the fx formate is supirior to the dx format right?

[scooptdoo]

just want to get this right.remember ,right up untiL last summer before the december relase of the D3/D300 were only rumors and the D2Xs was their flagship pro body. Nikon was toting the DX formate as the way forward.O,and then there's Leica/Olimpus with their system.I just want to be sure the bigger the better period?

 

[acena]

Depends what you want/need. I actually do not like full frame for sports because I like the additional reach of the DX crop. I kind of gotten used to my 400/2.8 be equivalent to a 600

 

[cotdt]

Depends what you want/need. I actually do not like full frame for sports because I like the additional reach of the DX crop. I kind of gotten used to my 400/2.8 be equivalent to a 600

in a 25MP FX camera, this will no longer apply. DX crop mode will be 12MP.

 

[PWPhoto]

They both have their Pros and Cons. Do your homework and decide what is best for you.

 

[MrCupHolder]

The answer to this question is really a matter of opinion often related to the type of photography you prefer to shoot.

Currently Nikons 3 best cameras are all 12MP.

The D300 uses a smaller pixel size to achieve that compared to the D700 and D3.

If Nikon were to make a FX camera that uses the same pixel size as the D300 then you could say bigger is better.

But at this stage of the game that isn't available.
Nature photographers seem to be prefering their D300 still becuase it has that extra reach and is still 12MP. It means they can crop their photo and still have a nice shot. Take a D3 in DX mode being 5MP and then try cropping that. You'd be a bit limited. So in a nature photographers case bigger isn't better.

Then the real question is. Do YOU really NEED more megapixels anway.

I'm buying a D700 for two primary reasons.

1) It's full frame
2) It's significantly faster than my D100

If the D700 was only 6.1MP as my D100 is, it wouldn't bother me really. 6.1MP is suiting me fine right now for the size of the enlargements I do.

 

[cotdt]

With my 6MP D50, I get nice 11x14 prints.

If you print really large, you'll need 25+ MP anyway. I don't see the point of anything in between whatever resolution is needed to make sharp 11x14 prints and super high resolution for poster-sized prints. When I need to print big, I shoot medium format film from which I can extract a true 60MP via scanning.

 

[acena]

With my 6MP D50, I get nice 11x14 prints.

If you print really large, you'll need 25+ MP anyway. I don't see the point of anything in between whatever resolution is needed to make sharp 11x14 prints and super high resolution for poster-sized prints. When I need to print big, I shoot medium format film from which I can extract a true 60MP via scanning.

I wish I could shoot a medium format camera when I need large prints of some sports action. That sure would be real nice though my 10mp camera does a fine job for the 20x30s I offer. In some cases I do use a 21mp 1Ds Mk III for stuff that definitely will get printed large or I just want the maximum file size w/o going medium format. i.e. the team photos, trophy shot and celebration shots during the NCAA women's lax finals I shot with the 1Ds. Made for nice double truck spread in the magazine.

 

[ruchai]

When I had my D200 focussing module changed at the Nikon dealer I was foolish enough to play with the D3 they offered me. The noise level at ISO 6400 spoiled me. I started with ISO/25 slide film many years back, ability to us ISO 6400 was some thing I never expect at that time.
The only way to have ISO 6400 is to have full frame. To me it's high ISO capability not FX vs DX. I shall keep my D200 when I get my D700, DX still an advantage for birds on the beach.

 

[Retief]

With my 6MP D50, I get nice 11x14 prints.

If you print really large, you'll need 25+ MP anyway. I don't see the point of anything in between whatever resolution is needed to make sharp 11x14 prints and super high resolution for poster-sized prints. When I need to print big, I shoot medium format film from which I can extract a true 60MP via scanning.

Crop 50%, then print your 11x14, or better yet a 16x20, or even 20x30. I have seen incredible 3x5 foot prints from D1 and D2, sure, it depends on subject as well. My D2H yielded great prints at 8x10, certainly good at 11x14 as long as I could use the whole frame. My D300 affords me a lot more latitude to get great looking 13x19 and 16x20 prints.

I just think you are quite wrong in your statement, and so, by the way, do some other minor agencies in the country, such as Getty Images.

As to the OP's question, "best" is truly a matter of opinion and need. Look at the incredible images you can get from a medium format digital back, but you couldn't shoot an auto race with it for beans. So, which is better? The bigger sensor with more pixels, or the camera with fewer and smaller that can capture the action?

 

[pointa-b-c]

Regarding blowing up files for print, it really depends on viewing distance. And most large format inkjet printers can't produce anything better than 150dpi actual size anyway.

D3/D700 sample files I downloaded and upscaled in PS, the print quality is really great, 36"x54.1" at 150dpi looks tack sharp at 2 feet viewing distance. Hack, I will even blow it up to 64"x96" if viewing distance is more than 4 feet away!

So there you have it, for large format print, less pixel density (FX) has an edge over higher pixel density (DX).

 

[Matt S]

in a 25MP FX camera, this will no longer apply. DX crop mode will be 12MP.

I always find this interesting. I never use the crop mode on my D2x, not because of the MP drop but because if I am going to crop I do it later on the computer where I can be more selective about how to crop the shot. If I had 25 MP then I would do the same. Why drop half your resolution in camera and limit your options when you can crop it later. I know crop mode speeds up the frames per second, but honestly 5 frames a second at full rez on my D2x seems plenty fast enough for my needs.

 

[Matt S]

For the print folks. I recently did a 24x36 from an old D70 file. It was gorgeous, even at arms length. However I will say that exposure was spot on, the smaller files don't stand up to enlargement so well when they have been heavily "doctored".

 

[cadman]

right, but do any of you shoot that 25mp body yet? Do you find DX obsolete because of it. Hey, I'm all for FX. Been working my lens kit to FX for a while, but when the D3x comes out...... I don't have the SEVEN large for that. I'll keep what I have and add the 3k d700 for the HDR and high iso.

p.s. that gives me 2 bodies (FX and DX) for the price of the D3.

 

[Rich Gibson]

I'd say they were different, each more useful for complimentary functions.

 

[Dr A]

Give a listen to the newest Image Doctors episode (#70). They talk all about the advantages and disadvantages of each relevant to your question.

http://podcasts.nikonians.org/imagedoctors.xml

 

[Gnarl]

I think the DX format is advantageous for wildlife and field sports photography where you need long primes. For portraits and landscape, I prefer FX. For indoor sports either DX or FX with good high ISO performance.

 

[CAJames]

I always find this interesting. I never use the crop mode on my D2x, not because of the MP drop but because if I am going to crop I do it later on the computer where I can be more selective about how to crop the shot..

There you go. I recently got a D2x exactly so I could use the crop mode. For the little birds I shot the most it is awesome to have a 6 MP camera with the resolution of a D2x. My cards hold twice as many shots and the post processing is at least twice as fast. Let me be clear: There is no (general) right answer to the FX-DX question. Both have advantages, the important this is to understand what you want and whether FX or DX (or both) is right tool for you.

 

[davewolfs]

After reading some posts I am starting to have my doubts in using FX for landscape.

 

[pforsell]

In my eyes the DX era is over.

Most likely Nikon won't introduce any new DX pro lenses. After the 24 Mpix D3X/D900/whatnot the "reach" question is solved and done. DX prices will always be lower and that is good news for the entry level: more bang for the buck.

The D3/D700 sensor is very good, but we still have a long way to go before we have the "perfect" sensor. Some notable useful improvements would be:

• 3-4 stops more dynamic range
• wider useful ISO range, i.e. 50-6400
• 16 bits per channel
• lower noise

 

[Leif]

I recently did a 24x36 from an old D70 file.

What units? mm, cm, m, inches, feet, nautical miles, furlongs?