nonetheless and brings all the advantages of one too.
It all boils down to your budget.

I was nearly going to upgrade a few months ago but my primary lens got damaged and I had to have it fixed which killed my savings for the d750.  Maybe next year.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 27, 2016)

Trever1t said:


> FALSE.  A crop body only decreases the field of view. IT DOES NOT GIVE TELESCOPIC advantage IN ANY MANNER.  Please see this chart here linked.
> 
> http://www.nikonhq.com/images/2008/07/FX_DX_sizes1.jpg
> or this one
> ...



you cant say a crop body doesn't give you extra XYZ, because it only does ASD and not PQX.

define reach.   Did anyone say reach was a telescopic advantange or merely the relative size of the subject in relation to the size of the frame?  Is a decrease in FOV not extra reach?  I dunno. What exactly is reach?


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 27, 2016)

Trever1t said:


> A crop body only decreases the field of view. IT DOES NOT GIVE TELESCOPIC advantage IN ANY MANNER.


 And the difference in practice is what exactly ? The pixels are smaller, thus you have more details.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 27, 2016)

Braineack said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > FALSE.  A crop body only decreases the field of view. IT DOES NOT GIVE TELESCOPIC advantage IN ANY MANNER.  Please see this chart here linked.
> ...


 
I really wish I could come up with some clear and clever way to explain this so that a newbie would understand exactly what we are saying (some probably do anyway).
If ever, it should become a TPF sticky.

OP, decisions decisions decisions.  If I could start all over again, I would buy nearly all used lenses and probably bodies too. 
I think it's all been said in one way or the other in the previous posts; there are advantages and disadvantages with either way you go.  When money is an issue, it could make your decision easier, or tougher. 

Good luck.


----------



## RDenhardt (Jan 27, 2016)

A quick search on my local craigslist has yielded a D7200 with 80 shutter actuations for $700, that certainly is within my budget haha


----------



## goodguy (Jan 27, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > The D7200 is a good sports camera, or maybe I should be more specific and say its doing very good sports onsidering its more of a general use camera and not a sports dedicated camera like the D500.
> ...


I guess that is for the user to decide if 6-7 FPS is fast enough or not.
As I said its a general use camera that is good at doing sports but its not a dedicated sports camera.
If 6-7 FPS isn't enough then only camera that can cut it in Nikon arsenal is the D500 which should be out soon and will cost a lot more then a D610 or D7200


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 27, 2016)

goodguy said:


> I guess that is for the user to decide if 6-7 FPS is fast enough or not.
> As I said its a general use camera that is good at doing sports but its not a dedicated sports camera.
> If 6-7 FPS isn't enough then only camera that can cut it in Nikon arsenal is the D500 which should be out soon and will cost a lot more then a D610 or D7200


and the recently released D5
and the old D700 with battery pack
d300S .. the D3s, D4s etc


----------



## Braineack (Jan 27, 2016)

did we ever determine what sort of "sports" we are talking about yet?


----------



## RDenhardt (Jan 27, 2016)

Braineack said:


> did we ever determine what sort of "sports" we are talking about yet?


Yeah... 75 percent motocross and 25 percent indoor ice hockey


----------



## Braineack (Jan 27, 2016)

I dont see the D610 having any issue here as far as the AF is concerned and will have better IQ over the D7200 espeically at the indoor hockey events.

The D7200 will definitely have a reach advantage.  *GASP*


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 27, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > A crop body only decreases the field of view. IT DOES NOT GIVE TELESCOPIC advantage IN ANY MANNER.
> ...



That makes no sense and isn't relevant to the conversation but to argue the point my d810 has more detail and is full frame


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 27, 2016)

Braineack said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > FALSE.  A crop body only decreases the field of view. IT DOES NOT GIVE TELESCOPIC advantage IN ANY MANNER.  Please see this chart here linked.
> ...


Reach is defined as zoom. Crop forces you farther away from subject to get same frame as fx. Fx allows you to be closer. Jeesh, it's really not that hard to understand.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 27, 2016)

Braineack said:


> The D7200 will definitely have a reach advantage.  *GASP*



This kind of REACH ??


----------



## Braineack (Jan 27, 2016)

Trever1t said:


> Reach is defined as zoom. Crop forces you farther away from subject to get same frame as fx. Fx allows you to be closer. Jeesh, it's really not that hard to understand.



weird.  One might call that "extra reach".  since with a crop, shooting at the same focal length, they could be standing much further away but still _reach_ the same subject equally -- espeically if both result in a 6000x4000 image that look exactly the same.

It's not hard to understand, but semantics are stupid.

It is 100% fair to say a crop body gives you more reach than a full frame body.  Not once was a lens/optics mentioned. Nothing you said was wrong, fwiw. I just dont understand why some people reject the term reach being used in the manner we are using it.  We are clearly all on the same page here, but I dont get why using the term reach gets some many people so worked up.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 27, 2016)

Does this mean that the d800's have more reach than other FF bodies?


----------



## PaulWog (Jan 27, 2016)

Braineack said:


> It is 100% fair to say a crop body gives you more reach than a full frame body.  Not once was a lens/optics mentioned. Nothing you said was wrong, fwiw. I just dont understand why some people reject the term reach being used in the manner we are using it.  We are clearly all on the same page here, but I dont get why using the term reach gets some many people so worked up.



Photography forums will always have this issue. 

As for the definition of "reach": arrive at; get as far as.

It is absolutely fair to say a crop sensor "arrives at" an equivalent field of view that provides a perceived "zoomed in" image. Yes, the aperture and depth of field properties are a different story.

I think arguing like a warrior over technicalities such as this is only worth it if there is fairly immediate practical value to the OP. In this case, I don't think there is. A technicality that does have more practical value to the OP is thinking about the actual perceived resolution/sharpness that a crop body can pull out of a lens. I think a lot of lenses cannot resolve enough detail for a crop sensor camera, so a full frame camera is often more practical overall. (All trade-offs considered, including ISO, depth of field, cropping vs. sensor-based cropping, sharpness of the lens across the whole lens, etc).


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 27, 2016)

Field of view but the subject matter isn't enlarged, you're only getting a smaller portion of the frame with dx. Do we all agree to that!


----------



## PaulWog (Jan 27, 2016)

Trever1t said:


> Field of view but the subject matter isn't enlarged, you're only getting a smaller portion of the frame with dx. Do we all agree to that!



No? That's an absurd way to word it. The subject matter is enlarged. You get a 6016 x 4016 file with FX, and a 6016x4016 file with DX.

For argument's sake, let's say you are shooting with a 300mm lens that resolves perfect sharpness. You're standing in the same spot. If you are trying to take a photograph of a motocross racer, and you want to fill the frame with that motocross racer as much as possible, the crop sensor camera will produce an uncropped image that fills that 6016x4016 file with more of the racer.

To say "you get a smaller portion of the frame" leaves out a ton of details. You get a more detailed portion of the frame, which translates into a larger subject.

I know exactly what you're saying, but I think it would be incorrect to say what you're saying without providing more details. It's a "smaller portion of the equivalent FX frame" with a greater pixel density in that smaller portion of the frame. What do we call it when we zoom in digitally? Digital zoom. So we're getting crop factor zoom. Just saying 

The reason why I disagree with your wording is because it never makes sense to anyone but the people who already know, and even then I think there's better ways to word it. If everyone got super technical about these sorts of details, every thread would be an essay in length.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 27, 2016)

WHAT???? Please refer to this http://www.nikonusa.com/Images/Lear...009/DX-FX-Formats/Media/DX-FX-Diagram-NEW.jpg

I don't know if you are confused or we're in agreement and talking semantics. DX does not enlarge anything. It's a cropped version of the FX frame. PERIOD

Yes to fill the frame with FX I'd have to be closer to the subject BUT then I would be the one ZOOMING in because my subject matter would be larger 

Just think of DX as a CROP of FX and it's easy to fathom. I don't see why this is so difficult.

What you are saying is if both are the same MP then all things else the same the DX would have more subject in the frame. Yes, you can say that or you can say that to get that same shot the DX has to be farther from the subject.


----------



## RDenhardt (Jan 27, 2016)

Man oh man!  Lets use no words and just use an image


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 27, 2016)

those were not taken with the same lens from the same distance, sorry

http://sowrongbutfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FXvsDX-960x640.jpg

It's physics.


----------



## RDenhardt (Jan 27, 2016)

I understand that but it clearly demonstrates the idea....  as does your example


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 27, 2016)

There are really zero advantages of using DX instead of FX except for costs. FX offers much more than DX, both in the physics and also in what the MFGs build into the FX bodies. 

That said, there's nothing wrong with DX and a good photographer could do anything he/she desired with success as well.


----------



## RDenhardt (Jan 27, 2016)

I believe I will bide my time and money and save up further for either used D750 or 810 and a used piece of glass.  I figure another 6 months of diligent saving may even yield me enough for a second lens as well.  Ive waited this long and its not as though I cant shoot currently so I will press on


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 27, 2016)

RDenhardt said:


> Man oh man!  Lets use no words and just use an image
> View attachment 114998





Trever1t said:


> There are really zero advantages of using DX instead of FX except for costs. FX offers much more than DX, both in the physics and also in what the MFGs build into the FX bodies.
> That said, there's nothing wrong with DX and a good photographer could do anything he/she desired with success as well.


What RDenhardt is showing is actually valid.  I am a bird photographer so I always think in terms of being focal length limited.  If we were standing next to each and I had a D7200 and you had a D750.  Lets says we took the above image at 200mm wide open.  If we went to print at 300 DPI we would have a 20" tall image and the results would be pretty much what is shown in this example.  But I agree "reach" should be in quotations as it does not increase magnification, only pixel density, which could make a big difference in print output.  Let's say you were to crop the D750 to the same field of view, you would have the same image but at a resolution of roughly 180 DPI..

I would tend to think the D500 will be built much better than the D610 or D750 whereas the D7200 is built about the same.  I don't buy into your argument that FX is built better than DX, it depends on the body...

Of course once we get to low light situations, the FX will win for the most part.  But in my situation, again, let's say we are standing next to each other with a D7200 and a D750 again.  We are on the edge of a pond with an Eagle 150 feet away on an Island.  We are focal length limited with a 500 F4.  You would have two options to get the same image I have. 1: You could crop and have the exact same image with 10 MP left, or to frame it the same you would need to add a 1.4x TC and at that point you would loose your 1 stop advantage, plus take a hit in focus speed and a 5%+ reduction in IQ...


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 27, 2016)

that's why I shoot a D810 and when Nikon mfg's a 64MP body I'll buy that too 

I understand and agree with what you've presented.


----------



## Rob99 (Jan 27, 2016)

This thread hurts my brain.

If you "crop" a fx 300mm shot to 450mm, you have the same image as a 300mm dx shot. Hence, crop factor. Not reach, no zoom, no magic fairies...just field of view.


----------



## PaulWog (Jan 27, 2016)

Rob99 said:


> This thread hurts my brain.
> 
> If you "crop" a fx 300mm shot to 450mm, you have the same image as a 300mm dx shot. Hence, crop factor. Not reach, no zoom, no magic fairies...just field of view.


 
No you do not get the same image. The pixels per square inch are different. That can be significant.


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 27, 2016)

RDenhardt said:


> I believe I will bide my time and money and save up further for either used D750 or 810 and a used piece of glass.  I figure another 6 months of diligent saving may even yield me enough for a second lens as well.  Ive waited this long and its not as though I cant shoot currently so I will press on


I took the time to go through your flickr page.  I think you have done a pretty good job capturing your Motocross considering the gear you have.  I have a recommendation that I don't think anyone else in thread would disagree with.  I mentioned it on the first page.  Upgrade your glass first!  A used 70-200 F2.8 VR1 can probably be had for about 1K and it will make a instant huge difference in your images..  Just my humble opinion...


----------



## goodguy (Jan 27, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> I took the time to go through your flickr page.  I think you have done a pretty good job capturing your Motocross considering the gear you have.


Which proves for the 100 times that if you have skills, passion and vision you can get amazing results even with the most basic equipment!


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 28, 2016)

Trever1t said:


> There are really zero advantages of using DX instead of FX except for costs.


 It offers smaller pixels and thus more magnification. Which to certain types of photographers, such as wildlife and certain sports, might be very important.


----------



## RDenhardt (Jan 28, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> RDenhardt said:
> 
> 
> > I believe I will bide my time and money and save up further for either used D750 or 810 and a used piece of glass.  I figure another 6 months of diligent saving may even yield me enough for a second lens as well.  Ive waited this long and its not as though I cant shoot currently so I will press on
> ...


Thank you, I have come a long way and wouldn't even post up some of the first images I took, and like I said im happy with what this camera can do but I feel it is holding back my images a bit.  I agree I need some fast glass!  I have found a lot of used glass locally for a decent price that I would snatch up, but none of them are AF-S lenses with the built in focus motors, those are a whole lot more expensive and are also more scarce in the used market.  That is my main reason for trying to get a body and glass at the same time.  I wouldnt be able to even use some of the older glass until I upgrade the body.


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 28, 2016)

RDenhardt said:


> Thank you, I have come a long way and wouldn't even post up some of the first images I took, and like I said im happy with what this camera can do but I feel it is holding back my images a bit.  I agree I need some fast glass!  I have found a lot of used glass locally for a decent price that I would snatch up, but none of them are AF-S lenses with the built in focus motors, those are a whole lot more expensive and are also more scarce in the used market.  That is my main reason for trying to get a body and glass at the same time.  I wouldnt be able to even use some of the older glass until I upgrade the body.


Well, if this thread hasn't talked you out of the D7200, I just got an email from Adorama for Refurbished D7200 at a sweet price.  Pair that with some fast glass and you would probably be a pretty happy camper.  Fair warning though, once you get pro glass, there is no turning back..  Nikon D7200

BTW, not sure if you noticed my name, but I live in the same state.  Used camera gear is pretty slim pickings around here...


----------



## RDenhardt (Jan 28, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> RDenhardt said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, I have come a long way and wouldn't even post up some of the first images I took, and like I said im happy with what this camera can do but I feel it is holding back my images a bit.  I agree I need some fast glass!  I have found a lot of used glass locally for a decent price that I would snatch up, but none of them are AF-S lenses with the built in focus motors, those are a whole lot more expensive and are also more scarce in the used market.  That is my main reason for trying to get a body and glass at the same time.  I wouldnt be able to even use some of the older glass until I upgrade the body.
> ...


I still think the D7200 is a good option for me, as far as price goes its hard to beat.  It certainly would be a good upgrade...  I need to decide for sure.  And yes I am down in Branford.  I saw some used stuff down at Milford Photo but not a whole lot.  A few lenses on craigslist as well


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 28, 2016)

RDenhardt said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > RDenhardt said:
> ...


Hey, we are neighbors! I'm in Old Saybrook. I shoot a lot at Hammonasset, if you ever have interest in birds, let me know.  I switched to Canon last spring, so if you ever want to try a fast camera, let me know...


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 28, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> I switched to Canon last spring, so if you ever want to try a fast camera, let me know...


I must have missed you switching to a fast camera like the d500 since your switch to Canon ...


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 28, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > I switched to Canon last spring, so if you ever want to try a fast camera, let me know...
> ...


Oh man, you had to rub it in  I currently have the best fast DX camera in existence until it gets obliterated by the D500 in March...  But I do have the fastest APS-H camera and it probably won't be bested since no one will probably ever make a APS-H camera again


----------



## Braineack (Jan 28, 2016)

Rob99 said:


> This thread hurts my brain.
> 
> If you "crop" a fx 300mm shot to 450mm, you have the same image as a 300mm dx shot. Hence, crop factor. Not reach, no zoom, no magic fairies...just field of view.



It wont be the same at all.

Assume both are 24MP. That creates a ~6000x4000px image.

If you crop an FX image starting at 6000x4000, it's no longer 6000x4000.

If you shoot the same subject, from the same place, with the same lens on a  DX, you will capture a larger subject in relation to the frame in the same 6000x4000 image size.

Even if you're shooting a 36MP FX (~7300x5000), once you crop to DX size, you're down to a 20MP sized image , so it's still not the same as shooting with a DX uncropped -- because you still have all pixels available.

You've lost the resoution benefit.

Using Treve'r's picture: http://sowrongbutfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FXvsDX-960x640.jpg

If you crop the FX down to the DX size, look how many pixels you just threw away -- about half. But the DX shot still has 24MP in a smaller image area.

if both were viewed at 100% after the FX cropped to DX, the FX would look like the 12MP image here, where the DX shot would look like the 24MP


----------



## RDenhardt (Jan 28, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> RDenhardt said:
> 
> 
> > coastalconn said:
> ...


I will certainly take you up on that if I get the chance!


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 28, 2016)

We need Helen.  LOL


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 28, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > coastalconn said:
> ...



Something I have been meaning to ask others with 7DMII.  Not long after the D500 was announced, I received a request to do a survey in regards to my likes, dislikes, and desires.  I wonder if you or others received the same survey.  Of course it makes me think they are already......doing what they all do 'counter the counter to the counter'. 
Basically, I told them I love everything but it would be nice to have a Sony sensor in it.

Did you get a survey request?


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 28, 2016)

JacaRanda said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...


Nope sure didn't.. Guessing I probably won't since they already know how I feel after the 7dm2 made it's third trip back


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 28, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > coastalconn said:
> ...



LOL, they were afraid to ask huh!  I have a neighbor who has a really good lens guy connection...needless to say, I'm hoping to connect to him so I can connect to his connection.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Feb 4, 2016)

Im shooting motorcross majority of the time now well technically cross country. having stepped up from a D7000/D300 to the D750/D700 and do not regret it one bit. Granted i use fast glass already but the quality was worth the cost in my eye.  You can find used D700 pretty cheap as well i got mine used with 100 clicks on it for barely over $700 i love the fact i can zoom into 100% and still have a clean useable photo.


----------

