downgrade D700 to D300s

[hotwork77]

FX and DX has their own independent usage. IMO i think the following is the classification

Portrait - FX

Landscape - FX

Macro - DX

Tele - DX

I think I am wrong in from the beginning, should have do more research prior to investing the FF body. rushing is also partly due to my baby which will come close so if at that moment of time if I still wait for the D300s to be out then i would have no camera for capturing the moments.

I have prepare to lost but I hope to gain more knowlegde here again if the FF is the most convincing over DX body.

Anyway this thread i hope it can serve as a guide for people who wish to upgrade to FX but not sure what FX can bring to the image and framing.

Photography is a hobby to take snapshots of whatever you love to see. Whether it's a FX or DX should not make a difference. "Upgrading" or "Downgrading" is a state of mind. Use whatever camera that you feel is the most appropriate for the occassion. What is appropriate/suitable for me may not be for you.

I use FX like any other camera. I use it from tight macro shots to landscape. Having said that I also use pns and D40 for landscape. I've taken thousands of baby photos using a pns and each can be passed off as taken by dslr.

It's not important what camera you use. What is important is what photos you are capable of getting from the type of camera you are using. Just another analogy: A Ferrari and a Nissan will still get you from point A to B. It also doesn't matter what car you drive.

If people who wants to upgrade to FX doesn't know what FX can bring to the image and framing then they are not ready.

That's my two cents worth.

 

[tomcatf]

The different between FX and DX is the how large will be your print out... FX will be able to give you the finer resolution.

 

[lsisaxon]

Will you downgrade from D700 to D300s? Anyone can share why do you still intend to downgrade this FX even if it is a powerful body?

I am in a confusion whether to downgrade myself but I simply just can't see the effect of a FF image and a crop image. Anyone can please enlighten me?

If you can't see the difference then let the price tag decide.

 

[lsisaxon]

I feel on FX image is some how giving you a wider view, too wide till you not able to fill the subject to cover the frame.

Then you've just selected the wrong lens for the things you want to shoot with the format you're using. :sweat:

 

[lsisaxon]

The different between FX and DX is the how large will be your print out... FX will be able to give you the finer resolution.

12MP FX and 12MP DX. Which one has a higher resolution assuming the lens outresolves the sensor in both cases? ;p

 

[Omega23]

anyone compare this.. 12mega pixel DX vs 12mega pixel FX... crop the photo of the FX to match the FL of the DX and comparing the photo with the one from DX camera.. Which one yield a better image quality?

 

[markwee]

Will you downgrade from D700 to D300s? Anyone can share why do you still intend to downgrade this FX even if it is a powerful body?

I am in a confusion whether to downgrade myself but I simply just can't see the effect of a FF image and a crop image. Anyone can please enlighten me?

Why not keep the D700 and buy the D300s? You will have the best of both world.

Btw, what lens are you using to shot on your D700?

 

[markwee]

Thanks for the fast reply.....

I feel on FX image is some how giving you a wider view, too wide till you not able to fill the subject to cover the frame.

For example, in the past I used DX body, I am able to occupy the subject quite alot on the frame so later when I need to do cropping during PP I won't lost on the pixel counts. But for fullframe wise it will give me a rather wider view, hence during my PP stage I need to do heavy cropping to get the subject to be frame nicely onto picture so as a result loss heavy pixel counts.

Macro shoot is an issue of this I think..

Your comment on FX image gives you a wider view interest me. Are you comparing 50mm on a FX with 35mm on a DX? Or are 50mm on both FX and DX?

 

[Kit]

Thanks for the fast reply.....

I feel on FX image is some how giving you a wider view, too wide till you not able to fill the subject to cover the frame.

For example, in the past I used DX body, I am able to occupy the subject quite alot on the frame so later when I need to do cropping during PP I won't lost on the pixel counts. But for fullframe wise it will give me a rather wider view, hence during my PP stage I need to do heavy cropping to get the subject to be frame nicely onto picture so as a result loss heavy pixel counts.

Macro shoot is an issue of this I think..

The problem then lies with the user, not the camera. And really, you don't always need to cover the entire frame.

 

[AbangR]

The different between FX and DX is the how large will be your print out... FX will be able to give you the finer resolution.

Huh?!?

Is 12mp in FX different from 12mp in DX?
The quality of each pixel maybe different, but I am sure they print to the same size.

 

[geeztaku]

From my point of view, 12MP FX is better as the sensor size is bigger hence the pixel size also bigger -> more light (photons) it can captured. For me, the different between FX and DX are the price tags of the system and their weight.

 

[gimumancer]

There's a reason why FX cams are expensive and that's why they are generally used by PROS, judging from TS comments and questions, it seems he just jumped out to using FX because he read it's the best and it is expensive. Well that's what happens when you're learning curve is not gradual, that's why entry level cams are here as stepping stones..

 

[kulagg]

hmm, I upgraded from D90 to D700, I still have both though.

Well...why upgrade? cos 12-24mm sigma wide angle on the D90 is not wide at all.

Long reach is not a problem...but every 1mm at wide side counts.

If you feel that you cannot cover the frame, change to a longer zoom lens.

And I 2nd that you really do not need to cover the whole frame all the time.

 

[Benosaurous]

simple and yet Sad truth,

1. when you cant tell the difference between fx and dx in terms of image quality, good for you, pick the cheaper option

2. if you find yourself always cropping intensively, it means you need to improve on how you shoot

3. landscape is not all about wide angle, alot of times a telephoto tells more story than uwa landscape full of distractions, therefore landscape != fx

4. like what the other guys say, take away the photographer skills, alot of times the lens matter more than the camera

5. if you still do not know what focal length you are more comfortable with, start with the basic entry level dslr and kit lens

 

[Jeremy1]

There's a reason why FX cams are expensive and that's why they are generally used by PROS, judging from TS comments and questions, it seems he just jumped out to using FX because he read it's the best and it is expensive. Well that's what happens when you're learning curve is not gradual, that's why entry level cams are here as stepping stones..

If you can afford FX, I think it's ok to start with it. Upgrading meaning more $$$ spent.

Anyway, it's very subjective but FX is the next upgrade you will go. It should offer better PQ if you master it.

 

[lsisaxon]

anyone compare this.. 12mega pixel DX vs 12mega pixel FX... crop the photo of the FX to match the FL of the DX and comparing the photo with the one from DX camera.. Which one yield a better image quality?

Not a fair test. DX wins in this case. After cropping the 12MP FX to give you a DX FoV, you're left with only ~5MP.

A fair test would be to use lenses with equivalent fields of view on the DX and FX. eg 35/1.8 on DX and 50/1.8 on FX etc.. Assuming lighting is good, end of the day MTF of the lens over the entire frame plays a more important part in the image quality.

 

[Omega23]

Not a fair test. DX wins in this case. After cropping the 12MP FX to give you a DX FoV, you're left with only ~5MP.

A fair test would be to use lenses with equivalent fields of view on the DX and FX. eg 35/1.8 on DX and 50/1.8 on FX etc.. Assuming lighting is good, end of the day MTF of the lens over the entire frame plays a more important part in the image quality.

I know about the 5mega pixel DX mode in FX..I am not comparing the pixels difference but just want to know which has a better IQ.. Those that have DX and FX bodies perhaps can share with us thanks

 

[Cursor]

I know about the 5mega pixel DX mode in FX..I am not comparing the pixels difference but just want to know which has a better IQ.. Those that have DX and FX bodies perhaps can share with us thanks

I think this will depend lot on the final presentation. If you are saying that the final output is on a 4R print, then unlikely you will see any difference. But if you intend to print on a large banner or something, then you are limited by the 5MP on FX after cropped.
I used both before, if set aside the FoV difference and MP count after crop, both camera give rather similar results when there is enough light as not required to push up the ISO. Under low lights condition and worst is without flash where ISO need to push up above 1000 or more, the FX will win in IQ due to lower noise and better details in capturing.
So back to TS issue, if you feel that on FX you not getting enough on the tele side to fill the frame, you can always move closer to the subject or get a longer lens. But if you always need to shoot in low light conditions and happily just push the ISO above 1000 or more, then you better keep the FX body. If you never need to push the ISO up above 1000 and you always shoot at tele end of your lens then moving to DX is not a bad idea, cheaper and lighter.

 

[AbangR]

I know about the 5mega pixel DX mode in FX..I am not comparing the pixels difference but just want to know which has a better IQ.. Those that have DX and FX bodies perhaps can share with us thanks

are you a pixel-peeper?

I'm sure both look the same (if the lens is the same).
Even if you compare 24-70 f2.8 pro with kit lens 18-55, I am quite sure you will find the pics not very different at 4x6 or 5x7 prints, even A4 (keeping the same photographer).
The question is how big of a print do you need.
A0/A1 size? Seriously, how many of us really print A0/A1 for personal use frequently enough?

 

[thenomad]

if you want to see the difference in IQ between DX and FX, trying shooting the same image at ISO 3200 with both cameras

although an FX body is generally heavier, the overall system depends on what lenses you are using also. there are a lot of FX users who mainly use primes. a D700 with a 50 f1.4 is much lighter than a D300 with a 70-200VR