Nikon`s best DX format

markyboy.1967

markyboy.1967

Messages
8,171
Name
Mark Molloy
Edit My Images
Yes
What is Nikon`s best DX format camera. Im not taking FX which can shoot DX, just a crop frame camera.

By best i mean best at handling highish ISO, best weather proofing, best build quality.

At the moment i have the D300 but thinking about the D300s but it doesnt give me much as i dont want/need movies. I believe the D7000 is 1 stop better at handling ISO but has iffy waterproofing...
 
If you want best weather sealing, then the d300

If you mean best low light ability, then the d7000

If you mean best handling, well that's personal preference.

You can't really define best, as the variables are so great.
 
There was talk of a d400, but when is any bodies guess.
There is a dire need for a DX "pro " body. Not everyone wants fx. Many people have been calling for a d2x like camera, but its never happened and probably never will.
 
I would have agreed with what Tom says but after covering several events over the last few months where it's rained in biblical proportions, I'm mightily impressed with the D7000's ability to work through all sorts of conditions.

I still reckon the best DX as a camera to handle is the D2x but it's sensor falls way behind those of modern bodies, although as a studio camera it's still amazing.

TCR4x4 said:
....There is a dire need for a DX "pro " body. Not everyone wants fx. Many people have been calling for a d2x like camera, but its never happened and probably never will.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I would buy a D2x with a D7000 sensor and AF unit in a heartbeat. I still see DX being the best all-round format...
 
After spending a full day this week in Alan McFadyen's fantastic hide [with full cloud cover most of the time] I gave my new D7000 a good run against my D300s - with a 300mm f2.8 plus various TCs and I have to say I'm very impressed with the D7000 quality - better than the D300s in terms of noise and I didn't really notice the speed difference.

I was often shooting at ISO 1600 and having to keep the lens wide open and managed keepers with the D7000 when I deleted the D300s images. One at 1600 and f2.8 attached from the D7000 as an example. Considering the light, the ISO and the shallow DoF I was pleased with this.

DSC_1985.jpg


Sounds daft but the shutter release sound is less harsh and seemed to spook the birds less too.
 
I'm interested in this as I am looking to upgrade my d5100 and it is looking like The d7000 is the way to go.
 
Talking of noise, the D7000 quiet mode really is quiet too. The D800's is just slower, but just as noisy... so is actually worse! I miss the quietness of the D7000 in quiet mode.
 
I use a D300s with a D7000 as a back up body. I have to say the high ISO performance on the D7000 makes it my first choice for low light out of the 2.

Having said that I do prefer my D300s overall, it just feels better to handle.
 
IMO, stick with the D300 for full time, weather resistant Dx and use the Dx mode on your D700 if you need the high ISO capabilities. There may possibly be a new Dx Nikon in the pipeline - I don't look at the rumour sites, I prefer to look at known facts rather than conjecture.
 
Maybe the answer to the lack of a D300 replacement is that Nikon want to force people to go for a D800 and use it in DX mode ?!?! Obviously it doesn't have the FPS that some people want as a lot of the DX users will be sports etc who want the reach but I wonder how a D800 in crop compares with a D300 or D7000.

Has anyone seen any comparisons ?
 
That is surprising. That the crop mode of the 800 kicks D7000 butt! I know it's not what OP wants, but it seems the best dx camera out right now is also one of the best ever fx cameras.
 
Cagey75 said:
That is surprising. That the crop mode of the 800 kicks D7000 butt! I know it's not what OP wants, but it seems the best dx camera out right now is also one of the best ever fx cameras.
Click to expand...


But surely people buy DX cameras these days because they can't afford FX? There's only really one practical reason for shooting DX, and that is the extra reach it offers with long lenses. There's no other advantage to it as far as I can see these days.. apart from price of course. If someone has £2000 to splash on a new camera I really doubt they'd be considering a DX camera anyway.

I still maintain the best DX camera is the D7000. Ok.. it's not a "pro" camera like the D300s, but the D300s is long in the tooth now, and unless someone is a hardened press photographer, or serially abuses their equipment, there's no massive disadvantage to a "non pro" body. The D7000 is still tough - part magnesium body, and it still has great handling. It's a little too small IMO, but add the grip and it handles really well. The D7000 offers higher res, lower noise, 1080P should you need it, excellent remote triggering on the cheap with the ML-L3, built in intervalometer... I could go on.. it's loaded. The quality of RAWs in produces are amazing. I was sad to see mine go.
 
Pookeyhead said:
But surely people buy DX cameras these days because they can't afford FX? There's only really one practical reason for shooting DX, and that is the extra reach it offers with long lenses. There's no other advantage to it as far as I can see these days.. apart from price of course. If someone has £2000 to splash on a new camera I really doubt they'd be considering a DX camera anyway....
Click to expand...

That has always been one of the strongest arguments for DX (aside from overall price compared to FX) because it's always been cheaper to get the effective field of view of a long lens at a good price than it has to do the same on an FX sensor.

However, now the megapixels have gone up on FX, the crop mode definitely is more attractive, although the overall price is still a massively prohibitive factor - £2000+ for a D800 as opposed to £750 for a D7000 is a big, big difference....

If there is a D400 that carries a DX chip that sits at around £1100-1200 and is effectively is a bigger, tougher D7000 with a slight jump up in IQ, I'd buy that over any FX personally.... the saving alone would be enough for me but it would give me enough for what I need... I don't need an FX body for what I do, although Nikon are making a more complelling argument for people to switch to FX because of the lack of progress with a DX body, a'la D200/D300...
 
The D7000 is around £650 on Amazon at the moment.

Do you really need the toughness of a pro camera? The D7000 is tough enough for the vast majority of people I would have thought. Nikon may list the D7000 in their "consumer" range, but to me that's just irrelevant. Unless you're mixing it up with press guys in all weathers, or out in the field as a wildlife photographer on a professional basis, I can't imagine the D7000 letting anyone down.
 
Pookeyhead said:
But surely people buy DX cameras these days because they can't afford FX? There's only really one practical reason for shooting DX, and that is the extra reach it offers with long lenses. There's no other advantage to it as far as I can see these days.. apart from price of course. If someone has £2000 to splash on a new camera I really doubt they'd be considering a DX camera anyway.

I still maintain the best DX camera is the D7000. Ok.. it's not a "pro" camera like the D300s, but the D300s is long in the tooth now, and unless someone is a hardened press photographer, or serially abuses their equipment, there's no massive disadvantage to a "non pro" body. The D7000 is still tough - part magnesium body, and it still has great handling. It's a little too small IMO, but add the grip and it handles really well. The D7000 offers higher res, lower noise, 1080P should you need it, excellent remote triggering on the cheap with the ML-L3, built in intervalometer... I could go on.. it's loaded. The quality of RAWs in produces are amazing. I was sad to see mine go.
Click to expand...


Certainly. If I couldn't afford to make the move to FX, I would have bought a D7000. Cracking camera, I know a few who own them and are delighted with them. But I also know those who buy them as back up cameras, or for that extra reach for sports and wildlife. But now D800 owners have that privilege all in one.


Of course thats no good to anyone on a DX budget, I just thought the comparison was interesting. That an FX camera, in crop mode, can still out shine the best DX only cam out there [IMHO]
 
It's not a matter of just cost. I already have the D700 for FX which I really like and ave used it at times for wildlife as well. I ave the D300 which I love for wildlife but would love it to have better ISO than it does. I use it in all weather so waterproofing is quite important( I know I could buy a cover but don't really I've them).

What is the megapixel count if the D800 in crop mode? Is it 1.2,1.4 or 1.5 in crop mode as that could mean a difference as well. I'm spending allot of money on big lenses and a tc so I don't want to be getting less effective distance with a crop mode less than I have with my DX camera just now.
 
There are 3 crop modes. 1.2, 1.5 and 5:4. In 1.5 crop mode I believe it's 15mp, and you're still getting the ISO performance as you would in FX mode Which is better than the D700.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
What is the megapixel count if the D800 in crop mode? Is it 1.2,1.4 or 1.5 in crop mode as that could mean a difference as well. I'm spending allot of money on big lenses and a tc so I don't want to be getting less effective distance with a crop mode less than I have with my DX camera just now.
Click to expand...

It's 15mp in crop mode Mark, but you may just as well shoot in FX then crop on the PC, same difference.
 
Martyn... said:
It's 15mp in crop mode Mark, but you may just as well shoot in FX then crop on the PC, same difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think it's a decision you need to take on the day or when your subject is in front of you. I like to see the bird/wildlife bigger in the viewfinder as it makes me feel and nice inside:cuckoo:. If its in FX mode then that subject looks smaller in the frame until you crop it.

Can the FX/DX be set up to be changed quickly?
 
Martyn... said:
It's 15mp in crop mode Mark, but you may just as well shoot in FX then crop on the PC, same difference.
Click to expand...

There's a few reasons why shooting in DX mode is better - the file size from the off will be significantly smaller, it's better to get the framing right out in the field, and if you use a third party grip you can get 6fps in DX mode.
 
Martyn... said:
You should be able to assign a button to do so.

You are aware that the focus area select dedicated switch is missing from the D800, button and command wheel job now.
Click to expand...
I wasn`t mate, but thanks for mentioning it.
 
Since the D300s has been discontinued it leaves a big hole in Nikon's DX line up. The D7000 is better for a lot of things compared to the D300, but its build, controls layout and AF system are still that of an enthusiasts camera.
There are still many pro's and serious amatures who still use DX so it would make sense for Nikon to provide them with a D400, but ... Nikon have been saying for a while that it sees FX as the future for the company. By not adding a top end DX model to its line up they will effectively force pro's and serious amatures to upgrade their systems to FX if they want to continue in the trend of better ISO and all the rest of it. That will mean a lot of fresh new cash rolling in for Nikon.
I have a D300 and although I would love better high ISO, the camera suits my needs for the time being. Think Im gonna wait a bit longer to see how Nikon proceeds with their DX line up before making the jump to a D800. All my lenses are FX apart from my 17-55 2.8 so it wouldnt be too much of a hardship to trade it in against a 24-70 2.8.
Ideally though Id prefer a pro DX body with higher resolution and ISO usability as I love the extra reach. In the past Iv found DX mode on a D700 hard to properly frame a picture with.
Come on Nikon, give me what I want ........ :lol:
 
Size and portability is the main reason i havent gone to fx (yet...)
Take a wide angle and a standard zoom of similar apertures
10-24 + 17-50 = 894 g
16-35 + 24-70 = 1580g
And the difference can be noticeable when you are otherwise travelling light!



Pookeyhead said:
But surely people buy DX cameras these days because they can't afford FX? There's only really one practical reason for shooting DX, and that is the extra reach it offers with long lenses. There's no other advantage to it as far as I can see these days.. apart from price of course. If someone has £2000 to splash on a new camera I really doubt they'd be considering a DX camera anyway.

I still maintain the best DX camera is the D7000. Ok.. it's not a "pro" camera like the D300s, but the D300s is long in the tooth now, and unless someone is a hardened press photographer, or serially abuses their equipment, there's no massive disadvantage to a "non pro" body. The D7000 is still tough - part magnesium body, and it still has great handling. It's a little too small IMO, but add the grip and it handles really well. The D7000 offers higher res, lower noise, 1080P should you need it, excellent remote triggering on the cheap with the ML-L3, built in intervalometer... I could go on.. it's loaded. The quality of RAWs in produces are amazing. I was sad to see mine go.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cagey75 said:
There's a few reasons why shooting in DX mode is better - the file size from the off will be significantly smaller, it's better to get the framing right out in the field, and if you use a third party grip you can get 6fps in DX mode.
Click to expand...

I believe Mark was hoping that the subject size in the viewfinder would be larger in crop mode, that is not the case, is it.

I have given it some thought myself Mark, but if I am going to spend that sort of money I think I would rather save a bit longer and get the D4, you never know in the meantime they may produce a jaw dropping D400, having said that I prefer the larger viewfinder of the FX range ... I can find things easier :D




.
 
Last edited:
Martyn... said:
I believe Mark was hoping that the subject size in the viewfinder would be larger in crop mode, that is not the case, is it.

I have given it some thought myself Mark, but if I am going to spend that sort of money I think I would rather save a bit longer and get the D4, you never know in the meantime they may produce a jaw dropping D400, having said that I prefer the larger viewfinder of the FX range ... I can find things easier :D




.
Click to expand...

Ah righty.

I discovered a neat little trick, well not a trick, but it helps DX mode - Switch off AF point illumination [not really needed unless you're in the dark] and when in DX crop modes the area not being used is darkened, not blacked out completely but goes a dark grey, much easier frame this way.
 
Another advantage of having the extra area greyed out (and of shooting in FX mode then cropping in PP) is that you can see a subject just before it appears in the central area.

Personally, I've never used used Dx mode and rarely do any PP, even a simple crop!
 
I have a D7000 and it is very good, it's low light capabilities are excellent, yes you can do better with FX but that's not what the OP asked. I'd love to go FX but couldn't justify the cost.

As for build, as an enthusiast I can't see me needing anything better, yes a D400 would grab my attention but in the mean time the D7000 is as good as it gets.
 
There was a post on Nikon rumours in the last few days. Basically something new and DX is coming in the 2nd week of January.

No indication of a D7100 or a D400 but it would surprise me if the D5200 D7100 and D400 were condensed down to just 2 models rather than 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top