DX or FX: I've been at this photo thing for quite a while and am fairly heavily invested in DX gear (Nikon D7100, 10-24, 17-55, 10.5, etc). Is there any real benefit to upgrading to...

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

I've been at this photo thing for quite a while and am fairly heavily invested in DX gear (Nikon D7100, 10-24, 17-55, 10.5, etc). Is there any real benefit to upgrading to FX? I am happy with my D7100 but have wondered, since FX cameras and lenses are so much more expensive, are they really worth it?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

shutterbob wrote:

...heavily invested in DX gear (Nikon D7100, 10-24, 17-55, 10.5, etc)..... I am happy with my D7100...

If weight is not a problem for you, buy good quality 3rd party FX lenses. Your 7100 will benefit from them and your investment will be protected if you move to FX later.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

shutterbob wrote:

I've been at this photo thing for quite a while and am fairly heavily invested in DX gear (Nikon D7100, 10-24, 17-55, 10.5, etc). Is there any real benefit to upgrading to FX? I am happy with my D7100 but have wondered, since FX cameras and lenses are so much more expensive, are they really worth it?

If you are happy with what you have, why are you asking the question?

Better noise and dynamic range performance is a feature of larger sensors.

Groye Loc: Lancaster, Pa

To much is put on FX Cameras and that is just the way Nikon prefers it. Most of us are not taking photos for a living, but are taking quality photos
be it FX or DX for family or friends. Most start out with DX or point and shoot and the Market drags us on with newer and more enhanced cameras as the years go by. You should see the picture by now. Find a camera you like, enjoy and can afford. It is not the camera it's the one behind the lens. Happy Picture Taking

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

I am happy with the D7100, but I just figure that there has to be a reason that so many people are willing to spend the extra money for FX. I find that noise is pretty well under control up to iso 1600, and not really too bad beyond that to a reasonable limit. Would it be any better on a D610 or D800? Is the dynamic range better all around or just at the low light end? Most of my shooting is of outdoor scenics. I'm old school and prefer not to doctor the photos in PS, but rather make the most out of what I actually see and would like to produce the best possible shot with the camera & lens. Not a pro, not looking to sell anything, but enjoy making nice pics, thus my original question.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Just read this article on the frequently asked questions section of the Hog. It will answer some of your questions.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-136625-1.html

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-136625-1.html

Can never remember if you need the https or not...

Michael66 Loc: Queens, New York

shutterbob wrote:

I've been at this photo thing for quite a while and am fairly heavily invested in DX gear (Nikon D7100, 10-24, 17-55, 10.5, etc). Is there any real benefit to upgrading to FX? I am happy with my D7100 but have wondered, since FX cameras and lenses are so much more expensive, are they really worth it?

I got my D7100 in November, after a long debate between that and the D600. After hearing so much about the oil spots on the D600/D800, I went with the D7100. My only disappointment was Nikon's fps lie. If I didn't have so many lenses, I would kick Nikon to the curb. Any additional lenses you get, make them FX. That keeps your options open down the road. Don't forget, camera bodies are 'disposable', lens are not.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Better noise performance.
Better dynamic range.
Option of Pro quality bodies - as far as i know there has only been one APSC pro quality body from anyone - the Nikon D300. That is why everyone wants Nikon to make a D400.
Larger range of pro quality lenses - there is no pro ultrawide lens for a crop frame camera.

But if you are happy with what you have, and you aren't missing shots because of your gear, then you don't have a problem.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

One more thing. If you're shooting JPEG, the camera is already doing some post processing for you. Many of us here shoot RAW so we can make the decisions in Lightroom, Photoshop or other packages rather than leave it all up to the camera. Modern cameras usually make pretty good decisions, depending on the mode you're shooting in. It's just that many of us find it fun to do the post processing ourselves. I call it art, then it really only needs to please me.

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

I won't get into the discussion about post processing. That horse has been pretty well beat. I don't consider myself an artist so I don't try to alter what I see. Thanks for the advice. Hadn't really considered the fact that most of the better quality lenses are FX. I guess for now I'll keep the D7100 but start buying lenses (24-70, 16-35, etc) as I can afford them, and when I can, spring for what will probably be a D800s or whatever Nikon chooses to call it.

amehta Loc: Boston

shutterbob wrote:

I am happy with the D7100, but I just figure that ... (show quote)

The full frame sensor is definitely better than the APS-C sensor, at the same "technological level" (i.e., same brand, camera level, and release date). The bigger sensor means that you need to enlarge the image less for the same display size, whether a print or on a monitor. Bigger pixels, depending on the mp counts, mean less noise and better color at each pixel.

The question is whether the difference between the two is significant for you, and whether it is worth the expense for you. If you put a picture from a D7100 and a D610 side-by-side (with the corresponding focal length adjustments), will you notice a difference? Probably. Will any non-photographer? Probably not. If you only see one of the pictures, will you know which one it is? Probably not. Will any non-photographer? Very unlikely.

So why do most of us decide to get the full frame camera? Either the specific advantages matter, or they want the competitive edge, either professionally, in an amateur mode, or simply wanting the best photos possible, regardless of cost or size.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

shutterbob wrote:

... there has to be a reason that so many people are willing to spend the extra money for FX. ...m old school and prefer not to doctor the photos in PS,... would like to produce the best possible shot with the camera & lens. Not a pro, not looking to sell anything, but enjoy making nice pics...

the usual driving sources, marketing, pride, ego.
There are a few tens of millions of people who simply want better images; those are the ones you want to compete with if you are trying to learn.

almost anyone can get from one end of the track to the other wearing tennis shoes. If you plan on winning you soon find out you need spikes. Be honest with yourself though, if all you want is a cardiac workout, you don't need spikes.

Same thing goes for camera gear

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

shutterbob wrote:

I won't get into the discussion about post processing. That horse has been pretty well beat. I don't consider myself an artist so I don't try to alter what I see. Thanks for the advice. Hadn't really considered the fact that most of the better quality lenses are FX. I guess for now I'll keep the D7100 but start buying lenses (24-70, 16-35, etc) as I can afford them, and when I can, spring for what will probably be a D800s or whatever Nikon chooses to call it.

I assume you do realise you are talking about spending about $9000, probably more?

MtnMan Loc: ID

shutterbob wrote:

I've been at this photo thing for quite a while and am fairly heavily invested in DX gear (Nikon D7100, 10-24, 17-55, 10.5, etc). Is there any real benefit to upgrading to FX? I am happy with my D7100 but have wondered, since FX cameras and lenses are so much more expensive, are they really worth it?

Having had both I'm not hard over on one vs. the other. I like some things about my D800 better, for sure, than the D7000. But I also like some things about my D5100 better than either.

If you do mostly wildlife you are better off with the D7100 than the D800. I use my D800 on wildlife but end up nearly always using the DX image area because I'd need to crop to that anyway. I get a little less than 16MP on the DX image area where you get 24MP.

For wide-angle landscape the FX can't be beat. I just got a lens that is more up to the task of the D800, but it's performance with even a middle-of-the road lens has been spectacular, IMHO.

I just bought a Sony NEX-7 for use while hiking and on airline trips. The combined weight of the D800 and it's lenses is just too much for me to like in such situations. It has an APX-C 24 MP sensor...pretty close to the D7100's but, I think, with a filter. I'm learning to love it also.

FX Example

(Download)

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

Sadly, yes. That's why I'm debating this.