Full Frame.. I like..

[diediealsomustdive]

Stick with film.. Anything else, shoot DX. ;p

Not sure I would support his position.

My position is - shoot DX until FX becomes affordable, like in the 2-2.5k range body.

Then consider, probably buy, and use both DX and FX until I can afford good FX lenses, or Nikon develops good FX lenses not in the montrous f/2.8 pro zoom but f/3.5-4.5 or better still f/4 fixed.

For a while FX will only be use with prime lenses, though, but the weakness in my FX lens line up would be in the wide angles.

That's why I didn't vote. My vote is wait till it becomes affordable, defined above.

 

[shelomoh]

The best is to have D300(s) + D700 with a range of FF and DX lens.
Solve your problem right?

 

[chris667198]

FF or DX whatever.... Just go out and shoot...

 

[waiaung]

The only thing bad about the Full Frame... the real major problem... is the price tag.
:sweatsm:

 

[diediealsomustdive]

You need to compare apple-to-apple, like no one says a compact is a crop version of a FF or DX camera, although if you follow the arguement it is indeed so. That's why with a focal length of say 6mm you are getting FX FOV of say 24mm or 28mm.

My point is, to compare apple-to-apple, and to say DX is a crop version of FX, you need to hold something constant - in this case the pixel density. A more-or-less valid comparison would be between D3x and D300s, cause with D3x and DX cropping you get roughly the D300s resolution, with high ISO and noise performance being similar. Then you are really just cropping out the FX into DX.

If you compare D3/D3s/D700 against D300s/D300/D90, technically you are not comparing apple-to-apple, cause a DX crop from the FF cameras will get you only ~6MP, while the DX cameras give you 12MP. It is not a crop from FX, so long as your lens resolution is not exceeded. You have a higher pixel density in the DX cameras, so if you want more "reach" and can deal with the ISO and noise performance, it is indeed an advantage to have DX.

So go ahead and shoot a safari with a 300mm on FX and tell the guy with DX and the same lens his shot is a crop from FX. The DX guy is likely to have sharper picture with more resolution if the final image is the same size from the same lens. For the FX guy, he will need 450mm lens to outdo the DX guy with 300mm. In which case the FX's better high ISO and noise performances will produce better shots than the DX, and only if the ISO goes above certain critical values.

So with 12MP FX, you get better high ISO and noise performance, but you also need longer lens to get the same reach of DX, and there is the limitation of good FX lenses vs good DX lenses - a lot more good DX lenses cause DX uses sweet spot of all lenses, mostly lighter and cheaper.

Just to add an additional point to make it complete - at most used focal lengths, indeed the DX can be considered a crop from FX of similar MP, if we assume the equivalent lenses to be more-or-less equal.

For example, if you use D700 with 17-35/2.8 and shoot at 18mm, and someone uses D300s with 12-24DX and shoot at 12mm, then FX should win in all aspects, barring lens limitations like vignetting (light fall off), distortion, chromatic abberations, etc. You have the same megapixel count, but with larger photosites on FX, you can safely say DX is a crop.

Ditto 16mm fisheye FX vs 10.5mm fisheye DX, etc. so long as you stay in the normal focal length most use in day-to-day situation.

This should apply to about 200mm, beyond which the DX vs FX battle would favour DX on the count of reach, higher pixel density, lighter lenses, cost.

Macro shooters would similarly benefit from DX, a 105mm micro would give better reach than on FX.

 

[pyloh]

I have also sold my DX Camera(D80)+my DX lenses and change to a FF D700+50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 and 24-85 f/2.8-4. I am very happy with it and enjoy every moment of FF.

Be it DX or FF, just shoot and enjoy.

 

[dnezcom]

Just to add an additional point to make it complete - at most used focal lengths, indeed the DX can be considered a crop from FX of similar MP, if we assume the equivalent lenses to be more-or-less equal.

For example, if you use D700 with 17-35/2.8 and shoot at 18mm, and someone uses D300s with 12-24DX and shoot at 12mm, then FX should win in all aspects, barring lens limitations like vignetting (light fall off), distortion, chromatic abberations, etc. You have the same megapixel count, but with larger photosites on FX, you can safely say DX is a crop.

Ditto 16mm fisheye FX vs 10.5mm fisheye DX, etc. so long as you stay in the normal focal length most use in day-to-day situation.

This should apply to about 200mm, beyond which the DX vs FX battle would favour DX on the count of reach, higher pixel density, lighter lenses, cost.

Macro shooters would similarly benefit from DX, a 105mm micro would give better reach than on FX.

"barring lens limitations like vignetting (light fall off), distortion, chromatic abberations"

This is the truth.

 

[iguoh]

I have also sold my DX Camera(D80)+my DX lenses and change to a FF D700+50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 and 24-85 f/2.8-4. I am very happy with it and enjoy every moment of FF.

Be it DX or FF, just shoot and enjoy.

Is the 24-85 f/2.8-4 available new?

 

[xintothezonex]

time for me to get a 2nd body.. a full frame body.
waiting for bonus..

 

[lsisaxon]

Not sure I would support his position.

My position is - shoot DX until FX becomes affordable, like in the 2-2.5k range body.

Then consider, probably buy, and use both DX and FX until I can afford good FX lenses, or Nikon develops good FX lenses not in the montrous f/2.8 pro zoom but f/3.5-4.5 or better still f/4 fixed.

For a while FX will only be use with prime lenses, though, but the weakness in my FX lens line up would be in the wide angles.

That's why I didn't vote. My vote is wait till it becomes affordable, defined above.

I guess the proposition is for now.. A few years later you'll probably find another poll with the same title. ;p Then the answer will be different. The thing about f/3.5 or slower lenses for FX is that they negate the advantages of having better sensitivity and shallower DoF. Might as well stick to DX with a faster lens first. ;p

 

[lsisaxon]

The only thing bad about the Full Frame... the real major problem... is the price tag.
:sweatsm:

The reality is the prices of the bodies will drop. MP count will go up. The resolution requirement of the optics will have to be improved and this will drive up lens prices! The prices of the newly designed lenses for FX are already in the range of medium format lenses!

DX will still be cheaper and the prices of the DX lenses are also not that monstrous. I'd stay with DX if I don't need that kind of resolution because I have access to quite a number of film lenses which works great over DX but not so fantastic over FX.

 

[giantcanopy]

but for wide-end FX has the advantage

yea 12mm on FX is really lovely :lovegrin:

ryan

 

[Numnumball]

yea 12mm on FX is really lovely :lovegrin:

ryan

12mm Ryan?

Thought can only achieve at 14mm? (both prime n zoom)

i lust for more wideness also, if nt for my affinity with lens filter..else i wun be stuck at 17mm

 

[Kit]

12mm Ryan?

Thought can only achieve at 14mm? (both prime n zoom)

i lust for more wideness also, if nt for my affinity with lens filter..else i wun be stuck at 17mm

12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM

 

[Numnumball]

12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM

Ring a bell.. :think: Sigma?

 

[Kit]

Ring a bell.. :think: Sigma?

Yeup!!

 

[lsisaxon]

12mm Ryan?

Thought can only achieve at 14mm? (both prime n zoom)

i lust for more wideness also, if nt for my affinity with lens filter..else i wun be stuck at 17mm

12mm on FX..

 

[diediealsomustdive]

"barring lens limitations like vignetting (light fall off), distortion, chromatic abberations"

This is the truth.

Yes that is the truth - but I was being theoritical with the discussion, so i had to hold something constant. Isisaxon himself said he uses DX partly due to the old film lenses for the reasons of vignetting and CA. I have a load of film lenses as well, and will face the same issues.

I guess the proposition is for now.. A few years later you'll probably find another poll with the same title. ;p Then the answer will be different. The thing about f/3.5 or slower lenses for FX is that they negate the advantages of having better sensitivity and shallower DoF. Might as well stick to DX with a faster lens first. ;p

My take is if I need larger apertures I go prime, like 85mm f/1.8 rather than a f/2.8 zoom that is montrous. I want to have the performance of say 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 up to par for FX, for the lens is significantly smaller than the corresponding f/2.8 version, and performance is not too far off. I will trade speed for size.

Till then, D300 and D60 (plus S2Pro) will be my arsenal.

 

[Numnumball]

12mm on FX..

Wow Isisaxon..Thats ultra ultra wide man~ :bigeyes:

But Heard relatively problematic issues with Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX HSM DG like heaving vignetting at larger apertures and lateral CA/prone to flares issues.

Hw's true is that bro?

 

[lsisaxon]

Wow Isisaxon..Thats ultra ultra wide man~ :bigeyes:

But Heard relatively problematic issues with Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX HSM DG like heaving vignetting at larger apertures and lateral CA/prone to flares issues.

Hw's true is that bro?

Lateral CA can be corrected to an extent by the camera. ;p Flares, just have to take care when there are light sources shining into the lens. I think all UWA lenses would be prone to flares though some may be worse than others. I've not noticed much flares in the pictures I shoot with this lens though but might be due to the way I shoot.

Vignetting... yeah.. you could already see some in the corners in the pic. ;p There is also quite visible light fall-off.