FX or DX

[bluerob101]

I tried a search to see if this has been discussed previously. I am obviously doing something wrong.... so please accept my apologies.

Anyway, as a serious amateur, in a nut shell, is it worth going Full Format (Nikon D700).

I have no intention whatsoever of attempting to sell photo's or do anything with them apart from look at them. maybe print the occasional decent shot & hang on the wall or whatever....

I don't intend on printing large prints either.

Thanks for the comments.

[Xevious]

Depends on what lenses you currently already have. If you don't have any primes and your zooms are all DX, then you would have to factor in the cost of at least 1 new lens to begin with. No real point going FX if you are just going to plug a DX lens right back into it.

Conversely, if you had something like a 70-200mm f2.8, the flip side is that goint FX would mean you lose that extra reach you have on a DX body.

[bluerob101]

Putting lens changes aside, what pros do you see in going FX?

Thanks

[Xevious]

Perhaps a pro is that with the bigger sensor area, means less noise and better ISO range up high? Another would be that your wide angle would really be W I D E, don't have to think in terms of crop multiplier. :-)

[Big Pix]

a D300 will do more than you need........

[bluerob101]

Thanks Bernie. Every time I go to the checkout on a D700, something stops me. Don't know what....

[Big Pix]

I have images 36 inchs wide on my walls shot with a D300..... they are very sharp.....

Went to a BBQ on sunday with my grandson so lots of pixs using D3oo and Nikkor 18-200mm. I find this combo just great and my choice as a party and walk about lens. The images are also very sharp

[Xevious]

... D3oo and Nikkor 18-200mm. I find this combo just great and my choice as a party and walk about lens. The images are also very sharp

I agree with that comment. I also have a D300 and Nikkor 18-200 VR. I brought that combo on holidays to Japan with me just recently. Not the fastest lens but for an "all-in-one", the images are superb and more then sharp enough, probably the best Nikon travel lens for a DX camera for traveling light IMHO.

[MarkW]

In Nikon, FX means high ISO, the primary reason for me for going to the D700.

The high ISO not only means better images in low light but more importantly much higher shutter speeds when using longer lenses - critical for wildlife. Using an 80-400 at near maximum or my 500 with a TC at shutter speeds below 600 is a waste of time. Shutter speeds of 1200 or higher are the norm for me these days and you just cant do this without high ISO.

Admittedly all my lenses have always been FX and the d200 even at 17mm just wasn't wide enough for my landscapes. The move to the d700 certainly fixed that.

[bluerob101]

Thanks for the replies. Opinions are appreciated!

[vqscorpions]

i was using from D40, D80, D90, D100, D200, D300, D1x, D2x, D2xs, and D700.

Now I still keep D700, D2xs and just D1x because it is the first pro one I bought.

There is no comparison between D700 vs. DX bodies. They are in different levels, different perspective of using camera.

Not only high ISO, but larger view finder, and a lot more if you have a chance to hold D700 or FX body beside a DX.

However, I still love my D2xs, it is super in portrait that D700 is blown out far away.
But with D700, sport or fast actions is its advantage.

[campo]

d700 is a lot of money if you're not going to make money using your camera.

d90 / d300 are attractive value for money options if you can go without the high ISO. I regularly push my d300s to 1600/2000 ISO at weddings and when the exposure is nailed noise ain't an issue.

[N*A*M]

like most things in life, the next 20% of performance increase will cost you 80% more. the jump from say a d300s with 17-55/2.8 to d700 and 24-70/2.8 is a good example of this. the improvement is undisputable, but you will pay more for that extra increment. does it make sense with return on investment? only you can answer that.

could you tell the difference between a d300 print versus a d700 print for the size you intend to print? is that difference worth the price premium? could that money have gotten better lenses for your DX body? could you have used it to travel to interesting places to capture memories? still how will you know unless you try it out? go rent or borrow a d700/d3 and find out for yourself. i did just that and it was enlightening.

[MarkW]

could you tell the difference between a d300 print versus a d700 print for the size you intend to print? is that difference worth the price premium? could that money have gotten better lenses for your DX body? could you have used it to travel to interesting places to capture memories? still how will you know unless you try it out? go rent or borrow a d700/d3 and find out for yourself. i did just that and it was enlightening.

Its not always about comparing two images side by side using equal settings to compare numbers of pixels and their spaces. I'm getting two to three stops better with the D700 compared to the old D200. This higher ISO can then be utilised for faster photography or work in lower light or better DOF. If you want to compare images then do so at the extremes when limitations like noise start to apply.

[Blueywa]

Like a lot of us I was tempted/considering going FX.
I weighed up the DX lens kit I had and there usability in FX, I made a few visits to PRA, Camera House and others, plus lots of websites.
After literally months of torture I bought the D300s and to date I'm very happy, not to say I wont go FX in the future.

[swifty]

I'm planning the move to FX myself and the biggest reason for me is the perspective difference and isolation ability. Many speak of the high iso ability which does look remarkable but personally I don't normally shoot above 640 or 800 so its less of an advantage for me.
But one thing I don't particularly like is current FX offerings are larger and heavier.
What do u find important for your style of photography? Do they favour the pros of FX or DX?