Upgrade - should I go to FX or stay with DX?

Barryboy

Barryboy

Messages
274
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi... Seriously considering an upgrade of my Nikon D90. By adding not too much cash I could go to a good used D7000 or I could afford to go up to the next level which is a D7100 and pretty much top of the tree in DX terms. However for pretty much the same money (well not a great deal more, anyway) as the D7100 I could have an FX body D700. Back in the day a 645 or 6x6 system was always considered better than a 35mm system for quality of results and I am wondering if the same philosophy holds true for the sensor size in DSLRs? I am inclined to think so but welcome comment from anyone who had made the switch themselves.

Lenses - I know that the DX lenses can be used but are not ideal on the FX body so it would mean a gradual upgrade of lenses (I don't have all that many, anyway). Budget would just about be maxed out by the body upgrade but I think I could stretch to a useful zoom lens.

What would you do in my position? Grateful for serious advice.

Rob
 
I guess it boils down to why you're upgrading from the D90. What is it the D90 doesn't currently offer you ?

Are you looking for better dynamic range, better low light performance, faster frame rate, more capable AF system, video ?

Also what sort of things are you shooting - landscapes, studio, wildlife, motorsport, astro ?
 
You will have to decide what is more important for what you shoot. The D7100 is twice the resolution of the D700, has video, has 2 memory card slots etc. but the D700 is a pro build body has better controls, better a.f system less noise at high ISO and a bigger brighter viewfinder. Both options would give you a fairly beefy upgrade from your D90. To get the best from the D700 you are going to need good quality FX glass, so with that in mind the D7100 might be a better option for you.
 
My understanding is that one should always get the best glass possible as lenses last a lifetime whereas camera bodies are changed regularly
 
Thanks, all. Looking to improve on image quality, really, but of course my budget is limted. An upgrade gets better software and more Mpx. The newer models offer better low light performance, better handling and slightly better frames per second. I mostly shoot street/candids but also some sport (especially rugby) and a little seascape. Absolute top budget would be £600 based on selling my D90, staying with my current lens set up and getting a newer DX body, or if I sell my D90 body and current lenses which are Nikkor 18-70G series plus Tamron and Sigma zooms (I will keep my f1.8 nifty-fifty for either body) I could stretch to about £1K for a FX body plus lens. Or if I were go for the DX body and change my lenses £1K would get me a very nice set up indeed....

I am aware of the cost of good quality FX glass and that's the thing that's really making me hesitate and consider staying with DX. I need something in a long range zoom for the sport, something wide for the seascapes and something in the 50-200 range for urban/street. The Nikkor 18-300 is available for DX bodies at a price I could save for reasonably well (I don't do credit for my toys) but something of that standard in FX would, I feel, break the bank.

Given the above I am gravitiating towards the D7100 but as that's about £200 or so more than the D7000 I'm wondering if that is a worthwhile investment.... Any advice, please???
 
No offence intended, but on one hand you're talking about FX bodies and matching great glass then the next you mention a 18-300 superzoom. Totally different ends of the quality spectrum?

Is the D7000 that much of an upgrade over your D90? Yes, a D7100 is an upgrade over both, but would you be better selling on all your current DX lenses (50mm aside) and getting a solid 2.8 set of lenses to cover your range and keep your D90 (for now).

Like a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8 etc (nikon versions available, but double the price)
 
I changed to Nikon from Fuji before Christmas.

Due to budget I bought a D750 and some cheap glass and the camera showed up the short comings of the cheap lenses. I returned my camera as there was debris in the VF and I reconsidered my options. I decided to buy the D7100 and some good glass, started with the 300mm f4 and I will build up my FF lenses over the coming months and change back to the D750. The D7100 has a good AF system and shares the same 51 point AF as the D4, so should be superior to your D90. Same 51 point as D700 but newer processer????

Where the FF cameras will pull ahead is in the ISO departments as you know, the D750 files were a lot less noisy compared to the D7100.

To me, sometimes I see the FF glass cost as a bit of a myth. Whats the best DX lens Nikon 17-55 f2.8 ???, for less money you can get the cheaper and excellent Tamron 24-70 VC for FF. If you then compare the 17-50 from Tamron or Sigma for DX you can get the Tamron 28-75mm in FF for the same money. Primes 50 & 85mm 1.8g work on both, best zoom for DX or FX the 70-200mm f2.8, you need to buy either on what ever system. I will say wide angle lenses will be dearer on FF in general.

As said, you can use your DX lenses on the FF cameras, if thats suitable for the time being and you decide to take that route.

Myself, If you have the itch scratch it, change to either camera, their both good. Take a memory card to a local dealer and have a play around with both and see how you feel.
 
Last edited:
The cheapest way of getting FF quality is to wait a few years for the sensor technology upgrades to offer that image quality in DX sensors. Of course by then FF will offer even better quality, but all you have to do then is wait a few more years :-)

The point is that DX is a sweet spot in camera technology. The sensors are much less than half the price, the shutters are cheaper and faster, FX glass on a DX body uses the better quality middle portion of the image, etc.. It's not only less strain on your wallet, less on your arms too. Which is why lots of sports or wildlife shooters have an FX body for close or studio work, and a DX body for distance work.
 
Thanks, all. This needs some serious thought. Given that my max print size is 16x12 I am wondering if the results from Nikkor lenses on a DX camera would be that much worse than same size prints from a FX camera with appropriate lens (I don't do projected images) - it would certainly be a lot easier financially..... Damn this restricted budget!!!
 
I have gone a similar route, i went from a D300 (DX) to a D700 as i "thought" that was the route i should take, but since i shoot a fair bit of wildlife i misses the reach the DX body gave me, and while the D700 was a great upgrade to the D300, i ended up going back to DX with the D7100 and noticed quite a significant upgrade from the D700

I put it down to the D700 being 7-8 year old technology, pitched against the latest and greatest DX, and for my needs the DX won

Also bare in mund the edditional expense of having to upgrade all your DX lenses to FX lenses
 
It's not just the extra cost of any FX lenses you'll have to buy. You may need bigger gear bags. If like me you sometimes like to carry as much gear as you can carry around on foot you may find you'll need to do some strength training if you want to carry around a bag of FX lenses with the same coverage.

And if you're going for more MP, note you may need to get a bigger faster computer or take a hit in post processing speeds.
 
what will the move give you? Given the choice now between a d7100 and a d700 I'd take the d7100 every time
 
Last edited:
For £1k you could get a D700 and a Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens which is a very good lens for a fraction of the price of the Nikon equiv. In fact, that would probably leave you £200 spare! D700 is wonderful, great build quality, great layout and fantastic ISO. If you need the range that DX can give then maybe its not for you.
 
I sold my D700 about a year and a half ago. Biggest mistake of my photographic life!

Since then I've been through 6 or 7 cameras, and I'm now in the process of getting the money together to buy a D700 again!

Seriously, for the money they go for these days for me it's a no brainer.
 
I got a D700 as an upgrade from a DX camera (D7000) fantastic camera and the D700 is a steal at current prices. I won't part with my D7000 though, I now have the best of both worlds. I suppose it depends on if you have any FX lenses or not. If you have to buy any then maybe its not such a great deal for you.
 
Ok thank you, all - some good points made. I'm getting there... I have decided that to make the change to the D700 FX system, the lens upgrades needed to get the benefit of the larger sensor would need me to make more of a financial commitment than I care to. Equally as I am a hobbyist, not a pro and never print beyond A3 size anyway, I think I would be happy with the qulaity from a D7100 and Nikkor FX grade lenses.

I have the 18-55mm f3.5 VRII ordered which I will use as my 'everyday go-to' lens and if I feel I need to upgrade that lens in the future I should be able to trade or sell it on at only a moderate loss. I will definitely need something longer and I am undecided here... I rather like the look of the Nikkor 55-300 f4.5 VR which has had some good reviews but could afford the extra £100 or thereabouts, so could have the 70-300 f4.5 AS-S VR ED IF which has had better reviews.

Decisions, decisions.... any advice welcomed.

Rob
 
Aside from the main question, I still don't understand those who say good FF glass costs lots of money.

Both Canon and Nikon (and no doubt others) have superb primes that can be had for not much money at all. Look at Canon, the 50mm f/1.&, 35mm f/2, and 85mm f/1.8 and many others. All work beautifully on FF.
 
I switched up from the D90 to the D800E effortlessly. In terms of usability, I didn/t find the D800 any more difficult to use, if anything it's easier because you have more on-body controls. But I also had good quality glass to go with. I had the 24-70 2.4, the 7-200 VR II and a 50mm prime to start out on FX with. I'd upgrade glass first, and save on side for the body. Good glass doesn't have to cost a bomb, you could look at primes, like the newer 35 1.8, and the 85mm 1.8G ... at least! if you can't stretch to at least a couple of top quality glasss lenses, then you're better o look to the D7100 IMO. You will notice a big improvement overall to the D90.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
odd jim said:
Aside from the main question, I still don't understand those who say good FF glass costs lots of money.

Both Canon and Nikon (and no doubt others) have superb primes that can be had for not much money at all. Look at Canon, the 50mm f/1.&, 35mm f/2, and 85mm f/1.8 and many others. All work beautifully on FF.
Click to expand...

The problem is rather that the APS-C specific options from the big two (Canon/Nikon) are rather limited with a glut of kit and superzooms and relatively few offerings beyond that when compared to the full frame offerings. For example where are the APS-C specific primes? Few and far between.

Barryboy said:
Thanks, all. This needs some serious thought. Given that my max print size is 16x12 I am wondering if the results from Nikkor lenses on a DX camera would be that much worse than same size prints from a FX camera with appropriate lens (I don't do projected images) - it would certainly be a lot easier financially..... Damn this restricted budget!!!
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a demanding print size unless you want to view with a magnifying glass or crop at 100% plus so assuming that you're not shooting at ISO 1 million I think that APS-C or even MFT would be good enough.

On the general question of moving from APS-C to FF, maybe FF has the lust factor but maybe it's better to consider the differences which will/may be seen in prints or screen viewing and if they are significant. Personally for hand held use I think that MFT and APS-C are closer to my sweet spot. With FF I often find that I'm more likely to be fighting for DoF and shutter speed which will go some way to negating the advantages full frame could offer.

Good luck choosing.
 
Cagey75 said:
I switched up from the D90 to the D800E effortlessly. In terms of usability, I didn/t find the D800 any more difficult to use, if anything it's easier because you have more on-body controls. But I also had good quality glass to go with. I had the 24-70 2.4, the 7-200 VR II and a 50mm prime to start out on FX with. I'd upgrade glass first, and save on side for the body. Good glass doesn't have to cost a bomb, you could look at primes, like the newer 35 1.8, and the 85mm 1.8G ... at least! if you can't stretch to at least a couple of top quality glasss lenses, then you're better o look to the D7100 IMO. You will notice a big improvement overall to the D90.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Cagey. I did consider this but I do prefer to use zooms ... I tend to do a lot of urban/street stuff and sod's law dictates that you will always have the wrong lens fitted when a great shot presents itself. Also changing lenses when the wind is blowing and rain is in the air doesn't appeal. I fully accept that primes are less expensive than good zooms but I know that I just wouldn't be happy without a zoom. I would really want something in the quite wide range, a general purpose range and a telephoto so there's 3 prime lenses at least needed. My output is mostly prints in A4 and A3 with 75% in B/W , so the difference in sharpness (and consequently print quality) between FX and DX systems is not likely to be all that great. I am probably going to go for the 70-300 VR zoom which is not a dedicated DX lens, and when I upgrade the 18-55 I will go for another non-DX dedicated option. This will give me an easier upgrade path to the FX system should I ever want to yet meantime still give me really good quality lenses for use with a DX body.
 
Barryboy said:
Thanks, all. This needs some serious thought. Given that my max print size is 16x12 I am wondering if the results from Nikkor lenses on a DX camera would be that much worse than same size prints from a FX camera with appropriate lens (I don't do projected images) - it would certainly be a lot easier financially..... Damn this restricted budget!!!
Click to expand...

I'm sat looking at a wall full of A3+ prints from an assortment of cameras (at a distance of about 4-6 feet away) and if I didn't know which camera had been used for each shot, I wouldn't be able to tell the prints from a Canon D10 compact apart from those taken with my D700 FX kit.
 
I was worried when I bought a Canon Pro-100 A3 printer whether my 24MP APS-C sensor would be up to the largest detailed prints. On my cheap A4 printer if I stuck my nose in an A4 print I couldn't see any camera pixels, but I could easily see the limits of the printer's resolution, so that printer at A4 was definitely the limiting factor.

With the bigger better printer I only print my best high resolution photographs at A3+ size. With my nose in the both much bigger and more detailed print I can't see the camera pixels. What I can see more clearly is the difference between my very best lenses and the rest. It's clear that only my best lenses used with care, or the good ones with a followig wind, are up to an A3+ print.

Of course I might well find it easier to get high quality high resolution keepers with a full frame camera, and get them in poorer light, with not quite as sharp lenses, etc.. If I was a professional dependent on selling high IQ for money then full frame would likely be a worthwhile investment. But as a student of photography on a pensioner's budget being able to reach top A3+ quality at low ISO with a good lens is quite exciting, expensive, and educational enough!
 
I went from the D7000 to the D700 also.
But I also had the money to get a 16-35 F4, 35-70 f2.8, 50mm f1.8D, 85mm f1.8D and a 80-200 f2.8D.
To say I'm impressed with the difference is an understatement.
Go FX if you can get a couple of primes. There IS a massive difference between DX & FX.
 
Oh, one more thing to add.
If you like to walk with all your photo gear on a day out, be prepared for the weight difference in the D700 and associated f2.8 glass.
It's bloody heavy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top