Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Have D90, should I get another DX or an FX
Apr 24, 2014 03:29:37 #
francesca3
Loc: Sausalito, CA
I have a Nikon D90 that has served me well. I am thinking of getting another camera and am torn between upgrading my DX to a 7100 (refurbished, body only) at approx $1000, OR going to an FX format...not sure which one.
I have tried to buy lenses that work on both DX and FX:
1.) Nikkor 70-200 AF-S 1:2.8 GII ED
2.) 1.4 teleconverter AF-S TC14EII
3.) Nikkor 50 mm 1:1.8G (nifty fifty)
4.) Tamron 200-500 IF
BUT I also have a couple of lenses that are DX named. One, my 55-200 ED G was the one I learned on and still love. The other is an 18-55 DX. Neither of them cost a whole lot, so...
I used to take a lot of wildlife, thus the DX choice, but must admit that I did not know what I now know, and...thx in advance for your opinions/advice.
I have tried to buy lenses that work on both DX and FX:
1.) Nikkor 70-200 AF-S 1:2.8 GII ED
2.) 1.4 teleconverter AF-S TC14EII
3.) Nikkor 50 mm 1:1.8G (nifty fifty)
4.) Tamron 200-500 IF
BUT I also have a couple of lenses that are DX named. One, my 55-200 ED G was the one I learned on and still love. The other is an 18-55 DX. Neither of them cost a whole lot, so...
I used to take a lot of wildlife, thus the DX choice, but must admit that I did not know what I now know, and...thx in advance for your opinions/advice.
Apr 24, 2014 03:59:45 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
francesca3 wrote:
I have a Nikon D90 that has served me well. I am ... (show quote)
FX is better, but only incrementally. Are you
1. Shooting at ISO 800 - 6400 a lot?
2. Enlarging to large sizes like 20x30 a lot?
The simple comparison is between the D7100 and the D610, both 24mp. The D610 sensor is 1.5x larger linearly and 2.25x larger by area. The D610 pixels are 2.25x larger, which improves the high ISO noise as well as dynamic range and color depth. Since the FX sensor is 1.5x larger, the DX image needs to be magnified 1.5x more to make the same print, which results in some loss of print quality.
Apr 24, 2014 04:05:29 #
francesca3
Loc: Sausalito, CA
amehta wrote:
FX is better, but only incrementally. Are you br ... (show quote)
Aha, very good to know. thanks much.
So would you recommend buying the 610?
Check out People Photography section of our forum.
Apr 24, 2014 04:06:35 #
francesca3
Loc: Sausalito, CA
amehta wrote:
FX is better, but only incrementally. Are you br ... (show quote)
My ISO settings are all over the place, depending on time of day and environment. I haven't enlarged to 20x30 but would like to have photos that would do well if printed that large. (Actually, I have two photos that I would like to print that size.)
Apr 24, 2014 04:20:32 #
Francesca, for a great many shooters, which format to get is mostly a function of money.
I always prefer a FF, but they cost more. If you don't mind spending the money, for sure, go for it.
If you are going to keep doing wildlife, especially birds, you will find the 500 barely adequate. If that TC fits the 500, it will probably live on it, or you will have to change your methods, in order to get close enough. Also, make sure a 610 has the goods focus-wise to do nature. The focus system can't be taken lightly if you do BIF's. Good luck. ;-)
SS
I always prefer a FF, but they cost more. If you don't mind spending the money, for sure, go for it.
If you are going to keep doing wildlife, especially birds, you will find the 500 barely adequate. If that TC fits the 500, it will probably live on it, or you will have to change your methods, in order to get close enough. Also, make sure a 610 has the goods focus-wise to do nature. The focus system can't be taken lightly if you do BIF's. Good luck. ;-)
SS
Apr 24, 2014 04:21:51 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
francesca3 wrote:
Aha, very good to know. thanks much.
So would you recommend buying the 610?
So would you recommend buying the 610?
For most people, I think the D610 is the best FX choice.
The D800 has 1.5x more mp, but I think that is a small difference, definitely less important than sensor size. More mp means higher resolution, but only by 22%, but since the pixels are 1.5x smaller, there is some image quality loss from that. The more important advantage for some is that the D800 has a better AF system, with the same AF sensor as the D4. Of course, the D800 costs 1.5x more than the D610, and definitely is not 1.5x better.
The D4/D4s are in the $6000-6500 range, and if you were seriously considering those, you wouldn't also be asking about a new DX camera. ;-)
I think the Df is a good camera for one person: the guy who has a bunch of old Nikon lenses from the 60s and 70s, because it works with non-AI-s lenses. Otherwise, it costs as much as the D800 but is closer to a D610. Yes, it has the same sensor as the D4, but so what, that isn't the best Nikon sensor, the D800 is.
Apr 24, 2014 04:31:22 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
francesca3 wrote:
My ISO settings are all over the place, depending on time of day and environment. I haven't enlarged to 20x30 but would like to have photos that would do well if printed that large. (Actually, I have two photos that I would like to print that size.)
If you are consciously choosing a wide range of ISO values, an FX body will be better.
It's amazing what happens once you start printing. I had made very few prints in the past few years, and most were done at Walgreens. But I put in a print order at a pro lab earlier in the month, and now put in a second order, for a total of about 70 prints. Most are 8x12, but one is 8x24, and a few are 16-20" on the long side. I don't know how they would have looked from a DX camera. Maybe I should have gotten one done which I had cropped to a DX size, but the order is already submitted.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Apr 24, 2014 04:32:58 #
francesca3
Loc: Sausalito, CA
amehta wrote:
For most people, I think the D610 is the best FX c... (show quote)
OK. Excellent info, thx. (Yes, I cannot afford to spend $6,000)
Apr 24, 2014 04:34:21 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
francesca3 wrote:
OK. Excellent info, thx. (Yes, I cannot afford to spend $6,000)
Good luck!
Apr 25, 2014 06:44:38 #
cmc4214
Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania
francesca3 wrote:
I have a Nikon D90 that has served me well. I am ... (show quote)
I also am looking to upgrade from a D90 and I think I will probably go with either the D610 or Df. I do mostly hand-held and have older lenses without VR, so high ISO is important to me. Considering Df because I have NO interest in video, and like mechanical controls (not having to scroll through numerous menus)
Apr 25, 2014 07:51:06 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
cmc4214 wrote:
I also am looking to upgrade from a D90 and I think I will probably go with either the D610 or Df. I do mostly hand-held and have older lenses without VR, so high ISO is important to me. Considering Df because I have NO interest in video, and like mechanical controls (not having to scroll through numerous menus)
The 4 dials which the Df has which the D800 does not (exposure mode, shutter speed, ISO, and exposure compensation) do not require menus on the D800, they are controlled directly by pressing a button and spinning a dial. Except for shutter speed, which is just turning a dial. It is both easier and quicker changing all four settings on the D800 than on the Df, never having to move your eye from the viewfinder. With the Df, you have to release the lock for three (for exposure mode you have to lift the dial up), so all the controls require more fiddling. You never have to use video on the D800 and you barely know the option is even there, since there are only two visible indicators of video (the record button and the live view switch). Meanwhile, the top LCD of the D800 is much more informative, it has much higher resolution, and it has a better AF system. When viewing the images at the same display size, the high ISO performance is comparable.
Apr 25, 2014 10:52:51 #
francesca3 wrote:
Aha, very good to know. thanks much.
So would you recommend buying the 610?
So would you recommend buying the 610?
Unless you can go to the D800 get the D7100 for $700-800 less.
Apr 25, 2014 11:41:08 #
RichieC
Loc: Adirondacks
You'll barely pick up your D90 once you get a fx. Another option is to look for a D700 used, prices seem to be very good. They are spectacular compared to the 90, and put you well within the ballpark of the 610's, and the 800's, though both have advanced from the 700. It is a wonderful camera for the $$$ and way better then any DX.
Apr 25, 2014 13:28:14 #
[quote=francesca3]I have a Nikon D90 that has served me well. I am thinking of getting another camera and am torn between upgrading my DX to a 7100 (refurbished, body only) at approx $1000, OR going to an FX format...not sure which one.
I have tried to buy lenses that work on both DX and FX:
1.) Nikkor 70-200 AF-S 1:2.8 GII ED
2.) 1.4 teleconverter AF-S TC14EII
3.) Nikkor 50 mm 1:1.8G (nifty fifty)
4.) Tamron 200-500 IF
You will fall in love with a D610 if you go that route. Problem is, honestly, that once you have a camera with that much resolving ability, you will want lenses to match. Figure at least $5,000 for the 3 most common. Of course you can get them used but even then it is costly. A word of encouragement though; most of us have been there and do not regret spending the $$$ for this stuff, especially when the planets align and you get that perfect shot. Have fun with your choice.
I have tried to buy lenses that work on both DX and FX:
1.) Nikkor 70-200 AF-S 1:2.8 GII ED
2.) 1.4 teleconverter AF-S TC14EII
3.) Nikkor 50 mm 1:1.8G (nifty fifty)
4.) Tamron 200-500 IF
You will fall in love with a D610 if you go that route. Problem is, honestly, that once you have a camera with that much resolving ability, you will want lenses to match. Figure at least $5,000 for the 3 most common. Of course you can get them used but even then it is costly. A word of encouragement though; most of us have been there and do not regret spending the $$$ for this stuff, especially when the planets align and you get that perfect shot. Have fun with your choice.
Apr 25, 2014 13:38:28 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
shutterbob wrote:
quote=francesca3 I have a Nikon D90 that has serv... (show quote)
The OP already has two of the four most common lenses, the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8. Add a 16-35mm f/4, and the kit is pretty complete.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.