Nikon FX Vs. DX format: I'm confused. I understand the basic difference between a DX sensor and an FX sensor and lean towards the FX sensor; however, the price difference is...

GSQRD1 Loc: SAN ANTONIO, TX

I'm confused. I understand the basic difference between a DX sensor and an FX sensor and lean towards the FX sensor; however, the price difference is significant so what is the advantage of the DX over the FX, other than price, if any?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Thats pretty much it. Cheaper bodies and cheaper lenses.

greymule Loc: Colorado

GSQRD1 wrote:

I'm confused. I understand the basic difference between a DX sensor and an FX sensor and lean towards the FX sensor; however, the price difference is significant so what is the advantage of the DX over the FX, other than price, if any?

I don't know of any other advantage.

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

Use the search function and do a search of the differences and search the FAQs.
This has been discussed many, many times.

profpb Loc: Venice, Florida

I use both DX and FX camera bodies. The DX give a longer focal length with the same lens. However, I can crop the daylights out of my D800e full-frame shots effectively achieving the same image with a shorter focal length. And I can use my D800e in DX mode too. I just like the full-frame flexibility.

Hankster123 Loc: Florida

Fx does not give you a longer focal length, it gives you a 1.5 crop, image is the same size on sensor. I like the FX( Had a d300, now have d700&d800) for the larger pixels for less noise at higher "asa" and to maximize the effect of my wide angle lenses.

naturepics43 Loc: Hocking Co. Ohio - USA

profpb wrote:

I use both DX and FX camera bodies. The DX give a longer focal length with the same lens. However, I can crop the daylights out of my D800e full-frame shots effectively achieving the same image with a shorter focal length. And I can use my D800e in DX mode too. I just like the full-frame flexibility.

I'm confused by your statement "same image with a shorter focal length". Are you saying: Image taken with D800e & 70-200 @200 (cropped) can equal image taken with D7000 & 28-300 @300 ?

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

MT Shooter wrote:

Thats pretty much it. Cheaper bodies and cheaper lenses.

I always understood that the quality of the sensor in FF cameras was better than DX cameras. Also that the pixels were larger, therefore having more light gathering ability. Is this true? And does it really matter?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

charles brown wrote:

MT Shooter wrote:

Thats pretty much it. Cheaper bodies and cheaper lenses.

I always understood that the quality of the sensor in FF cameras was better than DX cameras. Also that the pixels were larger, therefore having more light gathering ability. Is this true? And does it really matter?

Current FX pixels are not larger than current DX pixels. While there is some difference in pixel size amongst different sensor manufacturers, there is little difference in actual size. The biggest difference is in pixel spacing when you are discussing similar MP ratings of sensors. As an example, a 12MP DX sensor will have the same number of pixels as a 12MP FX sensor, its just that they are placed closer together and doing so can cause that DX sensor to exhibit more digital noise at higher ISO's than the comparable 12MP FX sensor.
Pixel sizes from current sensors when compared to pixel sizes from sensors made 10 years ago will show that pixel sizes have indeed become smaller over time thanks to the advancement of the technology.

MtnMan Loc: ID

GSQRD1 wrote:

I'm confused. I understand the basic difference between a DX sensor and an FX sensor and lean towards the FX sensor; however, the price difference is significant so what is the advantage of the DX over the FX, other than price, if any?

The DX sensor puts all of its pixels in the DX area which is 1/2 the size of the FX area. That has the effect of giving you a telephoto multipler effect of 1.5.

So my DX 7000 has 16MP for my pictures taken with my Sigma 150-500 at 500mm. The D600 has only a little over 10MP on that same area. I often crop to 1/4 of the DX area, leaving only 4MP on the DX sensor. That would leave only 2.5MP on the FX sensor...not suitable for more than about a 5x7.

On the ohter hand the FX sensors provide better high ISO performance (low noist), all other things being equal.

I can have my cake and eat it too when I build up the enthusiasm to buy a D800, though.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

MT Shooter wrote:

As an example, a 12MP DX sensor will have the same number of pixels as a 12MP FX sensor, its just that they are placed closer together and doing so can cause that DX sensor to exhibit more digital noise at higher ISO's than the comparable 12MP FX sensor.
.

Good point MT.
As you may remember, I tested the Nikon D700(FX), D300 & D7000 (DX) cameras about a year ago. Both the 700 & 300 are from about the same time, both are 12megapixel cameras. The D700 has a lot less noise at higher ISO's. I also tested the D7000 (16 mp DX) against the D700. The noise levels were about the same. With the D7000 there were more megapixels crammed into the DX sensor area, but less noise. Technology marches on! Now imagine what that D7000 sensor would do if it were full- frame. You would have the D800.