Why would you use DX crop mode on a D800. Well if you put a DX lens on then ok (but it's kind of cool if you turn DX mode off it becomes round). If you shoot in FX mode (with a FX lens)how many megapixels do you lose in the crop to DX FOV (DX camera with the same lens)? Thought I understood this DX mode 50mm X 1.5 = 75mm easy. Seems to be a lot more to it.

Yetibuddha hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread. It's all about megapixels on subject. Even the mighty D800 has something less than 16 megapixels in DX crop mode. You can put 24 megapixels in that same FOV and have even better ability to crop with a D3200.

Is it true that image quality degrades slightly in crop mode?

Was reading this thread, Review: Nikkor 135mm F2.0D DC AF Lens on D800 and made me think of this thread. We seem to think that DX has longer reach with any given lens but if we crop ( using same lens and f/stop, distance) a FX to a DX size (same FOV) do we not have the same reach. So does DX really have more reach using say a 135mm than a FX using a 135mm or any lens or does it really comes down to price as to if you buy DX or FX. Do i have this right. What am i missing. Please correct me.

TaoTeJared said:
+1 It seems counter intuitive to me as well. If you want DX buy DX.

+1, +1

Nikoner said:
... I simply do not see any merit in shooting dx on an fx format.

+1 It seems counter intuitive to me as well. If you want DX buy DX.

Haha, I've thought the same thing with supertelephotos @msmoto... clamp a rifle scope to the top of the lens on a cantilever mount (my first Nikon was a 2-7x rifle scope!) so you can have a wider angle of view to follow the action with.

Nikoner said:
In theory may be, and that too if you are going to a take just a few shots and call it a day.

In practice a sports photographer normally shoots 1000's of images per game (i.e. within a scope of 2 hours), and for all those shots to be squinting at the 1.5 crop box and also keeping the same eye for possible action from either end outside that 1.5 crop but within the viewfinder, and also keeping your other eye out for possible action elsewhere, or some dangerous projectile flying out at you, or you stepping on someone/thing else, or bumping into the referee, etc... Believe me I tried it just for kicks, it’s not worth the trouble, and neither required for a seasoned photographer. And as stated in my previous post, I simply do not see any merit in shooting dx on an fx format.

Yup, after a few thousand shots one does catch on...sports is about anticipating the next place where the action will be, getting one's position, and hoping you are not going to be squashed by some participant in the action. Having the image full size in the viewfinder helps along with one eye open to the real world.

One idea I will be trying with the 400mm lens is to have an external set of "sights" on top of the lens/body and use this to capture the place I want the image, but be able to see all the action around the camera. This eliminates the DX on FX advantage as far as seeing the area around the actual image.

donaldejose said:
Good point about being able to see what is happening just outside the framing. This could be useful in sports also because it can help you anticipate shots.

In theory may be, and that too if you are going to a take just a few shots and call it a day.

In practice a sports photographer normally shoots 1000's of images per game (i.e. within a scope of 2 hours), and for all those shots to be squinting at the 1.5 crop box and also keeping the same eye for possible action from either end outside that 1.5 crop but within the viewfinder, and also keeping your other eye out for possible action elsewhere, or some dangerous projectile flying out at you, or you stepping on someone/thing else, or bumping into the referee, etc... Believe me I tried it just for kicks, it’s not worth the trouble, and neither required for a seasoned photographer. And as stated in my previous post, I simply do not see any merit in shooting dx on an fx format.

Good point about being able to see what is happening just outside the framing. This could be useful in sports also because it can help you anticipate shots.

Most of my dance photography with the D800 is at 1.5x crop. My original idea was that these are not shots that will likely never be printed and I can save some space, but I also like gaining the effective focal length increase, and greater DOF at wide apertures as a result. Having the AF sensor cover almost the entire frame is a nice benefit, too. Another thing I did not consider is the crop line in the camera and having the viewfinder provide information outside the frame. Like with a rangefinder, I can see what is happening just outside the frame. With unpredictable, rapid action this is very useful.

Yetibuddha said:
What would be the advantage of shooting an FX in DX crop mode?

Not sure there is an advantage, but the flexibility. Would create smaller files, little faster FPS, might not have to crop in post if composition is correct, and "extended reach".

What would be the advantage of shooting an FX in DX crop mode?

donaldejose said:
Pixels rule and you will not be able to get 24 mp in a DX size crop from FX in the foreseeable future.

Has any one compared a D3200 with a cropped D800

who knows, maybe we will get a D4x but will any one be a able to afford it

"FX cropping to DX" compared to what? The D7000's 16 mp? I assume compared to shooting the image with the best DX sensor in the first place. After the higher level DX sensors (D7200 and D400) are out we will be able to compare image quality of DX to FX cropped to DX (or DX lens on FX body). Certainly the D800's 36 megapixels allows for plenty of cropping, especially if you are only going to print up to 8x10 or view on your HDTV or computer monitor which only displays about 2 mb (two mp). However, DxOMark rates the 24mp D3200 sensor very high and we can expect the sensors in the D7200 and D400 to be rated even higher. Consequently, it seems highly likely the best DX sensors will significantly outperform a DX crop from an FX sensor. Pixels rule and you will not be able to get 24 mp in a DX size crop from FX in the foreseeable future.

msmoto said:

sevencrossing you go the route for the D4, you will find it is an incredible camera. Especially at the ISO 12,800.

when i win the lottery I will immediately buy a D4 and 400mm f 2.8 ( and 24mm f 1.4)
the D800 pays for itself, doing commerical photography
but I dont need 10fps or ISO 12,000 for real estate or studio work

This is still about DX vs. FX, but I should never have gotten into this discussion......the D800 is looking like it may well be my "DX" camera, shooting in crop mode. And, in FX, the data handling of the D800 is most likely the issue one must deal with. It does raise the question as to why if this is the limit, shooting in DX does not give one 8 or 9 FPS.....

Sevencrossing...if you go the route for the D4, you will find it is an incredible camera. Especially at the ISO 12,800.

data handling is IMHO the D800s only big weakness; I think this will addressed in the D900

Do we need a new thread ?

( should I buy a D4 or wait for the D900) :)

It is. Moving a mirror fast is not a huge technical feat.

I thought the FPS speed of a camera was more to do with data handling and model supremacy, than the physical constraints of the hardware?

@ sevencrossing... OK, to clarify...the D800 and D300s are basically the bodies I was comparing. If it costs $XXX to build a DX sized mirror which moves at 8 FPS, then an FX mirror for the same cost will in principle move slower as it is larger and therefore going to have to be of less expensive materials. But, the critical factor includes as well the time required to hold the images in the buffer.

Even so, the D800 will only do 5 FPS in DX crop mode while a dedicated DX, i.e., the D300s is much faster at 8 FPS.

Hope this clarifies my thinking

I've done a little CH shooting in crop mode with the D3. The files are "only" 5 megapixels but, it's 5 damn nice megapixels.

Would I shoot at 11fps if I knew I wanted to print the results at poster size? Nope. It does make for some nice fast sequences for average screen viewing though.

The advantage of DX is that the pixels are more compact and can record more detail. That is at native ISOs though. Once you move up, then the good ole noise reduction engine starts up and you will lose detail. That is where FX will give an advantage. I ran across a video of a photog who shot stock macro shots with a Canon G12 because of the extra DOF and still have the ability to have the flashes. There is a use for every format.

I'm not sure "to DX" is a needed descriptor. Everyone crops, but having 36mp to crop from is much better than 12mp for sure. When some have concerns of the "huge MP" I just laugh, at 36mp I can crop 100% and still have a perfect 8x10. You can't do that with sub 20mp images.

I am curious with comparable megapixels in a FX and DX body if there is an advantage to FX anymore. If you can have the extra reach from DX plus cropping if needed, if that is comparable to FX. If you shoot longer shots and crop much it seems like DX would be a better option still and provide extra cropping room if needed. I guess it all depends on how much you are cropping and what you are shooting though...say the D600 vs D3200 or D5200. I think then the flexibility can go both ways. If you shoot birds and animals DX still seems relevant and landscapes or other stuff might be better to shoot FX. That is all aside form low light performance, ISO, dynamic range or whatever else FX provides over DX. Strictly subject wise...

I personally rarely crop...of course I only have 12.3 MP to work with, but that is one thing I really try to get right when I shoot is the composition of the photo. I bet I only have a handful of shots that I have cropped out of 10,000+.

Regardless of FX or DX I crop in post processing (even if its by just a little bit) to get a tight straight shot, as its not always possible to get ideal composition at the spruce of the moment especially with sports. With D800 loosing megapixels is not an issue. Although I hate to post process I have to, as I have a tendency to shoot slightly lopsided, so have to straighten the shot anyways that's a crop in itself.

Having used DX and now FX, I don't see any motivation to use DX ever.

Well, in terms of cropping, one's compositions out in the field may not be perfect, particularly in smaller scale landscapes with lots of brush in the image area. So, it is just a natural for me to crop if needed. For wildlife, it seems that a big factor is megapixels on subject, so when one has to crop, e.g., a grizzly bear at 100 meters is still small on a 300 mm lens on FX, cropping will occur. So what gives one the most megapixels on subject. For me, I now have a D800 so I can crop pretty good after the image is captured.