FX or DX?

[Niter]

Ok this is a topic than been beaten to death a few several hundred times...but I am trying to make my mind up...

I was aiming at getting a second body to pair with my D90, looked at the D700 for a while but now the D7000 comes into the picture (no pun intended) and I am left with more doubts than I had before.

According to the specs the new pro-sumer body should be up there with the D700 as far as low noise in high ISO, at least this seems to be the consesus of the few people who had a chance to test it out.

So since one of the reason of the upgrade was a better control of the noise when the situation calls for it, and considering the difference in price for the 2 and the fact that the D700 replacement/upgrade looks like is not coming for a while (no other announcement from Nikon at Photokina seems the be the word) what are the real world (don't like to shoot brick walls too much) differences between a FX and a DX body?

I know what the technical differences are, I am more interested in image quality of the two systems and not asking which of the two will be better since the D7000 is not out yet.

My current lens arsenal is mostly FX and just 2 (as of now, looking at the 17-55 Nikon) DXs.

[zona5101]

i don't know that you'd find many to disagree that the FX is better in all sorts of ways and there are numerous posts that go in to detail - so the fork in the road asks for a decision on where you eventually want to go. For me, i'd be in a wait-and-see-mode for the upgrade to the D700. FX is where I want to be eventually and waiting a year isn't a big deal. The D90 is probably capable of most anything I would ever encounter. Choosing a less expensive back up to the D90 would make sense to fill the 2nd body gap. Something like a used Fuji S2,S3, S5 or another D90.... but thats me, ymmv

[ravncat]

"what are the real world differences between a FX and a DX body?"

Other than the minor technical stuff which you know - these are the things that I notice most in the real world (I shoot with a d700 and a d200)

Dx
get`s you the crop factor which is useful for telephoto work.
more depth of field at a given aperture and perspective (Benefit for landscape and macro)

Fx
body is heavier and you`ll feel it more after a days shooting
bigger brighter beautiful viewfinder - easier to manually focus and compose.
depth of field can go shallower by a bit. (Benefit for creative use)

That`s pretty much it for me. The other points are alot more variable on which sensors you are talking about. (D3s vs d3x vs d700 vs d300 vs d200 vs d7000) These will all have significant impacts on image quality, especially depending on which lenses are used.

[Niter]

Thanks for the replies....

So I am leaning more towards the D7000 at the moment, that way I can get the body and a Nikkor 17-55/2.8 with the same money it will cost me to get the D700....Unless the high ISO quality of the D7000 is too close to the D90.

In the meantime I will go back to saving to get the eventual D700 replacement, if it ever comes out.

And I love the dual SD card slot, can care less about the movie mode (only used once on the D90 for a quick commercial) and the 14bit capture...shame the batteries are different which means more of them laying around and another charger to add to the already busy desk.

P.S. anyone knows a decent holster type bag able to hold the D90 with the vertical grip? Is a pain when I want to lug it around and have to drop the grip or take the big bagpack. Or anyone tried the Spider Camera Holster?

[sk66]

Originally Posted by ravncat

"what are the real world differences between a FX and a DX body?"

Other than the minor technical stuff which you know - these are the things that I notice most in the real world (I shoot with a d700 and a d200)

Dx
get`s you the crop factor which is useful for telephoto work.
more depth of field at a given aperture and perspective (Benefit for landscape and macro)

Fx
body is heavier and you`ll feel it more after a days shooting
bigger brighter beautiful viewfinder - easier to manually focus and compose.
depth of field can go shallower by a bit. (Benefit for creative use)

+1
The place for DX is long range work (some sports/wildlife) otherwise it's FX....
One consideration for me is durability...I prefer the heavy duty "pro" bodies...the ergonomics also work a little better for me as it's all laid out as a single unit. I'll put up with weight. (the weight does balance better with "pro" fx lenses)

[kirbinster]

I was just about ready to buy a D700, but will probably go with a D7000 now. I shoot a lot of wildlife and to go FX adds a HUGE amount of cost for glass. While 200mm or 300mm does a decent job on a DX sensor, with FX you need to start with lenses that can be $5K or more.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

I was just about ready to buy a D700, but will probably go with a D7000 now. I shoot a lot of wildlife and to go FX adds a HUGE amount of cost for glass. While 200mm or 300mm does a decent job on a DX sensor, with FX you need to start with lenses that can be $5K or more.

Yeah buddy...that is the reason for my occasional buyers remorse with the D3 upgrade...
10k to get the same pictures I was getting before w/ my D300

[Niter]

Originally Posted by sk66

Yeah buddy...that is the reason for my occasional buyers remorse with the D3 upgrade...
10k to get the same pictures I was getting before w/ my D300

Cool...this is what I really wanted to hear.

That is the part that really bugged me the most....$2,400 for a body and having (basically) the same results with just a little bit of improvement in low light is what I was trying to avoid....

The D7000 will leave some cash in my (almost) empty pockets to afford the Nikon RC1 and a decent piece of glass.

[candleman]

Originally Posted by sk66

Yeah buddy...that is the reason for my occasional buyers remorse with the D3 upgrade...
10k to get the same pictures I was getting before w/ my D300

but.. when you crank the ISO up its when you smile..

[sk66]

Originally Posted by candleman

but.. when you crank the ISO up its when you smile..

Yes, but the number of times I have to...so far it's been about $1k per high ISO image....

Don't get me wrong, I love my D3....just about everything about it. I just don't really consider it money wisely spent.