rond-photography Loc: Connecticut

Actually, you would not lose any image, you just would not use the whole sensor. If you are using a DX lens, then whatever is not vignetted is going to be recorded.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I acquired a D700 (FX) in 2012 while I still had my D300 (DX). The first thing I noticed, even though the sensors were both 12 mp, was that the D700 images were "cleaner" and would print better. I later picked up a D3S (also 12 mp) and discovered that ISO 25,600 was no problem - good quality images with little noise to complain about.

I sold everything, and got a D800, then a D810. I have since used a D500, and though it is a great camera, it does not compare. At the time I got the D700 I had about 6 FX-capable lenses. I did sell off all of my lenses, with the exception of my 18-70 which is a great lens for IR and when I get around to converting my D70S to IR I will be able to make good use of it.

Other than that - I do not miss the so-called extra "reach" of DX. I have used a D200 and D300 with a 600mmF4 lens + a 1.4 TC and my cropped images from the same optics from my D800 are far superior. For me it was easy - the images were better, no point in keeping the old stuff around.

I have had a Sony RX10M4 - which is in a class of it's own - despite the tiny 1" sensor, it suffices.

rbmartiniv Loc: Nacogdoches, TX

You make some very good points. Thanks for sharing. I will certainly consider your suggestions.

BDHender

I am 72 and have just completed the Nikon switch although I kept my D500. I now have a Z7 which is mirrorless. Much of what you have been told here is not correct. Nikon makes it very easy. All the DX lenses work on Nikon FX bodies except the Z bodies since they have the same mount. The Z bodies have a new mount but you can get it with an adapter that works flawlessly with the electronic focus lenses. The camera automatically switches. They will work the same as your DX. The Z7 does not have a shaft drive for the non-electronic auto focus but does have a very good helper for manual focus. With that camera the pictures made are actually higher in megapixels. The D500 which is very fast and the Z7 which is very light make a great combo. The new S lenses are also outstanding.

Bryan

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The first question you should be asking is WHY you think you need an FX camera? WHAT do you think FX will do for you and your photography?

The fact is, most people don't really need FX. A modern DX camera can handle all their needs very well. Unless you print big... really big (16x24" or bigger)... you won't see much benefit from FX. People talks about all the "goodness" of FX images... but they are the only ones who ever actually see it, while viewing their original images on their computer screens at higher magnifications (50% or larger).... Far, far larger than they'll ever actually print their images. By the time the images are re-sized to make a 13x19" print or for online display, much of that "FX goodness" is gone.

But, yes, Nikon FX cameras can be used with DX lenses... no adapter needed. In fact, the camera will shift itself into a cropped "DX mode". But there's a big drop in image resolution when this happens.

You also didn't specify what FX camera you're considering. Some are more practical than others to use in DX mode. For example, a 46MP D850 will produce 19.4MP images in DX mode. But that's a $3000+ camera. A more affordable option such as a used 36MP D810 (~$1800) will produce more modest 15.4MP DX images. Or a 24MP D750 ($1400) will end up around 10.7MP.

Especially with the last, coming from a 16MP D7000 you'd actually be seeing more of a downgrade than an upgrade. And the D810 would be a "break even" for you. So neither D750 or D810 would do much for you unless you also convert to FX lenses. And those are bigger, heavier and generally more expensive than DX lenses.

There also can be some "hidden costs" to "going FX". For example, the 46MP files of the D850 will fill up memory cards and hard drives a lot faster. And, depending upon what you have now, to work with those big files might call for more computer power. A newer camera might require a software upgrade. Some years ago I upgraded my APS-C cameras... the new model wasn't compatible with my version of Photoshop, so I had to upgrade that too... but the new version of Photoshop wasn't compatible with my computer operating system, so I had to upgrade that too... but my computer itself wasn't up to handling the new operating system or newer version of Photoshop, so I ended up buying a whole new computer and having to update some other non-photo-related software too. In the end, that was a VERY expensive "camera upgrade"!

Depending upon what you're hoping to accomplish, a 24MP D7200 DX camera might be a more sensible upgrade (currently on sale for about $800), allowing you to continue using your DX lenses to their fullest and keeping your kit a more practical size and weight. D500 and D7500 are both newer but slightly lower resolution 21MP cameras, plus they are both more expensive than D7200... But if you decide to go the DX route, compare the features of the three to see which fits your needs best.

Personally I use both full frame and APS-C cameras. The latter I use about 10X more than the full frame. Probably even more-so now since I'm using newer APS-C that have higher ISO capability, image quality and resolution improvements that rival what full frame from just a few years ago offered. I will eventually need to upgrade my full frame camera, but haven't needed to rush out and do so because it sees so much less use than my APS-C cameras.... and because newer APS-C cameras have seen such significant improvements.

rangel28

I am a hobbyist who has a D7200 and D500, as well as an assortment of DX and FX lenses. You cannot go wrong with either of these DX cameras (as well as the newer D7500). The D500, as many have noted, is a phenomenal camera, especially for taking photos of birds and action photography.

I wanted to take the plunge into full frame and recently purchased the D750, since Nikon's has discounted it with the grip (arriving today). The D500 will still be my main camera since I enjoy hiking and taking photos of birds but the D750 price was too good to pass up. Todd Vorenkamp of B&H had a nice little article about DX vs. FX on the B&H website, and, if you get a chance read the comments section, where he answers directly many of the readers questions.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/dx-vs-fx-its-not-debate-its-choice

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Ask your self what kind of photos do you take. If you take portraits then FX might be good. On the other hand, if you take macros or do birding stay with DX or consider micro 4/3. For landscapes it is probably a wash except in the case of very low light levels. The following DX cameras a VERY good. D7200 (24mp), D7500 (20.1mp), or D500 (20.1mp)

Lens Creep

agree that shifting to FX should come at a time when you can change out all of your lenses to FX. You are actually doing a disservice to use DX lenses in crop mode on an FX body.

Many people think they need FF but really do not understand why nor have the skills to capitalize on the advantages provided by the larger sensor size. Not knocking the OP at all because he is not the one who has done this, lol.

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

I fully agree with this. I always used to buy only full-frame lenses and then got an FF body as soon as it was available from Sony. Then I moved to a Pentax D, just for the increased image definition. But then I shot professionally.

That said, I once saw a 2.5 Megapixel shot of a Bhuddist Monk that had been printed six feet high and was astonished at the images quality.

al13

You are at a place where you can try a mirrorless camera before you make your decision. If not and wish to stay DX look at the D500. It’s the best DX on the market. I went from a D7000 to the D500 and a major difference. I did sell my D500 recently and went to the Fuji X-T3 and love it.

tiphareth51 Loc: Somewhere near North Pole, Alaska

Hello. I switched from DX to FX format about a year ago. To get the full benefit of the FX camera, new lenses were purchased...a very costly endeavor. If your DX gives you the results you desire, why switch.

torchman310 Loc: Santa Clarita, Ca.

On some, if not all FX cameras, You go into the menu for the type of lens use (FX or DX). The camera doesn't automatically switch formats, but since you have a fortune in DX lenses, you at least need not have to change all your lenses.

dennisb1

Are all your current lenses DX? I own a d500 but my lenses are all FX

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I think you made a wise decision! Why? You are accustomed with DX, you have a nice collection of lenses, and you can expand your photographic adventures by buying a Master and maybe one Slave speed light...that's what I'm doing; and further exploit the used market on Ebay, Amazon and not least mpb.com!! Isn't life great?

sxrich

You make some very good points. Thanks for sharing. I will certainly consider your suggestions.[/quote]

Thanks. You are going to read a ton of opinions without really seeing any of the images taken by the people who are making suggestions or disagreeing with other opinions. So, here are a few images taken with a FF (An apsc will never have the same look/compression etc of a full frame) and very inexpensive lenses. 50mm 1.8 is $217 brand new. 85 1.8 around $450 brand new. Then you can grab some older used Nikon lenses to save a TON of money if you want or jump to the Tamron 70-200 2.8. or even an older Nikon 80-200 2.8. Anyway, image 1 - 50mm 1.8, image 2, 85 mm 1.8, image 3 (taken just before thanksgiving) 70-200 2.8. at 6400 ISO. All taken without external lighting of any kind. Try that with your d7000. I'm not saying the d500 isn't a great camera - it is but it's not a ff and doesn't provide the "same look" as a FF. Walk into any indoor situation where you can't use flash, try taking pics with what you have now and see how it turns out.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)