I though a lot about shooting animals in FX, and my conclusion is simple. Sure DX gives You the "extra" reach - no doubts, but then it's so hard to get a nice shot with so long focal length. My longest lens so far is 500mm, and I'm starting to see atmosphere influences with this one (750mm on DX), so I can easily imagine how this magnifies when You use 600/4+TC20 - 1200*1.5 = 1800mm, not to mention the very small angle of view (if some of You used this kind of lenses, they will know how hard is to actually find Your subject through the viewfinder). So for now, I would like to have d300s, d3s and d3x in my bag - along with 600/4 and the new TC20 :)
To those who plan on a DX->FX switch. Would anything make you keep using DX?
(74 posts) (29 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Long DX lenses would sure make a difference. I have 10.5, 10-24, 16-85 and 35/1.8 in DX. If Nikon released long DX lenses that benefited by being smaller and less expensive, that would make big difference to me. All Nikon's long teles; 200-400, 400, 500 and 600 are huge and extremely expensive. DX versions would be both smaller and less expensive. I would love to shoots birds (with a camera), but just can't afford the "big" glass.
Posted 3 years ago # -
i think CMOS sensors will eventually HAVE to be phased out as we reach limits of physics. . .with that in mind, the D3s is pretty darn close to where I'd like a D700 type body to eventually be, and it's about 3.5 stops improvement over my D200, so I could swing it for about $1799. . . but that won't happen for awhile. . .
Hell, the D2xs only NOW has come down to $1200 used, and that's from what, 2004 or 2005?
Posted 3 years ago # -
heartyfisher said:
In a local forum that I visit there are guys that have those water proof fishing overalls and they get some amazing shots!Location location location. Exactly what you use as well as where you can go depends on where you are. In a lot of areas out here, it's against the law to go into wildlife habitat besides the fact that it's risky.
Adamz has a point too, the long lenses create very unique shooting conditions all their own. My longest lens is just my 300mmF4. I cannot afford anything longer, I'll be lucky if I can get the 300mm2.8 non VR used for a decent price. With that, the most I could hope for is a 2x TC at some point in the future IF I get that lens. That would give me 600mm5.6. Not sure how that would work out but a lot of birders do this and get some great shots.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I agree with what you're saying adamz. Wildlife photographers shot pictures long before there was a DX crop. I think the DX marketing did wonders to convince everyone otherwise though.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Most of the time I don't use the TC17 with the 500mm on DX. The Purple galinue shots I spoke of were not the norm. I hope to be able to get the shots I want using the D700 With The TC1.4 or no TC. I'll have the D300 with me, just in case. Another experience I had last spring when shooting Osprey on the nest, I did encounter heat waves that messed everything up. I was only about 150 ft. from the nest. It was up on a pole platform in the middle of a field. Early morning and just before sunset was the only time I could shoot and get anything worth keeping. Your correct Niko, before DX we did very well with full frame 35mm. I have thought of that often. That's why I like the D700.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Considering my D90 still has higher pixel density than the D3x, I expect I'll be keeping it around for a bit. Its like having a whole different set of lenses!
Posted 3 years ago # -
heartyfisher said:
Not really, say d3S at 12 mp quad that is 48 mp lets say thats is close enough to 60mp ok that = 2 ev improvement ? if its the same ISO capability of 100000 ISO.To get to 2,000,000 iso from 100,000 ISO you double it 4.5 times.
So you need a total of 4.5 + 2 ev improvement ie 6.5 ev improvement to get to the specs stated by JohnC.
Well what do you know. Black Silicon provides 7 EV improvemnet ! and that is available now!! Just needs to be comercialised.! The wall has been broken!
Read pages 4-6 of http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/downloadable_2/Physical_Limits_2.pdf for an explanation of how any technology which improves the sensitivity of silicon is _still_ at physical limits (photon count) when it comes to dark details. Black Silicon may increase sensitivity - but sensitivity is not the problem with shadows (and thus not the problem in poor light in general). Lack of photons is, period. When only 6 photons can be predicted to impact any given pixel during any given exposure, statistical variance (flipping a coin does not come up H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T very often) leads to significant noise levels, regardless of if you accurately catch all the limited number of photons or not.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm planning to switch from DX to FX... Only reason I went with the D300 was because it was my first DSLR and it was the very minimum for my needs (the minimum that is not making me want to upgrade every time I use a camera because I need more features) Yes I'd like better performance in high ISO, wider angle due to FX and more megapixel, but I can still do quite a lot with the D300.
There was also the monetary reason that made me go for DX.
Once I update, nothing will make me use DX because to me, the size of my camera is not very important. I like big cameras, yes they are heavy in your bag with all the huge lenses and your back hurts, but you got the real gear to work with. I'm not the kind of guy who travels and take picture, I'm actually planning to travel TO take pictures. The number one reason of the trip will be photography. So I will not bring a DX camera. I actually would like to do that trip with a MF camera and tripod and all and a FX camera for when you can't use the MF... but damn I think that will be too much so the FX it will be.
Also, I prefer wide angle to telephotos so another Plus for the FX.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Soap: Thanks for that link.. Interesting read.. I will have to check the numbers sometime. or find other corroborating info. There is just too many unclear statements/ assumptions in my first reading of it. Definitely interesting read though.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The article is interesting. The point of it is correct in that there is a physical limit to ISO. But in my attempt to answer this question I arrived at a different answer, an order of magnitude higher. For his 3200 ISO example he arrived at 20 photons/pixel on a 21-24MP chip. The formula I came up with is photons = 60,000 * um/iso for 18% grey. so that 6um pixel (21-24MP) should have ~675 photons not 20. I may have miscalculated but one reason I think his number is off is the ISO standard (or one version) calls for S/N of 10% at 18% luminance.
OK, I just reread the article and realize he's referring to 1/256 of the light not 18%. So 20 photons * 256 * 18% = ~900 photons, close enough to my ~675.
But back to the issue. There's still room for higher ISO but not much more. The Bayer filter looses 2/3rds of the light, drop it and gain 3x the light.
Posted 3 years ago # -
for those of You who can't wait You can always add AstroScope - and gain the ability to shoot in perfect darkness; as for improving iso capabilities, I guess the limit is the ability of human eye - as who will use iso 1000000 if You wouldn't be able to point Your camera towards Your subject (as You wouldn't see it)
Posted 3 years ago # -
ISO of the human eye is estimated at around ~800 in that article.
Posted 3 years ago # -
astrophotographer said:
The article is interesting. The point of it is correct in that there is a physical limit to ISO. But in my attempt to answer this question I arrived at a different answer, an order of magnitude higher. For his 3200 ISO example he arrived at 20 photons/pixel on a 21-24MP chip. The formula I came up with is photons = 60,000 * um/iso for 18% grey. so that 6um pixel (21-24MP) should have ~675 photons not 20. I may have miscalculated but one reason I think his number is off is the ISO standard (or one version) calls for S/N of 10% at 18% luminance.OK, I just reread the article and realize he's referring to 1/256 of the light not 18%. So 20 photons * 256 * 18% = ~900 photons, close enough to my ~675.
But back to the issue. There's still room for higher ISO but not much more. The Bayer filter looses 2/3rds of the light, drop it and gain 3x the light.
Thanks for checking the calculations.
Re droping the bayer. You actually gain more than 3 x the light. eg the nikon patent that uses prisms to split the wavelengths. Each "pixel" now is made up of 4 coloured pixels in the bayer system. each with 1/3 the light. so you gain 3xeach + 4xthepixels.Posted 3 years ago # -
heartyfisher said:
Re droping the bayer. You actually gain more than 3 x the light. eg the nikon patent that uses prisms to split the wavelengths. Each "pixel" now is made up of 4 coloured pixels in the bayer system. each with 1/3 the light. so you gain 3xeach + 4xthepixels.Umm... you seem to be saying it can capture 133% of the light! ;-)
A Bayer array is RGBG, so four pixels. But each of the four photo sites capture ideally 1/3rd of the light, 33%. The best improvement is 3 x.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I /believe/ where you're misthinking it, heartyfisher, is you're thinking "4 sensors in Bayer array = 1/4th the light" instead of "each sensor is only collecting 1/3rd the light it could if it wasn't for the bloody filter." - thus the 3x vs 4x discrepancy.
~1 and 2/3 stops ain't nothing to laugh at, though, eitherway. ;)
Posted 3 years ago # -
:-) sorry for dragging out this ol thread .. but I must have missed the last couple of posts.
Let me explain my logic.. which may still be wrong :-)For each "pixel" on a bayer system, lets say each sensor now receives 30 unit of light. they lose 2/3 due to the colour filters. so a Pixel becomes a combination of 10 unit of light.
But if you remove the bayer and have one big pixel 4x the size(splitting the light using prisms) . You get a total of 30 x 4 units of light = 120 for a pixel. This is not including the light you would loose in between the sensors on the bayer system.
Posted 3 years ago # -
So, I'm just now reading parts of this thread and after the D3s it seems like they only have a couple of stops more to go for bayer sensors (maybe they'll get those last couple of stops from backside illumination?). I would love it if Nikon started a post-bayer revolution. But being pragmatic I would of course wait for the reviews before buying and being a pessimist I have my serious doubts that either Nikon or Canon will take the first step in that direction (assuming you don't consider Foveon the first step—I think it will be something with prisms that finally wins). It will probably be from a company with smaller market share and more motivation for risk-taking.
Posted 3 years ago # -
For me it will be quite easy. I use to have some expensive FX lenses, but decided to sell them due to the investment cost. I now mainly have better quality DX lenses and a few moderate priced FX lenses.
I will not convert to FX simply because of the cost factor. The FX lenses for me are just too expensive. The 14-24mm, 24-70mm and the original 70-200mm lenses all being very nice lenses are just too expensive for me and my use. Now with the release of three more very expensive lenses; 16-35mm, 70-200mm VR II and 24mm lenses it seems clear to me that the FX line will continue to be very expensive. Again this reason alone will keep me purchasing DX bodies and the better quality DX lenses.
I only hope that Nikon will continue to produce a premium quality DX body such as the D300. I am now betting that they will based on my current lens purchase direction. If they do not I will be extremely dissapointed. My quess is that there may be many others out there such as myself that have marched down the premium DX lens road and would also be dissapointed.
Posted 3 years ago # -
DX or FX, cameras are just tools. What is your vision?
I have a D200 and it has a place in my toolchest. When I need to reach out and touch, and the sensor is adequate, it still gets used.
I also have a D3s. When I need wide angle or fast or high ISO, out it comes.
I have not switched. I have availed myself of the tools that best match the job. At least as much as my budget will allow.
Mysteriously, my wallet seems to levitate out of my pocket when at the camera store. They have a D3x in stock. So far I have successfully grabbed it and put it away. So far.
Oh, and I only buy FX lenses.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I have a mix of FX and DX glass. I'm aiming to compliment my D300 with a D700 or the replacement of it, next summer. I miss the big, bright viewfinders of film cameras when I'm not using them. Not to mention how much easier it is to manually focus. The camera will pay for itself in time thanks to some projects I'm working on.
The only way I'd stick with DX camera as my only Nikon digital camera would be if they could somehow make the viewfinders bigger and brighter.
Posted 3 years ago # -
settle - I really like Your approach
Posted 3 years ago # -
I agree that the DX crop is great for telephoto lenses so that was a point I had to weigh before I finally caved in an went FX. If Nikon were to release a new DX body with a high resolution I'd consider it as a second body to my D700. Only if the D700x is not released first though.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
