FX v's DX

[Davi]

Teach a thickie the most notable differences, and the value of going the extra mile on costs for a full frame over a DX?

[andy-xr]

If you use primes, all of a sudden you find you have to take 3 good steps forward to get where you were on a crop

ETA - just read your other thread on focus issues, and I've got both a D300 and D700, I guess thats where you're headed. The D300 is or has been perfect for 95% of what I wanted to shoot, speeds and feeds on which has been ISO200-800, 50-300mm portraity stuff. It's done well on landscapes with the right lenses (the 10-20 always had something a bit more special on the D300 over the D80) but pushing it over 1600 ISO and shadow noise was a problem

The D700, same look and feel, but big bright viewfinder, 50mm is now a bit too short so I tend to use the 85mm 1.8 over a 50mm 1.4 and some of the lenses have vignette issues. The resolution is roughly the same on spec, but there's extra clarity over the D300, something I can only really describe as cleanliness. Also, was shooting last night at ISO4000 with little to no real noise issues, and found I could recover detail from 1.5 stops over where I ideally should have been.

If you do go for D700, just bear in mind that you might walk in to more focus problems. Both use the same 51 point AF, both have crosshair points, but because of the extra width and height of the FX sensor, they're closer to the middle of the frame. On the D300, they're pretty much covering the entire area, and they're as strong on the outer edges as the centre ones IME

Edited by andy-xr on Tuesday 3rd August 13:31

[gary71]

The weight of the FX kit means you get to cancel the gym membership?

[Muska]

I think Andy has said it all but,
Dynamic range - 14bit raw files (not sure if you get these on a D300?)
Focal length with FX lenses - 24-70 hardly leaves my D3
High ISO capability - I know I can work at ISO3200 comfortably and I've shot at ISO6400 many times and still get files that are perfectly useable.
100% viewfinder - This is D3 only but it's nice to have, as are the twin card slots.

[Davi]

Thanks for that Andy, very useful.

How about if I were to throw another spanner into the mix... If you were considering a (not necessarily voluntary) change of career, and looking at photography in the medium future, would you go from the D60 straight to the D700, or save the £800 extra for a lens and stick with the D300?

If you think my shared shots so far suggest I have as much chance of making it as a photographer as of being the first man to walk on mars, please feel free to express that too - I'd rather find out now than after spending a fortune

[andy-xr]

Looking around at some of the alleged pros in my neck of the woods, I'd go with investing into marketing and a sound business plan over kit any day of the week, but thats only from what I've seen as possible competition were I to do the same.

Either would do, the 700 would do better though

[itsnotarace]

No offence but if I was considering going professional, I would at least learn what the difference between FX and DX and what it would mean to my livelihood if I chose one over the other.

Question - have you already mastered your existing camera equipment and if so, what exactly is restricting your creativity?

[GetCarter]

Davi - the Sensor is nearly three times the size in a full frame body, so (as mentioned), the 'noise' issue that haunts crop sensors is blown out of the water.

I have a D2X and a D3. I dare not take my D2X above 640 ISO (and even then it's very noisy). The D3 will have less noise at 5000 ISO... that is a HUGE light advantage. I can take photos with the D3 handheld indoors or late evening and still get great results. DX would have been put to bed or faffed with flash hours before.

Depends what you want to take photos of, and when you want to take them!

HTH

[Simpo Two]

Davi said:

If you were considering a (not necessarily voluntary) change of career, and looking at photography in the medium future, would you go from the D60 straight to the D700, or save the £800 extra for a lens and stick with the D300?

People should buy you for the photos you take, not the model number on your camera. Apart from us hyper-fussy bunch here, I doubt whether any customer would be able to tell much difference between a photo taken with a D60 and the same photo taken with a D700 (very low light excepted). They might say 'This one's taken from further back'.

I think it would be a healthier start if you got results you can sell with the D60 first, then re-invest as you need to.

[Davi]

Simpo Two said:

Davi said:

If you were considering a (not necessarily voluntary) change of career, and looking at photography in the medium future, would you go from the D60 straight to the D700, or save the £800 extra for a lens and stick with the D300?

People should buy you for the photos you take, not the model number on your camera. Apart from us hyper-fussy bunch here, I doubt whether any customer would be able to tell much difference between a photo taken with a D60 and the same photo taken with a D700 (very low light excepted). They might say 'This one's taken from further back'.

I think it would be a healthier start if you got results you can sell with the D60 first, then re-invest as you need to.

I've already had people expressing an interest in me doing some work for them, and in fact done a couple of party shoots, hence my considering it as an alternative career. As a designer in a previous life I *think* I have the artistic input, I just need to increase my technical input (I would seriously appreciate it if anyone here who has seen my photographs, thinks otherwise, would say so, I would not be offended!!!)

The D60 is an OK camera, but I have found the auto focus areas to be a bit restrictive in trying to capture shots sometimes - trying to quickly focus / lock / recompose / snap is something I'm still a bit slow with, having played with a D300 I found it much easier to capture short lived moments. If I were to start accepting work, I'd like that bit extra security. At the last couple of things I've done, I've had low light issues but the D60 suffers noise as soon as it goes above ISO 400 - playing with the D300 I got way, way better shots in similar lighting situations.

GetCarter said:

HTH

Does indeed, Thank you!

[Simpo Two]

Davi said:

I've already had people expressing an interest in me doing some work for them, and in fact done a couple of party shoots, hence my considering it as an alternative career. As a designer in a previous life I *think* I have the artistic input, I just need to increase my technical input (I would seriously appreciate it if anyone here who has seen my photographs, thinks otherwise, would say so, I would not be offended!!!)

Well it's nice to earn a little money on the side from a hobby you enjoy, but there's an awful big gap between that and 'career', ie something you can live on, ie at least £20K pa+. That's a lot of parties, and they don't pay as well as weddings and fewer people have a tog in for them. (I suppose if you mingle with the jetset then it's different!)

Davi said:

The D60 is an OK camera, but I have found the auto focus areas to be a bit restrictive in trying to capture shots sometimes - trying to quickly focus / lock / recompose / snap is something I'm still a bit slow with, having played with a D300 I found it much easier to capture short lived moments. If I were to start accepting work, I'd like that bit extra security. At the last couple of things I've done, I've had low light issues but the D60 suffers noise as soon as it goes above ISO 400 - playing with the D300 I got way, way better shots in similar lighting situations.

Fair answer. You can get more instant results if you use the other focus points, saving the need to lock and re-frame. However the peripheral points are not as reliable as they're usually not 'cross' type sensors. ATBE the D300 should be better at noise, but there's more to it than just the camera. Getting the exposure right helps enormously. If you have an underexposed photo then brightening/lifting midtones to make it better really amplifies the noise. So it may be that you need bigger apertures or a decent flashgun depending on how you work. I use SB-800s with an SB-29 cord, both of which have additional AF support using IR which means I can take quick, sharp photos in virtual darkness if I have to.

I haven't used a D60 but I'm sure the D300 is more capable in every respect, and if you regard it as a new toy that might earn you a little money then that makes sense. However a D700 and the accompanying lenses it needs would be overkill for now. I tried one and after much pondering went back to a D200. And then bought another. They're useable up to ISO800 with care, and with fast glass and a Speedlight that's as fast as I need. The D300 will go decently to ISO1600.

Having said that, I think it's best to develop your own techniques and style. But get the work first - if you can't the work then your new camera won't be much use

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 3rd August 19:28

[ian in lancs]

As an owner of a D300s and a D700 I would say the D700 isn't worth the extra in most situations. Yes it has low light capabilities and better tonality but that comes at a price! More so when you factor in the cost of 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's it comes to the tick end of £4750. Also the D700 doesn't have dual card slots (for backups or endless shooting) or video capability. Not that I use the latter much. In short save your money. Battery lasts longer in the D300s too. Buy a battery grip and Nikon 50mm and 85mm lenses. That will be a much wiser investment and will produce a bigger jump in quality than the one from D300 - D700. Actually you'l find the D300 is actually sharper...

[Simpo Two]

Actually I found the D700 sometimes failed to find focus in situations where the D200 worked first time. I spoke to Nikon about it and they thought it was something to do with the calculations needed for the 51 points.

AF points are good but 51 is ludicrous, especially when they're all in the bloody middle! I kept mine switched to 11 for speed, but eventually sent it back. It was better on paper, but not better for me.

[Davi]

Simpo Two said:

Well it's nice to earn a little money on the side from a hobby you enjoy, but there's an awful big gap between that and 'career', ie something you can live on, ie at least £20K pa+. That's a lot of parties, and they don't pay as well as weddings and fewer people have a tog in for them. (I suppose if you mingle with the jetset then it's different!)

LOL indeed - from my perspective, I'm thinking of a slow lead up, trying to get a few "easy" bits of work - paid or unpaid in fact - with a view to building my skills, confidence, and of course a portfolio should I decide to make the jump to trying to turn it into a career. Basically I've lived the last 10 years hating every single moment at work - I just can't describe how much I want to get back into something artistic, so it's something to cling on to! My entire pre-finance working life has been in design and arts, so I know it's not the easiest route but I've decided, health and sanity are more important than money now.

Thanks for all your thoughts though, a great help!

[Simpo Two]

It's certainly better to earn £1 doing something you love than £2 doing something you don't - as long as you can take the drop! Lots of people who hate their job are taking photos, but there isn't enough work for everyone, so few will succeed. The queue is long; can you find a way to the front?

[Davi]

Dunno, maybe I should start another thread for honest appraisals of my work and what I need to address but I'm damn well going to give it a go

[Simpo Two]

Davi said:

Dunno, maybe I should start another thread for honest appraisals of my work and what I need to address but I'm damn well going to give it a go

I'll happily have a look and PM you what I think - you might be a genius!

However the best photo in the world is useless for making a living if you can't sell it. If you can't sell it, you stay at Ihatemyjob plc...!

[RobDickinson]

FX = larger heavier more expensive lenses but you get better low light ability and much shallower DOF (by about a stop).

[pphillpot]

I've recently made the jump to a D300 from a D60 and the biggest step up is in the ergonomics, customisation and build quality. It's so much nicer to use than the D60, no need to delve into menus to alter ISO wb etc. You can customise most of the interface to suit you and it's built like the proverbial bick privy (honestly, the D60 feels like a toy after using it for short while). I find I get more 'keepers' just by not missing a shot due to faffing around in menus!

There is of course a noticable improvement in image quality too, shots do seem a fair bit sharper (the small increase in resolution may help here) and the AF system is amazing (I didn't mind the 3 point system in the D60, but the D300's really is very good) and gives you the ability to fine tune for troublesome lenses if you need to.

There's also all the other goodies that the higher end nikons have, wireless flash capability, metering on older manual lenses etc. I really liked my D60, it was a great starting point and it's still very capable, but the ergonomics of the higher end bodies just wins over for me.

The main advantage of the D700 as others have said here, is the magical low light capability - the crop sensor cameras can't touch it for that, but you do pay a substantial premium. If I had the money, I'd probably get one, but that would also require me to chop in two of my lenses which are DX only, so that also bumps up the cost.

[Davi]

Simpo, you have mail

Pphilpot, thanks for that!