Professional Camera (FX) vs APC

Serious question here guys.
I asked in a previous thread about a new camera or rather about the ability to have clean images from about 6400 iso or a little higher.
This question is sort of linked to that but in an adjacent way.

Why do the vast majority of professionals use FX rather than DX?
Ive been reading how the new d500 even with a DX sensor is knocking some of the 'pro' cameras into touch especially the d750 which is FX.

I understand about build quality but apparently the d500 is pretty tough. So is this camera an exception to the build quality rule or is there a vast advantage to having a FX camera?

I would suggest a couple articles on Photography Life... I like the site and they are pretty fair in their reviews. These articles may help.

https://photographylife.com/dx-or-fx-for-sports-and-wildlife-photography#more-49564

https://photographylife.com/the-nik...-debate-and-a-few-high-iso-photos#more-126667

Technology advances. It doesn't stand still. DX is being driven by the consumer and pricing. Nikon is a business and the photography field has radically changed... Change, that hasn't been kind to Nikon's profits... It would seem logical that Nikon focus its resources where its limited profits can be achieved... That seems to be in the DX arena...

DaveW said:

Serious question here guys.
I asked in a previous thread about a new camera or rather about the ability to have clean images from about 6400 iso or a little higher.
This question is sort of linked to that but in an adjacent way.

Why do the vast majority of professionals use FX rather than DX?
Ive been reading how the new d500 even with a DX sensor is knocking some of the 'pro' cameras into touch especially the d750 which is FX.

I understand about build quality but apparently the d500 is pretty tough. So is this camera an exception to the build quality rule or is there a vast advantage to having a FX camera?

Click to expand...

There is an advantage to any camera ,that is the right camera for the type of shooting it is being used for!

Also, you have to remember that just because a camera will give you clean high ISO images, it does not mean that it will do so in every situation.

I read the articles Danno and the feedback.
This seems not be clear cut anymore and I am as confused as ever. Apart from the d5 the d500 seems to hold its own against anything else so in that respect no advantage to FX.
Many people moan about size but that is precisely why I prefer dslr to mirrowless as I don't like smaller bodies of nearly all of them. It don't bother me at all to carry round a dslr all day and in my world bigger is better.
Point and shoot for social and dslr for everything else including vacations. If it don't fit in your pocket what difference does it make about size. And as for the street shooting thing well I tried it with a d3100 and a Sony RX100 and it made no difference, a man with a camera is a man with a camera. And if you look to get street portraits you get hardly any negative no's if you have a dslr.
Sorry, way off topic lol.

Does anyone have a d500 yet?

DaveW said:

This seems not be clear cut anymore and I am as confused as ever. Apart from the d5 the d500 seems to hold its own against anything else so in that respect no advantage to FX.

Click to expand...

DX and FX are simply two different tools. I shoot both because the two formats fill different roles; it's not really a matter of "better" except that there is often a better tool for a specific job; but that's different than one (or the other) being inherently superior. The one thing I do like about FX is how lenses behave. I understand the crop factor is desirable much of the time but I prefer FX because a 50mm simply feels and handles like I expect a 50mm lens to feel and handle. But that's just me.

.....

DaveW said:

Does anyone have a d500 yet?

Click to expand...

Several people here shoot with a D500. We have a whole sub-forum dedicated to the D500.

I agree with Paul. And it's also about the glass. I have all FX glass and it behaves differently on DX. My long lenses become longer as does my macro and that can be good. Conversely, my ultra wide 14-24 becomes a 21-36 on DX. 24-70 becomes 36-105, etc. And Nikon is not making much in the way of Pro DX glass (although they've been kinda liberal in their use of the gold ring).

having shot both the D7100 (DX) and the D750 (FX) I much prefer FX. But that is just me and the way I shoot and what I shoot. If I were heavily into sport or wildlife shooting I might choose the D500 but I shoot a little of everything so I will stick with my much loved D750

in other words this is a choice you have to make for yourself