looking to try FX , but which body

[stuartm]

I found out I can rent a d600 for a week from Henrys photo for around 375 and have it mailed out to me so I might do that before jumping the gun. Did you have a d7000 prior? I was debating upgrading to the 7100 but not sure the small jump would be worth it.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

 

[aroy]

I found out I can rent a d600 for a week from Henrys photo for around 375 and have it mailed out to me so I might do that before jumping the gun. Did you have a d7000 prior? I was debating upgrading to the 7100 but not sure the small jump would be worth it.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Unless you are doing a lot of wild life and need the reach offered by the telephotos on the DX sensor; in my opinion; a D610 is a better buy than a D7100. (At least in India they are within 10% of each other). What you get with FX is wider FOV and slightly better low light capability. What you loose is the "apparent" reach of long telephotos.

One place where the DX trumps over FX of same MP is when the image fills in less than the area covered by DX sensor. For small images; as in case of mild macros and most wild life taken at a long distance; the higher density DX sensor will have more pixels in the image.

Again D7100 has more AF points, which are spread evenly across the image area, while the D610 has a fewer points and they are clumped together. So D7100 makes more sense if you use AF right upto the corners. In my case I am mostly limited to the centre, hence number and the spread of AF points is not that important.

 

[gqtuazon]

And that's a problem...... how? Don't they make ultra-wide lenses for DX? Like the Nikkor 10-24, or Tokina's 11-16, Or Sigma's 10-20, or Tamron's 10-24.......

Here we go again with the FX vs DX.

I know all about the lenses that you've mentioned since I used to own one. The problem is "distortion" when you use these ultra wide angle lenses to take group shots. Their faces becomes out of proportion depending on the person's position on your framing. People who are on the side will have wider faces and people at the center will have elongated faces. If that is OK with you then by all means, go for it. I have tried that route and with my critical standards, it doesn't work out for me.

A FX camera can be used in DX mode and a DX cannot be used the other way around.

 

[Geoffc]

Just had a two day affair with a used D700,used it for samples of most of my picture taking situations and found i was cropping biggest part of my images,this meant i could see no point in my situation in moving to FF, if you think you would use the full sensor area then go for it.
Discounting any perceived or genuine quality gains, the joy of that bigger finder image would have meant if funds allowed i would have added it to my gear,alas funds didn't so it went back and i bought a D7100

Surely that's just a case of using too shorter a focal length lens on the FX body and not filling the frame. If you do that on DX you have the same problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[rocketman122]

I do a lot of low light night stuff as well as nightclub and music festival stuff. Iso 3200 is pretty normal for me.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

iso 3200 with the D7000? its going to be a different level for you when you move to FX. much more detail. less chroma noise. dynamic range. first time I used an fx camera last year and I said, whats the big fuss about. DX is fine. my friend gave me his D3 camera to use in the first wedding I shot after being out of the wedding area for many years. it was a different level altogether. I found DX very flat to my eyes. that sony sensor is something else. I was looking to get another DX camera and he basically threatened me that I dont dare buy DX. and after using the D3 I basically wanted to throw my DX camera in the garbage. this is just me personally. what I felt after using FX. I was quite shocked from the way images looked in FX that in weddings I never even took my DX camera out. not even a single shot. my transition wasnt so bad. mainly had to sell the 17-55 AFS and the camera.

 

[rocketman122]

Just had a two day affair with a used D700,used it for samples of most of my picture taking situations and found i was cropping biggest part of my images,this meant i could see no point in my situation in moving to FF, if you think you would use the full sensor area then go for it.
Discounting any perceived or genuine quality gains, the joy of that bigger finder image would have meant if funds allowed i would have added it to my gear,alas funds didn't so it went back and i bought a D7100

maybe youre simply more used to working with DX, composition wise. I dont have that issue at all. and I love the extra shallow DOF I get with FX.

 

[mikew_RIP]

Surely that's just a case of using too shorter a focal length lens on the FX body and not filling the frame. If you do that on DX you have the same problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Perhaps i should have added i could not afford the lenses to fill the new frame area my longest is 400mm.

 

[Geoffc]

Perhaps i should have added i could not afford the lenses to fill the new frame area my longest is 400mm.

That's a different problem Mike. I have an 800 but use the 7100 for wildlife as I also can't afford/justify the cost if big FX glass. I am waiting keenly for the new Tamron 150-600 though


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[mikew_RIP]

That's a different problem Mike. I have an 800 but use the 7100 for wildlife as I also can't afford/justify the cost if big FX glass. I am waiting keenly for the new Tamron 150-600 though


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Also waiting for that one but i dont think it would have solved the problem me, as the 600mm crop factor i get from my 400 on th 7xxx isnt enough i think ime just greedy

 

[rocketman122]

Also waiting for that one but i dont think it would have solved the problem me, as the 600mm crop factor i get from my 400 on th 7xxx isnt enough i think ime just greedy

yes HAHAHAHA!

 

[480sparky]

Here we go again with the FX vs DX.

I know all about the lenses that you've mentioned since I used to own one. The problem is "distortion" when you use these ultra wide angle lenses to take group shots. Their faces becomes out of proportion depending on the person's position on your framing. People who are on the side will have wider faces and people at the center will have elongated faces. If that is OK with you then by all means, go for it. I have tried that route and with my critical standards, it doesn't work out for me.

A FX camera can be used in DX mode and a DX cannot be used the other way around.

You're arguing a non-issue here. Using a 15m on an FX and a 10mm on a DX body will give you the same distortion.

Distortion is not about focal length. It's about the spatial relationship between your camera and the subject. If we had a large group gathered, and two photographers stood side-by-side.... one with an FX body and 15mm and the other with a DX body fitted with a 10mm, they would record the exact same distortion.

 

[gqtuazon]

You're arguing a non-issue here. Using a 15m on an FX and a 10mm on a DX body will give you the same distortion.

Distortion is not about focal length. It's about the spatial relationship between your camera and the subject. If we had a large group gathered, and two photographers stood side-by-side.... one with an FX body and 15mm and the other with a DX body fitted with a 10mm, they would record the exact same distortion.

I think you are preaching to the choir here. I know what you are trying to tell me which is why I do not use my Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR lens for group shots except on certain focal lengths where I find it ok.

In reference to your #5 post, let me give you a real life scenario. Imagine you are in a tight room such as an apartment. Both photographers were given a 24mm f2.8 D prime lenses. The FX can take up to say 8 to 10 people standing side by side where the DX shooter will not be able to do the same unless you go extremely wider. IT is the wider FL that I avoid because of the distortion. What I am trying to point out to you 480sparky, like what I mentioned on my #23 post if you read it carefully, the advantage of the FX is that the DX cannot accomplish an acceptable image (to my eye) unless you use an ultra wide angle lens which in result can cause distorted faces. 24mm is the widest that I would go with people or group shots.

To be clear, a DX camera can achieve a similar shot but you need to use an UWA lens but my preference is not to use anything wider than 24mm. If you can show me an image with undistorted group shot using the lenses that you've just mentioned then maybe my previous experiments were flawed. Otherwise, my FX camera using a 24mm as the widest end will remain as my method of taking group shots.

 

[480sparky]

I think you are preaching to the choir here. I know what you are trying to tell me which is why I do not use my Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR lens for group shots except on certain focal lengths where I find it ok.

In reference to your #5 post, let me give you a real life scenario. Imagine you are in a tight room such as an apartment. Both photographers were given a 24mm f2.8 D prime lenses. The FX can take up to say 8 to 10 people standing side by side where the DX shooter will not be able to do the same unless you go extremely wider. IT is the wider FL that I avoid because of the distortion. What I am trying to point out to you 480sparky, like what I mentioned on my #23 post if you read it carefully, the advantage of the FX is that the DX cannot accomplish an acceptable image (to my eye) unless you use an ultra wide angle lens which in result can cause distorted faces. 24mm is the widest that I would go with people or group shots.

To be clear, a DX camera can achieve a similar shot but you need to use an UWA lens but my preference is not to use anything wider than 24mm. If you can show me an image with undistorted group shot using the lenses that you've just mentioned then maybe my previous experiments were flawed. Otherwise, my FX camera using a 24mm as the widest end will remain as my method of taking group shots.

Handing the same lens to a pair of photographers with different sensors is NOT a 'real life scenario'. So it's basically a strawman problem. Your position is not a DX v. FX issue. It's the prepared photographer v. the unprepared photographer. By 'forcing' both shooters to use the same lens you're 'crippling' one of them just to bolster your cause.

I still don't get why you think there's going to be a difference between an FX w/15mm and a DX with a 10mm.

 

[aroy]

Wider lense tend to distort more, especially if you are off plumb. For interiors and some landscapes that may not matter, as you may want that look, but for people shots you definitely would not want the persons on the two sides to look different. I believe that the problem starts around 24mm, which may be why 24mm and 28mm were so popular for press reporters. Below that FL if you are slightly off the plumb you get fantastic effects, but not linearity. What you get with FX is better linearity with lower cost for the same FOV.

As the FX is 36mm wide and the DX 24mm wide you get 50% more coverage width wise with the same FL. That is why I think that the FX sensor is better suited for wide angle shots.

 

[gqtuazon]

Handing the same lens to a pair of photographers with different sensors is NOT a 'real life scenario'. So it's basically a strawman problem. Your position is not a DX v. FX issue. It's the prepared photographer v. the unprepared photographer. By 'forcing' both shooters to use the same lens you're 'crippling' one of them just to bolster your cause.

I still don't get why you think there's going to be a difference between an FX w/15mm and a DX with a 10mm.

Ok. I think this conversation is not going anywhere nor it is helping anybody and has strayed away from the main topic.

If you can show me an image taken with a DX lens such as the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 or any of the lenses that you've mentioned without having their faces distorted, then you've proven me wrong.

So, let me ask these last questions to you then I will end my post as far as this thread is concern. Do you practice taking group shots using the lenses that you've mentioned? If you do, are the images acceptable to your taste?

 

[480sparky]

Ok. I think this conversation is not going anywhere nor it is helping anybody and has strayed away from the main topic.

If you can show me an image taken with a DX lens such as the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 or any of the lenses that you've mentioned without having their faces distorted, then you've proven me wrong.

So, let me ask these last questions to you then I will end my post as far as this thread is concern. Do you practice taking group shots using the lenses that you've mentioned? If you do, are the images acceptable to your taste?

If 'the conversation is going nowhere', why do you insist on continuing it?

As for 'not helping anyone', how do you know it isn't? We're not the only two reading it.

Perhaps you could provide evidence to bolster your position as well. If YOU have shot with the lenses mention, as you apparently allude to, this should not be a problem

 

[hark]

I understand what Glenn is saying. The widest lens he'd use for a group shot is 24mm yet Sparky you make the comparison of a 10mm lens on DX against a 15mm lens on FX. That's not what Glenn is saying. A more comparable comparison would be using a 24mm lens on FX against a 16mm lens on DX for large group shots.

Glenn, in Sparky's defense, I can see one benefit for taking a group shot with a 16mm lens...it would benefit a plastic surgeon who does nose jobs, chin reductions, and/or pins back ears!

 

[gqtuazon]

Perhaps you could provide evidence to bolster your position as well. If YOU have shot with the lenses mention, as you apparently allude to, this should not be a problem

I have done my test before but they include family pictures which I do not post or share in this forum.

It is obvious to me that you continue to dodge my question since you continue to change the topic and avoid answering them.

Anyway, It is apparent that you and I have different standards. Continue to believe or do what works for you. i have established what works for me and will continue to practice what I have learned based on my testing. Something that I will keep to myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[480sparky]

I have done my test before but they include family pictures which I do not post or share in this forum.

It is obvious to me that you continue to dodge my question since you continue to change the topic and avoid answering them.

Anyway, It is apparent that you and I have different standards. Continue to believe or do what works for you. i have established what works for me and will continue to practice what I have learned based on my testing. Something that I will keep to myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To answer YOUR question, YES, I have shot with one of the lenses listed. The Nikkor 10-24. Since going to FX, I replaced it with a Nikkor 17-35. I see no difference between them, other than the apertures and the slight differences in FOVs.

To imply I should go out and do extensive testing with all the lenses listed is silly. But I'm just wanting to learn what distortion you're referring to, and why you don't care for it.

I didn't intend this to turn into a "I'm right and you're wrong" thread. I just don't see what distortion you believe is apparent and am simply asking for some empirical evidence of it.

 

[hark]

I believe I understand where the misunderstanding comes from...let's say we are in a small room and want to take a group photo of 12 people. When using an FX camera with a 24mm lens, I am all the way back against the wall. I can't move back any further. I take the shot. Now when I switch to a DX camera with a 16mm lens, I am not able to move back further to accommodate for the 1.5 crop sensor difference. THIS is where I believe the misunderstanding takes place. There will be distortion around the edges. If the photographer isn't able to move back to account for the 1.5 crop and has to take both photos from the same place, there will be a difference in perspective which amounts to more distortion on a DX camera. However, if the photographer has the ability to move back and take the photo from further away, then it isn't so much of a problem.

It all boils down to where the photographer is standing in relation to the subject. I *think* that's what Glenn was trying to say earlier when he gave the example of being in a small crowded room.