Photography
Related: About this forumFX vs DX
I bought a new camera. a nikon d600. heres teh first 2 shots,highlighting teh difference between fx and dx. both shots where shot from the same distance,same lens,shutter spped etc... the only difference is one was shot in dx mode and the other in fx mode
dx mode
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/rdking647/8075587077/][img][/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/rdking647/8075587077/]DSC_0007[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/rdking647/]rdking647[/url], on Flickr
fx mode. note the much wider area
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/rdking647/8075586959/][img][/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/rdking647/8075586959/]DSC_0006[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/rdking647/]rdking647[/url], on Flickr
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)Your dogs are living the good life!
rdking647
(5,113 posts)so he has to be kept quiet for the next month. its not that much a problem yet since he just had surgury a week ago but as it heals it will be tougher. they also live with 3 cat. when it comes to animals me and my wife definatley fall into the going overboard territory. pretty much anything they want they get
Whovian
(2,866 posts)rdking647
(5,113 posts)but the d600 reviews swayed me. Im planning on keeping my d7000 as a backup camera until after my photography trip in january then im going to sell it.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I can afford FX, but prefer DX. Clearly there are some advantages in a few areas. The most obvious are the ability to crop more aggressively and the ability to produce larger prints with greater quality. If that is your primary goal, then I think you'd be better served with medium format anyway for uses other than hard core sports or nature photography. FX requires larger, heavier, and more expensive lenses. DX allows you to use both DX and FX lenses. Unless Nikon stops producing high end DX bodies and lenses(and I don't see that happening), I'm going to stick with DX.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)I've played with a d600, don't you just love the low light capability of the full frame sensors! Clean @ ISO 12,800.
Enjoy it, sweetie!
rDigital
(2,239 posts)[img][/img]
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)For FX, a normal lens is considered to be a 50mm while a normal lens for a DX would be a 35mm. If you took photos centered on the same subject at the same distance using each format's normal lens, the framing would look virtually the same. That's why zoom lenses designed for DX are shorter. For example, The DX equivalent for the FX 28-70 is the 17-55. Both lenses will produce pretty close to the same frame at their extents in their respective formats.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)but this is a clear example of what it actually looks like
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)When you see a model's eye enlarged from the D800, the differences become very apparent to even a casual observer.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)need a little extra range. Albeit, at a loss in resolution, but you're still shooting RAW.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)A DX sensor will give you that because of the pixel density within the 2/3 view angle. Otherwise you are just cropping out pixels to make the picture smaller.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Nothing does DX better than a DX camera.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)you get in the middle of the FX 24 mp mode. All you did was discard/crop the edge pixels. To get the DX "crop factor", the DX mode would need to put the whole 24 mp into the 15.3 mp space.
The DX mode is good for auto-cropping the black pixels when using a DX lens on an FX body. That is it.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Quite a few (if not most) DX lenses will give you considerably more usable pixels than you'd get in DX mode. Some will give you almost a full FX frame with some pronounced vignetting (which is not always bad anyway). The best approach is to manually crop the photo, especially if you're going to crop for something like an 8x10 format anyway. Otherwise you're just throwing good pixels over the side that are perfectly useable.