DX vs FX, the never ending discussion, uh ? Well, I agree with most of what has been said here. Yes, FX is better, and yes DX gets you more bang for your buck.

For me, the biggest advantages of DX are size and cost (you can't beat the D7000 + 18-105 + 35/1.8 for travel !) and the biggest advantage of FX is low-light photography (well, above 800 ISO).

In the end, I agree with Studio460, I think stretching for the D700 is a better choice for me too. But I think, as many others have said, that the D7000 is a better value all around. Hey, it's half the price of the D700 ! 1000$ less ! And it has newer technology (higher DR at base ISO and video).

If your budget is max $ 2k, FX is not an option at the moment. You won't go far with just a body. On DX, you can get a D7000 with the kit lens (the 18-105 is perfect for daylight photography. Slow but very sharp and convenient), a 35mm f/1.8 DX, a SB 700, a tripod, a ND filter, etc. There is no arguing here I think.

Just a suggestion if a person wants to jump to FX:

New D800 ($3,000) and new 28-300 zoom ($1,000) = %4,000 to cover a lot of area in FX.

To go wider and faster you can spend less than $250 for a used 24mm AF-D 2.8 prime.

To go faster (new f2.8 zooms) you have to spend a lot of money; but the old 35-70 AF-D 2.8 can be found for about $500 and the old 80-200 AF-D 2.8 zoom can be found for less than $1,000.

You could save a thousand dollars by substituting a used D700 in place of the new D800.

Henrik1963 said:
Back in 1988 I was in asia for half a year. I had a Nikon FA with a 50mm - got a lot of good slides out of that FA.

You can get a good used D700 and a 50mm for under two grand and take it from there. There are lots of good used 24mm AF and 35mm AF lenses out there. FX dosent have to break the bank.

It is all in our minds - we think we need to cover everything from 10mm to 600mm. It dosent have to be that way.

Happy shooting

I will have to agree with this. Used D700 ($2000), new AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D ($400), new AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G ($500)

So, the beginning at less than $3,000. And, this will do a lot if one wants to BEGIN the FX process. However, going up the scale... to do sports, a minimum of the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 at about$900. used. Then if the extra wide is desired, and so on and so on...... Maybe the real consideration is to establish a budget, carefully fit what is wanted into the budget, and go for it!

Back in 1988 I was in asia for half a year. I had a Nikon FA with a 50mm - got a lot of good slides out of that FA.

You can get a good used D700 and a 50mm for under two grand and take it from there. There are lots of good used 24mm AF and 35mm AF lenses out there. FX dosent have to break the bank.

It is all in our minds - we think we need to cover everything from 10mm to 600mm. It dosent have to be that way.

Happy shooting

msmoto said:
it does get costly.

Plus a new computer, printer , some software, bags, straps, light modifiers, filters, tripod , sensor cleaning kit, but it is cheaper than owning a 35 foot yacht or a Bugatti Veyron

sevencrossing said:

With Dx, the hobby photographer is going to get a lot more bang for his bucks

That said, if you take your hobby seroisly and are happy to spent £10,000+ on kit then FX is the way to go

However, to begin with for only 5,000 pounds (USD7850), one can purchase the following: 70-200mm $2400, 24-120mm $1300, 16-35mm $1150, and the D800 $3000...... all the very best quality. This would be a heck of a beginner's kit. And all these will work for DX extremely well, so, it is possible to purchase the lenses, a good DX body and at some later date, an FX body. The only problem might be a wide angle, which then puts you back into the price of FX as it will cost another $800 for a 10.5mm or something like that. And if primes are what you like, fast f/1.4-2.0 lenses, mmmm..... it does get costly. Someone mentioned lighting, another few thousand. Geez, maybe you are correct, seven crossing, $15,000 can go in a hurry!

studio460 said:
Let me put it this way, few of us buy entire systems in one fell-swoop.

I think this highlights the difference between a profession and non profession and why a non professional is likely to better off with DX

The Profession is probably going to need a complete range of lenses, two bodies and two or three flashes from word go. If a client wants a huge print, he can't say sorry, I only shot Dx, nor can he say, sorry I don't have a lens to do that

With Dx, the hobby photographer is going to get a lot more bang for his bucks

That said, if you take your hobby seroisly and are happy to spent £10,000+ on kit then FX is the way to go

blckcat said:
Where can I get 14-24 for $1,260???
I live in CA

I was thinking the same thing...

sorry I started with that one but I changed the price to the 16-35 f4 and didn't the change the focal range - 00ps.

TaoTeJared said:
That is two very different systems for different purposes - it's comparing apples to oranges.

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX: $600 VS. 14-24mm f/2.8G ED FX: $1,260
AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 VR DX: $900 VS. 24-70mm f/2.8G ED FX: $1,890
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX: $500 (used) VS. 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR I (used) FX: $1,600
Nikon D7000 $1,200 vs. Nikon D700 body: $2,200
Total: $3,200 vs. $6,950

That is a difference of $3,750 and not even near the $100 you suggested for a comparable systems.

If someone wants to try out macro:
40mm f/2.8G DX Micro-NIKKOR $280 vs. 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-NIKKOR $600 = $320 Diff
85mm f/3.5G ED VR $530 vs. 105mm f/2.8G VR AF Micro-NIKKOR $990 = $455 Diff
To try both, the difference is $775

Point being - if you are starting out, It is much cheaper to go to DX that allows a beginner to try more types of photography for less and I believe that offsets 1 stop improvement of ISO noise.

Where can I get 14-24 for $1,260???
I live in CA

Let me put it this way, few of us buy entire systems in one fell-swoop. We tend to buy lenses incrementally . . . we buy them as our disposable income savings pile up, and as we learn what we really want and need. The OP stated his interest in eventually moving to FX, and buying an 85mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4. All I'm saying is that if you know you're planning to move to FX someday, your money is better spent buying an FX body right from the start. Again, this is what I think would've been best for me. Certainly, others will have different preferences, and varying budgetary priorities.

studio460 said:
True, but given the choice of the systems listed below:
-------Nikon D7000 $1,200
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX: $600
AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 VR DX: $900 (refurbished)
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX: $500 (used)
Total: $3,200

Nikon D700 body: $2,200 (refurbished pricing at the time)
AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0 VR: $1,099 (refurbished)
Total: $3,300
-----------------------------

I would've chosen the latter, had I the chance to do it again. But that's me. I have a particular need for a second FX body, so spending that amount on a complete DX system simply wasn't the wisest investment for my purposes.

That is two very different systems for different purposes - it's comparing apples to oranges.

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX: $600 VS. 16-35mm f/2.8G ED FX: $1,260
AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 VR DX: $900 VS. 24-70mm f/2.8G ED FX: $1,890
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX: $500 (used) VS. 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR I (used) FX: $1,600
Nikon D7000 $1,200 vs. Nikon D700 body: $2,200
Total: $3,200 vs. $6,950

That is a difference of $3,750 and not even near the $100 you suggested for a comparable systems.

If someone wants to try out macro:
40mm f/2.8G DX Micro-NIKKOR $280 vs. 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-NIKKOR $600 = $320 Diff
85mm f/3.5G ED VR $530 vs. 105mm f/2.8G VR AF Micro-NIKKOR $990 = $455 Diff
To try both, the difference is $775

Point being - if you are starting out, It is much cheaper to go to DX that allows a beginner to try more types of photography for less and I believe that offsets 1 stop improvement of ISO noise.

tcole1983 said:
. . . plus is DX really that bad?

Certainly not. I just wanted to warn anyone who is about to buy their first "expensive" Nikon body to learn from my experience. I tell you, it hit me like a kick in the pants, like a month after I bought the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX lens . . . I realized that with that same money, I would've been a hella lot closer to affording a D700 instead.

studio460 said:
Although the "FX lenses are too expensive" argument is made frequently, I just don't subscribe to it. There are plenty of affordable FX lenses, especially used. Of course, if you want to throw slow DX kit lenses into the mix, FX glass will price higher. My point is, at the time, the price difference between a new D7000 and a refurbed D700 was "only" $1,000. I've since spent more than twice that on DX-only lenses.

I wasn't necessarily saying FX glass is too expensive. I am saying it is twice the burden when you already have a DX setup to then turn around and take a loss selling it and then to go back and trying to rebuy stuff. I also don't think you can argue that FX glass isn't more expensive.

In your case you might have found it to be a waste, but I don't really think the approach that everyone should buy FX from the start is for the average person. I have seen your photos and you obviously shoot for money and/or some sort of income if it isn't your only job. I and the majority of people that have DX bodies don't...plus is DX really that bad? I like the crop factor and extra range it gives. Personally I have 3 DX lenses and 1 FX. I would take a significant loss to sell the DX lenses and then on top have to spend more money on a body. If I can ever save any money I plan to buy the next pro DX body. Now will my next lens be FX? Probably...and that goes along the lines with FX glass is all pro level stuff.

zlik said:
In the end, if you expose correctly to the right at base ISO, you don't gain anything by using the LO1 setting.

Interesting analysis. Thanks for posting that!

TaoTeJared said:
Because it would be about 4 grand in glass to match what you could have with DX for 1-2k. At least with DX you can try out almost all styles for much cheaper on the glass side.

True, but given the choice of the systems listed below:

studio460 said:

Nikon D7000 $1,200
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX: $600
AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 VR DX: $900 (refurbished)
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX: $500 (used)
Total: $3,200

Nikon D700 body: $2,200 (refurbished pricing at the time)
AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0 VR: $1,099 (refurbished)
Total: $3,300

I would've chosen the latter, had I the chance to do it again. But that's me. I have a particular need for a second FX body, so spending that amount on a complete DX system simply wasn't the wisest investment for my purposes.

studio460 said:
That's kind of my point. If you plan to seriously pursue your photography (and eventually move to FX), why not buy an FX body to begin with?

Because it would be about 4 grand in glass to match what you could have with DX for 1-2k. At least with DX you can try out almost all styles for much cheaper on the glass side.

If you are learning, it is not smart to buy something that is at it's production run. It also lacks video and cost twice as much.

studio460 said:
I was under the impression that anything under the base ISO (i.e., <ISO 100) would be noisier, and that's the reason why the lowest "native" ISO would always be preferred, when optimal SNR performance is desired.

It doesn't deal with noise but optimal image quality. The Base ISO is the optimal quality of the sensor. You may loose some details, contrast, shadows, etc.

I love the ISO 200 being the base- gives more speed at the best quality.

msmoto said:
Yup, but in general, low contrast may mean lower light.... and SOOF= straight out of ?

SOOF = sh*t out of forum ;)

zlik said:

The only times that using LO1 makes sense is with low contrast scenes, when you don't want to over expose manually and reduce the exposure in post. Gains some time when you know you will use your pictures SOOF.

Yup, but in general, low contrast may mean lower light.... and SOOF= straight out of ?

studio460 said:
I was under the impression that anything under the base ISO (i.e., <ISO 100) would be noisier, and that's the reason why the lowest "native" ISO would always be preferred, when optimal SNR performance is desired.

After doing lots of tests, I can confirm that the LO settings do produce cleaner shots. The "only" drawback is actually the highlight clipping.

As I said, using the LO1 setting is exactly the same thing as using ISO 200, exposing the sensor 1 stop longer, and reducing the exposure back with software. By doing thins, you're actually "exposing to the right" by 1 stop more, thus clipping the highlights. But you gain information in the shadows (less noise). If you try it, you will see that the LO1 produces smoother results than 200 ISO, but the clipped part of the photo is bigger.

In the end, if you expose correctly to the right at base ISO, you don't gain anything by using the LO1 setting.

The only times that using LO1 makes sense is with low contrast scenes, when you don't want to over expose manually and reduce the exposure in post. Gains some time when you know you will use your pictures SOOF.

msmoto said:
Hey, thank you zlik. I actually understand what you are saying. And not having the "headroom" in the highlights is kinda like an audio amp which clips. The results are terrible. I do a lot of manipulation in Lightroom and I like to find details out there in "bright bright" land. If I have lost 1 f stop of head room on the high lights... not good. Thanks again for explaining this.

That's exactly the same thing. The analogy works here. When there is a high contrast scene, it's better to stick with base ISO and expose to the right. Don't clip the highlights.

HankThePigeon said:
So thats where I'm struggling. One part of me feels like I should make the most of my investment and skip right to FX.

Skip right to FX. You'll be happy you did.

HankThePigeon said:
I know the benefits of FX, as I mostly shoot natural light portraits with a shallow depth of field.

Both available-light photography and portraiture benefit greatly from FX. You have greater light-sensitivity, and can more easily achieve shallow-focus effects, especially at longer subject-to-camera distances (which is inherently more difficult in DX). Skin tones also appear "smoother," and colorimetery, more "accurate" in FX.

HankThePigeon said:
So thats where I'm struggling. One part of me feels like I should make the most of my investment and skip right to FX. But the other part of me says continue with a DX body and continue to invest in FX glass, (i.e - 85mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4)

Exactly. I think "making the most of your investment" is skipping directly to FX. And, considering the fact that you're even thinking about buying the uber-expensive 85mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 lenses, means that you likely do have the means to go with an FX body now.

tcole1983 said:
In this case he doesn't really have any lenses. So cost for FX body and new lenses is most likely out of reach where new D7000 and using lenses they already have is obtainable for most.

Although the "FX lenses are too expensive" argument is made frequently, I just don't subscribe to it. There are plenty of affordable FX lenses, especially used. Of course, if you want to throw slow DX kit lenses into the mix, FX glass will price higher. My point is, at the time, the price difference between a new D7000 and a refurbed D700 was "only" $1,000. I've since spent more than twice that on DX-only lenses.

zlik said:
Lo-1 is actually a 2x longer exposure at ISO 200 (base ISO) underexposed by 1 stop after the capture to simulate ISO 100. By doing that, you increase SNR (less noise) but your highlights clip 1 stop sooner, because the shot is overexposed by 1 stop at capture time.

I was under the impression that anything under the base ISO (i.e., <ISO 100) would be noisier, and that's the reason why the lowest "native" ISO would always be preferred, when optimal SNR performance is desired.

zlik said:
Yes, Lo-1 on the D3s (& CO) is "ISO 100 equivalent". But it is not "ISO 100".

Lo-1 is actually a 2x longer exposure at ISO 200 (base ISO) underexposed by 1 stop after the capture to simulate ISO 100. By doing that, you increase SNR (less noise) but your highlights clip 1 stop sooner, because the shot is overexposed by 1 stop at capture time.

Hey, thank you zlik. I actually understand what you are saying. And not having the "headroom" in the highlights is kinda like an audio amp which clips. The results are terrible. I do a lot of manipulation in Lightroom and I like to find details out there in "bright bright" land. If I have lost 1 f stop of head room on the high lights... not good. Thanks again for explaining this.