DOF directly correlates to bokeh. Thinner DOF = better bokeh. The FX sensor also give the ability to have more in the frame at the same focal length which "washes" more of the background out.
What was the moment you realized that you needed to move up to FX?
(66 posts) (31 voices)-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
TaoTeJared said:
DOF directly correlates to bokeh. Thinner DOF = better bokeh. The FX sensor also give the ability to have more in the frame at the same focal length which "washes" more of the background out.Not really.. http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.html
Posted 5 months ago # -
ThreadStarter said: "if there was a defining moment where you realized that you were being held back by a DX format camera, what was that moment?"
NEVER, yeah, how about NEVER.
As we say in the world of equipment fetishism in cycling, "$15,000 bike and $50 legs".
Mick
PS: All DX pix at
Posted 5 months ago # -
"if there was a defining moment where you realized that you were being held back by a DX format camera, what was that moment?"
Interesting...
I have been using FX (a D4) for work things exclusively since about September.
My own DX gear is slowly gathering dust. It *IS* getting use, but I am getting more time using my Nikormat film gear now for my art projects.
With cheap MF gear, I gotta love the 90MP scans from 120 negs too... There is a level of gradation in B&W at those levels that'll make you weep. I need to speand about a grand on a Hassy... Next year maybe. My only trouble now is printing; I only have space for a limited number of 48" wide prints at home ... as they say "it's a first world problem" :-)
Posted 5 months ago # -
I ended up going FX because I had been mostly picking up FX lenses for low prices and sorting them out. After I picked up a few fisheye lenses and started shooting with them I found that the DX camera bodies weren't getting the whole picture so to speak. So the D800 dropped and I decided if I am going to go FX may as well now since it has crazy pixel count and built like a tank compared to the D7000 I was shooting with at the time. The compatible batteries are what really sealed the deal for me. I ended up having to pick up a high speed CF card since the SD card was painfully slow when moving 36Mp RAW files. I also decided to go FX for better low light performance. Sadly I haven't had a chance to take it out for astrophotography yet or taking images of the Sun with the solar filter I picked up when I ordered the camera. The other major reason I decided to pull the trigger on the camera was the ability to crop like mad when doing macro work and pretty much everything else. Could care less about the video features on it but will probably play with them at some point.
Posted 5 months ago # -
NikonMick said:
ThreadStarter said: "if there was a defining moment where you realized that you were being held back by a DX format camera, what was that moment?"NEVER, yeah, how about NEVER.
As we say in the world of equipment fetishism in cycling, "$15,000 bike and $50 legs".
Mick
PS: All DX pix at
Cool pics.. My brother is a crazy mountain biker( I cant believe the things he does and the tracks he rides on. Madness !) and I have recently been bitten by the bike touring bug. well have not done a tour yet but working up to it. when I started a 5km ride got me puffed. last week I was up to 35k. still a long way to go but progressing... and enjoying it. Planning a 50k ride next week !!
Re your photos.. Can I suggest you try a rear curtain flash sync for your photos that uses flash. will make them look like they are going forward rather than going backwards :-)
Posted 5 months ago # -
heartyfisher said:
Not really.. http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.htmlUmm... not really. They talked about 1/10 of what makes bokeh.
Reminds me of this: "They can't put anything on the internet that is not true"
Posted 5 months ago # -
-
I've been irritated by the smaller sensors ever since I bought my first digital camera in 2001 (a Fuji FinePix S1 Pro) and I'd wanted a full-frame camera ever since they became available. Before the D700, full-frame cameras were too expensive, at least in Nikon mount. I spent less time on photography through much of the D700's life, and when I came back to it, I realized that there was likely to be a replacement camera soon, so I held out for the D800, which is what I'm using now.
Posted 5 months ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
Umm... not really. They talked about 1/10 of what makes bokeh.That was 1/10 of what bokeh is? I thought it was a pretty comprehensive document. Its what I was trying to explain but didn't have the time to put in the effort to.. :-)
I am thinking the other 9/10 is DOF ? enlighten me ? .. I seem to remember we had a huge debate on Bokeh some time ago .. hmm or was that DOF. .. maybe we need to take this into a separate thread...
Posted 5 months ago # -
Im gonna have to side with hearty here. Its pretty simple really, and his link makes it all rather clear. Bokeh is lens dependant and whether it has a super shallow depth of field has little to do with the bokeh. The lens characteristics come from the construction and consequently the way in which light enters the glass. Both my Zeiss and my 200mm have way better bokeh at f2 and at f2.8 than my 85mm does wide open at f1.4 It sounds to me like this is an argument that has been lost before, but I digress...
Posted 5 months ago # -
When did I decide I had to go FX?
The moment I looked through the viewfinder of the D200, my first DSLR. I knew the smaller viewfinder was going to be a problem for me, since I wear eyeglasses. I had been shooting 35mm SLRs for the previous 37 years, and looking through the tiny viewfinder of the DX camera was, and is, a pain.
Went with the D700 the moment it came out. Bought the D7000 for shooting video. Hated it for stills, but using LV for video made that not an issue. Just got a D800, so I get it all. Still learning what that camera can do, and how to get the most out of it.
Posted 5 months ago # -
There's plenty of DX gear that's better than I am, so not really held back by DX format, but I needed to upgrade from my D60 for a dozen reasons and Nikon didn't have a DX model that I wanted.
Out of many, many benefits, like DOF, low light and dynamic range, three things sold me on a D800 -
The first 10 seconds I had one in hand and realised that it felt right
The fact that even if you crop it, it has better resolution than the D7000 so nothing much to lose (I don't need high fps)
I'm over 50 and starting to appreciate a decent viewfinder !Posted 5 months ago # -
I suspect about 99% of the NRF members could could everything they need to on DX. But, only about 50% believe this. Including me....
The primary reason I would see for going to FX is that Nikon does not make a DX D4 anymore. The D1, D2 were DX, then the D3 became available. And......
FX is pretty much the limit for those who want long lenses for birds, sports, etc. But, IMO most of what I shoot I doubt i could tell the difference in a DX vs. FX image unless I go to very large (40" X 60" ) images... It is about the function of the camera... for me.
Posted 5 months ago # -
msmoto said:
I suspect about 99% of the NRF members could could everything they need to on DX. But, only about 50% believe this. Including me....The primary reason I would see for going to FX is that Nikon does not make a DX D4 anymore. The D1, D2 were DX, then the D3 became available. And......
FX is pretty much the limit for those who want long lenses for birds, sports, etc. But, IMO most of what I shoot I doubt i could tell the difference in a DX vs. FX image unless I go to very large (40" X 60" ) images... It is about the function of the camera... for me.
But technically wouldn't DX be better for reach purposes? Obviously you'd have to go FX for the frame rate advantage, or go for a D300s with a grip for the same packaging.
Posted 5 months ago # -
One other thing. I use super-wide lenses much more than I do long lenses. FX is attractive for this reason.
Posted 5 months ago # -
@ NSXType-R Ah, yes, what I meant was FX is about the largest format for long telephoto work. And, indeed, DX gives one a distinct advantage IMO provided we are comparing DX crop to full DX frame. I believe the final image will be better on a DX sensor vs. a DX crop mode of an FX sensor provided the quality of the sensor is the same.
And, now to the D400 thread....LOL
Posted 5 months ago # -
Lol... for me my 14-24mm on a D7000 isn't wide enough :P
Posted 5 months ago # -
msmoto said:
I suspect about 99% of the NRF members could could everything they need to on DX. But, only about 50% believe this. Including me....The D3 gave me everything I wanted. Speed, durability, a wide comfortable grip (I"m 6'4" with large hands), a big viewfinder, a huge legacy selection of fast primes and zooms, etc.
Could I make nice pics with DX? Sure. I love the D7000, still use it. It's just faster and more comfortable with a big FX body.
Posted 5 months ago # -
msmoto said
...And, now to the D400 thread....LOL
LOL !
Look FX is a great format .. I started out with fx and MF (You know the smelly dark rooms and romantic red lights! ) but as msmoto says .. dx gives me all I need. For the subjects I shoot, some of the DX 'disadvantages' are huge advantages. The the rest of advantages I only need like 1% of the time. I would rather spend the money that would have provided me that 1% capability on other equipment which would enhance my capabilities by 30% or more..... still that D600 looks like a nice cheap camera that in a couple of years I will be able to get at a very good price :-) so I may grab one later. Having both FX and DX is nice and you basically almost double your lense capability by having both formats. I used to do that .. I would carry both my film SLR and my DSLR with a 2 or 3 lenses.. eg carrying a 50mm lens make it a normal on FX and a nice short Portrait lens on DX. its like having 2 lenses!
But DX formant for me will be my main format .. ok .. off to the D400 thread ;-)
Posted 5 months ago # -
Thanks for all the feedback!
The moment that prompted this thread was when I attached my 50mm 1.8g to a D600 and took some shots and compared it to my DX camera - there was a big difference between the out of focus elements between the two formats. The FX bokeh just blows my DX out of the water.
Posted 5 months ago # -
heartyfisher said:
Cool pics..Re your photos.. Can I suggest you try a rear curtain flash sync for your photos that uses flash. will make them look like they are going forward rather than going backwards :-)
Thanks for this thought ... the pix from last July with the very ordinary flash results in the empty velodrome were my first action pix for about 150 years (joke) and I had no idea of the situation before I got there. So they're a bit ... ordinary
Posted 5 months ago # -
I still haven't realized it yet...although I have been impressed by my friends D800E landscape shots. Maybe eventually? Still don't have the money to dump into more FX glass though.
Err and FX body for that matter ;-)
Posted 5 months ago # -
Paxton said:
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?My moment was the realization that the D400 is never going to happen - or not soon enough anyway. I found the D7000 incompatible with my hand size (the D300S was better in size but so much worse at high ISOs, which I need to utilize).
For me, there is no sense in getting a DX-format camera anymore, as I found out that my travel camera, the Olympus OM-D, is almost equal to the D7000 in image quality, despite the smaller sensor.
So FX for me it is, and most probably a D800.
Posted 5 months ago # -
msmoto said:
And, now to the D400 thread....LOLHa! It does kind of feel like the "faithful" (me included) are waiting for the 400 to drop from heaven, doesn't it? I wonder just how many will just shrug and buy a D600/800?
After some thought and a weekend of post processing, as I came from film (both 120 and 35) over a decade ago, I am (finally) returning to it. DX is good but leaving all the advantages of digital to one side, the images just don't match up to FX, which in turn lacks "something" that was in my better 35mm film shots, and in turn lacks a lot of what is in my 120 shots.
Definition? Gradation? Thought process? Distortion (thinking valves/tube HIFI vs I.C./transistors for that) and 'warmth'??? Lord alone knows, but they are just not the same thing.
If I could afford it, I'd buy one of every format and be happy with my gear, but have to use borrowed FX gear from work and 40+ year old film cameras. You know you are hauling a steel Nikormat and AI lenses about all day... Just like you do with a D4. LOL!
Posted 5 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
