guys - but please don't forget that flash is not only used instead of higher iso, for me one of the biggest advantages of using flash is the ability to fill in the shadows, even when You have the best cameras (d3s - lord of darkness :)) and the fastest prime 50/1.2 You still would benefit from fill-in flash, as they give You the "touch"
Dx v. Fx Why is full frame better?
(96 posts) (35 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
shivaswrath said:
...The extra 1.5X factor reach (50% closer) of a DX body REALLY helps when you're shooting the ceremony and don't want to "get into the shot"; you can't get that sort of equivalent reach on a FX camera.But that's not really a DX/FX related issue. The right lens for the job will give you the required reach on each, you just need a larger focal length on the FX.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Which means, getting that same reach is more expensive.
Posted 3 years ago # -
jonnyapple said:
speye_21, have you tried Lightroom? I think noise ninja will work as a plugin inside lightroom and it might save you some time on your workflow. The color/exposure correction will be worlds faster than NX, too. Try out the trial version if you haven't (or the LR3 beta, which is out now).The noise ninja plugin does not have the same level of functionality as the standalone version.
I dislike Adobe products with a strong passion as they force you to commit to all your edits on .nef at import using a tiny little modal window as a preview. From that point on you're tweaking a TIFF or JPEG which is not the same. what if I make a mistake? what if I change my mind? Very archaic and linear workflow. Hate it. Adobe products also f*ck up your alpha channels by treating them differently than the rest of the industry because they think they know better. They don't. Adobe does have some nifty tools in the image editing such as the smart scaling, I'll give them that.
Capture NX is slow at some things (like thumbnailing and file browsing) and definitely has room for improvement, but each release gets faster and more efficient. It's much better now than 1.x. While it's missing some features I want, I have to admit the U-Point tools really make some otherwise challenging edits really quick and easy. What I really like is when I have 20 shots taken from the same angle. I can edit the first picture, save it, then apply it's history to the other 19 images in a batch process to get the same results all the way down to the most granular edits made with the U-Point tools. If a picture doesn't follow suit, then I can open it and make a slight tweak and it will fall in line. If I have to change the lighting temperature, I can apply that change independently to the rest of the history stack in a batch process. Edits that came later will be preserved. That's where I save my time. Recently I had to exhume some pictures I took 5 years ago. I was able to tweak a few steps in the middle of the construction history and now they look even better. Not just because I've improved my skills, but because new tools have come online too. some of the tools used by the images were tweaked in later releases of Capture NX, so just the act of loading the image automatically picked up those improvements. That means I can update the quality of my images by running an unattended batch process. Improves my portfolio without me having to spend much time.
If Capture NX had some paint tools, text tools, and a noise ninja quality noise removal tool, I wouldn't need to leave Capture NX for anything photo related. I have plenty of software to do other types of graphics.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Are you talking about lightroom? What software are you using? Please don't say GIMP
Posted 3 years ago # -
speye_21 said:
The noise ninja plugin does not have the same level of functionality as the standalone version.I dislike Adobe products with a strong passion as they force you to commit to all your edits on .nef at import using a tiny little modal window as a preview. From that point on you're tweaking a TIFF or JPEG which is not the same. what if I make a mistake? what if I change my mind? Very archaic and linear workflow. Hate it.
I didn't know about the difference between the standalone and plugin versions of NN.
I'm confused at what you mean by commit all your edits at import. You don't have to convert to DNG. You can leave your files untouched as NEFs and write XMP sidecar files with the lightroom edits in them. I'm not sure how you could possibly be tweaking a jpg since you're working with a 16-bit container file in the develop module. jpg isn't even compatible with 16 bits. LR does save your edit history like NX, but I admit it doesn't let you do u-point edits without a viveza plugin. I've never seen the point since LR2 came out with the adjustment brush. All LR edits are also easily applied to other photos, and I would argue it's easier and faster.
I admit there are some things about adobe products that I don't like as well as offerings from other companies. I first learned Corel Photo-paint as a pixel editor and even though I can't stand using it anymore just because I got used to the behavior of PS, PSP, and the GIMP, there are some things that I thought were easier to do there than in PS. I used Jasc PSP for years, and I still use it instead of photoshop for some things (it handles vector graphics much better than PS, IMO). I'm still not sure what you have against lightroom, though. Maybe you think it's doing things that it isn't doing?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Well, I'm married with two toddlers; and I'm a teacher. This is a hobby that I an turning into a part-time business. I'm trying to not let the growth curve of the one (my business sense) outreach the other (my talent in photography). I'm still learning both.
So, yes. Money is a factor. I think I'll be able to swing the D700 once the replacement (d700x, D800, D900) comes out. As for lens, well, I'll likely buy a 1.8 prime and borrow a friends 2.8 70-200 until I can swing that.
Or- I can buy that lens now and a D300s... and possibly not be able to get into an Fx for years. You know... when you spend that capital it often equates to spending marriage capital.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Jeff H said:
Or- I can buy that lens now and a D300s... and possibly not be able to get into an Fx for years. You know... when you spend that capital it often equates to spending marriage capital.So true! In that case, I still think it might be a good idea to get the D300s and a couple of nice lenses and see how successful the venture is. Money is easy come, easy go. Marriage capital...more easy go than easy come. I'd suggest you try third party offerings like the Tamron 28-75 2.8 which can give you great optical quality on a budget. Maybe that and the 85 1.8, which is my favorite portrait lens around. I will be booed down on this nikkor fanboy site, but I love my Tamron 70-200 2.8. It doesn't have VR, but it's sharper than the nikkor 80-200 2.8 I've compared it to. It's got slow autofocus, so it might not be for you shooting sports, but you could give it a try at least. For the price of a nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRI, you could have both tamrons and the nikkor 85 1.8. Then, if those lenses are holding you back and you're successful in keeping your marriage capital and earning back your invested capital you could upgrade to something like the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 VRII. I'm not claiming that the tamrons are better than the Nikkors and I'm planning on replacing my 70-200—maybe this year—but I think they are a better value when money is an issue.
edit: all the lenses I mentioned here are full-frame, and I think with your 35 1.8 that would be a great kit.Posted 3 years ago # -
Well now that I know money is a factor, it is now that I personally will address this. Since you will have to sacrifice a few things for the D700, the D300s MAY be a better option. I'm trying to be objective, I know what I PERSONALLY would do.
So the next questions are:
Since you are perhaps going to make money part time, will you be able to afford to wait a few years for the FX switch/upgrade?
Will the lower IQ of the DX model matter to a point that it may hurt your business? As mentioned before, there are many who make money using their D90's.
Are you open to using a flash or are you dedicated to as much natural light as possible?
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
-
Yeah I know it's just funny that Jonny is always recommending it regardless of what people are asking advice on. :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Yeah I know it's just funny that Jonny is always recommending it regardless of what people are asking advice on. :^)I see what you mean. I can't talk about jonny though. It's not much different than me telling everyone to stay away from the entry level models or the older models. We all have our photographic quirks LOL
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Jonny did you help design the 35mm f1.8 or something? For once I'd like to hear you NOT recommend the D90 with the 35mm f1.8". lol.Hahaha! I didn't even recommend the 35! He already owns it:
Jeff H said:
I have two kit lenses, and the nikkor 35 1.8 dx.Point taken, though. I am always recommending it or the 50 1.8 because they're so affordable I think everyone should own one or the other or both. I am unrepentant!
Gentoo said:
I see what you mean. I can't talk about jonny though. It's not much different than me telling everyone to stay away from the entry level models or the older models. We all have our photographic quirks LOLThanks, Gentoo. It's nice to know I've got some friends around here. ;-)
Posted 3 years ago # -
I own both FX and DX Nikons. As to shallow depth of field count me out. I use my D90 more than my D700. I saw a batch of Canon pro shots the other day and a few amateurs did also and they said, Wow! You can't even see the face of other people standing right beside them. Well that is shallow depth of field. Sometimes I strive for it. Another downside is size of bodies. I would never want a underwater housing for my Nikon F5 and the big honking lens that I use on it. I tend to take off my Nikkor glass from the F5 when I shoot the D700. When a full frame Nikon DSLR comes out in a more modest size and price (and it WILL) I still see lots of reasons to use DX. I use my 60 Micro Nikkor a lot, but have some to prefer it for a lot of subjects with the D300, but in other cases want the D700 as I know I'll have to get too far away. The thing i will concede is that DX and FX both have niches but most DSLR sales are DX and my guess is that will be true ten years from now. I also think the biggest thing I miss on the D700 is no video. I sent two letters to Nikon USA and didn't even get a response. I also have very little use for 1.8 lens and will not ever buy another.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wait, you don't like using fast primes?
Posted 1 year ago # -
A can of worms you do not want to open, believe me.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Apparently the photography I do is quite different than what you are shooting with prime lens. I shoot exclusively in the field. When you can't back up or move forward due to hazards or risk spooking the subject the use of fast primes is more difficult than using a zoom. An example that comes to mind was taking some photos of Texas Longhorn Cattle. "Don't go near them unmounted or even very close on horseback" was the cowboys advice, and since I had dealt with that years ago when I was faster I used a zoom. I did have one fast prime wide angle and it never got put on the camera body. This discussion underscores that most enthusiasts want lens they will use, but I think the market will determine that quite nicely and that will keep DX going as well as FX DSLRs. Another factor I frequently encounter in my photos is that first encounter with a wild creature is when you can give it your best shot. Have the wrong lens on your camera and you have nothing. Last time I was aboard a vessel and a pod of Orcas rolled by and the photo op was open and closed in a couple of minutes. Most of the photographers missed the shot completely. Not the time to have a 1.8 24mm lens on your camera. I work on assignments that require the best tools for the job. It may annoy you that prime fast lens are not the most efficient in some arenas. I really do think Nikon very coolly evaluates what lens are used most on what cameras and builds and markets accordingly.
Posted 1 year ago # -
This thread is a DX versus FX discussion or so I thought and not the wonders of prime fast lens. But if that is the prime and fast reason for the supposed superiority of FX over DX I am going to opt for quick action and capturing the moment and not recording just one face in a crowd. The original post was very insightful.
Posted 1 year ago # -
A good photographer can capture a great shot, with any lens, with any format camera. People are too hung up on gear. My motto is give me a disposable film camera and I'll take a better shot than the gear head, lens buying addiction guy with the D3x.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ignorance is bliss.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JJump said:
A good photographer can capture a great shot, with any lens, with any format camera. People are too hung up on gear. My motto is give me a disposable film camera and I'll take a better shot than the gear head, lens buying addiction guy with the D3x.I doubt.
And the person buying the D3X would be well versed in photography to go for that particular camera.
Bliss is the correct word.
Posted 1 year ago # -
DaveyJ said:
This thread is a DX versus FX discussion or so I thought and not the wonders of prime fast lens. But if that is the prime and fast reason for the supposed superiority of FX over DX I am going to opt for quick action and capturing the moment and not recording just one face in a crowd. The original post was very insightful.I was just curious about the reason, that's all. Everyone has different reasons of course.
I've been shooting DX for a couple years now and I see no reason to go FX. The major stopping point is the price of FX quite obviously.
If it were significantly cheaper and if there were a better FX kit zoom, something like a FX style 18-55 or 18-105 VR I'd consider moving. But for what I do, there's no reason to move at all.
My plan is to shoot the D40 until it becomes a paperweight and then see where I should go from there, maybe get the equivalent of a D7000 at that point.
I just passed ~20,000 clicks.
Posted 1 year ago # -
casperwb said:
I doubt.And the person buying the D3X would be well versed in photography to go for that particular camera.
Bliss is the correct word.
I'm not afraid to take on anyone with just a throwaway camera. If you think you have to have a D3x to get a great shot, you're not very well versed.
SquamishPhoto said:
Ignorance is bliss.Ignorance is thinking the guy with the D3x will automatically get the better shot.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JJump said:
I'm not afraid to take on anyone with just a throwaway camera. If you think you have to have a D3x to get a great shot, you're not very well versed.Ignorance is thinking the guy with the D3x will automatically get the better shot.
Keep trying. It will make sense one day.
Baby steps.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
