Bill_de Loc: US

It's hard not to give a generic answer when you asked a generic question.


I use a D500 for birds and other wildlife. DX

I use a D4s for some landscape, flowers, macro. FX

I use a D7200 for a little bit of everything. DX


---

Fotojunky Loc: WISCONSIN, USA.

I want to thank all and everyone for their help, expertise, input and explanations. They say information is power, and the more information I can gain on this decision, the more comfortable I will be with my choice. Once again I thank you and look forward to reading and posting more on here as time allows me to.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

So why did you not leave any more details? Like budget and genres that you are into?

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

Main disadvantage of an FX camera is cost size and weight. Lenses and bodies are more expensive, lenses definitely weigh more and are bigger. But that's about it. In terms of image quality, a full frame camera will beat even a D500, which is an outstanding DX camera.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

And that's only for the camera body. Add another 10K for all the lenses.

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

Hi Fotojunky, from the UK - it seems like you simply need pointing in the right direction as to where to look to discover the answers to your question.

Thom Hogan has known, used, and written about Nikon for some 20+ years, and his writings are highly respected. Find him (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews) and start your journey your way.

FX v DX ? - he has plenty to say - this is what my quick Google search came up with ........ http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=thom+hogan+fx+vs+dx&*

Have fun learning !

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I don't regret getting both systems.

catalint Loc: oslo

Hi ,
I've been through the dilemma DX vs FX last year.
Here is my own post : http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-385898-1.html

From my point of view, I was looking to improve picture quality and especially low light performance. At that point the D500 was on my list , but then I saw the price. It was just under the D750 which I've been drooling over for a while.

So , I am not going to bash your head with being a pro or not, what budget, and what type of photography. I am going to simply answer as it was to me when I was looking at DX vs FX.

For a longer time I've been comparing photos between DX and FX cameras with different lenses etc. And I came to the conclusion that I want to move up to FX. Why ? Well I could have gone for the DX and D500, but I am an all around hobby photographer. The best area for the D500 is sports and bif. After reading lots of info both here and searching the web, I've narrowed down to the fact that there is better Dynamic Range on the D750 and good performance on low light and high ISO. And my point was clear: I want to be on FX becuase better image quality and low light. On low light subject, I could not find a camera on DX level that comes close to the performance of the D750. The D500 does, but for the same amount of money, I chose to jump on FX. Having in mind the future, and maybe someday starting offering my services for pay, I am sure I made the good decision in getting my FX. I have not limited my photography to sport or bif, and rarely do so. The D500 surely makes it easier to get that awesome freeze, sharp and crisp, due to it's fast shutter and AF system, but I saw that you can get as good picture with a D750.

I have since, tried to follow this subject. Especially D500 vs other FX bodies. And I can only say I am very pleased. I really have not seen examples where D500 blown me away compared to my D750. With exception of some birds and action.

In conclusion, I would like to add , that I am really following this DX vs FX still. It seems to me like users are now falling for the fact that DX has now come to the point where they challenge FX. This is for me a misleading information, cause for now, there is only one body that can and it's D500. D500 is not the new standard for DX. It's just the top noch of DX. And I think future models will be as expensive on this level, and that should one take in consideration for it's own future expansion and plans.

Hope it helps
Cheers from Oslo
Catalin T.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I use a FX D810 for landscape photography BECAUSE I like the look of wide angle lenses. So my 14-24 mm lens stays a 14-24 lens on my D810, but becomes a 21-36 mm lens on my D500. So as you can see I lose from 14-20 mm in range using it on the D500. But, on the other hand, when I am shooting wildlife, I use my 200-500 FX lens on my D500 and it becomes a 300-750mm lens. So, as you can see,both formats have their advantages. I use both for their intended purposes.

Lance Pearson Loc: Viriginia

It took a while for some of us to figure this out but any of the bodies at these levels can shoot good images. What makes the difference is the glass. If you buy a top end dx, buy fx lenses of the best glass you can afford and shoot that on it and if you want to go to the fx level you already have good glass. When I went from Nikon d7000 to Nikon d4 (dx to fx) the sensors said they were the same mp's. Maybe in number but not in quality. The Nikon FF sensor is just amazingly better. Bigger pixels makes less noise visually. I shoot it for big, heavy weight serious shoots. To travel with I shoot a Canon eos M3 leaf shutter 24mp cropped sensor with 17-85mm f 3.5 Canon lens. It does a wonderful job. Recently bought a lightly used Sony A7 ff 24 mp with adapters to use Canon and Nikon lenses I have on it. Nikon adapter is due today. It is maybe, just maybe, 5% better than the canon and slower, more awkward to use esp. on focus speed, eats batteries and may have the world's best 24 mp sensor but the rest of the systems are behind what Canon has in the eos M3. Those who love them are usually coming from something far less capable than the Canon eos m3. Neither is worth a darn on action shots because they both focus too slow but the Canon is faster. Yes, the canon has an adapter for its lenses too. Why? The lenses I have are all for dslrs...where the back of the lens is further from the sensor to allow the shutter to flip so the adapter in addition to lining up electric contacts and attachment spaces the back of your lens the same distance from the sensor in the leaf shutter camera as that lens would have seen on a dslr. So, what do you buy? Buy a good DX and FX glass and get some experience and by then the landscape will have less expensive lightly used fx cameras. If you want to shoot for someone who does high speed printing press Vanity Fair type work you may need specific specs on the image to do multi color separations for the high speed printing press but it's extremely unlikely you will get jobs like that starting out or perhas ever. It all works so the answer is: it depends. p.s. my Nikon d4 ff has two cards so you can shoot and it will save one jpeg and one RAW at the same time of the same image which is a nice luxury and has enormous batteries. I'm assuming you shoot stills in this conversation. If you shoot video you have to evaluate all these on those basis. I'm a stills guy so can't comment other than to be aware that many model upgrades are for the video enhancements, not the stills.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If you're leaning toward FF, get one now. Otherwise, you'll buy a DX or two and eventually get an FX.

http://www.diyphotography.net/crop-vs-full-frame-sensor-different-cameras-perform-lens/
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/article/g588ouey/the-dx-and-fx-formats.html
https://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/new-dslr-owners-what-you-must-know-about-full-frame-vs-crop-frame-sensors-before-choosing-a-lens/
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/dx-vs-fx-its-not-debate-its-choice
http://www.lightstalking.com/cameras-sensor-size/
http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-cameras-comparison-depth-of-field/

JoAnneK01 Loc: Lahaina, Hawaii

Just my $0.02 worth. I use my D810 (36.3MP, FF) for landscape and in other locations where I am looking at detail. The 36.3MP is really fabulous and it does bring out the very fine detail of my subjects. I also shoot with crop cameras D200 (10.2MP) and D7100 (24.1MP) which I use for shooting sports and wildlife. I had always purchased FF lenses so that when I did purchase my D810 I was ready to use the best glass I had. I also realize that it is not the camera that makes a great picture but more of the person using that camera and the skills they have. One of my best photos I have ever taken was with a Kodak Hawkeye Brownie camera when I was 11 years old.

Lance Pearson Loc: Viriginia

sounds really good. I use my Nikon D4 whereever action shots are as it focuses faster with good glass and can shoot bursts at either 6 or 11 fps with great detail and run the iso way up for indoors lighting shots in places like dog shows where flash is not allowed. I have been most impressed with it. It is with big lenses though a chunk to lug around at up to 7.7 pounds of weight with the 80-200mm nikkor gold f 2.8 lense on it.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

I have a D7200 and a D500. What made you choose a D750 vs a D800e? Lightly used D800e is about the same price and no AA filter. I'm currently thinking of trading in my D7200 for a D800e, but my only FX glass is all longer, so I would have to also buy 2-3 lenses.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I am not sure that you are ready to define yourself as semi pro or pro if you are not equipped to do this analysis and figure out what is best for the short term with your longer term goals in mind. Every camera is a compromise and most mid to upper end cameras and lenses can take excellent photos. The System is often considered to be one of the drivers for a professionals kit. But it sounds like you have selected the Nikon system. Whatever you decide try to keep in mind how your choices now get you started and fit in with where you hope yo be in 1,2 and 5 years. Otherwise you will end up wasting time and money.

Best,
Todd Ferguson