Leaving FX for DX?

[BourbonCowboy]

It's been almost ten years since I've done a paid shoot. My career simply won't allow me the time to do it anymore. However, I've still got a Df, 70-200, 24-70, 85 1.4, etc. I'm thinking about moving away from FX completely. I've got a D5300, which I love, and an assortment of nice lenses that will get most of the shots I want. None of these lenses are ideal for sports, but I never made a lot of money from sports action shots anyway. My current interests are more oriented towards my family and vacation shots.

My question is this: Has anyone ever left the FX format, permanently, for the DX format? If so, do you have any regrets?

 

[Robert S]

I can't answer your question, but yesterday I shot a surfing event with my D90. I was going to take my D800, but the battery wasn't fully charged. I had a Nikkor 70-200 VR II, Nikkor 2X III teleconverter and 2 batteries and away I went.
It performed as well as the D800, but during the post-processing it fell short..well sort-of. I crop a lot and with the lower megapixel count of the D90 the image quality diminished. When no cropping was necessary I really couldn't notice much difference. At the extreme telephoto end of the lens range it was slightly disappointing. I would say that 90 % of the images were very good.. like a B+. I have a D70S which is only 6mp. and it still performs extremely well and is sharp as a tack when used with pro-level Nikon lenses. I noticed you have a D200 which I find to be ever so slightly soft, which can be compensated for in Picasa 3.
If you make really large prints, FX is the way to go.

Photographer on the beach, shot with a D90, Nikkor 70-200 VR II, Nikkor 2X III teleconverter. Hand held.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[BourbonCowboy]

Beautiful shot, Robert, and thanks for the input.

I had a D90 about 10 years ago and really liked it. But that's about the time the D700 was released and I got into full frame shooting.

My current DX lineup consists of:
D5300
Sigma 10-20 4-5.6
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 30 1.4 ART
Nikon 18-140

I'm thinking about adding a Sigma 50-150 (the non-OS version) to the kit, a Nikon 50 1.4G for portraits, and a 60mm 2.8G macro.

I think those lenses would be capable replacements for my Nikon 70-200 2.8, 85 1.4D, and Tamron 90 2.8 macro.

As for the D200 you mentioned...it's an infrared converted camera.

 

[gryphon1911]

I will say that if I did not shoot sports, I would probably not have my D500/D750 and would have only my Df for manual focus lenses and my micro four third cameras only.

Most systems are more than adequate now.

You'll just need to decide what you really need.

 

[davidzvi]

It's been almost ten years since I've done a paid shoot. My career simply won't allow me the time to do it anymore. However, I've still got a Df, 70-200, 24-70, 85 1.4, etc. I'm thinking about moving away from FX completely. I've got a D5300, which I love, and an assortment of nice lenses that will get most of the shots I want. None of these lenses are ideal for sports, but I never made a lot of money from sports action shots anyway. My current interests are more oriented towards my family and vacation shots.


My question is this: Has anyone ever left the FX format, permanently, for the DX format? If so, do you have any regrets?

Just did actually (well for m4/3, not DX), but don't think I'm going to regret it. For the last 4-5 years I've been shooting almost everything not event related with a mid level rangefinder body, good consumer zooms, and and a couple really nice (but still consumer) primes. I shot my last professional event in April. By the first week in June ALL my Nikon gear was gone (a Tenba large Roadie full of gear). Though my son has I guess what it technically one of mine, also a D5300. Actually feels kind of weird, got my first Nikon DSLR 14 years ago and have owned over a dozen bodies since. I did consider moving to something like the D7500, it's a pretty capable body for all the complaints of what it's not. But in the end I sold it all.

Up until now I've pretty much kept my m4/3 kit on the consumer end since I've had the Nikon gear to fall back on when needed. With the sale though I am heading more higher end. I now have an E-M1 markII and am looking at some of the Pro lenses and primes. It's still to be determined what I'll end up with in the end. Though I'm not really sure it "ends" so....

As for the old Sigma 50-150? Had it, loved it; attached image was one of my favorites shot with it. My only concerns would be first finding a good copy in good condition. And second might by how they handle the higher MP (higher pixel density) sensors. I've heard mixed reviews of the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 with some early sample issues, but it might be worth a look. The range and speed might make it a great portrait option.

 

[Mike Buckley]

Just a quick note to say, "Hello," Mark. I remember buying a Spyder calibrator from you years ago and hadn't seen you at the Cafe since I returned a few months ago. Hope all is going well for you and especially with your decision about FX or DX.

 

[atlanta_man]

I like all three 1" DX and FX

 

[pictureted]

I'm happy shooting both FX and DX. Each has advantages in both bodies and lenses. Both have greater capabilities and IQ than most people ever need.

 

[Butlerkid]

For my type of shooting, mainly wildlife and travel/architecture....I much prefer FX. You should choose the format which suits your style of shooting. You have excellent, top of the line FX lenses. What would Dx provide you that Fx doesn't? Are you willing to sell FX lenses for DX? Why would Dx be more suited to family shots than DX?

 

[Pa]

It's been almost ten years since I've done a paid shoot. My career simply won't allow me the time to do it anymore. However, I've still got a Df, 70-200, 24-70, 85 1.4, etc. I'm thinking about moving away from FX completely. I've got a D5300, which I love, and an assortment of nice lenses that will get most of the shots I want. None of these lenses are ideal for sports, but I never made a lot of money from sports action shots anyway. My current interests are more oriented towards my family and vacation shots.

My question is this: Has anyone ever left the FX format, permanently, for the DX format? If so, do you have any regrets?

I have both a D750 (FX) and a D7200 (DX). I find the D750 photos have a subtle quality which sets them apart from the D7200 photos. But the difference is subtle except in low light.

I usually use the FX kit only when I'm not traveling or hiking significant distances. The subtle difference is not worth the extra weight for me in those conditions.

 

[Mike Buckley]

You have excellent, top of the line FX lenses. What would Dx provide you that Fx doesn't?

Less weight and cost

 

[Pa]

Less weight and cost

That and the crop factor are what keep me with DX much of the time.

 

[Mike Buckley]

That and the crop factor are what keep me with DX much of the time.

I don't keep up with this stuff, but my impression is that for quite a long time cropping an FX image to be the same composition as a DX image will produce the same image quality. If I'm right about that, the crop factor of a DX body in and of itself has no advantage.

 

[rick_reno]

I was very happy to move back to FX after giving away my D800 and ordering the D850, and while waiting for D850 having a D500. I can’t prove this, but I think I find noise easier to control on a FF body.

 

[Pa]

I don't keep up with this stuff, but my impression is that for quite a long time cropping an FX image to be the same composition as a DX image will produce the same image quality. If I'm right about that, the crop factor of a DX body in and of itself has no advantage.

I think it's pretty close if you have one of the 40+MP FX bodies (D800 and up). But my FX camera is a D750 which has the same 24MP as my DX D7200. The D8xx bodies are considerably bigger and heavier than a D750.

I can’t prove this, but I think I find noise easier to control on a FF body.

It's pretty easy to prove if you look at the dynamic range plots of Bill Claff at Photonstophotos.net.

 

[BourbonCowboy]

Less weight and cost

^________________ This!

I can carry my full DX kit around in an old Keisel MX300 bag. My FX kit would need a much larger bag. In fact, I'm using a Pelican 1650 to store my camera gear right now.

I'm currently in the process of selling off most of my gear. The Df is gone. The 24-70 is gone...as is the 85 1.4. Eventually, I'll just have my little DX kit and a film kit (FE2 and manual lenses). For my purposes, it's all I'll need (I hope).

 

[eastcoasteddie]

My current DX lineup consists of:
D5300
Sigma 10-20 4-5.6
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 30 1.4 ART
Nikon 18-140

I'm thinking about adding a Sigma 50-150 (the non-OS version) to the kit, a Nikon 50 1.4G for portraits, and a 60mm 2.8G macro.

I think those lenses would be capable replacements for my Nikon 70-200 2.8, 85 1.4D, and Tamron 90 2.8 macro.

As for the D200 you mentioned...it's an infrared converted camera.

For what it’s worth, I use the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro on DX and love it. I don’t know how the DX macro lenses fair, but for Macro, I would only use an FX lens on DX for that equivalent increase in zoom.

 

[BourbonCowboy]

For what it’s worth, I use the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro on DX and love it. I don’t know how the DX macro lenses fair, but for Macro, I would only use an FX lens on DX for that equivalent increase in zoom.

I'll probably pick up another Tamron 90 with the built-in motor. They're excellent lenses.

 

[fishbio]

For what it’s worth, I use the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro on DX and love it. I don’t know how the DX macro lenses fair, but for Macro, I would only use an FX lens on DX for that equivalent increase in zoom.

There is no increase in "zoom" if the DX lens is the same focal length as the FX lens. Only the diameter of the lens's image circle is different.

 

[Pa]

I'll probably pick up another Tamron 90 with the built-in motor. They're excellent lenses.

You might want to consider the Nikon 85mm DX micro. I like it better than the Tamron 90 I had, and it also includes VR.