The Right Order of Things-DX first, then FX?

daveward

Senior Member
I am one of those folks who over-analyze stuff...and in the case of cameras...it gets even worse. I got back into the hobby after a kids-growing-up-hiatus and decided after extensive research in 2014 to get a used but nearly new D90 with 800 shutter actuations. Three years later, I have been yearning for a D7200 but I keep thinking about the great probability one day I'll go full-frame.

So...why not just jump all the way to a D750, I ask? Looking at some of the experienced folks here it's clear that having both a DX and FX is fairly common. But is it necessary to get that nice DX (D7200) before jumping to full-frame?

Here are my real questions: should I be concerned with the shutter recall issue of the D750...and if so does that mean I should avoid used D750's? Or would a used one with a new shutter be good, as al the kinks would be worked out? If I get a new D750 does that guarantee no shutter issues? (Here I'm wondering how long a product could sit on a shelf before being sold)

Also, I'll just say that I am not committed lens-wise to DX or FX yet...as the only lens I have is a 50mm 1.4 that I bought to work on both DX and FX cameras. I do not have a photographic "style" except to say if I had one it would be aimed at landscapes and portraits.

So, what are the things that would worry you about buying a D750 today? Thanks!!!
 
I started on DX and eventually moved into FX (D750) Since you have been just on a D90 the D7200 would be a big step up for you. The question would be why do you want to move up to FX? Depending on what you are doing with your photography you might never see any difference in the end product. Buy the D7200 and spend the extra (better) glass. Just make sure you get FX glass just in case you do want to move up to The D750 later.

My D750 was recalled for the shutter issue although it never showed the problem. If you buy a new one chances are it does not have the flaw and even if you bought a use one it may have never had the problem and if it did the recall would take care of it.
 

Danno

Senior Member
I tend to get analyze the fire out of things too. I call it analysis paralysis. I think it is the engineer in me. What I found hanging out here is that it really depends on what you like to photograph and what kind of budget you have. I have a D7200 and a D700. I like a bunch of different photography.

I started with a D3200 and kit lenses. Then I jumped to a refurbed D7200 and bought some FX lenses and one dedicated DX lens. The DX was a Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 because I had found I liked landscapes. The type of photography. I also like taking bird and horse photos so just now I have a 200-500 f5.6 Nikon lens I use on the D7200,

This summer a friend gave me a good deal on a D700 and a 14-24 2.8 Nikkor lens. I was surprised by how much I like the full frame. I use it a lot for things like the landscape and sunrise shots and some family stuff, but I love the D7200 for my niece's softball and nephews basketball games. I get that extra reach.

I am glad I followed this path to my purchases. Buying the refurbished D7200 gave me money to buy glass. I am also glad that I asked questions here or just looked at questions someone else had already asked. It helped me a lot. I learn something new here pretty much every time I log in.
 

lokatz

Senior Member
Not to critique Don's statement in any way, but I made the step from a D90 to a D7100 (really not that much different from the D7200) several years back and did not find it to be all that big. Don't get me wrong, the D7100/7200's faster AF is a godsend and the higher resolution is nice, but the D90 is a surprisingly capable and flexible body that allowed me to do almost anything I could do with a D7200.

My question for Dave is this: why are you looking to upgrade, and what do you like to shoot? The choice of DX vs FX in my view depends more on your shooting preferences and preferred subjects, but not so much on skill or maturity as a photographer. Both have their place and both can deliver excellent pics if used right.

As fellow Nikonians have pointed out before me, the general path towards better pictures follows three milestones: 1. better skills, 2. better glass, 3. better cameras. In that exact order.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
My first DSLR was a D90. Since I used to shoot 35mm film, I didn't like the difference in view of the DX compared with what I was used to seeing so I upgraded to a D600.

Currently I have a D750, D610, and D7100. My D750 is what I reach for the most. However, if I want to take telephotos of birds or other subjects, I choose the D7100. What you shoot will greatly determine which body is best for you. If you are into birding, wildlife, or macro, then DX would probably work better. Sure you can get the same image with FX, but it comes at the cost of cropping away pixels. If you are into indoor portraits, shooting FX has an edge. Head shots (or head and shoulder shots) are better when a telephoto lens is used. 85mm to 135mm works well for a focal length. The problem with DX is that you'd have to back up further away when using a lens within that range so quite often people will reach for a 50mm lens. A 50mm lens doesn't offer the same pleasing perspective distortion that 85mm to 135mm offers (these offer a little more compression with noses which tends to be more flattering). If you choose to go with DX, using 50mm will be okay, don't get me wrong. But there are slight differences between shooting DX with a 50mm lens and shooting FX with an 85mm lens. It's a personal preference that not everyone will agree on. And if you are into shooting sports, comparing buffers is something you will want to consider.

Generally the sensors of the D750 and D610 will work better in low light situations than DX. I used both my D610 and D7100 during worship services (no flash) and could tell a big difference in image quality. It isn't the brightest in my church so the ISO had to be around 3200. There was a noticeable difference with my D610 being far superior in those situations. However, the D7100 did great for shooting at ISO 3200 for high school drama photos simply because there was more bright light present. My D610 still did a better job, but there wasn't as big a difference in image quality.

As for the D750 shutter recall, mine is on the list. I never noticed the problems for which it was recalled and never sent it in. That said, I began experiencing a big problem with an ERR message the first shot each day I'd take it out. It didn't start happening until I owned it for a while. And it occurred only the first shot of the day even if I turned the body off then turned it on again. Only once did it happen several times on the same day. All the other times, it was EVERY first image of the day.

So I tried different things to isolate the problem. It happened with different lenses. It happened no matter whether I used VR or not, and happened even with lenses that didn't have VR. Then I started to make sure the top display was in standby before turning it off. Bingo. That has all but eliminated the problem. My guess is it is a software related issue. BUT according to Nikon, there isn't any way for them to remove the software and replace it. And they also told me that resetting the body back to factory default won't affect the software...that only resets the shooting menu. But it rarely happens now so I don't worry about it. If it winds up breaking my shutter, the shuter is still under the recall. ;) And I might be the only person here on Nikonites with that problem--so I wouldn't worry about it happening to you.

How did it happen? I'm not sure, but I did leave a lens mounted where I forgot to turn off the VR. It's the only time I ever remember doing so. It *might* be what caused this software glitch, but I don't know for sure. The D750 is an excellent camera, and I still recommend it; however, if you aren't sure you want to risk it, then consider the D610. The D610 lacks the articulating screen and doesn't quite have the same specs as the D750, but it isn't a slouch. There isn't a noticeable difference in image quality between the D750 and D610...certainly no where near the difference between either of them and my D7100.

Just some food for thought. :)
 
Last edited:

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I started w/ 5100 due to budget, squeezed it's limits dry for low-light, nightlife kinda work (and keep in mind battery life can be a real factor too) and once I scraped enough for a 600 the game changed for me completely. If you have a newer, prosumer DX bodies starting with 71, but better yet 72 and up then it might not be as much of a leap, but from 90 to 71, or especially something like 750, you will notice all the great tech advances in a heartbeat.

IF anything, the rear LCD for checking if you nailed focus where you wanted to - D600 and up let you almost pixel peep and be absolutely sure, but most of oldies fall extremely short of that. Then the high ISO ability to take extremely nice shots that's never an unwelcome option to have.

So I say, go for the 750 unless you want/need to have the most reach, then perhaps the 500 to just get the latest and greatest that will last you a real long time.
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
I wouldn't say that FX is any better or worse than DX, each has their purpose and the camera models you've mentioned are both outstanding models.

As a hobbiest, where it may not make sense to own both DX and FX, what kind of subjects do you see yourself enjoying most? If it's sports or wildlife and longer lenses are what you'll need, the crop of a DX camera may be a benefit. If it's more in-home portraits, having a wider view of an FX may be more helpful. There isn't any right or wrong, but rather what's the right tool for the job.

Or, win the lottery, buy both cameras, and share the rest of your winnings with us here at Nikonites! :)
 
Not to critique Don's statement in any way, but I made the step from a D90 to a D7100 (really not that much different from the D7200) several years back and did not find it to be all that big. Don't get me wrong, the D7100/7200's faster AF is a godsend and the higher resolution is nice, but the D90 is a surprisingly capable and flexible body that allowed me to do almost anything I could do with a D7200.

My question for Dave is this: why are you looking to upgrade, and what do you like to shoot? The choice of DX vs FX in my view depends more on your shooting preferences and preferred subjects, but not so much on skill or maturity as a photographer. Both have their place and both can deliver excellent pics if used right.

As fellow Nikonians have pointed out before me, the general path towards better pictures follows three milestones: 1. better skills, 2. better glass, 3. better cameras. In that exact order.

We are Nikonites. Nikonians is another forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

lokatz

Senior Member
I got back into the hobby after a kids-growing-up-hiatus and decided after extensive research in 2014 to get a used but nearly new D90 with 800 shutter actuations. Three years later, I have been yearning for a D7200 but I keep thinking about the great probability one day I'll go full-frame

Hi Dave,

In a private message, you asked me how well the D90 did for me and why I switched to the D7100. Hope it's ok to make this public - I thought others might benefit from this discussion, as well.

Two factors made me switch: sensor resolution and AF speed. As far as sensor resolution goes, I generally think some of us photographers go over board with how important it is. Few of us ever print very large sizes, and I still have some very nice shots taken with my D90 and printed at 24"x36" or so where I can't find any flaws because of the resolution being too low. IMHO, 12 megapixels are enough for most pictures. The only reason I wanted higher resolution was the ability to crop more when desired. I do quite a bit of wildlife and bird shooting where it is usually difficult to fill the frame, so cropping on a D7100 leaves a lot more resolution than it does on a D90. The same is true for street photography and other shooting situations where you don't have the time to compose the shot exactly the way you want it - you'll often want to crop afterwards, so more resolution is your friend.

AF speed does not really matter in landscape or architecture work, but with street/people/wildlife/..., it matters big time. The D7100 is quite a bit faster in focusing than the D90 is; the D7200 is again a bit faster, though by a smaller margin.

To the most part, other differences between the two bodies really didn't matter to me. I never use the effect modes on the D7100, the programmable user modes are a bit of a convenience but in my view don't make much of a difference, and I don't shoot higher than ISO 3200 with the D7100 anyway, so the fact that you could push it further really does not matter (though the slightly lower noise at high ISOs is nice). There are surprisingly few differences in other specs between these two, and none of them are big enough for me to care much either way.

Did I get what I expected? Absolutely as far as resolution goes. 24MP are just fine for me now; in fact, the 21MP on the D500 I later added are plenty, but the D90's 12MP just were not enough.

As far as AF speed goes, the step was big but not big enough for me. That's because in wildlife shooting, the difference between the D500 and the D7100 is possibly even greater than the one between D7100 and D90, so the D7100 still left me a bit disappointed in that department. Today, my D500 always gets the long lens; the D7100 does everything else and I am still very happy with it. With the subjects you listed, the step from the D90 to the D7200 may be just right, though, so this could be a don't care.

Lothar
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
I am one of those folks who over-analyze stuff...and in the case of cameras...it gets even worse. I got back into the hobby after a kids-growing-up-hiatus and decided after extensive research in 2014 to get a used but nearly new D90 with 800 shutter actuations. Three years later, I have been yearning for a D7200 but I keep thinking about the great probability one day I'll go full-frame.

So...why not just jump all the way to a D750, I ask? Looking at some of the experienced folks here it's clear that having both a DX and FX is fairly common. But is it necessary to get that nice DX (D7200) before jumping to full-frame?

Here are my real questions: should I be concerned with the shutter recall issue of the D750...and if so does that mean I should avoid used D750's? Or would a used one with a new shutter be good, as al the kinks would be worked out? If I get a new D750 does that guarantee no shutter issues? (Here I'm wondering how long a product could sit on a shelf before being sold)

Also, I'll just say that I am not committed lens-wise to DX or FX yet...as the only lens I have is a 50mm 1.4 that I bought to work on both DX and FX cameras. I do not have a photographic "style" except to say if I had one it would be aimed at landscapes and portraits.

So, what are the things that would worry you about buying a D750 today? Thanks!!!

If I were to shoot strictly Landscapes and portraits, I would definitely be looking at an FX camera. That is not to say that you can not take killer landscape shots with a DX (the camera is just one part of creating a good shot) but if you have the means to be able to purchase an FX for that purpose then by all means do.

Here are my real questions: should I be concerned with the shutter recall issue of the D750...and if so does that mean I should avoid used D750's?

I have owned and still own a D750. It is a fantastic camera IMO and has served me well over the years. However if I was to replace it, I would be looking at a D810. I would not trust the shutter again after having it replaced twice already, but that is just going by my experience only. Others had the same problems but most have not.
 

J-see

Senior Member
DX or FX really depends on what your medium will be. If you'll be sharing your photos online or on computer, I'd say it matters less whether you have a DX or FX. Here, as an example, the shared images are 1Mpix and if you're downsizing that much, there are a hundred tricks to improve the initial quality. Even when you don't downsize that much, during the last years they have added quite some tools to digitally upgrade your shots.

Only when you start printing large, it starts to matter what cam (and lenses) you are using.

I've owned the D7200, D750 and currently the D810 and they all have some advantages and disadvantages but (most of the time) none of those matter that much.
 
Last edited:

daveward

Senior Member
Hi Dave,

Today, my D500 always gets the long lens; the D7100 does everything else and I am still very happy with it. With the subjects you listed, the step from the D90 to the D7200 may be just right, though, so this could be a don't care.

Lothar

Thanks for the comments...you said the 500 gets the long lens and the 7100 does everything else, what about the 700?
 

daveward

Senior Member
Thanks for all the good insights. It's obvious I'll be having this conversation one day:

"Honey, it's like my need for multiple hammers and multiple screwdrivers and multiple pliers...one of each could work but two is better and three is even better for the job at hand."

Dave
 

Fiddlefye

New member
Part of the equation for me had to do with the lenses I already owned from my film gear. I went with a D200 first with a 18-70 and then all of my manual focus Nikkors, the choice of the 200 being in part because I could use the lenses i already owned on it. Nice camera, it did a great job, but I found myself hankering for that familiar "look" to the resulting images in terms of depth of field and such. Hence on the to D750 as soon as finances allowed and the D200 and 18-70 was given to an impecunious relative who has had great service from it in his graphic design studio. My old AIS and D lenses still get at least as much time on the body as the modern zooms do.
 
Top