# Switching from DX to FX after 3 months



## ndwgolf

Guys,
Since getting into photography again (D70 5 years ago, then stopped using it for two years) to D7000 3 months ago I now want to get the new FX Nikon when it comes out later this year.......Why????
Well yesterday at the Nikon training class I met a real nice guy that had a old model 70-200mm on his D7000 and he let me try it out and I immediately got hit with the WoW factor. I went over to my favourite Nikon shop in Times Square (Aver Awards) and had a look at the New 70-200mm....... that is one sweet looking lens.
After chatting with the guy there he explained to me about the DX verses FX camera bodies and that was me sold.
My plan will be to keep the D7000 until the new FX model comes out and then sell the D7000 and 18/200 lens and start again but this time getting the 3 nice lenses below;
16-35 /2.8
I already have the 50mm f1.4G
70-200 /2.8

What do you think, am I crazy or just hooked?????


----------



## Robin Usagani

What did he say that made you want an FX?


----------



## penfolderoldo

guess the nikon bods will know better the relevant pros and cons of the individual models, but for me the decision to opt for cropped or ff comes down to what floats your boat in photography, as a canon user there's not really a ff option if your into sports / action or wildlife (tho obviously you can get some stunning pics in these disciplines using the 1Ds / 5D etc). Personally, i'd have a play around with the various bodies in both formats n see which feels best for your photography.


----------



## Trever1t

The 16-35 AF-S lens is f4, not f2.8 

The D7000 is a reputable camera, what about the FF makes you want to change, understanding that you can run that 70-200vr lens on the D7000 just the same and actually fill the frame better at given distance with the DX body?

I just swapped to a FF myself, I understand the attraction.  I might just hang onto my D300s though, for that occasional wildlife shot


----------



## molested_cow

All I have to say is, if you have the money, why not?

Lens wise, your list covers a good range there. Bear in mind that the 70-200mm will look smaller on a FF, so you may want to consider a teleconverter as well.

For wide angle, you want to get the 14~24mm F2.8 instead

Also, once you have your 50mm on a FF, you will realize what you've been missing all this while.


----------



## Moe

He probably meant 17-35 2.8.


----------



## Garbz

molested_cow said:


> All I have to say is, if you have the money, why not?



Because money is finite and there may be a better bang for the buck than blowing money on upgrading a perfectly good new camera body for a very tiny gain? 

A new camera body gives you a tiny bit of an improvement in image quality. A new lens opens up a new world of creative possibilities. This leads to the question, unless there's something actually wrong with the current camera if you have the money why would you blow it on a body?


----------



## Kerbouchard

Garbz said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I have to say is, if you have the money, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because money is finite and there may be a better bang for the buck than blowing money on upgrading a perfectly good new camera body for a very tiny gain?
> 
> A new camera body gives you a tiny bit of an improvement in image quality.
Click to expand...


You have some sort of inside info on what Nikon's newest FF cameras are going to have?

Honestly, none of us know what Nikon's newest full frame cameras are going to bring to the table.  I would hazard a guess that it will be much more than a 'very tiny gain' or a 'tiny bit of an improvement'.

I didn't hop on the D7000 bandwagon.  I am still shooting with the lowly D90, and watching my savings account increase.  I am going to wait for the D700 replacement.  If it doesn't meet my expectations, I'll pick up a D3s instead, but to say that there is virtually no difference between a hypothetical D700 replacement/D3s or the D7000 is a bit silly.


----------



## prodigy2k7

Schwettylens said:


> What did he say that made you want an FX?


 I am curious too...


Garbz said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I have to say is, if you have the money, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because money is finite and there may be a better bang for the buck than blowing money on upgrading a perfectly good new camera body for a very tiny gain?
> 
> A new camera body gives you a tiny bit of an improvement in image quality. A new lens opens up a new world of creative possibilities. This leads to the question, unless there's something actually wrong with the current camera if you have the money why would you blow it on a body?
Click to expand...


Couldn't have said it better myself. Sure there is a difference in body, but lenses are the major thing that increases IQ. You wont get a huge IQ gain by simply upgrading a NOT OLD (D7000) body to more expensive.

You will get more bang for buck if you get a nice new lens or two ;]
Or even get better equipment, new tripod, filters, bags, batteries, etc...


----------



## molested_cow

It's his money. If he can afford something better without hurting his wallet, what right do you have to say he shouldn't?


D700 is my first DSLR. If I made a thread asking people if I should get a DX or FX as my first DSLR, the opinion will probably be DX. There are many reasons why I chose to go FX and like it or not, one of them being that I can afford it.

For IQ, I simply don't like the idea that I have a lens that can give me X, but my camera body can only take 2/3X. If I can afford FX, there is no reason why I should get a DX.

If you are only shooting with telephoto lens, then a high megapixel count DX may be better... that is if you like to be optimistic.

A few years ago, back home the inflation problem was getting more obvious. Food commodities like salt, sugar and flour were getting more expensive. People were complain about rising cost of living, so instead of increase prices of breads, bakeries just made smaller breads and kept the prices the same. Some people noticed, some didn't. Some chose to not notice it.


----------



## penfolderoldo

molested_cow said:


> A few years ago, back home the inflation problem was getting more obvious. Food commodities like salt, sugar and flour were getting more expensive. People were complain about rising cost of living, so instead of increase prices of breads, bakeries just made smaller breads and kept the prices the same. Some people noticed, some didn't. Some chose to not notice it.



hmmm... fascinating as the macro-economics history lesson is, the relevance escapes me - APS-C cameras cost almost universally less than FF, but that fact alone doesn't mean FF is superior, it's horses for courses, as the saying goes. I use both FF and cropped bodies, at different times for different things.

It is indeed the OP's money, and as far as I can see no-one's saying he can't spend it on whatever he likes. Your phrase that if you can afford DX there isn't any reason to get DX, indicates that price was you're main consideration. As a canon user I can tell you there certainly are reasons why people would choose to go cropped, irrespective of the price, especially if you shoot fast moving subjects or sports, as there isn't a FF camera capable of delivering the speed needed. I have no special knowledge of nikon but I suspect they may well be the same.

Your comment about DX only really being up to use with telephotos is fundamentally incorrect, naive and fails to acknowledge the 000's of stunning images produced with 'mere' cropped cameras.


----------



## ndwgolf

Thanks for all the commentsAgain my reason for this thread was to get people's thoughts on me changing from DX to FX so soon and whether my mind was made up before or after this thread ......... I will buy a FX whenever it comes out&#57431;As for the D7000 I will sale that (loose max $120 bucks) and defiantly had mor tan 120 bucks worth of fun with it


----------



## prodigy2k7

I say upgrade to a full frame when you think you need/want one, not when someone else says so.

Edit: fixed.


----------



## usayit

Still wondering how the decision to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 is tied to the decision to go from DX to FX.

The 70-200 f/2.8 is compatible with DX bodies... right?

Or maybe I just misunderstand and the two decisions are not related....


----------



## ndwgolf

usayit said:


> Still wondering how the decision to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 is tied to the decision to go from DX to FX.
> 
> The 70-200 f/2.8 is compatible with DX bodies... right?
> 
> Or maybe I just misunderstand and the two decisions are not related....


I think you will find that the 70/200mm f2.8 is a FX lens that can be used on a DX body


----------



## usayit

That's what I thought...

So the decision to go to FX was a separate one from the purchase of the 70-200.   

Some prefer telephotos on crop cameras.... but if FX is what you want, go for it.


----------



## cnutco

I use my FX lenses on both of my DX bodies.  

I will one day go to an FX body, but I will take my time.


----------



## Garbz

Kerbouchard said:


> You have some sort of inside info on what Nikon's newest FF cameras are going to have?



I didn't say there's no difference, I said there's a tiny improvement in image quality, which there is. The D700 has some more dynamic range, and can bump up the ISO a bit higher. Take the cameras out into the daytime and take two pictures and you won't be able to tell the bodies apart unless you horrendously foul up the shot and need to "save it" in post processing. A camera body upgrade represents a ****load of money for a tiny gain in usability for existing lenses, and often differences that aren't field relevant if you're zooming at 100%.

My insider information from Nikon is that the next camera won't suddenly make your lenses have macro functionality, turn them into fisheyes, give you a 3x extra reach, increase your max aperture to 1.4, or provide you with an ultra wide field of view. Yet each of these can be obtained with an investment in a lens for a fraction of the cost of a new body and open up a whole new world of photography rather than just an "ooooh look I can take photos now with the lights dimmed a little lower"


----------

