DX Camera - DX or FX Glass?

[RocketCowboy]

DX bodies have more pixels than an FX body in DX mode.

True, and this may be more of a debate on camera bodies/sensors rather than lenses, but does that pixel density of the DX sensors also lead to some tradeoffs on IQ? Seems like if I had to squeeze 24 million photosites into an FX footprint, I could use higher quality vs being constrained by size with the DX footprint ... but I may be talking just enough technical babble to side track myself.

 

[TedG954]

I do think the D5300 is the right camera for me......

I believe that is a very wise decision. The 24MP D5300 will produce excellent photos and beyond. (My D3300 is a wonderful piece of technology.)

I was also one of those folks that thought a "better" camera would give me better pictures. The truth is that you and I have a whole lot more to do with producing a good photo than any camera, at any price.

A D4, D800, or D7100 is no magic bullet.

If someone takes crappy pictures with their D40, and their personal abilities don't improve...... they'll still take crappy pictures with an $8000 Leica.

There are people that take excellent and wonderfully interesting photos with the D3100. And there is an equal number of people that take terrible, boring photos with D800E cameras. A "pro" photographer has practiced for many years...... he didn't just buy the best camera and lens money could buy. People trapped into their high-end equipment make it sound like that equipment makes a difference. Don't get caught up with lens-envy. Those people screw their lenses on the same way you do.

When you discover that your own personal abilities, and creativity, is being held back by your current equipment, you'll have a really honest reason to "upgrade". My camera equipment is far above my pay grade and I now look at some of my purchases as frivolous (i.e. D800).

Your D5300 is a marvel and (no offense intended) when your brain catches up with it...... spend your money wisely. Take great photos with your D5300, because you can.

Good luck!

 

[480sparky]

True, and this may be more of a debate on camera bodies/sensors rather than lenses, but does that pixel density of the DX sensors also lead to some tradeoffs on IQ? Seems like if I had to squeeze 24 million photosites into an FX footprint, I could use higher quality vs being constrained by size with the DX footprint ... but I may be talking just enough technical babble to side track myself.

Offhand, I think the biggest tradeoff is a reduction in ISO performance, leading to more noise at the same ISO.

 

[Bill16]

The DX has a smaller sensor, or you could say a cropped sensor. So you have more magnification for the same mm lens than you would with a FX full size sensor. So if your doing a lot of long shots, macro, bird photos, then the DX has the advantage of giving you more magnification than an equal mm lens would on a FX model.
But if your doing a lot of wide shots, group photos,architecture and low light shots the FX has the advantage. Also the FX models tend to have a more pro build. The D300/300s is the only pro build DX model, but the technology is older and lacking the newest features.
I'm loving my D300 and I don't feel the loss of those new features, but I do want to add a FX body to go with my D300.
If your going to use the D5300 for quite a while as your learning, you may want to stick to DX lenses since you don't have a built in focus motor to make use of AF FX lenses unless you buy AF-S FX lenses which are costly.
If it were me I'd figure out if I'm going DX or FX and then if I choose FX I'd buy one now if I could and concentrate on getting the FX glass I need to get the shots I'm after the most. I say this, because buying a lot of DX glass for now will waste money if you know your going to FX for sure.
But this is just my opinion, and a lot depends on your budget. So other plans may make better sense depending on your budget.

 

[RocketCowboy]

Offhand, I think the biggest tradeoff is a reduction in ISO performance, leading to more noise at the same ISO.

Ok, so maybe my quality comparison is better translated as better ISO sensitivity per photosite? I think I'm following you, just trying to make sure my terminology jives with what I'm trying to say.

 

[RocketCowboy]

If your going to use the D5300 for quite a while as your learning, you may want to stick to DX lenses since you don't have a built in focus motor to make use of AF FX lenses unless you buy AF-S FX lenses which are costly.

This is probably the angle the sales guy at the camera store this weekend was going after. I understood him to down play the AF vs AF-S issue on the fact that I don't have any "D" series glass currently to bring to the discussion, so ANY new glass that I would buy was assumed to be AF-S. Maybe that's it ... I'd only be buying NEW glass, not used. Perhaps that was why he downplayed the AF servo in the 7100 (vs my 5300), and would rather me buy new AF-S glass for the higher price? It was my idea after that discussion that maybe I should just focus on FX glass, so that price increase would all be on me.

Still, I very much appreciate all the responses, insight, and discussion. This is very helpful to me!

 

[TedG954]

The DX has a smaller sensor, or you could say a cropped sensor. So you have more magnification for the same mm lens than you would with a FX full size sensor. So if your doing a lot of long shots, macro, bird photos, then the DX has the advantage of giving you more magnification than an equal mm lens would on a FX model.

A 200mm lens on a DX D5300 will have the exact same magnification as it would on an FX D600.

The DX camera does not have additional magnification; it only has a smaller frame.

At 50 yards away, the DX camera with the 200mm lens will display the same amount of objects that an FX camera would show if it had a 300mm lens..... but the objects in the frame would be the exact same size and virtually the exact same definition. 200mm magnification is the same on either DX or FX camera.

This may help to understand...... http://www.scantips.com/lights/cropfactor.html

 

[RocketCowboy]

At 50 yards away, the DX camera with the 200mm lens will display the same amount of objects that an FX camera would show if it had a 300mm lens..... but the objects in the frame would be the exact same size and virtually the exact same definition. 200mm magnification is the same on either DX or FX camera.

Would it be correct to say ...

A 200mm DX lense on either a 24MP DX camera or 24MP FX camera will produce the same image relative to field of view, with the image from the FX camera containing fewer pixels due to sensor crop (not utilizing the entire FX sensor space)?

A 200mm FX lense on either a 24MP DX camera or 24MP FX camera will product different images relative to field of view, but each image being 24MP because of complete sensor coverage? The image from the DX camera will be a subset, or cropped, variation of the image from the FX camera.

 

[aroy]

Though the image on the sensor is same on both the FX and DX sensor, the pixels per image length/height will be more in a DX, provided both have same MP. So in case the object on the sensor, say a bird, is smaller than the shorter side of DX, you get more details with DX. That is the advantage od DX over FX on wild life shots. Unless the animal is standing very close, its image (even with 600mm) may be much less than the 16mm of the DX sensor's height. So you get more pixels and that means more resolution.

For example take the case of 24MP sensors, which are approximately 6000 x 4000 pixels. The frame sizes are 36x24 for FX and 24x16. So the pixels/mm are 166.67 and 250 respectively. Now a bird which is about 12mm on the sensor will have 2000 and 3000 pixels respectively. This is what is popularly referred to as the "Magnification Factor" for DX lenses.

 

[TedG954]

200mm is 200mm is 200mm

Let me google that for you

 

[480sparky]

Ok, so maybe my quality comparison is better translated as better ISO sensitivity per photosite? I think I'm following you, just trying to make sure my terminology jives with what I'm trying to say.

All else being equal, a physically smaller pixel on a sensor cannot collect as many photons as a larger one. So you end up with more digital noise with a smaller sensor.

 

[aroy]

All else being equal, a physically smaller pixel on a sensor cannot collect as many photons as a larger one. So you end up with more digital noise with a smaller sensor.

If you shoot in FAT light, the noise is insignificant. In current generation bodies, the least DR of 12.8 EV is in D3300 and the most of 14.4EV is in D610. What you need is a DR of 8-10 for a good noise free image at ISO 100. I have experienced barely visible noise in my D3300 at ISO 400, and in most cases I can aford to shoot at ISO 100 without any problems. Yes if you want to shoot in low light at high ISO, FX is a better choice, and even then the lower MP D4/D4S have lower noise at higher ISO settings.

Ultimately it all depends on what you shoot and how much you can spend. The range is huge with D3300 at $500 at one end and D4S at $6,600+. For professional photographers who shoot wild life and/or sports where the cost of their lenses, travel and support runs into tens of thousands of dollars, saving a few thousand on a body does not make good business sense. A D4S is ideal in such case, due to its rugged build, faster burst rates and excellent high ISO performance. In my case I can shoot slow, wait for good light and have a few low end lenses, the D3300 makes more sense.

 

[Cowleystjames]

In my case I started with DX and lenses to suit, then moved to FX and had to trade in and buy FX lenses.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing!

 

[Lee532]

In my case I started with DX and lenses to suit, then moved to FX and had to trade in and buy FX lenses.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Yes, I did exactly the same. I got the D5100 because I fancied trying my hand at photography and never realised how much I would enjoy it and how far I would take it!
Once I realised I would want to go FX my lens purchases for the D5100 where FX glass, going on the theory that I could not afford to buy a whole new set up in one go! Once I bought the D610 I already had lenses there I could use with it, although I still need an ultra wide which I am sorely missing at the minute.

 

[480sparky]

If you shoot in FAT light,.........

File Allocation Table?

Or light that need to go on a diet?

 

[RocketCowboy]

...although I still need an ultra wide which I am sorely missing at the minute.

It's the ultra wide need that has me thinking FX is right for me. I'm thinking if nothing else, my wider lenses should be FX while lenses with reach are probably ok either format.

 

[RocketCowboy]

Or light that need to go on a diet?

Light that is gravitationally enriched. :encouragement:

 

[Fortkentdad]

Most of this response really resonates with me. We've got the same DX lenses today, except that I also have the 50mm DX macro.....
When I debate whether the D5300 was the right camera to start with, it's the 7100 and 610 that I go back and forth with, so I think I'm there having the same discussion you had ... ....
Where I'm at right now is to stick with the D5300, so that I can burn up the shutter actuations on that camera and learn the basics there, before opening up to a higher end body down the road. So maybe the used or 3rd party glass is the right way for me to go, so that I can leave myself the flexibility of FX glass, without the upfront costs when the future is so unknown.

The one thing I do know, in addition to the shutter snapping and experimentation that I've been doing on my own, getting into some kind of structured training/class is in my near term horizon.

Took a peek at your profile and we do have a little in common. I see we even have the same flash. And I also have a Nikon film SLR (F60). And I do like to get more gear - three bags full right now of camera gear. I'm cheap so lots of eBay-ing and second hand stuff. Getting into some lighting equipment, a couple of LED lamps for the camera to shoot video. Not that I've really got into that - yet.

And I was the network IT guy at my office back in the 80-90's but left that behind - didn't keep up with the necessary continuing ed - last formal IT training was to get certified as a Novelle Netware Admin about 1990, trained in DOS. Those where the days. Since moved into Social Services management. My son is an IT manager down in Mississippi.

And well we do cycle - but we have human powered trikes (Catrikes out of Florida). When I want the wind in my face I put the top down on my PT.

That 5300 will produce most excellent images and you will be able to learn the basis and beyond. Let's you discover if you want to "invest" (as I tell my wife) in more gear and eventually upgrade to FX or stick with DX. That is a really challenging question.

If I were you I'd scout out some photographic conventions, shows, etc. that are a nice motorcycle ride from your home and take them in. I've yet to find a photo-enthusiast not willing to bend your ear about their gear and their thoughts on FX vs DX (and Nikon vs Canon) etc etc. I'm a little too remote to get to any major event like that. Would need to build it into a vacation someday. Alternatively find the local camera stores and go hang out there and chat up the salespeople and other customers if it is busy. They will try to up-sell you so be careful but if you leave the credit card at home it can be a safe outing.

Take care.

 

[Lee532]

It's the ultra wide need that has me thinking FX is right for me. I'm thinking if nothing else, my wider lenses should be FX while lenses with reach are probably ok either format.

I thought the 24-70 I have would be wide enough for me on FX but I am really missing the effect I got from the Sigma 10-20 on the D5100. Reckon I'll be forking out on a Nikon 14-24 very soon. The extra costs of going FX.

 

[Cowleystjames]

You wouldn't regret the 14-24, it's truly amazing.