worth going to FX?

sevencrossing

Why would a lower quality image cast by a lens become better when spread over more pixels?

it's the sharpness fairy at work

spraynpray

Interesting stuff. I’m going from D7000 with 17-55 to D750 and 24-70. Mostly exterior and interior architecture, lots of natural light English country house interiors, I’m hoping there’s a difference for sure. (Previous upgrade was from D70 to D7000 which was a nice upgrade path)

Going from the D7K/17-55 to the D750/24-70 you will not be disappointed. At all. the D750 is better at 12800 than the D7000 at 1200!

Pistnbroke

I think it is easier to design a 15-35mm wide ange for an FX than a 10-20mm for a DX and adding that to the extra pixels you see a vast improvement ...Test dont guess and beleive your own eyes.

heartyfisher

When I first got my FujiS5pro many years ago I was blown away by what you can do in the mid day sun. it was the DR king for many many years I was so spoilt by it. ! I totally understand what @pitchblack finds appealing in the high DR available to the D810 users ! the D810 at 64 iso is the only camera that beats my old fuji :-) though the new batch of FX cameras equals it. one of the reasons I finally went to and got my D610 and why I am thinking about upgrading to a D810. Though I think sanity will prevail and I wont need the half stop of DR advantage at 64 ISO ;-)

KnockKnock

I almost posted on this thread when it was young. I turn away for a few days and HEY, it's a DX vs FX thread. Maybe we can focus on helping the OP.

Studio-ish portrait photography where flash gear is available, contrast is controllable, shooting at F8, low ISO, not much motion. These were the terms.

The responses are understandable I think because the OP leans towards NAS and it's fun to spend other people's money. And FX clearly has advantages. But I'd guess that putting the $1500 into lenses, more light control and portrait lighting learning (books, video, coursework) would be better spent than not, and having the bigger sensor.

sevencrossing

.......HEY, it's a DX vs FX thread....... But I'd guess that putting the $1500 into lenses, more light control and portrait lighting learning (books, video, coursework) would be better spent than not, and having the bigger sensor........

sadly It seems to be a tradition at nrf not to answer the OP question but to have a long argument about thing we have discussed at length already

( OP did not ask how he should spend $1500 just the old question D610 vs D7100)

sevencrossing

@sevencrossing many thanks for the advice, never considered HDR but will give it a go. The ability to bring more out of the shadows is one of my hopes in this upgrade.

A friend shoots interiors for a glossy, magazine he always shoots HDR and uses a free program to merge them

Msmoto

Interesting that PitchBlack says invest in good glass. So simple, yet the absolute limiting factor in sharpness. This does not have to be all that expensive, as some used lenses can be found. And, some from years back are actually fairly sharp as well, if one can manually focus. Look at this one with a lens which is almost fifty years old, an 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor-H

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/15152778993/sizes/o/

This is cropped down to about DX size as I remember.

Thus, the issue of DX vs. FX......IMO one can achieve the same results on DX in almost all situations unless prints are in the 2 meter size. However, if shooting rapid frames, the crop mode with less data to fill the buffer may be a distinct advantage.

But, the limiting factor is in almost all cases the quality of the optics.

manhattanboy

Pistnbroke: so in your experience a high megapixel sensor improves the images from a "crappy" lens because "the images are spread over more pixels?" I don't quite understand that. Why would a lower quality image cast by a lens become better when spread over more pixels?

The pixel density of the D800 is less than the D7100 and does allow more slop for focus assuming the corners are not terrible. Some make arguments about DR being better, but DR is more affected by the qualities of the pixel itself and not the size per se (e.g. a Nikon/Sony Crop sensor can have more DR than a Canon FF sensor).

Thus, the issue of DX vs. FX......

But, the limiting factor is in almost all cases the quality of the optics.

DX actually is MORE demanding on the glass then FX, hence the irony in that the cheaper cameras demand more expensive lenses.

spraynpray

DX actually is MORE demanding on the glass then FX, hence the irony in that the cheaper cameras demand more expensive lenses.

Really? I would have thought that DX would be easier on glass as it only uses the centre of the Lens? OK, the pixel density is higher than a D810, but the edge performance is usually what lets lenses down isn't it?

manhattanboy

Really? I would have thought that DX would be easier on glass as it only uses the centre of the Lens? OK, the pixel density is higher than a D810, but the edge performance is usually what lets lenses down isn't it?

You are absolutely right that the edge performance is poor for many lenses. Most of the best glass, however, has very good performance out towards the edges. Its the loss in center acuity regardless of the edge fall off that is really noticeable on DX (at least the 24MP variety) versus FX. Its the main reason that I now don't shoot zooms (if I can help it) on DX and save them for FX. While there is much wrong with the DXO scoring, their "effective MP" mark for lenses does a pretty good job in relation to how sharp the pic will be on any given camera/lens combo.

heartyfisher

DX actually is MORE demanding on the glass then FX, hence the irony in that the cheaper cameras demand more expensive lenses.

Really? I would have thought that DX would be easier on glass as it only uses the centre of the Lens? OK, the pixel density is higher than a D810, but the edge performance is usually what lets lenses down isn't it?

Yup... but it also depend on the actual lense. The DXO "field map" shows how sharp the center is compared to the edge. The super zooms are the worst in this regard. However, my 18-200 performs very well in the center and has found a new home with my CX camera !

Also edge "blur" is different between lenses as well. some is just blur others distort. I found that my tamron 24-70 has a field curvature, so its not that bad ie the edges can be sharp if the objects are closer than the centre.

perkedel

OP here, I know it's been a while since I posted this, so as a follow up, I just ordered the D610, it should be here by this weekend
I do have the 28, 50, 85 FX lenses that I plan to use with the new D610. I usually shoot these at f/8.
I've been using with them with the D5100, really love the 85 for my portraits.

heartyfisher

Congrats ! .. Its a good choice for your type of photography. All you really needed was good lense and a good sensor. The D610 + Primes at F8 with the ability to CLS is optimum for you! Good for you ! You will like the colours and tones coming out of the D610 :-bd

donaldejose

You will love that D610 FX sensor! It really is good. You will find it captures an amazing amount of detail. In fact, maybe too much detail for portraits of people with lots of lines or pimples on their face. If so, you may want to consider finding a way to soften the details such as using a "soft" filter over the lens for certain portraits or post process the images through portrait specific software such as Portrait Professional. Also, you will find your 85mm lens (which was equal to 127.5mm on your DX D5100) may seem a bit short on the FX D610. If so, consider purchasing the excellent 70-200 f4 zoom. It is very sharp and you will find the zoom range about perfect to replace the look the 85mm lens gave you on a DX sensor.

WestEndFoto

You will love that D610 FX sensor! It really is good. You will find it captures an amazing amount of detail. In fact, maybe too much detail for portraits of people with lots of lines or pimples on their face. If so, you may want to consider finding a way to soften the details such as using a "soft" filter over the lens for certain portraits or post process the images through portrait specific software such as Portrait Professional. Also, you will find your 85mm lens (which was equal to 127.5mm on your DX D5100) may seem a bit short on the FX D610. If so, consider purchasing the excellent 70-200 f4 zoom. It is very sharp and you will find the zoom range about perfect to replace the look the 85mm lens gave you on a DX sensor.

If he is using an 85 for portraits, he may be disappointed with a 2.8 zoom, let alone a 4.0. I would think about the 135 DC 2.0.

heartyfisher

if you do find the 85 a bit short consider the 105mm f2.8 micro, its really a very good portrait. you can get the old AF model (no vr) for good prices.

I also use the sigma 150mm F2.8 macro for portraits.

The 70-200 F4 is no slouch .. https://www.flickr.com/groups/2123334@N23/pool/

snakebunk

The Sigma 150/2.8 macro is fantastic. I use it for portraits as well. Actually I use it for everything that falls between my 50 and 500 mm :-).

WestEndFoto

Hmmm..........

A 2.8 macro would be a sharp portrait lens if you are shooting at f/5 or 8, likely in a studio. A zoom is a semi-sharp (at best) option.

But what if you want a narrow depth of field to isolate your subject and produce a pleasing bokeh?

I do both types of shooting. A 2.8 macro can do one well. A sharp zoom can do one OK. Only a dedicated fast portrait lens, such as the 135 DC 2.0, can do both extremely well.

Here are some examples, all shot at f/2 on a 135:

donaldejose

WesEndPhoto: Outstanding isolation, especially on that last one! Yes, you are correct that the 135 f2 would be a great replacement for his 85mm on a DX sensor. However, the original poster said he usually shoots at f8 with speedlights so he doesn't seem to be going for the isolation f2 can produce. Your great examples though may convince him to change his technique and use available light, higher ISO and a 135 f2 lens. You make an outstanding argument for that lens!

Ironheart

The OP @perkedel said he shoots his primes at f/8, so at that the zooms and primes wouldn't be altogether that different. Also if you are used to shooting at f/1.8 to f/2 on a DX, shooting at f/2.8 or f/4 on FX wouldn't be altogether that different.

All that being said, to quote @sevencrossing a "rage of primes" or a "convenience of zooms" becomes a matter of preference and what final effect you are trying to achieve. To quote myself, it's' like arguing whether a #2 or a #3 phillips is better. Use the right tool for the job :-)

donaldejose

Yes, but maybe the OP should try some new techniques?

sevencrossing

Use the right tool for the job :-)

The good new is.
Nikon give you a huge range of tools
15 dx and 13 FX zooms
4 dx and 46 FX Primes
all FX lens lens can be cropped to fit dx

Nikon also make an excellent range of dx and FX cameras

Not to mention a vast range of second hand and third party F mount lenses

If Nikon does not make the right tool for you
just remember. A bad workman blames his tools

Snowleopard

I went from DX to FX early.... I was shooting a D70, which I still have and back then, there was a night and day difference between the D70 and the D700, hands down.

A have a few friends shooting D300s's and they are even impressed with the D700 over a D300s. I know the D7100 and such have newer sensors and image processor, but they are not a "D300s" replacement.

Since I moved to a D810, comparing the D810 to a D300s, there is no question the D300s is not able to keep up.

Again, I am not comparing the "consumer" line of Nikon bodies.

NSXTypeR

That's not exactly a fair comparison as the D300s isn't exactly current.

I think others have said it before, but if money, weight and gear is no object, FX is the way to go.

If you're on a budget, DX would probably do everything FX could do, 98% of the time.