Full Frame.. I like..

[SabaDen]

DX doesn't give you an extra zoom range... it just crops into the frame by 1.5x

Can elaborate? Is THAT a fact? You are good :thumbsup:

 

[TheChef]

There are much more variety of DX lenses. DX cameras are relatively inexpensive. There are quite a number of excellent value for money DX lenses out there like the Nikkor 16-85 VR and Nikkor 55-200mm VR. If you need to take sharp landscape, there is the cult Tokina 11-16 f2.8. DX cameras and lenses are light on my pocket and allows me to travel light.

 

[xintothezonex]

there are a few who still favors DX over FX but the poll result shows 101 who still said yes to full frame.
For me, I would love to have a FX body and also a DX body as well.
Its also best to have 2 bodies for photoshoots for eg weddings, events so there is no need to change lens, only swap cameras.

 

[aaronpeh]

i think FX body can use DX lens.

 

[alantkh]

Can elaborate? Is THAT a fact? You are good :thumbsup:

Actually I think he is right. DX doesn't give you extra zoom range. it just crops the sensor.

The D700/D3 have a DX mode too u know. U can use all your DX lens and make you D700 behave like a DX camera. U end up with 6meg pixels which is not too bad.

I chose FX because of the primes I use, 50mm f1.4 and 105mm VR.

 

[KennethLin]

I got the FF poison! Anybody got any idea when D3s is reaching our shore?

 

[Gunjack]

Can elaborate? Is THAT a fact? You are good :thumbsup:

I think he is correct too. DX is a crop version of a fullframe sensor, the angle of view changes but the perspective of a 50mm lens remains the same as a 50mm, perspective does not change into that of a 75mm lens even though the angle of view does.

 

[lsisaxon]

93 have said yes to full frame..

Looks like most would really like to change to full frame.
I should have change the poll to : 1) Yes - but no money, 2) No - even have money
Hee!

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

 

[xintothezonex]

I got the FF poison! Anybody got any idea when D3s is reaching our shore?

wah.. getting D3s?
how much will that gonna cost?

 

[jimbok]

can also start with a FF body together with 50mm f1.8......... slowly built up your arsenal

That's what I did, bit the bullet, sold all my body and lens with only 50mm f1.8 and got the D700. Loving it! :heart:

 

[SabaDen]

Actually I think he is right. DX doesn't give you extra zoom range. it just crops the sensor.

The D700/D3 have a DX mode too u know. U can use all your DX lens and make you D700 behave like a DX camera. U end up with 6meg pixels which is not too bad.

I chose FX because of the primes I use, 50mm f1.4 and 105mm VR.

I think he is correct too. DX is a crop version of a fullframe sensor, the angle of view changes but the perspective of a 50mm lens remains the same as a 50mm, perspective does not change into that of a 75mm lens even though the angle of view does.

Thanks for the clarification ... tht's why I said he's goooood. BUT whichever angle u look at it, layman term, it's still a zoom factor as it dun give u the wide of FX

 

[geekbrains]

Guys, Please read up the following links..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/23822
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/scene/24/index.htm

 

[SabaDen]

Thanks for the link Bro GB ... he's still goooood :bsmilie:

 

[diediealsomustdive]

I think he is correct too. DX is a crop version of a fullframe sensor, the angle of view changes but the perspective of a 50mm lens remains the same as a 50mm, perspective does not change into that of a 75mm lens even though the angle of view does.

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.

 

[thenomad]

I am not a professional, and I dun have tons of money. In fact I am rather short of cash most of the time! But I knew what I wanted and I sold everything I had in DX format that I had then and I never looked back. Its the full frame format that I like, so newer crop factor dslr may be released but I wont be interested in them because of the crop factor which I dislike for my style of photography.

actually, using FX can be somewhat affordable, if one would use primes. that's another advantage of FX, especially for wide-angle ones

now, one thing that i'm still not entirely sure of, when i look at FX shots (e.g. in flickr), the IQ for the most part is somewhat similar to DX shots, but seems to be a little cleaner and crisp. low ISO shots supposed to be roughly the same, but.. :dunno: :bsmilie:

 

[MrKami]

wah.. getting D3s?
how much will that gonna cost?

Heard that it cost 10k?

 

[AbangR]

if you aren't pro and you like travelling light, DX is far better. I think nikon d90/d300s coupled with an 18-200 is great in that sense..but know of no pro who uses a mid range zoom like the 24-70. pros who use zoom lenses normally carry a UWA E.G 16-35, then a 50mm f/1.4, and a 70-200 for travel work.

midrange zooms are heavy, expensive, and pretty much useless compared to the 50mm primes. I mean if you walk back a few steps you can cover a larger area and if you move forward a few steps you can go close like 70mm. And you can get double the light from the 50mm primes thanks to f/1.4

D300S has similar weight as D700.

 

[DinoSG]

yes, but when prices goes down and more variety of lens to use for FF..but when will it come..? afew more yrs..

 

[Gunjack]

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.

Wow, thanks for the effort in posting a detailed write up! I was mentioning crop more in terms of angle of view(FOV), sorry if I caused any confusion! I still prefer FX for my use though, but of course the advantages of DX would appeal to some people more than the advantages of FX for others!

 

[insanekvn]

when you go to d700/d3, iso won't be one of your limiting factors when shooting anymore.

:thumbsup: