Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Nikon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/)
-   -   FX or DX? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/fx-dx-167075/)

Wingman Mar 4, 2010 12:07 PM

FX or DX?
 
I had posed a similar question on another forum and thought I should try it on this forum since Nikon seems to be active in development of both DX and FX cameras.

Nikon continues to prioritize its high end lenses in the FX mode with the exception of perhaps the 17-55 f/2.8. Therefore if one is looking to buy good glass, should one be concerned that DX lenses will for the most part be limited to consumer level lenses? I guess I'm trying to read the tea leaves and decide between getting a 17-55 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8 for a D300s. I realize there is about a $500 premium for the latter. I already have a 12-24 f/4.

JimC Mar 4, 2010 12:11 PM

You may also want to look at the newer Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM. You can see a review comparing it to the Nikkor lens here, using a Nikon D200 for the APS-C comparisons, and a Nikon D3x for the full frame comparisons:

http://lenstip.com/172.4-Lens_review...esolution.html

shoturtle Mar 4, 2010 12:11 PM

FX are design for full frame, DX on a full frame will require you to crop the sensor. If you think you will go full frame in the future, get a FX instead. If you plan to upgrade say a D700 in the future. Get a FX lens instead. That way you get to use the whole ff sensor.

TCav Mar 4, 2010 12:30 PM

Some DX lenses are very good and some are not so good.

Some FX lenses are very good and some are not so good.

Don't try to make a distinction on quality based on the size of the image circle. Use objective test results like those on SLRGear.com and PhotoZone.de instead.

tizeye Mar 12, 2010 6:11 PM

Aren't you going the wrong way? While the 17-55 calculates to the equivalent of a 25-82FX lens, placing the 24-70FX lens on a DX body, such as the D300 would be the equivalent coverage of 36-105. That would be quite a gap giving up considerable wide angle.

Wouldn't the more equivalent FX lens be the 14-24 f2.8? with 21-36 coverage? Of course, if you upgraded to an FX body, you would have an ultra wide zoom, and would still have to get the 24-70FX as a standard zoom.

Wingman Mar 12, 2010 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizeye (Post 1064524)
Aren't you going the wrong way? While the 17-55 calculates to the equivalent of a 25-82FX lens, placing the 24-70FX lens on a DX body, such as the D300 would be the equivalent coverage of 36-105. That would be quite a gap giving up considerable wide angle.

Wouldn't the more equivalent FX lens be the 14-24 f2.8? with 21-36 coverage? Of course, if you upgraded to an FX body, you would have an ultra wide zoom, and would still have to get the 24-70FX as a standard zoom.

You are correct in the translation of the focal length on a DX vs a FX. However, in my case, I own a 12-24 already. So a 24-70 would suit me fine. My question had more to do with whether DX will eventually go away with the proliferation of FX sensors.

TCav Mar 12, 2010 7:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jelpee (Post 1064547)
... My question had more to do with whether DX will eventually go away with the proliferation of FX sensors.

Absolutely not. APS-C dSLRs are smaller, lighter, and less expensive that 'Full Frame' dSLRs, and that will always be the case. Plus APS-C dSLRs have a greater selection of lenses that 'Full Frame' dSLRs have, and those lenses are smaller, lighter and less expensive as well, making them a more attractive purchase. There are reasons to get a 'Full Frame' dSLR, but for the vast majority of people, those reasons don't apply.

And make no mistake, FX sensors aren't proliferating nearly as fast as DX sensors.

pbjunkiee Mar 12, 2010 7:24 PM

Well tube televisions used to be mainstream too.

rjseeney Mar 13, 2010 7:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbjunkiee (Post 1064553)
Well tube televisions used to be mainstream too.

Tube televisions have been replaced by LCD/Plasma technology. Today's tv's take up much less space than the old tube TV's. You're comparing apples to oranges. DX is going nowhere anytime, simply because there are many advantages to the format. It's smaller, lighter and much cheaper, all things that are desirable to the vast majority of photographers. I think FX/Full frame is comparable to medium format in the film era. If anything, I think DX is more threatened by m4/3 or other larger sensor in small format cameras than by FX.

JimC Mar 13, 2010 7:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbjunkiee (Post 1064553)
Well tube televisions used to be mainstream too.

They're not still mainstream? :(:D

Actually, we still have a 36" Toshiba TV (tube type) in our Den. It still works just like new (no problems at all, with great picture quality), even though we've had it for a number of years. I don't watch TV very much, so it's not a big deal for me if I don't have a newer 1080p compatible wide screen display. I'm more likely to use my PC screen (LCD) for watching TV shows than I am sitting in our den anyway. lol

TCav Mar 13, 2010 9:19 AM

I still have a Hitachi 32" HDTV that uses a CRT. It's a beast, and I'm reluctant to move it around at all, but it still works well and I have no immediate plans to replace it.

Wingman Mar 13, 2010 10:06 AM

From Nikon's website, currently they have 15 lenses that are designated DX, of which the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 10.5 FE appear to me to be what I'd consider "pro glass". The other lenses (IMHO) are consumer grade. Everything else that they have introduced recently in the pro-glass category appears once again to be FX.For. e.g. the new 70-200 f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8, etc. Now if FX is the new medium format, don't tell that to the folks from Pentax that has just introduced the Pentax 645D!

If FX clearly provides better IQ, the question is if FX will become more affordable (like in the Sony), lighter, etc and therfore become the mainsteam while DX fades away like polaroid instant cameras. Then again, Betamax even though a technically superior product yielded to VHS...does anyone still even own a VCR???:D

shoturtle Mar 13, 2010 10:57 AM

I think that APS-C has integrated into the market so much that I do not see any of the makes getting rid of it. It will remain in the market. Even if they have lower price FF DSLR, the more compact dslr line up will still employ a aps-c sensor to maintain the compact size for a market's demand of smaller dslr's.

I would love to see canon and nikon come out with a sub 1500 dollar FF dslr. It would give non pro high end photo shooter more options. The 7D and D300s users a nice upgrade option.

I would not mind getting a canon FF in that price range. ;)

TCav Mar 13, 2010 12:34 PM

jelpee,

What you're not seeing is that all those "pro glass" FX lenses can be used on DX cameras as well. The "pro glass" DX lenses are just there to fill the gaps in the coverage as a result of the smaller DX image sensor. DX bodies don't have fewer options, they have more! A large aperture is still a large aperture, even if the image sensor is smaller. The DX bodies benefit from having those larger apertures at longer (35mm equivalent) focal lengths! That's something that FX bodies can't do, "pro glass" not.

rjseeney Mar 13, 2010 3:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jelpee (Post 1064744)

If FX clearly provides better IQ, the question is if FX will become more affordable (like in the Sony), lighter, etc and therfore become the mainsteam while DX fades away like polaroid instant cameras. Then again, Betamax even though a technically superior product yielded to VHS...does anyone still even own a VCR???:D

For most uses, FX doesn't clearly provide better IQ. Yes you get better high ISO performance, but the current crop of DX cameras are markedly better than high iso film ever was. You also can't get around the fact that larger sensors will always translate into larger cameras, and most of the non pro's I know are always looking to get smaller, not bigger.

I won't guarantee DX will last forever (or FX for that matter). Who would have thought film would be just about dead 15 years ago. Technology is moving so quickly, I'm sure all of us will be shooting something different 7-10 years from now.

cameranserai Mar 17, 2010 3:07 AM

Having moved from a D2X with 17/55 to a D3 with 24/70 personally, and this is just a personal viewpoint, I find pictures sharper and much easier to produce superb photos after cropping. I shoot marriages and motor racing and the ISO quality difference alone must make it worth having the FX as opposed to the DX sensor. We don't just shoot in bright sunlight, do we? While obviously the bigger sensor takes more space the D700 isn't that much heavier than a D300 is it? I haven't looked but I would guess not.

No, just like when Fuji introduced the ASA800 Pro film and changed our lives when shooting in poor light, so the FX sensor has changed mine. I recently bought a new P&S camera and read all the reviews as to which was the best in low light. It is still pretty poor and grainy though with its APS sensor.

rjseeney Mar 17, 2010 6:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cameranserai (Post 1066480)
Having moved from a D2X with 17/55 to a D3 with 24/70 personally, and this is just a personal viewpoint, I find pictures sharper and much easier to produce superb photos after cropping. I shoot marriages and motor racing and the ISO quality difference alone must make it worth having the FX as opposed to the DX sensor. We don't just shoot in bright sunlight, do we? While obviously the bigger sensor takes more space the D700 isn't that much heavier than a D300 is it? I haven't looked but I would guess not.

No, just like when Fuji introduced the ASA800 Pro film and changed our lives when shooting in poor light, so the FX sensor has changed mine. I recently bought a new P&S camera and read all the reviews as to which was the best in low light. It is still pretty poor and grainy though with its APS sensor.

FX is a clear winner for you. I'd still argue, most don't need the extra size and weight, not mention the extra expense of the lenses that come with FX.

Wingman Mar 22, 2010 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav (Post 1064801)
jelpee,

What you're not seeing is that all those "pro glass" FX lenses can be used on DX cameras as well. The "pro glass" DX lenses are just there to fill the gaps in the coverage as a result of the smaller DX image sensor. DX bodies don't have fewer options, they have more! A large aperture is still a large aperture, even if the image sensor is smaller. The DX bodies benefit from having those larger apertures at longer (35mm equivalent) focal lengths! That's something that FX bodies can't do, "pro glass" not.

And the debate rages on:o

Tcav: Based on your comments above, are you recommending that getting the DX lenses over FX lenses..i.e. 24-70 f/2.8 over the 17-55 f/2.8 for my D300s?

TCav Mar 22, 2010 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jelpee (Post 1068789)
And the debate rages on:o

Tcav: Based on your comments above, are you recommending that getting the DX lenses over FX lenses..i.e. 24-70 f/2.8 over the 17-55 f/2.8 for my D300s?

No. I'm suggesting that you have a choice. That's something you don't have with an FX body.

shoturtle Mar 22, 2010 12:06 PM

But if you see yourself going to a FX body in the future, you may want to invest in the FX over the DX. The debate ranges on.

For me, I have film still, getting less and less uses. But getting FF lens over crop lens still drives my purchases.

TCav Mar 22, 2010 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoturtle (Post 1068807)
But if you see yourself going to a FX body in the future, you may want to invest in the FX over the DX. ....

Absolutely. But if you like the idea of smaller, lighter bodies and smaller, lighter lenses, plus a larger selection of "Pro Glass", then DX has a number of advantages, not the least of which is lower cost.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:13 AM.