FX or DX Nikon?

P

Philx1979

Messages
987
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys,

I currently have a a couple of Nikon dx cameras D300s, and have been looking at FX for quite some time, but only thing that is holding me back is the range of the DX.

Currently I shoot a lot of football for local papers and use a Nikon D300s and Nikon 70-200mm VR1 and when the light is good I chuck on a TC14x to give me 280mm a 35mm equivalent of 420mm.
And if I was to go full frame it's gonna cost me a fortune to get something of 400mm range hence staying on DX.

But was chatting to guy yesterday and he said well the choice is either range and lesser resolution vs lesser range and high res, in other words he says I could go full frame and lose the 'reach' but I could crop down alot instead but I wasn't so sure of this I still think its better to have the reach no?

Doesn't seem to be any affordable lens for full frame to reach up around 400mm for football.
 
I think that the focal length of the two lenses is the same on both cameras (in the sense that a 200mm lens is a 200mm lens regardless of the camera it is used on). However the DX lens crops off the rest of the image so the field of view of the DX camera is more like a longer lens (i.e. the D300 does not have a longer reach, it just appears that way as the field of view is different due to part of the image missing). Also, apologies if you already knew this.

As such it might be that you are better off sticking to a 12mp D300s than a 12mp D700 if it is purely for cropping, as they are both the same resolution and you would be better off cropping the D300s image than the D700 one I think.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you change one of the D300s for an FX and have the best of both worlds?
 
Nguss don't think that's right.?

Jim that's a good idea may have to go down that route, only prob then is I'd have to sell up that 17-55 to change it for the 24-70 and that's more expense again, hmmm difficult
 
Jim_Tod said:
Why don't you change one of the D300s for an FX and have the best of both worlds?
Click to expand...

This is what I'd do (and plan to do) also. The framerate of the D300s, autofocus and the crop factor make it quite good for sports photography but you are right in that if you went FX, you'd lose the reach (but gain ISO performance).

I'm gonna get a D800 probably at the end of september to go along side my D300s as 3 of my 4 lenses are FX anyway, which makes it fairly simple for me!
 
Philx1979 said:
Nguss don't think that's right.?

Jim that's a good idea may have to go down that route, only prob then is I'd have to sell up that 17-55 to change it for the 24-70 and that's more expense again, hmmm difficult
Click to expand...

It is.
 
Cheers Phil, which part? I am pretty sure that I am right about the focal length thing, but am definitely happy to be shown otherwise. The focal length of a lens is constant and does not change dependant on the camera body you are using, but the field of view with the lens does change as you are getting a smaller section of the full frame equivalent image. Here's an example of what I mean with photos

http://mansurovs.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

You do end up with more pixels in the DX image as the sensor is smaller as opposed to having the same number of megapixels spread out across a larger sensor though.
 
Nguss said:
Cheers Phil, which part? I am pretty sure that I am right about the focal length thing, but am definitely happy to be shown otherwise. The focal length of a lens is constant and does not change dependant on the camera body you are using, but the field of view with the lens does change as you are getting a smaller section of the full frame equivalent image. Here's an example of what I mean with photos

http://mansurovs.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

You do end up with more pixels in the DX image as the sensor is smaller as opposed to having the same number of megapixels spread out across a larger sensor though.
Click to expand...

Its the sensor that crops to effectively gives the lens "more zoom".

Anyway I don't think that's important and I'm sure the op knows.
 
Last edited:
Yup, it's probably me being a bit daft. It was just that the op said that the reason for staying with DX was there was no affordable 400mm in FX, whereas I was just trying to make the point that he is not getting 400mm on DX by using a 1.4TC. In that sense that there is no reach advantage with a DX camera over an FX one and cropping the FX image, the advantage is in the DX having better cropped resolution.

But anyway, personally I would buy a D800 if I could afford one for general photography, but a used D3 for sport as I have read that the focus on it etc is excellent.
 
So a fx camera (d800) in a dx mode will give the same view as the dx (d300s) camera both at 200mm?

So there isn't a real 'reach' issue as such as the fx just gives you more picture around the edge so appears the picture was taken at a less focal length??
 
Philx1979 said:
So a fx camera (d800) in a dx mode will give the same view as the dx (d300s) camera both at 200mm?

So there isn't a real 'reach' issue as such as the fx just gives you more picture around the edge so appears the picture was taken at a less focal length??
Click to expand...

Most fx cameras will have a dx mode (where your 200mm lens looks the same as it does on your dx body) but depending on the fx resolution shall determine the dx crop mode resolution.

The d700 for example has a dx mode of 5mp.

The 36mp monster that is the D800 has a dx crop mode of 16mp and with a battery grip gives you 6fps.

The D800 is like having 2 cameras in 1, the D800 and the D7000.
 
I can't believe I've been thinking all there years that dx actually gives you more 'reach'. Thank you so much for explaining people, learn something new everyday for sure!
 
Philx1979 said:
I can't believe I've been thinking all there years that dx actually gives you more 'reach'. Thank you so much for explaining people, learn something new everyday for sure!
Click to expand...

Effectively it does...but its just a cropped image. If you wasn't cheap reach you should look into the Nikon 1 system.
 
Like someone else mentioned the frame rate on a d700 and d800 might also be a problem for you as well as the reach. I would hold on for a bit and wait for the d400.
 
rjbell said:
Like someone else mentioned the frame rate on a d700 and d800 might also be a problem for you as well as the reach. I would hold on for a bit and wait for the d400.
Click to expand...


Yes this is sounding an awesome camera, well the rumoured specs are anyway, just need to hurry up and bring it out lol
 
Instead of selling the 17-55 and having to get the 24-70, you could go for the 28-70, which are available for not much more than you will get for the 17-55.
Excellent lens on a FX body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top