New camera time, what to do...

E

eurotrash

Senior Member
Ooook, so I have a D5100 and feel I've outgrown it already. I should have bought the 7000 when I had the chance, but alas, I didn't and now regret it. So now, I'm ready for another upgrade in fall or possibly sooner.

I'm waiting for the new lineup to release but still am on the fence about DX and FX. I shoot landscapes, architecture mainly. Also random stuff of other things. So, I guess my question is basically,

1: what do I gain by going FX?
2: How much more expensive is FX glass? (I only require 2 lenses. If I stayed on DX, I would have bought the Tokina 11-16 and Nikkor 18-200 and love my 35mm 1.8 for low light. May be inheriting a 28mm 1.8d soon as well which may well replace the 35mm)

I'm curious about the new rumored d300 replacement as well as the new d600, but definitely want a camera that's above my ability so I can grown INTO it. That was my issue with the 5100. Nice camera, but just didn't have all the dedicated buttons, large viewfinder, focus motor, etc that I really didn't think I needed in the beginning but now do. What do you think I should do? I should mention I no longer am looking at the D7000 because it will be old tech by the time the new lineup comes out more than likely.. I really don't mind spending the money, but don't have like, 5k to spend haha! :)
 
E

eurotrash

Senior Member
Another question is what glass would I be looking at that would be the equivalent of the DX versions of the glass I've listed? Or will they work on the FX sensors as well?
 
AC016

AC016

Senior Member
I would wait and see what comes out. Though, when something is announced, you will most likely have to wait even more until you can get it. From what i know, FX is beneficial for landscapes and wide angle shots. Here is an article i found which i am sure will inform you alot more:
Nikon DX vs FX
 
D

Dave_W

The Dude
Move into FX, no question about it. I predict that DX is on the way out and will be phased out over time. There's just too many advantages to FX, most importantly the overall quality of the image that an FX sensor can produce insures the slow demise of DX. Granted, it's not going to happen overnight however I predict within 10 yrs the lower cost of an FX sensor along with the demand for FX will cause the major players to abandon DX completely.
 
P

Phillydog1958

Senior Member
eurotrash said:
Ooook, so I have a D5100 and feel I've outgrown it already. I should have bought the 7000 when I had the chance, but alas, I didn't and now regret it. So now, I'm ready for another upgrade in fall or possibly sooner.

I'm waiting for the new lineup to release but still am on the fence about DX and FX. I shoot landscapes, architecture mainly. Also random stuff of other things. So, I guess my question is basically,

1: what do I gain by going FX?
2: How much more expensive is FX glass? (I only require 2 lenses. If I stayed on DX, I would have bought the Tokina 11-16 and Nikkor 18-200 and love my 35mm 1.8 for low light. May be inheriting a 28mm 1.8d soon as well which may well replace the 35mm)

I'm curious about the new rumored d300 replacement as well as the new d600, but definitely want a camera that's above my ability so I can grown INTO it. That was my issue with the 5100. Nice camera, but just didn't have all the dedicated buttons, large viewfinder, focus motor, etc that I really didn't think I needed in the beginning but now do. What do you think I should do? I should mention I no longer am looking at the D7000 because it will be old tech by the time the new lineup comes out more than likely.. I really don't mind spending the money, but don't have like, 5k to spend haha! :)
Click to expand...

Move into FX. As far as your questions go, you pretty much know the answers. If you can afford to transition over to FX, go for it. As far as lens comparisons go, check out nikonusa.com and click on the lenses link. They have a chart format that allows for great comparisons of FX to DX. They even include retail pricing, which you can probably beat on amazon and other online retailers.
 
AC016

AC016

Senior Member
Mojo-Fstop said:
Move into FX, no question about it. I predict that DX is on the way out and will be phased out over time. There's just too many advantages to FX, most importantly the overall quality of the image that an FX sensor can produce insures the slow demise of DX. Granted, it's not going to happen overnight however I predict within 10 yrs the lower cost of an FX sensor along with the demand for FX will cause the major players to abandon DX completely.
Click to expand...
Interesting prediction. I am not sure that FX will take over as the sole format though. I don't think they will ever get a FX camera down to $400.00, which is what i was able to pay for my D3000. Is the demand for FX that strong that it will eventually be the only format? I don't think so. I am sure full-frame will always be here, but there will always be a "dx" or "budget" format. It's all about marketing and they will want to keep both formats to appease to people.
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
I don't agree with Mo-Jo's view about DX phasing out. One thing you must remember is that of weight and size. DX is a much better choice for travel and with the 1.5 X also for wildlife shots.

FX market is a lot smaller than DX for Nikon and Canon. With all the lenses sold, I don't see a company leaving them out to hang while they push the FX only format.

If you want to print large or have customers that demand large files, FX will be there, but for amateurs and enthusiasts, DX will be there for a long long time. And the quality of DX is getting very close to the FX.

But hey… It won't be the first or the last time I'm wrong if my predictions don't come through. :)
 
E

eurotrash

Senior Member
I agree DX will be around for awhile yet. BUT, having said that, I think FX WILL INDEED make a much more prevalent role in the product lineups of both Canon and Nikon in a short time. They will become more affordable and obviously, there will be cheaper and more expensive FX bodies that target their respective audiences.

I indeed know the answers to my questions, more or less. Lenses are the biggest question about moving up. I can afford the FX bodies, but I am worried that I'll go out and blow some cash on an FX body then not be able to use the lenses I need to use with my new camera. The FX lenses seem to go for around 1500 bucks to start. I'd need to plan very carefully which lenses to buy in that case.
Obviously, I'll still have the 5100 around too for backup.
 
D

Dave_W

The Dude
You all may be right but I honestly think the days of DX are numbered and within 10 yrs you will have the choice of an FX or a mirrorless, that's it. I base this on the premise that it is human nature to always want the biggest and the best, no question about it. So if the price difference between DX vs. FX were small or non existent, very few people would purposely choose an acknowledgedly inferior product. I've been around long enough to remember the price I paid for 128 mb's worth or memory in the early 1980's. At that time you would have been thrown in the loony bin if you said a 4 GB memory would cost $20 in the year 2012. And just like the market for memory, as the FX market grows so too will the price drop. In addition, only a small percentage of the camera buying public even know there's a difference between FX and DX so the drive towards FX has really only begun. As more and more people become aware of the differences between the two they will opt for FX over DX thus pushing momentum even further towards FX. There has even been speculation whether this last DX lens announced by Nikon will be their last. I tend to agree with them and believe this will be their last DX lens and from here on out we'll see expensive and inexpensive FX lenses but no new DX lenses announced.

But who knows...maybe next week they'll announce an FX2 sensor that is 2 times the size of a standard FX sensor and then FX will be on the way out.
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
eurotrash said:
I agree DX will be around for awhile yet. BUT, having said that, I think FX WILL INDEED make a much more prevalent role in the product lineups of both Canon and Nikon in a short time. They will become more affordable and obviously, there will be cheaper and more expensive FX bodies that target their respective audiences.

I indeed know the answers to my questions, more or less. Lenses are the biggest question about moving up. I can afford the FX bodies, but I am worried that I'll go out and blow some cash on an FX body then not be able to use the lenses I need to use with my new camera. The FX lenses seem to go for around 1500 bucks to start. I'd need to plan very carefully which lenses to buy in that case.
Obviously, I'll still have the 5100 around too for backup.
Click to expand...

When I got my D700 I had the same questions you have now. I got the 16-35 F4 VR and bought a few used lenses. There are bargain lenses out there that can do wonders with the FX format. And they can be bought for less. I first got a 28-80 3.3-5.6, plastic feel but sharp as a tack and it did macro too cost $50. Then a Tamron 28-200 that I got for 120.00$. I ended up with many more, but if your budget is limited, there are ways around.

What we don't know for now is what the next FX will be. Will it have an in camera focus screw to support old lenses? This would be major for me. Oh, and don't forget about the D700. It still a wonderful camera.

Best of luck.
 
P

pedroj

Senior Member
I really don't see the sense in buying a pro camera if your not going to buy pro glass to go with it...

Do you have to buy it all at once...Get a 24-70mm F2.8 for the FX and save for a 80-200mm F2.8
 
G

Geoffc

Senior Member
If you currently use 200-300mm on DX then forget FX. I recently compared a d700 with my 300s. Both 12mp cameras. The result for me was the in daylight they produced similar quality pics. At high ISP the 700 was better, but I'm not personally worried about that.

Using my 70-200 2.8 I took some shots and cropped them. I would need the 300 2.8 to get the same result on FX. That's an extra £2500. My Tokina 11-16 £500 lens would become a £1000 plus lens etc etc.

I'm not knocking FX, but at the end of the test I was not a bit bothered handing the 700 back.

If you double the pixels you can probably get the same crop as DX, however the D 800 with all it's pixels can't match my d300s 7 fps.

If money was no object I would have both as they all have a place and neither is entirely better than the other.

One other thing about FX glass. In addition to cost it's big and heavy.
 
T

TedG954

Senior Member
DX. FX. Phasing out the DX for FX..... I thought the next camera I bought would be holographic. I don't know what I'm going to do now.
 
E

eurotrash

Senior Member
pedroj said:
I really don't see the sense in buying a pro camera if your not going to buy pro glass to go with it...

Do you have to buy it all at once...Get a 24-70mm F2.8 for the FX and save for a 80-200mm F2.8
Click to expand...

I don't remember saying that I wasn't going to stick pro glass on it. No, I wouldn't buy it all at once, that was my point.
 
E

eurotrash

Senior Member
I think I may end up simply getting the best DX I can find when I do upgrade since it's

A: Cheaper (not that I'm poor, just a financial choice. I can buy more beer..)
B: Wider lenses kind of offset the FX crop issues. 11mm on a DX is likely the widest I'll ever need in my situations.
C: I'm not making THAT much money off photography to justify the jump to FX quite yet.

As I'm looking at the upper echelon of the DX crop, it seems as if some are geared more toward sport photography, and some are geared toward image quality, am I correct? These are the cameras that will possibly be getting replacements?
 
P

Philnz

Senior Member
D5100Shooter said:
I would wait and see what comes out. Though, when something is announced, you will most likely have to wait even more until you can get it. From what i know, FX is beneficial for landscapes and wide angle shots. Here is an article i found which i am sure will inform you alot more:
Nikon DX vs FX
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that link I having just read it I feel much better informed. Thanks again. Regards Phil
 
AC016

AC016

Senior Member
Mojo-Fstop said:
You all may be right but I honestly think the days of DX are numbered and within 10 yrs you will have the choice of an FX or a mirrorless, that's it. I base this on the premise that it is human nature to always want the biggest and the best, no question about it. So if the price difference between DX vs. FX were small or non existent, very few people would purposely choose an acknowledgedly inferior product. I've been around long enough to remember the price I paid for 128 mb's worth or memory in the early 1980's. At that time you would have been thrown in the loony bin if you said a 4 GB memory would cost $20 in the year 2012. And just like the market for memory, as the FX market grows so too will the price drop. In addition, only a small percentage of the camera buying public even know there's a difference between FX and DX so the drive towards FX has really only begun. As more and more people become aware of the differences between the two they will opt for FX over DX thus pushing momentum even further towards FX. There has even been speculation whether this last DX lens announced by Nikon will be their last. I tend to agree with them and believe this will be their last DX lens and from here on out we'll see expensive and inexpensive FX lenses but no new DX lenses announced.

But who knows...maybe next week they'll announce an FX2 sensor that is 2 times the size of a standard FX sensor and then FX will be on the way out.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you knowingly purchased an "inferior" product when you bought your D7000?? How about all the people that have D3xxx, D5xxx, D90, D60, D80, D300, D200, D70, D70s, D50, D40, D40x, all the D2's, D100, D1, D1X and D1H?? I am not sure that they would like to hear that they have an "inferior" product. 2007 was when Nikon came out with it's first FX DSLR, the D3 and it went for about 5k. THe next year, they introduced the D700 for 3k. Fast forward 4 years to today and you have the D800 for the same price! I really do not see FX cameras getting to the price point of mid range DX cameras. If Nikon becomes marketing geniuses like Apple is, then perhaps they will be able to convince everyone that FX is the way to go, despite being far to expensive for most people and not being something that the masses need on a daily basis. DX was the first DSLR format for Nikon. I think they will still produce this format for many years to come. If not, they are going to have to come up with something real quick to fill that gap. There has to be something that will appeal to the masses. FX is not it.
 
D

Dave_W

The Dude
D5100Shooter said:
Are you saying that you knowingly purchased an "inferior" product when you bought your D7000?? How about all the people that have D3xxx, D5xxx, D90, D60, D80, D300, D200, D70, D70s, D50, D40, D40x, all the D2's, D100, D1, D1X and D1H?? I am not sure that they would like to hear that they have an "inferior" product. 2007 was when Nikon came out with it's first FX DSLR, the D3 and it went for about 5k. THe next year, they introduced the D700 for 3k. Fast forward 4 years to today and you have the D800 for the same price! I really do not see FX cameras getting to the price point of mid range DX cameras. If Nikon becomes marketing geniuses like Apple is, then perhaps they will be able to convince everyone that FX is the way to go, despite being far to expensive for most people and not being something that the masses need on a daily basis. DX was the first DSLR format for Nikon. I think they will still produce this format for many years to come. If not, they are going to have to come up with something real quick to fill that gap. There has to be something that will appeal to the masses. FX is not it.
Click to expand...

The quote was "So if the price difference between DX vs. FX were small or non existent, very few people would purposely choose an acknowledgedly inferior product." Yes I did know a DX sensor was inferior to an FX sensor, as most people do, but the price difference kept me in the world of DX, but had the prices been the same I would most certainly purchased an FX camera. In nearly every mensurable way that the APS (or DX) sensor is inferior to the FX sensor with exception to price. And if the price of the two were the same I guarantee you that 9 out of 10 people will buy the FX based camera over the DX. That's all I was saying. I love my D7000 and I love my D70s, both are great cameras, so don't think I'm an FX snob.

The key is to increase demand and lower the cost of manufacturing and you'll have your low priced FX cameras and it's already begun in earnest. The D600 (or its equivalent) is the first salvo in the up-coming low priced FX camera war that is coming to a retail store near you. I'll bet dollars to donuts that Canon will soon unveil their version of a D600 (ie - lower priced FX camera). And you can bet their marketing campaigns will contain something to the effect of "be like the pro's and use a camera with an FX sensor" and words like this are well known to affect buying habits. It's believed this new FX lens Nikon unveiled last month is an attempt to make consumer priced FX lenses to go with their new consumer priced FX bodies. So it's not that I hate DX and love FX, nothing of the sort. It's just that I know the way marketing works. In order to motivate people you set up a "good" and a "better" dynamic and then you offer the "better" at about the same price and then you let human nature do the rest. At least this is what Canon, Nikon, Sony and the rest of the big boys have in mind.
 
T

TedG954

Senior Member
If I remember correctly, there was a well-known and very successful photographer/artist that had an entire show of photographs taken with instant-cameras; the use and throw away kind. His work was excellent. What's that say for the technology? A tool is only as good as the craftsman that uses it.

If your photographs are good, they would be good in either FX or DX. I'm not concerned about DX going away within my lifetime. And, I don't have an FX in my immediate budget. So, I guess my point is why even debate the issue. Trying to keep up with the Jones' is a losing battle.
 
AC016

AC016

Senior Member
Mojo-Fstop said:
The quote was "So if the price difference between DX vs. FX were small or non existent, very few people would purposely choose an acknowledgedly inferior product." Yes I did know a DX sensor was inferior to an FX sensor, as most people do, but the price difference kept me in the world of DX, but had the prices been the same I would most certainly purchased an FX camera. In nearly every mensurable way that the APS (or DX) sensor is inferior to the FX sensor with exception to price. And if the price of the two were the same I guarantee you that 9 out of 10 people will buy the FX based camera over the DX. That's all I was saying. I love my D7000 and I love my D70s, both are great cameras, so don't think I'm an FX snob.

The key is to increase demand and lower the cost of manufacturing and you'll have your low priced FX cameras and it's already begun in earnest. The D600 (or its equivalent) is the first salvo in the up-coming low priced FX camera war that is coming to a retail store near you. I'll bet dollars to donuts that Canon will soon unveil their version of a D600 (ie - lower priced FX camera). And you can bet their marketing campaigns will contain something to the effect of "be like the pro's and use a camera with an FX sensor" and words like this are well known to affect buying habits. It's believed this new FX lens Nikon unveiled last month is an attempt to make consumer priced FX lenses to go with their new consumer priced FX bodies. So it's not that I hate DX and love FX, nothing of the sort. It's just that I know the way marketing works. In order to motivate people you set up a "good" and a "better" dynamic and then you offer the "better" at about the same price and then you let human nature do the rest. At least this is what Canon, Nikon, Sony and the rest of the big boys have in mind.
Click to expand...
Well, it will certainly be interesting to see what happens. As far as i have read, the d600 is the model number of the "entry level" FX camera that is coming out. Only question is, at what price point will it be at? At the same time, we may have to think of a possible D7100?? In which case, the D600 i am sure will be around the 2k mark, if not more. August-September will be an interesting time. Some further questions: what comes after the D3200? Will they go into the 4000 numbering, or will they go with D3300? Will there ever be a 6000 series? Interesting times indeed.
 
Top