Should I step across from FX to DX?

Geoffc

Senior Member
I currently have a D800, D7100 and Fuji X100T. My Nikon lenses are all FX, including, 105 Macro, 50mm 1.8, 70-200 F2.8, 24-120 F4, 16-35 F4, Tamron 150-600. I rarely print, albeit I would like to start hanging a few on the walls over the coming years if they are worthy. I am currently thinking about getting the D500 at some point in the next 12 months and my wife would also get one. She is currently running a D7100 and suitable range of DX/FX lenses so no issue there.

So to my question. Should I sell the D800, 24-120, 16-35 (And even the 50mm which is rarely used) and get a D500 with replacements for the sold lenses in DX comparable format. I'm thinking 16-80 F2.8-F4 to replace the 24-120 and maybe a Tokina 11-20 to replace the 16-35. I had the Tokina 11-16 previously and liked it a lot.

My rationale for this is that I don't ever need 36MP, the D800 is not an FX low light monster, the D500 is looking fair in the ISO tests (Not that I'm comparing it to the best FX offerings), I would then be standardised on one system. To the latter point, I could put clicks on the D7100 when I don't need the D500 capabilities.

Prior to the D800 I had a D300s and if the D400 had been available to replace it I never would have gone FX as I think the modern DX ISO performance meets my needs. I also don't need the depth of field control that FX gives me as I rarely shoot portraits.

So, what do you think, "should I stay or should I go"?
 
Last edited:

Ntinaras

Senior Member
i would stay to FX,
i honestly find that move a severe step back...
if you really want to change something, i would go to a D750 and sell the D800.
the d500 is designed for sport/wildlife...
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
i would stay to FX,
i honestly find that move a severe step back...
if you really want to change something, i would go to a D750 and sell the D800.
the d500 is designed for sport/wildlife...


But why? I have owned both and I don't see that FX gives me a huge lot to justify two systems. The 500 is in its element for sport and wildlife but it will happily take landscapes and portraits too. The 7100 will take excellent photos but just doesn't have the FPS or AF of the 500. I guess I am asking for the compelling argument and I don't think high ISO would swing it for me.
 

Ntinaras

Senior Member
The d800 is probably the best dslr for landscapes right now (with the D810/D800E)
Also you have the 16-35, which is wide enough.
with the D500 you will only gain autofocus and burst, which is completely useless for landscape

generally you have an amazing set of equipment, which honestly i think you dont need to change a thing...
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Blah blah blah, landscapes.

That argument is growing weary. If that's all you shoot and you make some sort of living off the photos, then we can talk. I've seen many a landscape shot with a DX camera that you'd never know (or care) weren't full frame. Unless you're in extreme light, good glass will work on any camera and make a great photo.

Geoff, I can't answer whether or not you should abandon FX. I will tell you that a D750 and a D500 are an amazing combination to whittle down to. But that's not what you asked. I'm not a fan of the huge file size of the D800, so moving away from that would never bother me, particularly when you're replacing it with a 20MP sensor like the D500's (buying you 4-5MP's on the crop). There's some really good DX glass out there that I suspect you'd be more than happy with after unloading the full frame stuff, but that said, if you ever move back it's gonna cost you. If I made the move then the ones you're looking to sell are the ones I'd also move as it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to replace them. If I was going to go all DX I would personally get Sigma's 18-35mm and 50-100mm f1.8's and then find an ultra-wide I'm happy with. You've got an effective gap between 52 & 75mm, so do a search on your Lightroom catalog metadata using focal length and see how many shots you take with the zoom in that range and decide if you can live without it. And the nice thing about the Sigma glass? If you ever switch systems they'll change the mounts for free - which actually makes them easier to turn as well (I almost bought my brother's 18-35mm Canon mount, but I already have the 24-35mm f2).

I don't think it's a bad move, particularly given the way DX sensors are evolving, but I'd only do it if I knew I'd never go back to full frame. It's like moving to Florida here in the States. Once you make the move it's near impossible to afford to move back.
 
Last edited:

Blacktop

Senior Member
I agree with @BackdoorHippie on landscape gear. Some of my best landscapes are with the D7100 and the Tokina 11-16mm lens. That's not to say that the D750 and my 20mm 2.8 or the 24-120mm lens are a slouch when it comes to that, but honestly it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.

The only thing that really is keeping me from selling the D750 and picking up a D500 is the clean high ISO shots I get, especially shooting indoors without a flash.
If I had a D800 like you, (you said it's not a high ISO monster) then I would strongly consider moving to a D500.

The most impressive thing that I read over and over again about that camera is the focusing. For myself it would be an upgrade over the D750 tracking and locking on to birds/BIF. Especially when it comes to the small variety of those winged creatures.:)

It's like moving to Florida here in the States. Once you make the move it's near impossible to afford to move back.


You ain't kidding. I would never be able to afford the move back to Jersey. (even if I wanted to):)
 

aroy

Senior Member
If you need the high FPS of D500 then get it and at the same time sell the D800. As the D500 and D750 are priced quite close, a comparison of specs will be all that you need to decide between the two.

As long as you are not going to require low light ISO capabilities of the current crop of FX sensors, DX is as good as FX, especially if you do not print larger than A3 size. The only reason for having FX is if you need wide angles, as even 15mm on FX is equivalent to 10mm on DX, from FOV point of view.

In my opinion the larger sensor of the D8xx series is rarely needed for a normal photographer and from what I have seen with my D3300 a 24MP sensor is good enough for quitre large prints (upto A2 with proper processing and upsizing)
 

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
It's like moving to Florida here in the States. Once you make the move it's near impossible to afford to move back.

I know what you mean, Jake! Heck, it is so crazy, I can't even afford to move from one spot in Florida to another!!

And Geoffc, nothing quicker to generate a need for a piece of gear than to get rid of it. ;) However, there is usually a way to get around the issue, such as photo-stitching to generate landscapes with a greater span of view.

WM
 

salukfan111

Senior Member
If one is going to own a $1500+ camera and doesn't make a living shooting landscapes, then how can they not justify a D500 and maybe a D700 (or more expensive) FF for backup? It's become quite obvious the "secret sauce" Nikon has been reserving for the FF models and only just recently put in the D500 is more important than the size of the sensor.
 

TedG954

Senior Member
Florida is wonderful. Why would anyone want to move away?

3dafec19ec9633fac0d1cb8e502f9514.jpg


(not my photo) (and I don't know who she is)
 

Danno

Senior Member
Geoffc, I tell you that is a tough decision. I have only the D7200 and as I plan for the next step I have been torn between D500 and D750, but I will say I liked what BDH and BT had to say. I do love landscapes and sunrises with my D7200 and the Sigma 10-20 mm f/3.5.

Good luck in your quest. I am anxious to see how it comes out.
 

kkchan

Senior Member
I would keep the D800, instead of upgrade/downgrade to a DX D500 camera unless you want a 1.7 crop factor from the FX lens. I don't see no reason to moving backward to a DX camera and buy DX lenses.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
If one is going to own a $1500+ camera and doesn't make a living shooting landscapes, then how can they not justify a D500 and maybe a D700 (or more expensive) FF for backup? It's become quite obvious the "secret sauce" Nikon has been reserving for the FF models and only just recently put in the D500 is more important than the size of the sensor.

How does a person who has never picked up an instrument in their life justify a $3000 PRS to take their first guitar lesson?

How does an old fart with bad reaction times justify a six-figure automobile that they'll never drive over 70mph, expect maybe on an interstate, to drive themselves to play golf on the weekends?

"Secret sauce" is not something hidden away and pulled out like a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle for only a special few on a special occasion, it's called technological advancement and it takes time and costs money. Full framed bodies always cost more because the sensors cost more to manufacture. Cropped sensors could easily perform as well as full frame if photographers were willing to live with 44% of the MP's. Nikon could have easily given you a DX camera that has the D750's high ISO capabilities if you were willing to shoot at 10 MP's.

Here's a 24x36 block grid over a photo, the unshaded 16x24 area represents the DX coverage.

FX-DX-1.jpg

Because the pixels are the same size you can easily collect the same light information, but at a cost of 56% of your image size. You want the same file size, same MP's, and would love to have the same "secret sauce". Well...

FX-DX-3.jpg

...now you have to cram all that goodness into a space that's 44% as big. That's a whole lot of physics to overcome. Oh yeah, I forgot, since it's a DX camera you also expect it to be cheaper. Where's that sauce bottle, I need to pour another shot to try and figure out why it is something is always supposed to be had for nothing?

Getting a DX camera that comes close to what Nikon did with the D750 sensor took time and money, which is why you now have a $2000 cropped sensor rig. What you have is a 10 fps beast that can shoot for(almost)ever in a sport or wildlife situation, and yet with the right glass can hold its own with full framed bodies. A DX body that doesn't prevent you from shooting in a needed situation is probably a photographer's greatest gift. With the right glass and proper skill it's probably the only camera you'd need.

So how can a slouch such as myself who spends far more than he makes on the photos I take possibly justify a D500 and a D750 (it's not a "backup", it's a second camera) for my photography? Because it's my photography - my art, my vice, and in many ways my voice. I write words - lots of words. I make music - lots of music. I've expressed myself in different ways throughout my life and for the last 5 years this has been the channel I've chosen - or I should say, the channel that's chosen me.

How does one justify the $50 bottle of wine when the $10 will get them just as drunk? Ah, because the person asking the question doesn't know enough to realize that "drunk" is just the end result and hasn't experienced enough to realize that there's a whole lot going on between Point A and Point B. One would certainly love to find a $10 fare for that same journey, but it's not an easy find. At the same time, the $50 bottle given to the unexperienced and uneducated palate wouldn't provide the same level of satisfaction because they don't have the points of reference to fully understand the nuances.

You need to do a lot of picture taking to know why something doesn't work for you. If you don't understand when you're up against your limitations and not your tool's then you need to spend more time with the tools you have. Once you grasp that then it's simply a matter of finding the right tool for the job. As I said above, I write words - lots of words. The true justification for having this combination is spewed across 4 years of posts here. The journey is documented. The data collected and presented. Geoff's been part of it - a sounding board at times as we've tackled similar questions at coincident times, often reaching opposite conclusions. Dig if you want.
 
Last edited:

salukfan111

Senior Member
I would keep the D800, instead of upgrade/downgrade to a DX D500 camera unless you want a 1.7 crop factor from the FX lens. I don't see no reason to moving backward to a DX camera and buy DX lenses.
FF lens on a DX give you the "sweet spot" in the middle. FF lens probably work better on DX cameras. Obviously the opposite direction is not true.
 

kkchan

Senior Member
Man, I wouldn't pay no 19k for a DX camera ever since my sold D2H and D2X. I still have a D200 at home but barely use it unless I need that 1.5 crop to peep at something :p
 

salukfan111

Senior Member
How does a person who has never picked up an instrument in their life justify a $3000 PRS to take their first guitar lesson?

How does an old fart with bad reaction times justify a six-figure automobile that they'll never drive over 70mph, expect maybe on an interstate, to drive themselves to play golf on the weekends?

"Secret sauce" is not something hidden away and pulled out like a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle for only a special few on a special occasion, it's called technological advancement and it takes time and costs money. Full framed bodies always cost more because the sensors cost more to manufacture. Cropped sensors could easily perform as well as full frame if photographers were willing to live with 44% of the MP's. Nikon could have easily given you a DX camera that has the D750's high ISO capabilities if you were willing to shoot at 10 MP's.

Here's a 24x36 block grid over a photo, the unshaded 16x24 area represents the DX coverage.

View attachment 215426

Because the pixels are the same size you can easily collect the same light information, but at a cost of 56% of your image size. You want the same file size, same MP's, and would love to have the same "secret sauce". Well...

View attachment 215427

...now you have to cram all that goodness into a space that's 44% as big. That's a whole lot of physics to overcome. Oh yeah, I forgot, since it's a DX camera you also expect it to be cheaper. Where's that sauce bottle, I need to pour another shot to try and figure out why it is something is always supposed to be had for nothing?

Getting a DX camera that comes close to what Nikon did with the D750 sensor took time and money, which is why you now have a $2000 cropped sensor rig. What you have is a 10 fps beast that can shoot for(almost)ever in a sport or wildlife situation, and yet with the right glass can hold its own with full framed bodies. A DX body that doesn't prevent you from shooting in a needed situation is probably a photographer's greatest gift. With the right glass and proper skill it's probably the only camera you'd need.

So how can a slouch such as myself who spends far more than he makes on the photos I take possibly justify a D500 and a D750 (it's not a "backup", it's a second camera) for my photography? Because it's my photography - my art, my vice, and in many ways my voice. I write words - lots of words. I make music - lots of music. I've expressed myself in different ways throughout my life and for the last 5 years this has been the channel I've chosen - or I should say, the channel that's chosen me.

How does one justify the $50 bottle of wine when the $10 will get them just as drunk? Ah, because the person asking the question doesn't know enough to realize that "drunk" is just the end result and hasn't experienced enough to realize that there's a whole lot going on between Point A and Point B. One would certainly love to find a $10 fare for that same journey, but it's not an easy find. At the same time, the $50 bottle given to the unexperienced and uneducated palate wouldn't provide the same level of satisfaction because they don't have the points of reference to fully understand the nuances.

You need to do a lot of picture taking to know why something doesn't work for you. If you don't understand when you're up against your limitations and not your tool's then you need to spend more time with the tools you have. Once you grasp that then it's simply a matter of finding the right tool for the job. As I said above, I write words - lots of words. The true justification for having this combination is spewed across 4 years of posts here. The journey is documented. The data collected and presented. Geoff's been part of it - a sounding board at times as we've tackled similar questions at coincident times, often reaching opposite conclusions. Dig if you want.
The point I was trying to make is the average joe who is going to own a single camera he pays more than $1500 for would be foolish to not buy a D500 unless he absolutely needed the FF for a specific task. There are many aspects to how a picture turns out, the size of the sensor is just one small part of that. As DX cameras climb into the price range of FF all of those bells and whistles the expensive FFs get will go to the DX.
For a D500:
1. awesome AF from the flagship $6500 - got it - it works even better because there is focus coverage for the entire image hitting the sensor
2. top of the line microlens for the sensor normally reserved for cameras like D5 and 810 - got it
3. top of the line imaging A to D converters and algorythms reserved for expensive FFs - got it
4. iso invarient sensor - got it
5. natural benefit of smaller sensor is a lot more information is collected on the image you are looking at (very cost effective teleconverter)
6. low light performance on par or in many cases exceeding the capabilities of FFs - this camera will focus lock and get decent pictures where many FFs can't even get a focus lock - they withheld the IR focus assist to keep this camera from blowing all the FFs out of the water
7. fast shutter speed and top of the line buffering

The D500 without the FF special sauce is just a D7000
There are reasons Nikon did the D500 not the least of which is to have a platform for working out the bugs for the 60mp + they're probably working on. That camera will basically have an overgrown D500 sensor. If people with FFs like them, then by all means they can keep patting themselves on the back and repeating ridiculous crap like how FF lens work better on FFs than DXs (in spite of physics), better low light performance despite D500 having significantly better low light AF, etc. etc. It is a free country.

Were it up to me I'd stick the 18 or whatever MP sensor from the Nikon 1 series and stick it in the D500 and use the extra space to install vr on the sensor itself. That would be a very effective TC indeed.

I have provided raws to Blacktop of low light shots where a D7200 or D7xx or D8xx would not have even got a focus lock on. The camera does well in low light. Astro shots at 3200 are really sweet too - significant improvement over the D7100 for sure.

No one is taking shots at you for anything but using the "no true scotmans" argument style.
 
Last edited:

Bill16

Senior Member
I have found that I am very happy with my two Nikon's and I will never likely out grow them. Plus they fit my photographic needs with plenty of capabilities for anything else I might want to shoot. So changing things now would be nothing but wasting money on gear that wouldn't improve my shots.
I am not arguing FX vs DX folks. I just think I am in the best setup for me for what I shoot, covering all my bases very well without any need to buy more or change over to something else!:)

But to the question! If the D800 isn't making you feel thrilled, then I highly recommend selling it to find something else! The D8xx line are specialty Nikon's an are not suited to everybody, and you need to love it for it to be the right Nikon for you. Other Nikon's are more versatile in some ways without leaving you stuck with huge files that are bigger than you ever really need. I love my D800e and wouldn't trade it right now for any other model! If you don't feel that way, then surely you would be happier a different model with more reasonable file sizes to work with.:)

It sounds to me that the D500 would suit your needs very well my friend, since printing larger photos isn't a big deal for you. :D
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Geoff, there will be those who insist that FF is always a better choice than DX. I am not one of those. :) Since I got my D500 I have seen the capabilities of this camera, and I see no reason to want more of anything. Fast, accurate focusing, 10 fps, a great sensor that provides very good sharpness, good ISO capabilities, and enough resolution for anything I do with my photos.

If I already had all the FX glass that you have, I might think twice. Then again, all that glass will work just fine on an FX body.

Just throwing out this idea: One option for you might be to sell the 16-35, the 50, and get the Nikon 10-24 to go with the lenses you already have. The 24-120 would seem to be a very handy lens, and I guess I'd keep that one around, but it depends on what your normal shooting entails.
 
Top