Upgrade to Nikon FX

I am considering an upgrade from A Nikon D-200 dx to N700 fx and would like to hear from those who have moved from a dx to fx camera and what advantages you have experienced.

In particular, on the fx camera, what ISO equivalents are you now using for; macro, wide angle?

Has your sun rays improved

Thanks in advance.

We've had two guests at the resort using housed D700s. They were happy with the results but both said they could see no major advantage over a DX sensor. And neither had a WA capability - and from what I have read so far, that remains problematic?

I haven't used an FX digital but I can tell you from my film days that you will have some problems with very small subjects (less than around 24mm/1" long). With a DX camera, a 24mm long nudibranch fills the horizontal frame at 1:1. The same nudibranch would only fill 2/3 of the frame at 1:1. You can get around this with a wet diopter but ultimately a DX will give you effectively 1.5 times more magnification (with respect to filling the frame) than a DX. Of course, a FX will give you wider angle with the same lenses (assuming your lenses are up to it with respect to edge sharpness, etc.)

There have been quite a few discussions on DX vs FX on Wetpixel.

I found the old 70-180mm macro is perfect for FX. It covers a wider marco range than using the 60mm or 105mm in DX in one zoom lens.

It is quite difficult to buy this lens this days. I use it with an extension from Kenko and occasionally use a wet diopter, and get close to 1:1.

Edward Lai

I have been using two D200 with the Tokina 10-17 fish-eye zoom and got some spectacularly sharp results with ISO 100 (reproduced web-offset). I now have a D700 and find that I have to decide whether to use my 16mm Fish-eye or 20mm w/a before diving (a pain) and quite frankly I cannot see that I am getting better results. For low light the D700 has positive advantages at higher ISO settings but when balancing flash with daylight you are still limited by the total amount of light available from your flashguns. OK, I use smaller f/stops (at ISO 400 FX) but you need to account for for the reduced DOF. As for sunbursts, I haven't noticed any significant improvement when the exposure is right.

I went the FX route with the Canon 5D, only to drop back to DX with the Nikon D200 and D300. But, that's just me.

The funny thing is that comparing Nikon film cameras with say Hasseblad 6x6, the difference is obvious in that you get a bigger bit of film in your hand. The D300 and D700 look very similar and you could own either and never discover the difference in sensor size save for the lenses you need to use to get the same angle-of-view.

We've had two guests at the resort using housed D700s. They were happy with the results but both said they could see no major advantage over a DX sensor. And neither had a WA capability - and from what I have read so far, that remains problematic?

I agree that there is no advantage of FX over DX underwater; but wide angle is not an issue. The 17-35 works very well (equiv to 12-24), as does the 16 and Tokina with 1.4 TC.

The only lens that is problematic is the 14-24 (though some have reported acceptable results), but probably no more problematic than the equivalent DX lenses.

I am also considering changing from a DX to FX, specifically from a D2Xs to a D3x. My thoughts are by taking the big, big step to the D3X that I will have a camera body that will be at the top of the pack for quite a while and thus over the long haul would be better than the next two or so generations of D300 or D700 upgrades. Do you think this is realistic?

Elmer

Hey Elmer

Digital camera technology moves so rapidly that I doubt buying a D3X would keep you ahead of any curve for very long. Nice in the short-term though! Chances are that the, err, D400, or whatever when it emerges in ?12 months time will be far superior to anything currently available. God knows what the D4 will be capable of doing: radioing the images from 40m to a magazine who needs that specific shot?

People only see the picture you made, not the kit you made it with.

john - I like your signature!

People only see the picture you made, not the kit you made it with.

I agree, but I was thinking that with the advantages of a better iso range and dynamic range that I could improve on my photo techniques and perhaps produce some better pictures. In addition I have come to like the older Nikkor 70-180 mm lens for macro and with the FX format it would give me more flexibility than with my current DX setup.

Elmer

Having shot alongside photogs with the D3X this year there is no doubt that it offers a step on in resolution over 12MP Nikon SLRs. Although it certainly takes more precision from the user to release its full potential than a DX camera.

If the D3X is in your price range then you should also pick up a D3. Everyone I know with a D3X finds that they prefer the D3 for certain shots - notably when light becomes limiting. Although most use the D3X as their main system - swapping to D3 when needed. The fact that both fit in the same housing and have the same sensor size is a major attraction.

Alex

What I am thinking is with a D3X I would have a body that would serve me well for more than just a few years. My hope would be that I could use the D3X while the D300 and D700 go through a few upgrades and still be on par with their upgrades. The F2A kept pace with the F4 in the film days.

Elmer

That's because the F2A didn't have to stick with using film from the early 1970s for its whole life.

The D3X is a great camera buy one! But only if you can afford to flood one. Its not likely to happen - but it could on the first dive.

The D3X does not offer anything in terms of non-sensor tech - things that actually allow you to get an image that older tech would struggle to capture (e.g. Auto-Focus) that is not already in the D300/D700/D3.

What it has is a sensor that out resolves those cameras, significantly and theoretically with better dynamic range. However, you do need to consider if the extra resolution is valuable to you needs. If it is then the D3X is the only Nikon that can give you that.

If I could afford (to flood) one I would have a D3X today. My local shop has one on the shelf - I go and visit it!

Alex

That's because the F2A didn't have to stick with using film from the early 1970s for its whole life.

Point well taken.

Regarding being able to afford a flood, in the states you can get a personal loss policy from your home owner's insurance company that will cover any loss (including flooding) and is quite reasonable. I insured my system for just under $20,000 and it cost $242/year.

Regarding purchasing a D3X, I'm still on the fence since the upgrade with new Subal housing is $14,000. But I am starting to lean more and more towards the big jump. Just trying to rationalize the purchase.

Elmer

You also have the opportunity to buy a new canon 5DmkII, 15mmFE, 17-40, 100mm and subal for less than that and then you would have one foot on each brand and not be stuck in just one... I personally don´t like cameras with built-in grip, as the housings are very big and it is impossible to get the same angle on a flat bottom.

Just humble ideas!

If you are considering the D3x, then price isn't an issue. In which case you should be looking at what will keep you happy over for the next 3 years. No point in agonizing over the decision when you know you want it Think of it as a direct aid package for the camera store and indirect aid package to the economy.

I do agree with Alex about a D3x/D3 combo. Like Stephen Frinks, Eric and a few others, I shoot with the 1Ds/1D combo. It gives you a choice equipment and backup, as well as a different look with the 1.3x crop. With the D3/x, it's really about the ISO and fps since it's the same sensor size.

Nikon typically replaces their flagship every three years. So you'll be "set" up for a couple of years, but not for long :-)

Cheers

James