fx or dx for wildlife « Nikon Rumors Forum

fx or dx for wildlife « Nikon Rumors Forum

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

fx or dx for wildlife

(37 posts) (15 voices)

Tags:

adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I was Dx follower for long time, until I got a great deal for D3s and You know what: it gives You a lot of new possibilities, even when You shoot animals, like I do. It makes You to think twice about composition. On dx it was easy - just fill the frame with animal, while it worked for some shots I'm starting to see the beauty of showing not only the animal itself but also the habitat the animal lives in.
Below are two examples of fx vs dx.
Fox

on dx I'll more likely go for picture similar to the one below:

Lion

while on dx I'll go more likely for this kind of shot

both taken on d3s, the first on in fx mode the second one in dx mode

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Wow! You have a pet lion?! Awesome! FX for the win! :^)

I told you, you wouldn't regret getting a D3S. But now you know the D4X is going to be announced next week ;^)

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

Great topic adamz. I've been debating the FX, DX subject for a while in my mind, I like your line of thinking. As your photos show each has strengths, it just depends on what kind of shot you are going for. I am starting to get more into the environmental shots for wildlife, so I like the idea of using FX for that in lower light.

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

Wouldn't be surprised Niko. So far only one nikon stuff haven't been either replaced or got huge price drop since I got it, and that was the N24-70 lens, everything else just went like You said :)
Btw: You know that I also have pet tiger:)

PB PM - take Your camera and go out into the wilderness, just get some nice wellingtons. Trust me You ain't gonna regret it, it's so amazing You can find so close to Your place. I took the fox picture in a walking distance from my place - during a walk with my dog, and I live in the capital.

One more thing I've noticed is the bokeh on fx. All of my lenses got a huge kick on both contrast and clarity. The dof is so nice, very smooth, not like the onr from d300s - which is more harsh IMHO. Anyway, as soon as I get my d300s from service (got osme problems with flash cover, couldn't close it), I'm gonna run a side by side comparison of both of this cameras.

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

found some photo of the lion above, when he was Younger. taken on d200 with the same lens + TC17

as You can see the background is not as smooth as the one on fx

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

and this one especially for You Niko:

D3s+N70-200vr + TC17

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Hmmm I think the closer crop that DX provides is more advantageous on every budget point. However if cost is not an issue and you can afford the 600 F4 AFS VR on a D3X then FX for the win but for most of us I would say the DX format surely has the edge.

RE the bokeh, I thought bokeh was a factor of the aperture and lens not so much the sensor size? would be interesting to have a bokeh shootout between the formats using the same lenses and apertures.

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

If I had the money I'd take the D3s over anything I can afford (okay, that's probably just stating the obvious).

Congratulations on the new camera, Adamz. The pictures look great!

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

heartyfisher said:
Hmmm I think the closer crop that DX provides is more advantageous on every budget point. However if cost is not an issue and you can afford the 600 F4 AFS VR on a D3X then FX for the win but for most of us I would say the DX format surely has the edge.

RE the bokeh, I thought bokeh was a factor of the aperture and lens not so much the sensor size? would be interesting to have a bokeh shootout between the formats using the same lenses and apertures.

I'm not saying that dx is not a way to go for most of us, I was using dx format for many many years and was happy with the results I got. I'm just saying that I can understand why wildlifers use fx, even when they can't benefit from the dx crop. As for the bokeh I'll run the tests when I get my d300s back.

Posted 2 years ago #
Pierre

preferred member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 1,023
offline

What is the difference between throwing your D3S in DX mode and just simply software cropping, isn't the same?

I still prefer the closeup of your lion, trees are nice but not the star that really shines.

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Pierre said:
What is the difference between throwing your D3S in DX mode and just simply software cropping, isn't the same?

I still prefer the closeup of your lion, trees are nice but not the star that really shines.

You lose resolution, you've effectively turned the D3s into a D40.

I can't go FX, the cost is too prohibitive, but I do see both sides of the arguments.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

I do have friends who are nature photographers and use a 600VR with a D3S and they get wonderful images(understatement!) If money is not an issue definitely go FX! but an equivalent setup on dx is a fraction of the cost of that kit both in dollars and pounds ;-) (weight).

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

for sure in pounds hearty - I'm going to get the 600vr monster, played with it couple of times, and it's so damm heavy. but like You said this combo produces wonderful images (with a little help from the photographer :D)

Posted 2 years ago #
Pierre

preferred member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 1,023
offline

I did a walk up a small mountain last week and my D700, its 2 lenses and my tripod adding 10% over my own weight, plus some water and lunch, boy did I felt like being a work horse 3 hours in the walk. Now mountain photo seams less appealing to me for some reasons. There is surely a cost to FF beside money.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

@Pierre : LOL I think the gear is just an excuse ! Heh! ...

Hmm ... time for me to get some exercise too ... where is that beer ...

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

I shoot wildlife photos almost everyday. I own a D300 and a D700. I rarely if ever use the D700 on wildlife despite the fact that I have very good glass for FX photography. Also Adams comment on seeing the setting for an animal better in DX versus FX. Hmmmm....when I photograph I make sure what angle of view I want and zoom accordingly. Fact is I see no reason that FX is superior for wildlife photos to DX. Another issue....I don't class zoo animals as wildlife, some people do. I am not shooting zoo animals. If I was I'd pick the rig for the task. Wild lions or tigers do not have human owners. If they have human owners they are very far from wild. I have been many times in places where there are wild animals and enough DX and FX gear in use to see what results the photogs were getting. I truly wonder what an FX camera with a 600mm lens will get unless it was shot supported from a blind. I do not photograph that way and if I did that would be a good way to go. But when I look at images shot that are very good of real wild animals they were either done by someone who had very exclusive access to those places, or was someone using more lighter gear and being in the right place at the right time. Also a great shot on DX is better than a so-so shot on FX. I do think the FX versus DX debate is not a very useful one. Both DX and FX has its place and will last for years as a viable format.

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

@ Pierre: I am going to say that your comment on the D700 hike was very excellent and my post above really did not add anything to this FX versus DX discussion. Let me just echo Pierre's sentiment to say this.....at 66 years old when I do go fro a hike and I know it is going to be a physical test I do not want to be dominated by a camera system. But if some wonderful scene presents itself I don't want a P&S to try to record it. That to me is one reason DX is so right at times. It is also why a one lens zoom is also a very good option. If your only mission was a photo for sale.....maybe then the heavy gear (FX 35mm DSLR) is justified.

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

DaveyJ, if you think DX is the only way to go for wildlife, don't talk to Moose Peterson, who shoots wildlife exclusively with a D3.

As for weight, the D700 doesn't weigh much more than the D300, maybe 100g at the most. Hardly anything noticeable, and I carry my D300 around with my 300mm F4 AF-S for hours. Of course I wouldn't do any serious hiking with that combo, but I did do some a few months ago, and I hardly noticed the gear at all.

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

And what's the weight difference between d300/d700 with battery grip and d3 - IMHO too small to bother, so I'm with PB PM on this.

DaveyJ - I'm shooting animals in both natural and artificial environment, each has it cons and pros, but one con above all is practice. I know that there are purist among us, who think that zoo photography is trash, for me it's an opportunity to study animals behavior. As for Your comment on wild lions and tigers... well have to disagree with You, especially about lions. The biggest difference between shooting candid photos of lions in the "wild" and in zoo is the price difference. On one hand You have ridiculous high fees for safari lodging ($300 & up for night) on the other hand You have $5 for zoo ticket... which one is more affordable and which animal is less wild, the one who lives in african parks or the one in zoo... ok, maybe I overexaggerate but my point is that there are not too many truly free and wild animals around the world. Anyway, what matters in the end is the satisfaction of capturing the moment - and I hope we both agree on this point.

Posted 2 years ago #
JoelSS

new member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 1
offline

My answer to the DX vs FX question is to carry both in a comfortable backback currently new Domke 3. My tele is on the 300s and my wide angle is on the 700. The 300s plus shorter tele weight easily beats putting the bigger, heavier tele on the 700, enough so the extra body in the pack is immaterial. And, I'm quicker on the draw for the shots I want.

Posted 2 years ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

adamz said:
On dx it was easy - just fill the frame with animal

What an odd thought. Anyway, I never thought of it that way. When shooting wildlife, I usually take a few closeup shots and try to include more of the environment in the rest of the shots.. easier to accomplish with DX (& same focal length) as you are less likely to disturb the animals and scare them off when quietly moving away from them.

With FX you have to either haul really heavy glass OR get really close and be a Ranger or Navy SEAL..

Posted 2 years ago #
Pierre

preferred member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 1,023
offline

I would say that the main difference between wildlife and zoo photo has to do with the chances an animal has to escape or eat you. Beside, I wonder in which zoo I would have a chance to photo lions going for a zebra kill. For me, wild cats are just out-of-reach. I appreciate both, zoos and the work of those in the field.

Perhaps, in the near enough future, manufacturer will be able to pack FF quality in a P&S, in which case we would look quite stupid walking around with our body building equipments wrapped around our neck, don't you think?

We have to suffer heavy weight stuff just because of current technology limitations and our desire for the best, which is apparently FF for the time being.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Pierre said:
Perhaps, in the near enough future, manufacturer will be able to pack FF quality in a P&S, in which case we would look quite stupid walking around with our body building equipments wrapped around our neck, don't you think?

Well there are rumors of an EVIL Nikon camera with a 2.7-3X crop ;^)

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

To Adamz: Read your post on zoo photographs and wild area photos for lions and tigers. I do agree with your thoughts there and to go to places where wild animals truly exist.....is either expensive in time or money or both. And I do not want to attack the whole zoo issue. You also live where there are zoos and I do not. You are lucky to live where there are good zoos. Yet every good zoo I know is in a big population center to be able to afford to run the zoo. And even a number of "wild" animals in designated wilderness areas still have exposure to humans so that is a extremely valuable point you have made. To PM PB: I have met many wildlife pros who use FF DSLR (both Canon and Nikon) and generally they are FX people, not DX photographers. Moose Peterson I have never met but I have read his articles or publicity and I am certain that he has a great system. It is also not quite as portable as what I use now. Since great wildlife shots are defined by being in the right place at the right time......that tips the balance greatly in favor of guys like Moose Peterson and not me. If I had my choice of gear without cost and mobility considered I would take FX. But DX has taken 100% of my best wildlife shots since i switched from film. My D700 is not as good with the lens I have for the range I am shooting. I also have the prejudice that DX wildlife video would not much different than FX video. It also seems like a long shot for me to ever afford FX video capable Nikon gear.

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

so I finally get couple minutes of free time and relatively good weather, and managed take snaps with both d3s and d300s. the lens was mounted on a tripod and I was using the N70-200vr + TC17. all pictures unedited in any way, just import to aperture, and export in jpg in smaller width (800px).

D3s - FF

D3s - crop 1.2

D3s - crop 1.5 (DX)

D300s - DX

all pictures on iso 640, wide open lens (f4.8)

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.