# FX vs DX Format?



## Roger3006 (Nov 19, 2011)

Hello Everyone

What is the practical gain with the FX format over the DX format?

I have somewhat recently started to get serious about digital photography.  I have shot film since I was a little boy which was a long time ago.  My old theory was to use the largest negative with the best lens governed by practicality.

You may have seen my comment, "I have used everything from a Minox to a Speed Graphic", which is true; however, most of my film photography was done with a 35mm and a 2 1/4".  The 2 1/4" was my first choice but in many cases was impractical, not to mention I did not want to drop my Hasselblad in the water while duck hunting.

With that said, it is obvious to me the quality of a camera body is more important with a digital camera than a film camera.  I have been using a D90, which I like, but I constantly wonder if I would be better off with a FX pro-line body.  I am sure I will upgrade my D90 but I am not sure as to what?  I do not have anything to compare my D90 with.

To put things in perspective, how would I benefit with the FX format over the DX format printing 8"x10" images or 11"x14" images?

Thank you all for putting up with me and my antiquated ideas.

Roger


----------



## BlairWright (Nov 19, 2011)

Simple.... ISO and fat pixels. Think of FX as 35mm and DX as 110 in film format..

I'll let everyone else type the trilogy about why those are important.. 

-B


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Nov 19, 2011)

This is not the best advice, but if you have the money to buy FX then buy FX. As I think Derrel has mentioned before on these forums, you can use lenses how they are really meant to be used! Specially when using primes, you use the prime how it was intended to be used when designed and built. No crop factors to consider when using lenses, the crop factor on DX cameras is great for shooting wildlife or sports but has little advantage in other areas of photography. I would love to go FX simply for the fact, you can get a more Shallow DOF when shooting portraits.

Oh yeah.. Did I mention Low light capabilities? The fact you can use ISO 6400 without worrying?? ISO 6400 was unthinkable in the days of film!


----------



## Roger3006 (Nov 19, 2011)

Thank you all for your comments.

I have a decent collection of Nikkor lenses. Most are prime lenes. I only have one zoom that I like which is a 35-70 F2.8D.

Josh, you are right , 6400 was unthinkable with film. My favorite flms were in the 100 ASA to 200 ASA range. I would step up to 400 when I had to but never really liked them. Kodachrone II was one of my all time favorites with an ASA of 25. Panatomic X was 32 if memory serves me correctly. In my opinion, lens speed is not as important now as it once was.

Blair, I always thought of 110 being on the chessie side.  Is 110 a good comparison to DX as far as the end result is concerned?

Am I correct in using the lowest ISO possible for detail? Where do you think I would start to lose noticable quality on my D90 as far as ISO goes?

Roger


----------



## Roger3006 (Nov 19, 2011)

One more quesion. Do any pros use the DX format?

Thanks,

Roger


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Nov 19, 2011)

grits said:


> Thank you all for your comments.
> 
> I have a decent collection of Nikkor lenses. Most are prime lenes. I only have one zoom that I like which is a 35-70 F2.8D.
> 
> ...



Well Roger, I have a D90 and have happily used it at ISO 1600. I shot a party recently at ISO 3200 and cleaned the results up quite nicely! But I would say you can go to up ISO 800 without worrying a great deal, the new CMOS sensors really are pretty good! My advice is to shoot is to do a test.. you will be pleasently suprised by what the D90 can do. Obviously if using higher ISO's, you will want to overexpose rather than underexpose.

You are right lens speed is not as important now, but it is a good thing to have on a DX camera as it means you can get that creamy bokeh look as you probably already know. I'm sure you could teach me a few things, seeing as you are a long time film user. Photography really was a challenge to master in the days of film, I think film still has some advantages. The dynamic range is quite staggering on medium format film. 

As for Pro's using DX, Bob Krist (I think it is!) who works for the National Geographic Magazine was using a D90. :thumbup:


----------



## BlairWright (Nov 19, 2011)

grits said:


> Thank you all for your comments.
> 
> I have a decent collection of Nikkor lenses. Most are prime lenes. I only have one zoom that I like which is a 35-70 F2.8D.
> 
> ...



Ok so 110 may have been reaching a bit, the DX format is quite good actually.

On a D90 you start to lose quality above ISO 800.

Yes, some Pro's use DX.

-TbW


----------



## Roger3006 (Nov 19, 2011)

Josh

My father could teach us a lot about film if he were still with us. He would be 106 years old if he were alive. I have many of his glass negatives that are 2 1/4" by 2 3/4". He mixed his own emulsions long before my time. I still use his Rolliflex and Licaflex. They are both old but not out of date. In my opinion, it is very hard to beat a Zeiss lens of any era (Weatern or Pre WWII). I also have his Minox which is a really cool camera. I do not know if you can still get film or processing for it. The negative is about the size of the nail on your little finger.

Processing has gotten so difficult for film I have almost given it up. We had a excellent custom processor here that died three or four years ago. I amost quit shooting film do the the hassel of finding good processing. If there is anyhing left locally, it is digitized and then printed. In my opinion, the warmth of film is lost, in that process. I hope to set up a darkroom for black & white before I pass but that is not high on my list due to many "have to" projects in line.

Thank you again for your advice.

Roger


----------



## Roger3006 (Nov 19, 2011)

Thank TbW.  I am slowly getting the "picture".

Roger


----------



## Roger3006 (Nov 19, 2011)

FYI-Yall are probably to young to remember them but half frame 35mm were once produced. I think they were marketed double one's film budget.

Roger


----------



## mnhoj (Nov 19, 2011)

One of the advantages of the D700 over a body like the D90 is ease of use and function.
The AF system is incredible. You will have to try to miss for an out of focus image.
The viewfinder will feel therapeutic and actually make your eyes feel better. 
You can AF fine tune and meter AI/S lenses. 
Your lenses will get back their intended focal lengths.

On the downside.

$$$$
It is larger and heavier.
Your long lenses will be shorter.


----------



## Roger3006 (Nov 19, 2011)

Thanks mmhoj.  My eyes need all the help they can get.

Roger


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 22, 2011)

If u have any old ais lenses, the d700 will meter with them, your d90 cant.

With the d700 youll lose video, and the useable resolution will be about the same.  The big difference is iniso performance, the d700 is about two stops better.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 22, 2011)

The viewfinder is so much better on my D700 than my D7000 it made me look and rub my eyes after I first got it out of the box and looked through it, like something was wrong with it. Was like looking through air or such in comparison.

The next shocker was how much faster it focused my 24-70 lens.  I thought the focusing was all on the lens but its a huge difference. Seems to focus easier in low light, but that may be my imagination.


----------



## tevo (Nov 22, 2011)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...roducts/262095-full-frame-vs-crop-sensor.html


There were some pretty good descriptions in this thread.


----------



## brfarris1 (Nov 25, 2011)

I have been shooting with my D90 for a couple of years now.  Although it has served me well, it has some limitations, especially with the DX lenses that I am using.  I am planning to upgrade when the newer Nikons arrive (either the upgraded D300 or the upgraded D700).  I like to photograph landscapes and wildlife.  The full-frame sensor would be nice for landscapes, and the low-noise / high-ISO of the full-frame sensor would be great for wildlife shots.  But I get most of my shots on hikes where I am carrying camera equipment and tripod, and the FX bodies and their corresponding lenses are much heavier, especially added to the other gear that I carry.  And the cost of the FX body and lenses is a major consideration.  It is not out of range, but it's gonna hurt.  

I would appreciate some input from anyone out there who shoots landscapes/wildlife to get your views.  Thanks!

Brian


----------



## haim (Dec 3, 2011)

I shoot all sorts. 
I own a D3s and also had owned a D300, and also a D700. 
The D700 is somewhat heavier than the other plastic crop sensor bodies... 
If i had to suggest anything, then my suggetyion will be to buy a D700 as it's a best weight vs iso you will get. Id the D700 isnt enough (iso wise) then yeah... prepare for a huge bill.
The lenses i would recommend you to get for landscape would be the nikon 16-35 f/4 VR. 

walk around would be the nikon 24-70  bloody pricey though and heavy. I use that lens alot for event photography...


----------



## molested_cow (Dec 3, 2011)

Other than the points that others have explained, I would say that if I am shooting portrait and landscape, I'd use FX. If I need to use telephoto or macro lens, DX gives me "more" magnification without using a bigger lens. Of course, that's if the sensor has high enough resolution.

Also, today's lens for FX are usually high end(expensive) lens. If you have a good collection of Nikkor lens, good for you!


----------



## nt5acs (Dec 5, 2011)

grits said:


> FYI-Yall are probably to young to remember them but half frame 35mm were once produced. I think they were marketed double one's film budget.
> 
> Roger


I love it I have one that still works...... sometimes.


----------



## ann (Dec 5, 2011)

I went from a d100 to a d700. At the time i went round and round, testing the 300 as well and finally bit the dust. Never looked back and am more than happy with the choice.  There is a difference in the look, (can't put it in words, but the the best I can come up with  would be smoothness)


----------



## rgribbons (Dec 5, 2011)

With the quality of image from the likes of the D7000 and D300 replacement (if/when it comes) and dedicated wide angle lenses is there really an IQ advantage to full frame any more (unless you're pushing very high ISO)?
If you're not professional is there really a justifiable reason to go full frame and take the hit on weight and cost?


----------

