Full frame or dx?

Jiffy

Jiffy

Messages
303
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
I am at a cross roads. I am wanting to up grade. So is something like a D2xs a good option? Or do I save for a D700? Basically I guess I am asking if it really is that important to go full frame? is Dx really that bad?
 
As Scott says, it depends on what you shoot, a D2xs isn't going to offer you anything in the way of an upgrade if you shoot portraits or if you need high isos. a D700 by comparison with shoot comfortably at iso 5000......
 
scottthehat said:
nowt wrong with dx, different cameras for different jobs,
what are you main wants and what do you shoot.
Click to expand...

Well I shoot most things really. Mainly portraita, weddings, street ans landscapes. Some more arty stuuff too but not on as bigger scale.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
As Scott says, it depends on what you shoot, a D2xs isn't going to offer you anything in the way of an upgrade if you shoot portraits or if you need high isos. a D700 by comparison with shoot comfortably at iso 5000......
Click to expand...

Thats very interesting. i am aware of the high iso capabilities with the D700 but thats not the be and end all if I am honest. People have used cameras in the past with nothing like those iso capabilities and produced amazing pictures. I have fallen in love with the D2xs if I am honest. Its more just to see what people reactions and feelings to the two seperate forms are.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
As Scott says, it depends on what you shoot, a D2xs isn't going to offer you anything in the way of an upgrade if you shoot portraits or if you need high isos. a D700 by comparison with shoot comfortably at iso 5000......
Click to expand...

Thats very interesting. i am aware of the high iso capabilities with the D700 but thats not the be and end all if I am honest. People have used cameras in the past with nothing like those iso capabilities and produced amazing pictures. I have fallen in love with the D2xs if I am honest. Its more just to see what people reactions and feelings to the two seperate forms are.
 
well as said both cameras are great, both well built(d2xs probably abit better) but the d700 has a better af system and better high iso,better dynamic range,
but the dx cameras have the advatae of the crop factor which can be handy for wildlife and sport.
i think you would find it hard to tell them apart under iso 800, so if you dont need high iso thats ok, personally i love my d300 but the d700 is something else and i wish i could afford a 750mm lens for it to match what i have on the d300 in (35mm terms).
 
scottthehat said:
well as said both cameras are great, both well built(d2xs probably abit better) but the d700 has a better af system and better high iso,better dynamic range,
but the dx cameras have the advatae of the crop factor which can be handy for wildlife and sport.
i think you would find it hard to tell them apart under iso 800, so if you dont need high iso thats ok, personally i love my d300 but the d700 is something else and i wish i could afford a 750mm lens for it to match what i have on the d300 in (35mm terms).
Click to expand...

Thats a very good point, that crop factor is such an advantage. Cheers mate.
 
Jiffy said:
People have used cameras in the past with nothing like those iso capabilities and produced amazing pictures..
Click to expand...

It really winds me up when people come out with that old tosh :)

Those exact same cameras are on ebay for peanuts.. why not buy one of them then? No? why arn't we all using cameras from 10 or 20 yrs ago as they got amazing results?
 
KIPAX said:
It really winds me up when people come out with that old tosh :)

Those exact same cameras are on ebay for peanuts.. why not buy one of them then? No? why arn't we all using cameras from 10 or 20 yrs ago as they got amazing results?
Click to expand...

Its my understanding that cameras such as the d2xs is only about 5 years old not the 10-20 bracket you mentioned. My point being that using dx or other smaller sensor cameras can still achieve good results. Cameras like the d2xs. Of course older digital cameras will be cheaper as they have far less mega pixles, smaller buffers, lower quality. But cameras from 20 years ago would be film based and some of those (leica, medium format and top range nikon, canons etc) are more expensive or at least in the same price bracket as a d700. So hardly peanuts.

And just as a side note the Nikon D2xs sells second hand in the region of £700 - £900 depending on conditition and shutter counts. Again hardly peanuts.
 
KIPAX said:
It really winds me up when people come out with that old tosh :)

Those exact same cameras are on ebay for peanuts.. why not buy one of them then? No? why arn't we all using cameras from 10 or 20 yrs ago as they got amazing results?
Click to expand...

Its my understanding that cameras such as the d2xs is only about 5 years old not the 10-20 bracket you mentioned. My point being that using dx or other smaller sensor cameras can still achieve good results. Cameras like the d2xs. Of course older digital cameras will be cheaper as they have far less mega pixles, smaller buffers, lower quality. But cameras from 20 years ago would be film based and some of those (leica, medium format and top range nikon, canons etc) are more expensive or at least in the same price bracket as a d700. So hardly peanuts.

And just as a side note the Nikon D2xs sells second hand in the region of £700 - £900 depending on conditition and shutter counts. Again hardly peanuts.
 
scottthehat said:
well as said both cameras are great, both well built(d2xs probably abit better)
Click to expand...

I'd say the D2 series would def be built better than the D700. They are more watertight than the D3.

Jiffy said:
Its my understanding that cameras such as the d2xs is only about 5 years old not the 10-20 bracket you mentioned. My point being that using dx or other smaller sensor cameras can still achieve good results. Cameras like the d2xs. Of course older digital cameras will be cheaper as they have far less mega pixles, smaller buffers, lower quality.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about that unless you plan on printing big.

When I had my D3 (I only mention this so you know I was comparing to a good camera) I got hold of a Canon 1D mk1 on the cheap and was surprised by how nice the images out of a 4mp camera could be.

Jiffy said:
And just as a side note the Nikon D2xs sells second hand in the region of £700 - £900 depending on conditition and shutter counts. Again hardly peanuts.
Click to expand...

That kind money will easily get you full frame with Canon in the shape of a 5D classic but you'd need to probably double that to go FX with Nikon, even 2nd hand.
 
fixedimage said:
I'd say the D2 series would def be built better than the D700. They are more watertight than the D3.



I wouldn't worry about that unless you plan on printing big.

When I had my D3 (I only mention this so you know I was comparing to a good camera) I got hold of a Canon 1D mk1 on the cheap and was surprised by how nice the images out of a 4mp camera could be.



That kind money will easily get you full frame with Canon in the shape of a 5D classic but you'd need to probably double that to go FX with Nikon, even 2nd hand.
Click to expand...

I have all Nikon gear and the 5D I know is a great camera but not a fan of canon, doesn't feel right and I find Nikons optics to be better quality. How big is big? In regards to printing? Full frame is nice for old lenses from film days that can be used with no crop factor but I think that dx is still great. I do need a camera with great build quality. Thanks
 
Jiffy said:
Its my understanding that cameras such as the d2xs is only about 5 years old not the 10-20 bracket you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Five years is a long time where digital cameras are concerned, the D2Xs is essentially just a tweaked D2X and that's a 7 year old design. The likes of the D300 will surpass it in most areas, except build quality, but only to an extent that the older camera will be handier for hammering nails in should the need arise!
 
Jiffy said:
I have all Nikon gear and the 5D I know is a great camera but not a fan of canon, doesn't feel right and I find Nikons optics to be better quality. How big is big? In regards to printing? Full frame is nice for old lenses from film days that can be used with no crop factor but I think that dx is still great. I do need a camera with great build quality. Thanks
Click to expand...

Yeah sorry, I wasn't suggesting you should go Canon, I was just meaning that to go FF with Nikon involves a lot of expenditure.

Without interpolation the 4mp 1D gives an image of just over 8"x5" at 300ppi.
You could probably get away with printing at least twice that size without it looking too bad.

The D2xs is 12mp right? So 3x the resolution of that 1D. You can imagine how large a print you could get from it.
 
As Graham the OP has a Fuji S5 Pro, he may like to consider the following quote from a fellow user:

Truly, I was underwhelmed with the D700 on the extended try. It's a lousy SOOC jpeg machine, it is overly sensitive in performance to lens choices, AWB is atrocious in anything but direct sunlight.

Source
 
photon said:
As Graham the OP has a Fuji S5 Pro, he may like to consider the following quote from a fellow user:

Truly, I was underwhelmed with the D700 on the extended try. It's a lousy SOOC jpeg machine, it is overly sensitive in performance to lens choices, AWB is atrocious in anything but direct sunlight.

Source
Click to expand...


Wow sorry don't agree with that at all. I shoot the D700 and the D3 and the D700's only real shortcoming in comparison is build and fps. Im not a jpg shooter so can't really comment there, but I am very surprised with someone being 'underwhelmed' by it.
 
photon said:
As Graham the OP has a Fuji S5 Pro, he may like to consider the following quote from a fellow user:

Truly, I was underwhelmed with the D700 on the extended try. It's a lousy SOOC jpeg machine, it is overly sensitive in performance to lens choices, AWB is atrocious in anything but direct sunlight.

Source
Click to expand...

This Graham has both an S5 and a D700 and I can't say I'd agree with that, although I, like the other Graham, don't shoot jpeg.

It's interesting that the author of that comment criticises the D700 for being "overly sensitive in performance to lens choices" as that is an accusation that is normally also levied at the S5, so I can only assume that he is using cheap consumer-grade glass.....
 
I'm not sure what sort of abuse you folks give your gear, but it can't be as much as a jobbing motorsport photographer does... the D700 is fine on build - the only problems I have seen are cracked back screen (I don't think anything else is harder!) and one menu button death by sand (probably if you avoid Le Touquet beach cross, you'll be fine :D)

"straight out of camera jpeg" ("SOOC jpeg machine"), well, two things,

1) the commentator obviously knows b****r all about producing a quality shot - ie SOOC is never the final image.

2) Using picture controls you can tune the jpeg output to how you want it. I don't like any of the ones on the camera and the other downloadable ones equally aren't to my taste, so we used the tools and derived our own.

The D700 is an excellent tool, arguably from any vendor, only the D3S surpases it so far.

Only the obscure picky wallies who've never used it properly would say anything else.
 
photon said:
Truly, I was underwhelmed with the D700 on the extended try. It's a lousy SOOC jpeg machine, it is overly sensitive in performance to lens choices, AWB is atrocious in anything but direct sunlight.
Click to expand...

I suspect he had no idea how to use it ... the D700 is a superb camera
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I can only assume that he is using cheap consumer-grade glass.....
Click to expand...

He mentions the Nikkor 17-55mm in his opening post.

Apologies for what may have looked like trolling, but the OP rather vaguely says he wants to upgrade. What's he hoping to achieve?
 
desantnik said:
I'm not sure what sort of abuse you folks give your gear, but it can't be as much as a jobbing motorsport photographer does... the D700 is fine on build - the only problems I have seen are cracked back screen (I don't think anything else is harder!) and one menu button death by sand (probably if you avoid Le Touquet beach cross, you'll be fine :D)

"straight out of camera jpeg" ("SOOC jpeg machine"), well, two things,

1) the commentator obviously knows b****r all about producing a quality shot - ie SOOC is never the final image.

2) Using picture controls you can tune the jpeg output to how you want it. I don't like any of the ones on the camera and the other downloadable ones equally aren't to my taste, so we used the tools and derived our own.

The D700 is an excellent tool, arguably from any vendor, only the D3S surpases it so far.

Only the obscure picky wallies who've never used it properly would say anything else.
Click to expand...


Oh I agree the D700 is by no means flimsy, and I'm hard on my gear by a lot of peoples standards. I also own the D300s another tough camera body.

I would also say if that guy is shooting jpg I would expect him to be doing a custom WB not rely on AWB, so I'm not sure I would put too much faith in that assessment of the D700.
 
it doesnt really matter. it's all about how much you love your photos and how much you want to spend. of course full frame is better. but more expensive.
 
photon said:
He mentions the Nikkor 17-55mm in his opening post.

Apologies for what may have looked like trolling, but the OP rather vaguely says he wants to upgrade. What's he hoping to achieve?
Click to expand...


I noticed that in his Flickrstream, which leads me to wonder if his complaint is more to do with the D700 cropping down to a DX (5mp or so) image when fitted with the 17-55mm ?
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Five years is a long time where digital cameras are concerned, the D2Xs is essentially just a tweaked D2X and that's a 7 year old design. The likes of the D300 will surpass it in most areas, except build quality, but only to an extent that the older camera will be handier for hammering nails in should the need arise!
Click to expand...

Haha. Well 7 year old design or not, its still a quality piece of kit, its never too much about the camera you use but more how you use it. A great photographer will in mostcas es make great images with even a standard compact. I am not saying I am great, not by any stretch of the imagination, but thats still a very good pro level camera. The swinging point for me is that the D2x(s) is a pro body, the D700 is not. And with it gripped its not as comfortable as a pro body. I want to go to a pro body and the D3 is far away in price so for me I will stick to my first thought and trade my D200 towards a D2xs. Cheers
 
The D700 is a great camera, having used my fathers while we were out on a job. And having seen his results from the last year from it, truely brilliant piece of kit. I have not heard of any of the problems mentioned previously, I can only say good things about it. :)
 
sparkoss said:
it doesnt really matter. it's all about how much you love your photos and how much you want to spend. of course full frame is better. but more expensive.
Click to expand...

Well to a point. Yes its more expensive but I don't think its better. Both formats have good and bad points. I love my photos but I don't need to spend a load of cash to take better photos. As long as you have a some what decent camera then thats all you need. Of course if I could afford a D3/s/x then by all accounts I might very well get it. Haha. But then agian, maybe not.
 
i have used a d2xs for quite a few years now with a d200 as a backup i have never felt the need to chage the d2xs as it does everything i want ...high iso`s are not an issue to me ......it is fast responsive well built easy to handle (think d200/300 plus grip size) menus are easy to navigate .......coupled with good glass you wont go wrong ...if i had a negative i would say that the screen isnt the best for picture review but that would be all ..........................of course i have not tried the 700 and see no reason to upgrade at the moment just to keep up with trends/have the latest equipment when the gear i have does such a great job
 
There's no doubt the D700 is a superb camera but and it's a big big but, it's as affordable as full frame with Nikon gets and it's far from cheap.

For a lot less money the D2 series offers pro build quality with integrated grip ergonomics, high fps rate and possibly most important of all, the feeling you are holding a pro camera.

I was a Nikon user with a D3, now a Canon user with a 1Dmk2 and a 5Dmk1, the 5D is much better for iso performance and has a much better user interface (the 1D is all 2 handed operation) yet the 1D is still my goto body if I have to pick just one. The 5D only gets used when I'm taking both or when space/weight or iso performance is of the utmost importance.
 
grudie said:
i have used a d2xs for quite a few years now with a d200 as a backup i have never felt the need to chage the d2xs as it does everything i want ...high iso`s are not an issue to me ......it is fast responsive well built easy to handle (think d200/300 plus grip size) menus are easy to navigate .......coupled with good glass you wont go wrong ...if i had a negative i would say that the screen isnt the best for picture review but that would be all ..........................of course i have not tried the 700 and see no reason to upgrade at the moment just to keep up with trends/have the latest equipment when the gear i have does such a great job
Click to expand...

Thank you, thats exactly what I am saying. No point in following trends. All I need now is a place that sells a D2xs, they are difficult to find. Haha
 
Jiffy said:
Thank you, thats exactly what I am saying. No point in following trends. All I need now is a place that sells a D2xs, they are difficult to find. Haha
Click to expand...

Mifsuds have 3 D2x bodies, I think a software upgrade makes it the same as an 'S', not 100% sure but I think that is the case.
 
A D2x with firmware 2.0 is a very close match for a D2Xs i cant remember what the exact differences are but a quick google should show them up .......i was very very tempted by the one at grays yesterday i must admit, could almost call that brand new (prob an ex demo model)
 
I have seen that model in greys, thats very tempting indeed :D
I think after a software update its basically the same, the only difference is the scrren size is bigger on a d2xs. I might have to go for a D2x istead of an 's' as they're far easier to come across. Thanks everyone for the help :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top