Beginner Dx to Fx?

Messages
184
Edit My Images
No
#1
I’ve got a Nikon D90 at present and am looking to upgrade. I’m thinking of either sticking with a Dx maybe the Nikon D500 or going down the Fx route of maybe the D850.
Apart from costs any other advice?
Some of my current lenses will work with Fx so not a big issue and some I can upgrade in the future no rush.
Main photography interest is landscapes and travel.
 
Messages
6,591
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
#2
There have been a million and ten threads on exactly this, might be worth searching and then finding more specific questions.
 
Messages
2,772
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
Can I ask what lenses you have ? I think glass is more important than the body on the back !
 
Messages
3,697
Name
mike
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
Can I ask what lenses you have ? I think glass is more important than the body on the back !
I dont think this is always 100% true now, it stems from the film days when changing film changed the sensor, a good FF body now and working with the lenses you have will show you better what lenses work best.
 
OP
OP
L
Messages
184
Edit My Images
No
#7
Lenses I have are tokina 11-20, Nikon 50 prime, 18-105(Dx lens), sigma 150-600
So yes I know lenses will need upgrading if I go the FX route but i read on D850 even on dx mode it’s sharp and that may mean temporarily I can still use my dx lenses albeit at inferior quality to function to FX.
I had looked at a D750 few years ago and though I loved it couldn’t justify upgrade then. Now few years on I’m thinking it may be time to upgrade and hence looking at D500 or D850.
Plus I’m thinking at a later/latest model to get more years out of it before another upgrade. I’ve had the D90 for Like 10 years.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,224
Edit My Images
No
#8
Depends what you plan on doing with your images and whether you need the 45.7mp of the D850?

Pixel peeping etc the D850 will give you better IQ, but how perceivable that will be is debateable. At normal screen viewing I don’t think you’ll see a great deal of difference between the D500 and D850 tbh for landscapes.
 
Messages
1,373
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
I dont think this is always 100% true now, it stems from the film days when changing film changed the sensor, a good FF body now and working with the lenses you have will show you better what lenses work best.
The D90 is a 10 year old 12MP crop sensor camera. When I upgraded my crop sensor camera from 14MP to a 24MP crop sensor the improvement in IQ was pretty dramatic. It gave me new surprising insights into the quality of some of my favourite lenses. I was already pretty convinced by the "expert" chat on photography forums that some of them with poorest IQ (but favourites because they had other virtues, such as small size or big zoom range) would have their defects revealed in even greater horrible detail by this new sensor that went way past their resolution limits. In fact it showed me that some were still to my surprise improved in IQ by the newer 24MP crop sensor -- not as much as my better lenses, but nonetheless an improvement worth having.

Obviously an FF camera would be even better. But would the extra improvement of FF be so much better than the considerable improvement which would result from upgrading to a modern 24MP crop sensor be worth the considerable extra cost, compared say to what could be got from using the money saved to buy a better lens?

If budget matters, and you haven't already got really good quality lenses, I remain convinced that a better lens or lenses to the same cost will nearly always improve IQ more than upgrading from crop to FF.
 
Messages
6,591
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
A good few years ago now I went from a D90 to D3200 and the difference was massive, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed by any new DX camera.
 
Messages
1,343
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
The D90 is a 10 year old 12MP crop sensor camera. When I upgraded my crop sensor camera from 14MP to a 24MP crop sensor the improvement in IQ was pretty dramatic. It gave me new surprising insights into the quality of some of my favourite lenses. I was already pretty convinced by the "expert" chat on photography forums that some of them with poorest IQ (but favourites because they had other virtues, such as small size or big zoom range) would have their defects revealed in even greater horrible detail by this new sensor that went way past their resolution limits. In fact it showed me that some were still to my surprise improved in IQ by the newer 24MP crop sensor -- not as much as my better lenses, but nonetheless an improvement worth having.

Obviously an FF camera would be even better. But would the extra improvement of FF be so much better than the considerable improvement which would result from upgrading to a modern 24MP crop sensor be worth the considerable extra cost, compared say to what could be got from using the money saved to buy a better lens?

If budget matters, and you haven't already got really good quality lenses, I remain convinced that a better lens or lenses to the same cost will nearly always improve IQ more than upgrading from crop to FF.
Trying out the A7II in comparison to my A6000 I was actually disapointed. The difference was there but it was very small, not the huge leap in image quality I had ben led to believe would be there. The difference between RAW and JPEG is a lot more substantial than the one between sensor sizes. But thats only my subjective 0.002 $
 
Last edited:
Messages
20,449
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#12
I’ve got a Nikon D90 at present and am looking to upgrade. I’m thinking of either sticking with a Dx maybe the Nikon D500 or going down the Fx route of maybe the D850.
Apart from costs any other advice?
Some of my current lenses will work with Fx so not a big issue and some I can upgrade in the future no rush.
Main photography interest is landscapes and travel.
When I went from film to an APS-C DSLR (there was no digital FF at the time) I adapted pretty well apart from wondering why 28mm wasn't wide angle any more as no one had explained that APS-C was a x 1.6 crop system :D When I went back to "FF" with a Canon 5D I actually had a bit of a shock and it took me time to get use to stopping down more and keeping more of an eye on the shutter speed and ISO, because I was stopping down more.

So, if you realise that you will be using longer lenses and smaller apertures to get the same FoV and DoF that you've been getting from APS-C you shouldn't have too many problems :D
 
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#13
I jumped from the D90 to the D800E a few years ago, the difference was huge in every way. But at the time I had the funds to also add some juicy FX glass, if you can do the same it is worth it.
 
Messages
20,449
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#14
Trying out the A7II in comparison to my A6000 I was actually disapointed. The difference was there but it was very small, not the huge leap in image quality I had ben led to believe would be there. The difference between RAW and JPEG is a lot more substantial than the one between sensor sizes.
Also the OP will be going from an older camera to a newer one and that may be as big a factor or bigger than going from APS-C to FF of the same generation. I'd guess that a modern APS-C camera such as the A6000 would still offer quite an improvement in image quality over a D90.
 
Messages
1,343
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
I jumped from the D90 to the D800E a few years ago, the difference was huge in every way. But at the time I had the funds to also add some juicy FX glass, if you can do the same it is worth it.
12,3 released in 2008 -> 36MP released in 2012. I certainly would think so :D
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,343
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
Also the OP will be going from an older camera to a newer one and that may be as big a factor or bigger than going from APS-C to FF of the same generation. I'd guess that a modern APS-C camera such as the A6000 would still offer quite an improvement in image quality over a D90.
Sure. the A7II and A6000 are both from 2014 and share Pixel count so they were for me good examples to see the difference between the formats.
I did find a bit more clarity and detail in the A7II images but had to look closely (pixelpeep) and for me it was not worth pursueing
 
Messages
122
Edit My Images
Yes
#18
Hi, I had this decision to make recently as well. What swung it for me was the consideration of the quality drop using a dx lens on a fx body - @StewartR said "But be aware that DX crop mode implies a big reduction in your pixel count. The D750 is 24 MP in FX mode but only 10.67 MP in DX mode; the D800 is 36 MP in FX mode but only 16 MP in DX mode."

I also accepted that I'm still early on in my journey learning this craft so still take lots of duff images. Given the ease of digital its not a problem to take lots, try to understand why they are poor, and then bin lots but at 36MP a hit thats a lot of space and processing power to use up to just delete. I decided the 500 was my best option for the moment. One day if I start to find limitations in the fx system I'll upgrade, but I can't see that happening for a while yet.

Sorry not sure how to link to another thread but a search for 'Moving to FF Dilemma' ought to get the thread up.

hth
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,132
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
Yes
#20
I wouldnt ignore the d7500 which is probably the current day version of the d90. Use the money saved on more glass
Was thinking this when I glanced at the thread earlier on my phone. You don't need some of the features of the D500 and it's weight for landscape and travel.

You would be happy with the image quality and articulated touch screen though that the D7500 also has.

Then buy an awesome lens like a Sigma Art 18-35mm DX and have fun.
 
OP
OP
L
Messages
184
Edit My Images
No
#22
Hi, I had this decision to make recently as well. What swung it for me was the consideration of the quality drop using a dx lens on a fx body - @StewartR said "But be aware that DX crop mode implies a big reduction in your pixel count. The D750 is 24 MP in FX mode but only 10.67 MP in DX mode; the D800 is 36 MP in FX mode but only 16 MP in DX mode."
i think I read D850 in Dx mode does drop to like 20something megapixels which however is still more that my current D90

Seriously though good replies here and some very interesting food for thought.
 
Messages
5,590
Edit My Images
No
#23
i am lucky enough to own the d500 and the d850
both are mutts nuts
the d850 has the edge over image quality though
but i love the d500 as well
just depends how big you budget is
the 850 is double the price of the 500
 
Messages
12,127
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#24
Biggest difference between DX and FX *at this level* is the way images render and the amount of manipulation an image can tolerate before showing artifacts, but the difference is small and probably only obvious to the photographer themselves. You should handle the cameras your considering to make sure you're happy with the weight & bulk.
 
OP
OP
L
Messages
184
Edit My Images
No
#25
Biggest difference between DX and FX *at this level* is the way images render and the amount of manipulation an image can tolerate before showing artifacts, but the difference is small and probably only obvious to the photographer themselves. You should handle the cameras your considering to make sure you're happy with the weight & bulk.
I’m not rushing out to buy yet. I definitely need to handle them as both are but heavier than D90.
What do you mean by “amount of manipulation they can handle before showing artefacts” - which handles less DX or FX?
 
Messages
2,132
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
Yes
#26
I’m not rushing out to buy yet. I definitely need to handle them as both are but heavier than D90.
What do you mean by “amount of manipulation they can handle before showing artefacts” - which handles less DX or FX?
Toni means that the dx files fall apart quicker when making large adjustments to the file. That is really down to pixel size and light gathering capabilities/noise density.

The truth is with the dx cameras you are looking at with Nikon the difference is tiny and only noticeable at higher ISO's and/or massive exposure pushes.
 
Messages
14,224
Edit My Images
No
#27
Biggest difference between DX and FX *at this level* is the way images render and the amount of manipulation an image can tolerate before showing artifacts, but the difference is small and probably only obvious to the photographer themselves. You should handle the cameras your considering to make sure you're happy with the weight & bulk.
Tbh you can push the D500 files a lot, I didn’t notice any significant difference from my D750, and DR is right up there with FF too. I’m not saying there might not be a difference how far you can push them if you do it to the extreme, but in ‘normal’ PP I didn’t see anything.
 
Messages
2,132
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
Yes
#28
Tbh you can push the D500 files a lot, I didn’t notice any significant difference from my D750, and DR is right up there with FF too. I’m not saying there might not be a difference how far you can push them if you do it to the extreme, but in ‘normal’ PP I didn’t see anything.
Like you I own both, excellent, cameras and agree. The only test I haven't done yet is downsized the 24mp d750 files to match the 20mp d500 files, or upsized the d500 files to match the d750's. I'm sure that would highlight some differences but unless you crop massively or print very large you won't even consider it.

Even then there are advantages of the dx, with any given lens you are less likely to be cropping for a start when reach limited. And large prints are also affected by blur. That is more visible in the corners of a full frame image. That same glass on the dx only uses the sharpest bit in the centre...
 
OP
OP
L
Messages
184
Edit My Images
No
#29
the biggest drawback I have with my D90 is the iso. I find I hate to use anything more than 1600iso due to noise and even 800 is pushing it sometimes. bar that the D90 has been a fantastic camera for me and something with will stay as a 2nd body.
 
Messages
6,692
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#30
Jeeze, for landscape/travel I tend to use the smallest camera suitable (Nikon1, Fuji x20, etc) and that means tiny sensors w/ poorer ISO performance... but there isn't usually a lot of need to push the ISO for these types of images.

I do have FF cameras (D5/D810) and some of the best lenses for them, but it's not what I would generally choose to carry for this type of stuff. IME, the better the camera handles ISO noise, the more snobby you tend to become about it... I don't like to use any of my cameras above 1600 if I can avoid it. But it really makes little difference in the final results, and it's probably not going to make/break an image.

Unless your goal is producing fine art (very large) images I would not suggest going to the D850, or any FF for that matter. Stick with DX, or go even smaller so you can carry "more" with less hassle. My entire Nikon1 kit (body + 6 lenses) fits in a bag barely big enough to hold my D5 body alone... and it probably weighs no more either.
 
Messages
12,127
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#32
I've owned 2 crop sensor cameras (Sony a58 and Nikon D70 IR converted) and a D610 full frame, and for me there's something I prefer about the images out of the FF camera for landscape and people photography. It's partly greater control to limit depth of field, though it does require more attention to focus point and aperture, but the images seems to have a slightly more 3D quality, if that makes sense. If I shot sports or wildlife then it would be crop all the way, but I don't mind hauling the D610 and a few carefully chosen lenses around for the difference *I* think it gives me (we're in British Columbia right now, and the outfit has already been on some moderately tough hikes).
 
Messages
14,224
Edit My Images
No
#33
I've owned 2 crop sensor cameras (Sony a58 and Nikon D70 IR converted) and a D610 full frame, and for me there's something I prefer about the images out of the FF camera for landscape and people photography. It's partly greater control to limit depth of field, though it does require more attention to focus point and aperture, but the images seems to have a slightly more 3D quality, if that makes sense. If I shot sports or wildlife then it would be crop all the way, but I don't mind hauling the D610 and a few carefully chosen lenses around for the difference *I* think it gives me (we're in British Columbia right now, and the outfit has already been on some moderately tough hikes).
Out of curiosity then, which of these has more 3D quality? I’ve always said the same about FF having more 3D quality but I took these the other day and am genuinely surprised how similar they are. I’ve been really working on honing my PP skills to get the best out of my Olympus and am really happy with what I can achieve. Granted it’s harder work with m4/3 to get them to look ‘right’, but it’s made me realise just how important PP is and learning how best to process each format.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-2-owners-thread.395080/page-325#post-8256939
 
Messages
6,692
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#34
the images seems to have a slightly more 3D quality, if that makes sense.
Not to me... That's kind of like getting wrapped up about the bokeh characteristics of a particular lens (which most don't even understand properly). Or the color/contrast rendition of a particular lens/sensor... yes, they can vary somewhat, ut it is usually so minor as to be negligible. And with digital those things are pretty simple to adjust to suit.

Out of curiosity then, which of these has more 3D quality?
IDK which is which, but the colors of the first look a bit more like what I get from Nikons with the camera standard setting, the second looks a bit more like what I get from my Fuji w/ the adobe standard setting.
The editing required may be somewhat different, but the starting point can make a very big difference... the profile initially applied can apply changes that are hard to work against (or more beneficial).
 
Messages
2,900
Name
Stu
Edit My Images
No
#35
I’ve got a Nikon D90 at present and am looking to upgrade. I’m thinking of either sticking with a Dx maybe the Nikon D500 or going down the Fx route of maybe the D850.
Apart from costs any other advice?
Some of my current lenses will work with Fx so not a big issue and some I can upgrade in the future no rush.
Main photography interest is landscapes and travel.
For what it's worth the D750 is still a mighty fine camera and probably the best value FX Nikon camera - quite possibly the best value full frame dSLR camera by any manufacturer. It hasn't really aged in 4 years and I can't see it doing so anytime soon either. The money saved from not getting a D850 or whatnot could be spent on some good glass to replace your DX only lenses.
 
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#36
Out of curiosity then, which of these has more 3D quality? I’ve always said the same about FF having more 3D quality but I took these the other day and am genuinely surprised how similar they are. I’ve been really working on honing my PP skills to get the best out of my Olympus and am really happy with what I can achieve. Granted it’s harder work with m4/3 to get them to look ‘right’, but it’s made me realise just how important PP is and learning how best to process each format.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-2-owners-thread.395080/page-325#post-8256939

I'm gonna say the bottom one is the Olympus, for one reason only, the water is 'creamier' in the top image
 
Messages
14,224
Edit My Images
No
#37
I'm gonna say the bottom one is the Olympus, for one reason only, the water is 'creamier' in the top image
Different shutter speeds that's why :facepalm: :LOL:
 
Messages
14,224
Edit My Images
No
#39
Oh, I took it you set them both the same, well in that case, no clue :D
No, I didn't take them as a means to compare tbh, but after I did I was surprised how similar they were so posted them on here. Difficult to get them exactly the same anyway when the D850 has a base ISO of 64 vs 200 on the Olympus. You could of course set the D850 to ISO 200 but then you're not getting the best from it ;)
 
Messages
11,953
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#40
No, I didn't take them as a means to compare tbh, but after I did I was surprised how similar they were so posted them on here. Difficult to get them exactly the same anyway when the D850 has a base ISO of 64 vs 200 on the Olympus. You could of course set the D850 to ISO 200 but then you're not getting the best from it ;)
Either way, the Olympus holds up extremely well, as nobody could be certain if they had gun to head. I remember when I switched from FX to Fuji X and fearing a dramatic drop in IQ, I didn't find this to be the case whatsoever. Only in low light [apart from obvious file size differences] did it really show. And that was older gen Fuji, same era as your Em1
 
Top