As the title states - if there was a defining moment where you realized that you were being held back by a DX format camera, what was that moment?
What was the moment you realized that you needed to move up to FX?
(66 posts) (31 voices)-
No, was not held back, but I bought FX anyway because the lure of 36mp was just too much to resist!
Posted 5 months ago # -
I too was never held back by DX. Two different formats, two different venues.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Just before the D600 got officially announced.
Posted 5 months ago # -
There was no defining moment, but a painful repetition of moments. I made the switch to FX for better high ISO performance. At the time I found the quality of high ISO shots limiting on DX, but that was back when the D300 was the best DX camera in that regard. So to me, the reason to switch was the need for fast shutter speeds in less than ideal lighting, otherwise I was perfectly happy with DX. That's why I still have DX cameras, in good light (or non-wide angle situations) I don't see any overwhelming need for FX.
Posted 5 months ago # -
When a D400 was not announced and a D800 was sitting in front of me at a local shop.
Posted 5 months ago # -
I wanted to get a stop or two improvement when shooting fast motion in low light. I had a D7000 but felt I was having to work on the edge of acceptable IQ with it. The newer sensors in the D800 and D600 (and D4 but that was too expensive) allowed me one stop improvement in high ISO IQ and not having to enlarge the FX image as much as the DX image gave me another stop improvement for the two stops I was looking for. Now I am no longer having to work on the edge of acceptable IQ.
Posted 5 months ago # -
After United Airlines lost everything I had. I started looking for deals on used lenses, and thought FX would be a better avenue. I wanted constant f/2.8 zooms, and the FX varieties are more numerous than the DX varieties. (I was also looking for a film camera, so it all made sense)
Found a screaming deal on what was essentially a new D3, (much less than the cost of a gripped D600) and there you have it.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Ideally I would like to keep both as each has its advantage but I suppose I knew I had a date with destiny when I compared the difference in the bokeh when using differential focus.
+1 on Donald, Bland, PB and Tao tho.
Posted 5 months ago # -
-
Paxton said:
or what was it about the format that lured you in?Better bokeh. Basically for image quality at base isos, that is pretty much all you get.
There is nothing all that special about the format itself. It is nice to have the lenses actually equal their stated focal range.
The technology gap of the large sensor is diminished and will continue expect for the flagship D4. D800 Vs D600 Vs D5200 - what the gains and the gap between formats once was, is tightening quickly.
Posted 5 months ago # -
heartyfisher said:
lol me too but then I woke up and realised I have a d7000 to tide me over till the d400 arrives..Seriously though, if I had only 1 camera I would crave DX more than FX.
I like the crop for wildlife, but lately I have been doing less of that and more portraiture so now I'm back to chasing Bokeh. It is just "that" much better. I'm getting to the point where I don't care about what the format is, just the end result. The new DX from Fuji is just about as good as the D700. The OMD M5 is better than my D300.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Fortunately I never bought in to the DX system, not because it's inferior but because for wedding/portrait work, it would have been the wrong decision, and have cost me dearly to change. I came mighty close though (I had picked out a D300s and good DX glass), but did some investigation and found that I couldn't find any pro's in that line of work using DX. If I found myself needing the "crop factor" I'd be very happy to get one.........and be waiting for the D400 like everyone else! :-)
Posted 5 months ago # -
Good thread Paxton
When I bought my D70 i don't think I was aware of the difference, not even sure if Fx existed I bought it with a sigma 10-20 to do some photos for my company web site
I bought a D700 with some of the money from the sale of that business, and I had decided to return to professional photography
I simply need the best quality I could get
ordered a D800 the day it came out
Posted 5 months ago # -
I never needed it. I shoot for myself and I'm on a pretty tight budget.
The D700 was nice (and still is), but I realistically didn't need the mind blowing performance.
Posted 5 months ago # -
The very same day I touched a D700 after receiving my D7000 as a Christmas gift from my wife one month earlier.
I told her not to buy the camera that she had in mind (I didn't ask which one). I suggested the D7K because it was just coming out. Weeks later I asked what was she about to buy for me. Turns out it would have been the D700. I went to a local store, picked up the D700, saw that big mirror, and knew I wanted FX from that point.
Since I've had the D800 my reasons have morphed into things less esoteric and more logical such as better high ISO image quality, smoother bokeh, more controls at the fingertips, more enjoyable ergonomics, etc.
Posted 5 months ago # -
I am not sure why bokeh is mentioned as a fx advantage. Bokeh is a function of the lens not the sensor.
Posted 5 months ago # -
heartyfisher:
Your thought is incorrect. Bokeh is about "relative" shallow depth of field. Please study geometry then get back to me.
Here is an easy test. Take your favorite lens with bokeh that pleases you and bolt it on to the front of both DX and FX format cameras. After viewing the two files on your monitor, please get back to me. Thanks.
Posted 5 months ago # -
What lured me in....
Bokeh for portraits and low light performance mainly. A close third would be the wider field of view which is useful for conventions that I usually photograph at. I suppose it was more of a *want* than a *need* before I jumped to the D600 but now that I have, I had to actually wipe some dust off of the D7000 the other day...
Posted 5 months ago # -
3 years ago... Dx is not wide enough or good enough in low light for what I do. Unfortunately my wallet didn't agree with me so now I have 12 Fx lenses and no Fx body. But my little n80 gives the reach when I need it. Dx REALLY is holding me back still...
Posted 5 months ago # -
kyoshinikon said:
3 years ago... Dx is not wide enough or good enough in low light for what I do. Unfortunately my wallet didn't agree with me so now I have 12 Fx lenses and no Fx body. But my little n80 gives the reach when I need it. Dx REALLY is holding me back still...I've seen D700's used for less than $1000 now. Go for it.
Posted 5 months ago # -
WaterEngineer said:
heartyfisher:Your thought is incorrect. Bokeh is about "relative" shallow depth of field. Please study geometry then get back to me.
Here is an easy test. Take your favorite lens with bokeh that pleases you and bolt it on to the front of both DX and FX format cameras. After viewing the two files on your monitor, please get back to me. Thanks.
DOF is not bokeh. Yes, the fx format has a thinner dof and many consider that an advantage. But bokeh from a $4000 f1.4 lens is usually better than from a $500 f1.4. Same mm same 'geometry' even less functionality but better bokeh.
Posted 5 months ago # -
good question... I needed better iso than d200 and I was searching for a new camera and came across d3s... than I got a backup body - d300s and it was way below comparing to d3s in both iso and handling... and than d800 came and I didn't hesitated with getting one after NPS preview. finally I got a camera that could replace my f100. since that time it's my prime camera for everything but reportage style snaps - d3s is way better for this.
Posted 5 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
