Upgrade to FX

sherbs79

sherbs79

Messages
383
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Evening all

All my Nikons have been DX, my current body is a D7000 which I like and I'm getting some pretty decent shots from it but for some reason I keep thinking about upgrading to an FX body, when looking at some FX shots on Flickr the detail and quality of picture is just amazing! I always buy my gear second hand as I can't afford to buy brand new, if I upgrade to FX it will render all my lenses useless so will need to sell my full kit to fund the upgrade, my question is what FX body to go for, I don't want something that has all the toys as I'm still learning,but I want something that takes a quality shot and won't need upgrading for a while?? Any suggestions?

Scott

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/134137764@N07/
 
Last edited:
The d7000 range is so good and if you've got good lenses why bother? The d7200 is so good
 
Hi Mark

I just think that I can get more from my pictures if I go FX, not sure why though and my pockets certainly won't agree! I do like the D7000 so maybe it's my photography skills that need to be polished up before I upgrade my kit [emoji23]
 
sherbs79 said:
Evening all

All my Nikons have been DX, my current body is a D7000 which I like and I'm getting some pretty decent shots from it but for some reason I keep thinking about upgrading to an FX body, when looking at some FX shots on Flickr the detail and quality of picture is just amazing! I always buy my gear second hand as I can't afford to buy brand new, if I upgrade to FX it will render all my lenses useless so will need to sell my full kit to fund the upgrade, my question is what FX body to go for, I don't want something that has all the toys as I'm still learning,but I want something that takes a quality shot and won't need upgrading for a while?? Any suggestions?

Scott

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/134137764@N07/
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with those pics, they're great and I'm not sure what FX will give you extra tbh. Be wary of the green eyed monster when looking on flickr, it might not be down to the camera and maybe technique (such as focus stacking for landscapes) and or superb skills in processing. Also the old cliche of "a lens makes more of a difference that a camera" is repeated for good reason.

There are exceptions where I would recommend changing to FF such as if you find yourself shooting a lot at very high ISO, want the FOV/shallow DOF FF offers, or crop heavily.

If you do want to upgrade and want detail then the D800/D800e or D810 would give you the most detail, but this depends on viewing medium and how much you crop. For example if you are viewing on a 4k screen then these are 'only' 8.3mp so in theory any megapixels over this are a waste as the screen can't render any more resolution. Some say they can see small differences in fine detail, but I've viewed full size 36mp images and the same images downsized to 2mp (my screen is 'only' 1.7mp) and I can't see a difference.

I would say if you're truly not happy with your gear then maybe upgrade your lenses and maybe buy FX, therefore if you do ever decide to change to an FX body you will already have the lenses to go with it.
 
Thanks Snerkler, I appreciate the comments, recently I have started to print off a lot of my images and some of them haven't came out great, I got a 1.5m x 600mm printed off and there's loads of imperfections and hot pixels on it so I think that was another factor that pushed me towards FX, what size can you print to in DX before an FX is required?
 
Really think you are barking up the wrong tree with DX v FX. (Or maybe its just a case of GAS)?

You appear to take good shots anyway. (Love you Belhaven Beach shot).

However, for the record, you will likely find that whilst you could continue with your DX lenses on the FX, you will pretty soon decide that investing in good glass is essential. Might be a good idea to start investing in the glass first, as bodies change regularly, but glass tends to have a much longer shelf life and that will be the thing that makes more of a difference. Don't forget that going FF will change your 'crop factor' too.
 
Thanks Shreds, I didn't know that FX would work on DX, it's probably a good idea to start investing in some FX lenses at the moment then I'm ready to make the change to an FX body when required!
 
sherbs79 said:
Thanks Snerkler, I appreciate the comments, recently I have started to print off a lot of my images and some of them haven't came out great, I got a 1.5m x 600mm printed off and there's loads of imperfections and hot pixels on it so I think that was another factor that pushed me towards FX, what size can you print to in DX before an FX is required?
Click to expand...
It's more down to resolution of the camera than FX vs DX TBH so for example you should be able to print larger prints from a 24mp camera than a 12mp one. In theory a 24mp FX should look better than a 24mp DX due to the larger pixels and less magnification but how much difference you'll see in print I'm not sure. Obviously viewing distances make a difference too, for example pictures printed at 72dpi can look fine at the right distance.
 
sherbs79 said:
Thanks Shreds, I didn't know that FX would work on DX, it's probably a good idea to start investing in some FX lenses at the moment then I'm ready to make the change to an FX body when required!
Click to expand...
FX lenses are fine on DX bodies, but put a DX lens on an FX body and you'll get severe vignetting as the image circle created by the DX lens is not big enough to cover the FX sensor. You can use FX cameras in DX mode, but then I'd ask the question why you're upgrading if you're doing this.
 
snerkler said:
FX lenses are fine on DX bodies, but put a DX lens on an FX body and you'll get severe vignetting as the image circle created by the DX lens is not big enough to cover the FX sensor. You can use FX cameras in DX mode, but then I'd ask the question why you're upgrading if you're doing this.
Click to expand...

My plan would be as suggested, start to sell of my DX lenses and purchase FX, then once all the DX gear is gone I will upgrade to an FX body hopefully! This is all on the basis the she who must be obeyed agrees [emoji23]
 
If you've never before carefully scrutinised your DX photos in really big prints or looked at the pixels on screen zoom you'll find lots of imperfections. As I did when upgrading from 12MP DX to 24MP. But they weren't my camera's fault. It was my technique, which had been optimised for lower detail resolution. Once I'd sharpened my skills my shots cleaned up and sharpened up a lot. Then I started hitting the limits of my lenses. Upgrading them produced more improvements. They also revealed further lacking in my skills. I'm now well enough educated to realise that some more top class primes would buy me more improvement at less cost than going Fx. I also realise that the biggest limitation on my image IQ is now my own skills. I shouldn't even bother upgrading to the later better DX model. I reckon my best strategy is to spend a few more years practising and experimenting and rereading my best books, and then go for not the next model, but the upgrade after that.

In short summary, I've already upgraded my gear to usefully beyond my skill level. Further upgrades just now wouldn't get me much improvement. It would get me a little, which on carefully selected shots I'd be able to see with my nose in A2 prints, but which nobody else would notice. Not worth spending thousands on.
 
sherbs79 said:
My plan would be as suggested, start to sell of my DX lenses and purchase FX, then once all the DX gear is gone I will upgrade to an FX body hopefully! This is all on the basis the she who must be obeyed agrees [emoji23]
Click to expand...
That's definitely the best way IMO. Just one thing to be aware of when doing this though is the difference in field of view from DX to FX. You'll need to buy the lenses with the FOV in mind for FX knowing that it might not be exactly what you want on DX.

But I must go back to my original post, I'm not sure you're going to see much difference between FX and DX with the type of photography that you do. That being said I've not done a lot of research into how FX and DX differ in terms of long exposures, hot pixels and noise. However I would have thought it would be more down to newer processors and tech rather than FX. Maybe someone who knows more can shed some light on this?
 
If you want FX that's fine but if you expect it to do anything magical for your photos, it won't.

It will be bigger and heavier though.
 
That's something I don't need! My bag is getting heavier by the day and I've just bought a new tripod which isn't carbon
 
sherbs79 said:
That's something I don't need! My bag is getting heavier by the day and I've just bought a new tripod which isn't carbon
Click to expand...


Which is why I sold all my FF kit and switched to m43 - side by side I had to look hard at 100% to tell the difference and at that point I thought "what's the point?".

That's not to say FF isn't better, it is, but the difference is less than you might expect and modern smaller sensors are now so good that they are good enough for more or less everyone (GAS notwithstanding).
 
There are some good reasons for moving from DX to FX (and vice-versa), but none of them are "because my images will improve". For me, I shoot FX for two reasons:

1 - Because I can always crop but I can't add what I didn't shoot.
2 - I came from 35mm and the focal lengths are ingrained in me.
 
Nawty said:
Which is why I sold all my FF kit and switched to m43 - side by side I had to look hard at 100% to tell the difference and at that point I thought "what's the point?".

That's not to say FF isn't better, it is, but the difference is less than you might expect and modern smaller sensors are now so good that they are good enough for more or less everyone (GAS notwithstanding).
Click to expand...
I ran FF side by side with m4/3 for a while and I agree there's not that much difference.
 
MissingMan said:
There are some good reasons for moving from DX to FX (and vice-versa), but none of them are "because my images will improve". For me, I shoot FX for two reasons:

1 - Because I can always crop but I can't add what I didn't shoot.
2 - I came from 35mm and the focal lengths are ingrained in me.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by 1? If I'm understanding this right then it's just a matter of framing, and you can get the framing of DX the same as FX, or M4/3 or any other format for that matter. Of course perspective and/or DOF may be different.
 
snerkler said:
I'm not sure what you mean by 1? If I'm understanding this right then it's just a matter of framing, and you can get the framing of DX the same as FX, or M4/3 or any other format for that matter. Of course perspective and/or DOF may be different.
Click to expand...

You are of course factually correct. However, from my "real world" position, FX means wider than DX. I know it doesn't, I know you can buy a 10mm lens for a DX camera, really I do... but to me that isn't the issue. Please just accept that '1' stands as a valid reason for me.
 
MissingMan said:
You are of course factually correct. However, from my "real world" position, FX means wider than DX. I know it doesn't, I know you can buy a 10mm lens for a DX camera, really I do... but to me that isn't the issue. Please just accept that '1' stands as a valid reason for me.
Click to expand...
Yep, can appreciate that. Just wanted clarification I was understanding it right (y)
 
The eternal question........
I decided some time ago to sell my D7000 and myriad of lenses (mix of FX/DX) as I was using my compacts as my main cameras. I, at last, started the process a month or so ago and sold my first 3 lenses. I then saw a D700 in the classifieds here and decided it was time to scratch the itch whilst I still had some FX lenses left.
I'm not a geek, although I can pixel-peep with the best of them. I did a straightforward comparison of my D7000 with a 50mm and the D700 with my 85mm. Subject was my eldest lad and I used the same settings for both cameras, with a 1.8 aperture. To be honest there was simply not a huge difference between the images - yes, you can see a small DoF difference but both images look equally good in other respects.
So, I've decided I'm going to carry on with my D7000 and DX lens sale and hang on to the D700, 50mm, 85mm and 70-300mm in the meantime and continue the relationship. The main reason for choosing the D700 is the handling, the switchery, the viewfinder. And there's something so "solid" about the D700. Yes, it's a bit bit bigger and a bit noisier but, frankly, both cameras compare poorly on those fronts compared to my Fuji X100T for instance. Of note, I bought a cheap 28-80mm Nikon zoom off eBay to give me some wider perspective - what a great little lens!

In sum, do take the leap but don't expect miracles(-;
 
Last edited:
Nawty said:
If you want FX that's fine but if you expect it to do anything magical for your photos, it won't.

It will be bigger and heavier though.
Click to expand...
That's what I found when I moved from my D7000 to a D700. Some would say a D700 is a backward step from the 7000 but I actually love the weight and feel of the 700 but when coupled with the 70-200 I do use a monopod as it gets too weighty for me.

Quick ps. see my avatar, that's my standard operation, monopod / D700 / 70-200
 
Last edited:
davek said:
The eternal question........
I decided some time ago to sell my D7000 and myriad of lenses (mix of FX/DX) as I was using my compacts as my main cameras. I, at last, started the process a month or so ago and sold my first 3 lenses. I then saw a D700 in the classifieds here and decided it was time to scratch the itch whilst I still had some FX lenses left.
I'm not a geek, although I can pixel-peep with the best of them. I did a straightforward comparison of my D7000 with a 50mm and the D700 with my 85mm. Subject was my eldest lad and I used the same settings for both cameras, with a 1.8 aperture. To be honest there was simply not a huge difference between the images - yes, you can see a small DoF difference but both images look equally good in other respects.
So, I've decided I'm going to carry on with my D7000 and DX lens sale and hang on to the D700, 50mm, 85mm and 70-300mm in the meantime and continue the relationship. The main reason for choosing the D700 is the handling, the switchery, the viewfinder. And there's something so "solid" about the D700. Yes, it's a bit bit bigger and a bit noisier but, frankly, both cameras compare poorly on those fronts compared to my Fuji X100T for instance. Of note, I bought a cheap 28-80mm Nikon zoom off eBay to give me some wider perspective - what a great little lens!

In sum, do take the leap but don't expect miracles(-;
Click to expand...
Just to add/follow on from this I got invited to two photoshoots/tutorials last year, one from Nikon and one from Olympus. I actually preferred my shots from the olympus shoot using my EM5-II with 45mm f1.8 compared to those shot with my D750 and 70-200mm f2.8. It was splitting hairs trying to decide which were sharper.

Day to day my D750 provided better more pleasing results, but it just illustrated to me that in the right situation smaller sensors can more than hold their own.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
FX lenses are fine on DX bodies, but put a DX lens on an FX body and you'll get severe vignetting as the image circle created by the DX lens is not big enough to cover the FX sensor. You can use FX cameras in DX mode, but then I'd ask the question why you're upgrading if you're doing this.
Click to expand...


No you wont,because the camerra knows you have a DX lens fitted an automatically goes into DX mode.
 
Nawty said:
If you want FX that's fine but if you expect it to do anything magical for your photos, it won't.

It will be bigger and heavier though.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Lensflare said:
No you wont,because the camerra knows you have a DX lens fitted an automatically goes into DX mode.
Click to expand...
Did you read the rest of my sentence? And also, it only does it automatically if you set it that way.
 
Lensflare said:
No you wont,because the camerra knows you have a DX lens fitted an automatically goes into DX mode.
Click to expand...
My D700 doesn't, I wanted to use my 16-85mm recently, vignette or what? damned unusable.
 
metroman said:
My D700 doesn't, I wanted to use my 16-85mm recently, vignette or what? damned unusable.
Click to expand...
But you can select the DX mode manually from the menus......I tried it with my Tokina 11-16 recently and it was fine.
 
Nawty said:
But that rather defeats the point of having FX no?
Click to expand...
Agreed, that's what I was alluding to as well in one of my posts above.

Plus on a D700 I believe DX mode is only 5.1mp.
 
Last edited:
Scott

Which lenses are you using at the moment? If you're not sure why a FF sensor will help then you could be making an expensive mistake. If you take landscapes and don't need extreme resolution (I.e. 36 MP of the D800/810) then your D7000 is more than capable. You could even get a used D7200 which would be an upgrade, no where near as expensive as a FF, and which is a fantastic camera in its own right.


sherbs79 said:
Evening all

All my Nikons have been DX, my current body is a D7000 which I like and I'm getting some pretty decent shots from it but for some reason I keep thinking about upgrading to an FX body, when looking at some FX shots on Flickr the detail and quality of picture is just amazing! I always buy my gear second hand as I can't afford to buy brand new, if I upgrade to FX it will render all my lenses useless so will need to sell my full kit to fund the upgrade, my question is what FX body to go for, I don't want something that has all the toys as I'm still learning,but I want something that takes a quality shot and won't need upgrading for a while?? Any suggestions?

Scott
Click to expand...
 
Nawty said:
But that rather defeats the point of having FX no?
Click to expand...
I bought the 16-85 when I bought the D7000 and it's the only DX lens I have. Most of my used focal lengths are covered by my 24-70 and 70-200, I still use the 16-85 on my D300 and D7000 IF it's required. I put it on the D700 just to see what it was like, information around the net also say's the D700 goes down to 5mega pixels with a DX lens on it! just saying what I've read.
 
Hi Scott.
So you want more quality and detail and wondering if fx/dx is the answer.
I understand that.
You seem to do primarily landscapes from what I've seen from a glance at your link. Have you ever shot alongside someone with a different camera shooting the same scene to see the difference in results?
Where do you notice the problem? Print or screen?
What is it that irritates you?
Factors to consider are dynamic range and how much detail you can recover in the shadows. Are your lenses sharp enough for the resolution of your camera or proposed new camera?
 
southernjessie said:
Scott

Which lenses are you using at the moment? If you're not sure why a FF sensor will help then you could be making an expensive mistake. If you take landscapes and don't need extreme resolution (I.e. 36 MP of the D800/810) then your D7000 is more than capable. You could even get a used D7200 which would be an upgrade, no where near as expensive as a FF, and which is a fantastic camera in its own right.
Click to expand...

I have two main lenses for my landscape work, I use a Tokina 11-16 2.8 and a Nikon 17-55 2.8
 
Deadlock said:
Hi Scott.
So you want more quality and detail and wondering if fx/dx is the answer.
I understand that.
You seem to do primarily landscapes from what I've seen from a glance at your link. Have you ever shot alongside someone with a different camera shooting the same scene to see the difference in results?
Where do you notice the problem? Print or screen?
What is it that irritates you?
Factors to consider are dynamic range and how much detail you can recover in the shadows. Are your lenses sharp enough for the resolution of your camera or proposed new camera?
Click to expand...

Hi Deadlock, it's mainly print and screen when either zooming in on screen or blowing up to a larger print, a friend suggested that I check what ppi resolution I have set when exporting them for print!
 
Is there a market leading DX camera out there that stands out from all the other Nikon DX models??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top