12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

1/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

mar232010

HOME / CAMERAS AND LENSES / NIKON DX VS FX

Nikon DX vs FXBY NASIM MANSUROV 268 COMMENTS

Some of the most frequently asked questions from our readers are around DX and FX format sensors. What is

DX and FX? What are their differences? Which one is better and why? If you have similar questions and want

to get a clear understanding about these formats and their differences, along with seeing actual image

samples from both, this article is for you.

Before diving into sensor formats, it is first important to understand what a sensor is and what it does in a

Digital SLR camera. It is easier to understand how sensors work by comparing them with the human eye. The

lens in front of the camera essentially functions as the cornea of your eyes, gathering ambient light and

passing it to the iris. The iris then expands or shrinks, controlling the amount of light that enters the retina,

which functions almost exactly like a camera sensor. The retina is light-sensitive, meaning it can adjust its

sensitivity based on the available light. If there is too much light, it decreases its sensitivity, while

automatically increasing the sensitivity in a dim environment, so that you could see in both extremely bright

and extremely dark conditions. Remember what happens when you come out of a dark place to a very bright,

sunny environment and vice-versa? Either your eyes will hurt and everything will seem too bright, or you will

have a hard time seeing at all – due to sensitivity of the eyes that have not yet adjusted for the new

environment. The sensitivity of your eyes is just like the sensitivity of the sensor, also known as “ISO” in

photography. But sensitivity comes at a price – high sensitivity levels ultimately decrease image quality, similar

to when you have a hard time seeing in a very dark environment. This degradation of image quality is first

visible as “grain” or “noise” in the pictures, followed by loss of detail, sharpness and color in extreme levels of

sensitivity. When I say “extreme”, I mean extreme to the digital camera, not human eye. Even with all of the

latest advancements in sensor technology, cameras are not even close to seeing the range of light the human

eye can see in various environments.

Connect with Us

Search

Search this website … SEARCH

Categories

Photography Techniques (63)

Photography Tutorials (45)

Photography News (21)

Post Processing (50)

Cameras and Lenses (287)

Accessories (35)

Flash Photography and Lighting (33)

Tours and Travel (106)

Miscellaneous (46)

Popular Posts

Nikon 18-300mm VR Review

How to Use Prime Lenses in Low-

Light Environments

Which Nikon Prime Lens to Buy First?

Photography Tips for Beginners

Lens Reviews

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to

this blog and receive notifications of

new posts by email.

Join 2,462 other subscribers

Email Address

Subscribe

Support Us

HOMEHOME REVIEWSREVIEWS PHOTOGRAPHY TIPSPHOTOGRAPHY TIPS GEAR GUIDEGEAR GUIDE SUBSCRIBESUBSCRIBE

about us contact us current deals our gear

76

Like

Like 9,984 people like this. Be the

first of your friends.

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

2/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

Captured with Nikon D700 FX Camera

The sensor is the most important component of a digital camera, because it is directly responsible for

capturing an optical image and converting it to an electric signal, which later gets optimized and converted to

a digital image by other camera electronics. Just like your computer screen, sensors contain millions of pixels,

except they are there to collect light, not display it. When you see a digital camera with 12 megapixels, it

literally means that the camera sensor contains 12 million tiny pixels for the sole purpose of gathering light.

Think of those pixels as buckets that attract light particles – the larger the bucket, the more light particles it

can store in a given amount of time. These buckets are known as “photosites” and their size plays a huge role

in sensor sensitivity and ability to accurately gather light in various lighting conditions. Bigger buckets are

always better than smaller ones, because more light particles can be stored in those, without getting over-

filled. The information about light particles is then passed on to the camera processor, which assembles a

digital image starting from the first pixel all the way to the last. And all of this happens in a matter of

milliseconds!

While larger pixels (or bigger buckets) work best for sensors, they are also extremely expensive to

manufacture. To keep the costs low and product accessible to a broader customer range, many camera

manufacturers produce smaller sensors. Obviously, as the size of the sensors decrease, so do the number of

pixels. To combat this problem, manufacturers have been cramming more and more pixels into tiny sensors

while simultaneously increasing the efficiency and throughput of each pixel. Unfortunately, this resulted in a

“megapixel race” among the manufacturers and we are seeing more and more pixels in the modern sensors,

despite the fact that the size of the sensors has pretty much remained the same.

1) What is DX?When Nikon entered the digital world of SLR photography, their first Nikon D1 DSLR had a smaller sensor to

make it more accessible to professionals (it sold for $5,850 when it was announced). It was about 2/3 of the

size of the 35mm film and it only had 2.66 megapixels. The camera quickly gained popularity and more

updates of the same DSLR followed – some with more resolution and others with more speed. Nikon

eventually dubbed the smaller sensor “DX”, which is approximately 24x16mm in size and is still being widely

used in all entry-level (Nikon D3000/D5000), semi-professional (Nikon D90) and even professional (Nikon

D300s) cameras. Obviously, the number of megapixels went up significantly with the latest DX sensors having

12.3 effective megapixels (4,288 x 2,848 resolution), which means the pixel size has also equally decreased,

resulting in higher pixel density. Nikon has been able to do so because of new advancements in sensor

technology, better noise-reduction algorithms and more processing power.

Historically, all digital sensor formats have been measured and compared against 35mm film. In the case of DX

format, due to the sensor being smaller than 36x24mm (size of 35mm film), the subjects appeared slightly

more magnified when compared to film. This was normal for the DX format, because smaller sensor meant

that a smaller area of the lens towards the center was to be used and everything else discarded. However,

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

3/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

photographers kept on comparing this difference in field of view or angle of view to the traditional film and

new terms such as “crop factor” and “equivalent focal length” were born. Why did this happen? Because a

photographer with a DX digital camera using a 50mm lens appeared to have the same view as a film

photographer with a 75mm lens and nobody wanted to accept this change as “normal”, again, relative to

film.

Nikon DX sensors, for example, have a crop factor of 1.5x. What this means, is that relative to 35mm film, the

image will appear enlarged by approximately 50%. So shooting with a 24-70mm lens is “equivalent” of

shooting with a 36-105mm lens on a film body. This is where things got messy and people started getting

confused about focal lengths and sensor sizes. How can you say that a lens is longer in focal length with a DX

sensor, if the physical property of the lens has not changed? A 24-70mm lens is a 24-70mm lens no matter

which camera body it is on and no sensor can change that. The whole “equivalent to mm” verbiage can be

too confusing, because it is equivalent only relative to 35mm film. At the same time, how do you explain that a

200mm lens on a DX sensor has an equivalent field of view of a 300mm lens on film? That’s why it has been

quite common among photographers to compare this new field of view problem with film.

2) What is FX?In August of 2007, Nikon released the long awaited full-frame Nikon D3 FX camera with 12.1 megapixels. It was

the first Nikon DSLR to have a 35mm equivalent digital sensor that measured approximately 36x24mm in size

with a 4256×2832 resolution. Nikon realized that cramming more pixels into a tiny DX sensor was not helping

in low-light situations and the only way to increase the sensitivity of the sensor was to increase the pixel size.

The 36x24mm full-frame sensor is more than twice larger in size than a 24x16mm DX sensor. By keeping the

number of megapixels low relative to the size of the sensor, Nikon increased the pixel size by 2.4 times, thus

having much larger photosites to store light particles. What this meant, was that the sensor could have higher

sensitivity levels and see a much larger range of light from blacks to whites, known as “dynamic range“.

With the full-frame FX sensor, the terms “crop factor” and “equivalent focal length” are no longer valid,

because an FX sensor is the same size as film. This means that if you took a film camera and a full-frame digital

camera, mounted 24-70mm lenses on them and took pictures of the same subject, both would produce a

similar view, not a magnified one like with DX sensors.

Let’s now move on to advantages and disadvantages of both DX and FX sensors.

3) Advantages and disadvantages of DX format

Let’s start with DX. What are the advantages and disadvantages of DX formats?

Advantages of DX format

1. Cost – obvious advantage, because the sensor is much cheaper to manufacture.

2. Lens sharpness and vignetting – since DX sensors use the center of the lens and discard the corners,

many professional lenses will perform extremely well on DX, because the center of the lens is always

optimized for sharpness than the corners. Vignetting is also typically much less pronounced on DX

bodies than on FX, again due to corners not being used. For example, the older version of the Nikon 70-

200mm VR II lens performed beautifully on DX bodies and quite poorly on FX bodies, which is why

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

4/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

Nikon had to update it with a better version for full-frame cameras.

3. Low-cost lenses – since the corners are cut off for the DX format anyway, manufacturers started

offering smaller and more compact lenses for DX sensors that cost much less than regular lenses for film

and full-frame sensors.

4. Reach – this part is a little controversial, again due to comparison in the field of view between DX and FX

sensors, but due to the size of the sensor and its crop factor, DX sensors generally provide a better

reach than full-frame sensors. Some people say “well, you could simply crop an image from a full-frame

sensor and have the same result as what DX provides”, which is not true, mainly due to megapixels and

pixel size. If a DX sensor is 12 megapixels, cropping an equivalent field of view from a 12 megapixel full-

frame sensor would give you much smaller resolution (approximately 5-6 megapixels). However, it is a

different story if you have over 25 megapixels on a full-frame sensor – cropping 12 megapixels out

would yield a similar result as DX, if the size of the pixel is the same. There are a few other things to

consider like depth of field, but generally, it will be the same.

5. Size and weight – cameras with DX sensors are generally smaller and lighter than cameras with FX

sensors, because full-frame sensors are currently only being used on high-end professional cameras

that are bigger and heavier.

Nikon FX and DX - Field of View Differences

Disadvantages of DX format

1. Noise in high ISO levels – the biggest disadvantage of DX, as I pointed out above, is the small size of

pixels, which results in noisy pictures and much less sharpness and detail in higher sensitivity levels. See

image samples below for comparison.

2. Smaller dynamic range – compared to FX, DX cameras have a smaller dynamic range, largely due to pixel

size and density.

3. Problems with wide-angle lenses – due to a difference in the field of view, wide-angle lenses are not so

wide on a DX body anymore. A 14mm ultra wide-angle lens is more like a 21mm lens when compared to a

full-frame camera, which means that you can fit a lot less in your frame. This is generally not a problem

in environments where you can move back and still fit more, but presents a problem when working very

close to a subject in tight space environments.

4. DX lens incompatibility with FX – if you have DX lenses and one day decide to switch over to FX, you will

have to purchase non-DX lenses to utilize the full resolution of a full-frame camera. DX lenses do work

on FX sensors, but only at half the resolution.

5. Lens diffraction – DX sensors cause more lens diffraction when small apertures above f/8-f/11 are used.

6. Smaller viewfinder size – due to a smaller mirror and pentaprism/pentamirror used on DX cameras, the

viewfinder on DX is smaller and not as bright when compared to FX.

Mirror size differences between D300 and D700:

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

5/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

Nikon D300 vs D700

4) Advantages and disadvantages of FX format

Now how does FX compare to DX?

Advantages of FX format

1. Scalability – due to the large size of the sensor, FX format allows two different configurations: one with

lots of resolution (Nikon D3x) and one with better sensitivity and speed (Nikon D3s) for different needs.

For example, landscape and fashion photographers need large print sizes and would therefore want

more resolution, while wildlife and sports photographers need the speed and low amounts of noise in

dim environments.

2. Higher sensitivity and lower noise – as I have pointed out above, pixel size plays a significant role in

sensitivity levels of the camera, along with controlling noise levels at high ISOs. For example, Nikon

D700 (FX) has a similar number of pixels as Nikon D90/D300s (DX) and yet the pixels on the D700 are

much bigger in size than on D90/D300s. So, if you were to compare ISO 800 on these cameras, the

Nikon D700 image would look much cleaner compared to Nikon D90/D300s.

3. Large dynamic range – again, bigger pixel size allows collecting more light particles, which results in

larger dynamic range when compared to DX.

4. No field of view issue – with FX, forget about such things as “crop factor” and “equivalent focal length”

– you get a similar field of view as if you were shooting film.

5. Lens compatibility – FX lenses are backwards compatible with DX lenses, meaning that they will work

perfectly on DX bodies as well.

6. Lens diffraction – compared to DX, lens diffraction is typical to 35mm film and starts to affect image

sharpness at smaller apertures above f/11-f/16.

7. Larger and brighter viewfinder – large sensor means large mirror and pentaprism, which means a large

and brighter viewfinder. Focusing with a large viewfinder is much easier, because you see more details.

8. Wide is truly wide – an ultra wide-angle lens such as Nikon 16-35mm f/4 is not really that wide on a DX

body, because of the crop factor. This problem goes away on FX and you get the true 16mm field of

view as you would if you were using 35mm film.

Disadvantages of FX format

1. High cost – large FX sensors are expensive to manufacture than DX sensors. Nikon’s FX sensor is a

flagship product and the company only uses it in professional-grade DSLR cameras such as Nikon

D700/D3s/D3x.

2. Lens sharpness and vignetting – because FX utilizes a much larger area than DX on the lens, corner

performance on lenses might become an issue, although Nikon has been updating their lens line and

releasing new lenses that deliver outstanding corner performance for FX sensors. For example, the

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G and Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G lenses were both introduced specifically for FX needs.

3. Size and weight – larger internal components, rugged body and professional electronics all add up to

the weight, making FX cameras the heaviest in Nikon’s line of DSLRs. With the release of the D700 DSLR

that has a similar size and dimensions to D300s, Nikon has diminished the gap between top of the line

DX camera and FX, however, the difference is still quite large when compared to entry-level DSLRs such

as Nikon D3000/D5000.

5) DX and FX – high ISO image samplesNow let’s move on to the good stuff – a real image comparison between DX and FX sensors in high sensitivity

(ISO) levels. In this example, I used a Nikon D300, D700 and D3s cameras and tested each at ISO 800, 1600,

3200 and 6400. Images from the Nikon D3 would look identical to the ones from D700, which is why it was

not included in the test. Here is the sample are that I used for the test:

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

6/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

I cropped the lower center portion of the image from each image. I used the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D lens @

35mm for this test with the default camera settings and shot in RAW. In order to get the same field of view on

the Nikon D300 camera (due to 1.5x crop factor), I had to change the focal length to approximately 23mm on

the lens. The below images are 100% crops and they are NOT resized in any way, so the sharpness and noise

levels are somewhat accurate. Each image is tagged with the camera and ISO information and I highly

recommend clicking on the images to be able to compare them through our image viewer. EXIF data is also

preserved for those who want to see the camera settings. High ISO noise reduction was set to “Normal” in all

cameras. No sharpening was applied to any of the images. I did not bother comparing ISO lower than 800,

because this is a high ISO test. One thing to note though, is that Nikon D300 has a little more noise between

ISO 200 and 800 compared to Nikon D700/D3s.

ISO 800 (Left top: Nikon D300, Right top: Nikon D700, Left bottom: Nikon D3s):

The difference between DX and FX is already pronounced at ISO 800. The image from the Nikon D300 DX

sensor looks looks noisy and we are beginning to lose a little bit of sharpness. Nikon D700 and D3s look

almost identical with no visible noise.

ISO 1600:

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

7/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

At ISO 1600, the Nikon D300 is extremely noisy and there is clear evidence of loss of sharpness and detail in

the image. Nikon D700 starts having a little bit of noise in the shadows and Nikon D3s is still very clean.

ISO 3200:

The situation at ISO 3200 changes dramatically. Nikon D300 looks pretty bad, while Nikon D700 is still

retaining sharpness, but has some noise in the shadows. Nikon D3s is shining again with the least amount of

noise in the picture.

ISO 6400:

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

8/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

Share this article: Like 76 TweetTweet 6 37

At ISO 6400, the image from Nikon D300 is unusable. Nikon D700 has a considerable amount of noise and

starting to lose some sharpness, while D3s has a touch of noise but retained all sharpness and details.

As you can see, the difference between DX and FX is substantial. If we measure the above in full stops, the

difference between DX and the most current FX sensor is around 3 stops. Take a look at these two images for

comparison:

The image on the left is Nikon D300 at ISO 800 and the image on the right is Nikon D3s at ISO 6400! When I

look closely, the image from the Nikon D3s actually looks sharper than the image from D300, which means

that there is even more than 3 stops of difference between the two. In addition, despite the fact that I used

the same color profile, white balance and saturation levels on both images, the image from the D3s has better

colors.

6) ConclusionAs I have explained in this article and demonstrated with the above image samples, the difference between

DX and FX sensors is quite clear when it comes to overall image quality. The first generation Nikon FX sensors

from D700 and D3 are about 1.5 stops better than DX counterparts, while the second generation D3s FX

camera is over 3 stops better than DX. The size of the sensor and pixels within the sensor is extremely

important and FX shows that it is a far more capable sensor than DX when it comes to noise, dynamic range

and other factors.

The big question that everybody asks at one point or another, is if FX is so much better than DX, will DX be

eventually phased out and completely replaced by FX? My answer is probably not for now, definitely not until

the cost of FX goes down significantly. Nikon will probably continue producing and selling DX lenses for a

number of years.

I hope my article will help you to clearly understand the difference between the two formats and remove all

confusion around DX and FX sensors. Please let me know if you have any questions in the comments section

below.

Related posts:

1. Nikon D700/D3 vs D3s High ISO Noise Comparison

2. First Nikon DSLR and Lens

3. Nikon D3s vs D3x

4. Nikon announces D700, SB-900 and two lenses

5. Understanding ISO – A Beginner’s Guide

FILED UNDER: CAMERAS AND LENSES TAGGED WITH: LENS, NIKON, NIKON D3, NIKON D300, NIKON D700, NIKON DX, NIKON

FX, PHOTOGRAPHY TIPS, TIPS FOR BEGINNERS

About Nasim Mansurov

is a professional photographer based out of Denver, Colorado. He is the author and founder of

Photography Life, along with a number of other online resources. Read more about Nasim here.

3 More

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

9/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

Comments

1) Morten

March 24, 2010 at 3:52 am

Yet another great article that gives a detailed overview of the subject at hand. Thanks for all

the effort that has been put into this.

REPLY

5) Nasim Mansurov

March 24, 2010 at 7:41 pm

Morten, you are most welcome! Thanks for the feedback :)

REPLY

165) Franz Elizondo

November 1, 2011 at 7:38 pm

Thanks Nasim, Great explanation.

REPLY

83) Kevin

December 16, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Thank you so so much for this, as far as being to long NEVER. There could never be to much

information, you have “Cleared” the clouds hanging over me and answered my Question.

Be Safe,

Kevin

REPLY

97) Kim

February 6, 2011 at 2:46 am

Thank you for this very nice overview of characteristics and advantages of DX vs. FX. This is

an issue often discussed, especially among wildlife photographers. I wonder whether anyone made a

realistic comparison of this two combinations:

1. DX camera (e.g. D300) with a long tele (e.g. 500/4 AF-S VRII) @ ISO 400

2. FX camera (e.g. D700) with a long tele (e.g. 500/4 AF-S VRII) + TC-14EII @ ISO 800

These two combination represent a real choice in field obtaining an image with the same field of view

at the same lighting conditions.

Kim

REPLY

200) Cori Thompson

March 20, 2012 at 10:40 pm

You have a a fantastic way of explaining a somewhat confusing topic. I’m new to the world

of DSLRs and I will return to your site for future explainations…as I’m sure I’ll need them!

REPLY

2) sm

March 24, 2010 at 5:36 am

Thanks. Lots of effort must have gone into this. Very nicely done. Btw, can you write

something on tripods, how to choose, what to buy, your personal recommendations?

I look forward to your post everyday…

REPLY

6) Nasim Mansurov

March 24, 2010 at 7:45 pm

sm, you are most welcome!

Sounds good, I will put tripods on the list of articles to write about :)

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

10/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

3) Tom

March 24, 2010 at 5:40 am

Thanks for the article and the sample photos. Great job.

REPLY

7) Nasim Mansurov

March 24, 2010 at 7:51 pm

Tom, I wanted to correct myself from yesterday’s conversation. It looks like battery power

has no impact on AF performance and autofocus on the D700 works exactly the same way as in D3.

This was concluded through some rigorous testing by a group of professionals, which matches what

Nikon said about AF on D700. However, there is a difference in AF performance between D300 and

D700 – D300 is inferior in focus acquisition speed and accuracy.

I apologize for giving you misleading information :)

REPLY

4) Matt Mathai

March 24, 2010 at 11:26 am

Thank you for this article. It’s a very clear explanation of the differences between the sensors.

I shoot pro soccer and baseball using a D200 (with a DX sensor), and when I make the change (almost

ready to buy a D3S) I will lose the 50% extension in reach. I suppose I could shoot in crop mode at the

expense of resolution, but I guess I’ll learn through practice.

REPLY

8) Nasim Mansurov

March 24, 2010 at 8:01 pm

Matt, you are most welcome!

First of all, you will not lose 50% reach – the crop factor multiplier is 1.5, not 2x. For example, if your

focal length is 300mm and you are on DX, your equivalent field of view relative to FX is 450mm. So,

when you switch to FX, there will be no crop factor and you will be shooting true 300mm.

In terms of FX, trust me, once you switch over to Nikon D3s, you will forget about the reach.

Sharpness, clarity and contrast are going to blow you away and you will get much better results than

on your D200. No need to shoot in crop mode – just shoot regularly and you will see what I mean :)

If you want to upgrade to a D3s, make sure to take advantage of the current Nikon rebates that are

ending this weekend. Even if you do not need a lens, buy the cheaper 70-300mm or 18-200mm VR II

and you can sell them at a good price.

Let me know if you have any questions. By the way, I will be posting some image samples from the D3s

on my blog very soon.

REPLY

11) Matt Mathai

March 24, 2010 at 8:22 pm

Hi Nasim, thanks for the reply. You’re right, it’s not a 50% loss in reach, it’s a loss of the

50% gain going from 300 to 450mm, i.e. a net 33% loss. :)

I’m eager to see the results from the FX sensor. I know my friends who use D3 and D700 bodies

have been extremely pleased. I’ll definitely do some experimenting shooting full-frame vs. in crop

mode.

The thing I’m looking forward to most of all is the low-light handling of the D3S. It should allow me

to use much faster shutter speeds without much additional noise. Goodbye motion blur!

Sadly, I won’t be able to buy the new body for another few weeks – Uncle Sam must be kept

happy.

I just discovered your blog recently, so haven’t had a chance to look through all of it, but another

area I’m really interested in is workflow. People tell me that I should shoot RAW, but I’m concerned

that handling the large number of images I get during a game might be too difficult. (Right now I

just use jpg format.) Perhaps a workflow tool like Lightroom might come in useful to make things

easier. There’s so much to learn…

I look forward to seeing your sample D3S shots.

REPLY

12) Nasim Mansurov

March 24, 2010 at 10:05 pm

Matt, borrow or rent an FX body for a day or two and try it out in a real environment

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

11/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

to see the difference.

Nikon D3s is the low-light king right now – nothing else matches the high ISO performance of

the D3s, especially above ISO 6400. And yes, with those kind of ISO levels, you can certainly

increase the shutter speed by a huge margin. Sports photography and wildlife photography

are very similar in terms of requirements and I find that the D3s is the ideal tool for both as of

today.

In terms of workflow, I highly recommend shooting RAW. Check out my RAW vs JPEG article

that I have written a while ago – it gives all the reasons why you should be using RAW instead

of JPEG.

Hope this helps.

REPLY

18) Matt Mathai

March 25, 2010 at 6:19 am

Thanks, Nasim.

I’m going to play w/ shooting RAW to see how I can fit it in with what I do. As I mentioned

in my response to Jason, the amount of data is a concern. I might have to shoot JOG for

sports and RAW for all other applications.

Speaking of Lightroom, do you have any experience with Aperture? I have Macbook Pro

and iMac computers, and was wondering if Aperture might work better.

Yet another friend pointed me to Photo Mechanic, and I might give that a trial as well.

Thanks for this blog – the responsiveness from you and your readers is fantastic!

REPLY

15) Jason Tey

March 24, 2010 at 9:39 pm

Hi Matt, I thought I’d reply here as an interim in lieu of Nasim with regards to file

formats. I used to shoot everything in JPEG and after moving to RAW, I found out that there

are so many advantages that RAW offers in post production. Especially when playing around

with light levels. Nasim has an article here: http://photographylife.com/raw-vs-jpeg

As for using Adobe Lightroom 2, I started using that halfway through last year and WOW, what

a difference it makes to workflow and post production. You can do things so much faster in

lightroom. Post production (saturation, exposure, sharpening, noise reduction) that used to

take me 30 mins in photoshop now takes only 5 mins in lightroom. Can’t sing its praises more!

You can download Lightroom 3 beta and give that a try for free at the Adobe website.

(http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/)

REPLY

16) Nasim Mansurov

March 24, 2010 at 10:58 pm

Jason, you were reading my thoughts! Great minds think alike :)

I fully agree with you on Lightroom! Don’t know what I would do without it.

REPLY

17) Matt Mathai

March 25, 2010 at 6:16 am

Thanks, Jason.

I understand why I would want to shoot RAW for regular shooting. The prospect of having

that much control over the output is very appealing to me. The increased speed of

processing also sounds good to me.

Where my concern specifically lies is in the amount of data captured while shooting sports. I

shoot in bursts, so I might come back from a game with 1800 images. RAW file sizes are

huge, and while I know storage is getting cheaper by the minute, that’s still a lot of data,

particularly if I wanted to shoot RAW+JPG. (I don’t know if I need to do that.)

Funny, I had downloaded the Lightroom 3 beta yesterday afternoon. I’ll play with it this

weekend.

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

12/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

10) Jason Tey

March 24, 2010 at 7:24 pm

Hi Nasim from Perth Western Australia.

I’m a manager in the IT (AV Integration) field as well and I think your blog is excellent. You have thorough

articles on most fundamental photography topics and your writing style makes things so easy to

understand. Thank you! I have learnt so much. I just want to give you some words of encouragement as I

browse through your blog on a daily basis and it forms part of my morning coffee ritual at work.

I’m glad you wrote this particular article, because one thing I’ve not really been able to find a definitive

answer on in the DX/FX realm is image detail. I’ve been shooting quite substantially with my D90 since

January last year, probably shot over 40,000 images. But I notice that when I compare similar images shot

with DX vs FX, the FX images seem to have just a sharper detail to them. The blurred backgrounds on DX

also seem slightly grainy and not as smooth as what I see with the same lens on FX cameras (e.g. with my

85mm f/1.4). Is this true or is my mind trying to trick me into upgrading to FX? I hope you understand what

I’m trying to describe here.

Thanks

REPLY

9) Nasim Mansurov

March 24, 2010 at 8:23 pm

Jason, thank you so much for your feedback, I truly appreciate it. Readers like you inspire

and boost me to write more about photography, which I passionately love.

In terms of your DX and FX experience, you are not the only one who feels that way :) I photograph

birds and other wildlife a lot and FX does make a huge difference in terms of sharpness, especially

when the subject is not very close and the image is viewed at 100%. Despite the fact that I lost some

reach on FX, my D300 is now gathering dust on the shelf and I do not take it with me to photograph

wildlife anymore. I figured that it is better to have a sharp, noise-free image that I can crop, rather

than having an out of focus and noisy image that fills the frame.

In terms of noise in out of focus areas on DX, one thing that always bugged me was the fact that you

get slight noise even when using base ISO 200! This problem is definitely not present on FX sensors

and base ISO always looks extremely clean…

REPLY

13) Jason Tey

March 24, 2010 at 9:09 pm

Hi Nasim, Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I think as opposed to sharpness, what I mean is that D3 and D700 images of people and events

(like weddings) seem to yield images that have a lot more detail in them. Like every wrinkle on the

face, and lines throughout the photo seem so crisp and full of detail. I look at images captured by

the likes of Joe McNally and Ryan Brenizer (http://ryanbrenizer.com/blog) and when trying to

capture similar images on my D90, it never quite comes out with that same true-to-life quality and

fine-ness in detail. Is that what you mean by your wildlife shooting?

You know, about 2 months after I bought my D90, I also bought a D700 at a closing down

liquidation sale. At that time it was a bargain at $3k USD. However I’d just started photography

and didn’t know there would be much difference between the two so I sold off the D700. In

hindsight I regret doing that but if it wasn’t for that, I wouldn’t have so much experience with the

DX camera. However I’m looking at waiting for the next update to the D700 and from there I’ll

decide which upgrade path to go. I’m assuming you have both the D700 and D3s? Lucky you!

God bless, Jason.

REPLY

14) Nasim Mansurov

March 24, 2010 at 10:27 pm

Jason, the details you see on a website might not be necessarily because of the

sensor. Many photographers over-sharpen their images and separate their subjects from the

background through layers in Photoshop. So what you see on the web, in almost all cases, is a

processed image with plenty of sharpening applied to it.

Sharpness is a very relative term and there are many things that contribute to image sharpness.

Camera lens, for example, is in many cases more important than the camera sensor. A portrait

that was taken with a pro lens like Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 or 85mm f/1.4 will always stand out

when compared to something like Nikon 18-200mm VR. Subject isolation and smooth bokeh

play a huge role on how image sharpness is perceived by the human eye.

In terms of wildlife, focus accuracy is one of the most important factors and AF on FX truly

works better than on DX in my experience.

Don’t regret that you sold your FX. Nikon will be releasing an update to Nikon D700 close to the

summer of this year and it will be a much better camera than the D700 :)

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

13/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

REPLY

19) sm

April 3, 2010 at 6:25 am

hi Nasim, great post and comments. For a person using a DX camera (D 90), and planning to

upgrade to a FX in the near future ( 1-2 years), how should I go about buying lenses which would work on

my current D90 as well as future FX cameras? I currently use 18-200 (all purpose travel), a 10-24 ( for

landscapes) and a 35 1.8. All these I beleive work only on DX format cameras. If I can, I would like to buy

my newer lenses, keeping future FX purchase in mind. I do a little bit of evrything except sports and

wildlife.

REPLY

20) Nasim Mansurov

April 5, 2010 at 1:24 am

SM, what lens do you want to purchase?

You could still keep your D90 with DX lenses as a backup when you upgrade to FX, or you can sell

them at a good price later. You have great lenses that will keep their value, as long as you take a good

care of them.

REPLY

21) maja

May 13, 2010 at 11:33 pm

excellent explanation

thank you

REPLY

23) Nasim Mansurov

May 23, 2010 at 10:57 pm

Maja, you are most welcome! Please let me know if you have any questions.

REPLY

22) Paul

May 23, 2010 at 8:37 pm

Been using D300 – News paper work – Time to pick up a new camera body this summer – Shoot

alot with 300mm 2.8 at 1600 – 2500 ISO – considering the D700 with full size sensor ….. I know what I’m

getting now with the D300 and can produce pretty consistent images but would always like to do better

…. wish I could find a review of a subject shot with both camera bodies with a 300mm wide open at 40

yards at high ISO – If you know of one please let me know – No doubt the D700 produces better image

quality with short lenses – with the 1.5 multiplier on the DX do you think there would be any ground to

gain with the FX or do you think the image quality would remain about the same or less …….

Thanks for any direction you might give

REPLY

24) Nasim Mansurov

May 23, 2010 at 11:13 pm

Paul, the field of view on the Nikon D700 would obviously be smaller compared to D300

due to crop factor. However, the image quality on the D700, especially on ISO 1600-3200 would

without a doubt be superior when compared to D300. Another thing with crop factor sensors, is that

they tend to have noise even at the lowest ISOs, while FX sensors have no noise at base ISOs.

REPLY

25) Paul

May 24, 2010 at 6:02 am

Thanks for the info …. I do wish I had a 700 to try for about 10 minutes …. I could tell

pretty quick ….. I live in a small town ….. my concern was after the additional cropping the final

image quality would be about the same ….. if you happen across a rewiew that’s relevant to the

300mm or larger at high ISO’s let me know …..

Thanks again for the help!

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

14/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

27) Nasim Mansurov

June 4, 2010 at 4:20 pm

Paul, if focal length is an issue, you can add the 1.4x TC to the 300mm f/2.8 and

recover the difference. There is no difference in sharpness when you add the 1.4x TC to the

300mm, because the lens works so darn good with teleconverters…

I do not have the 300mm f/2.8, but I do have the 300mm f/4.0 and the difference between FX

and DX is huge. Check out some of my bird photography to see some image samples.

Hope this helps, sorry for a late response :)

REPLY

29) Paul

June 6, 2010 at 4:55 pm

I’ve used the 1.4x TC on the 300mm for wildlife work and like it when there’s

enough available light – I shoot alot of night sports – A typical Friday night put me of a

football field at ISO 2500 shooting at 400th of a second at 2.8 on a monopod – under those

conditions adding the 1.4 pushes me to nearly f4 – to keep my speed up on the D300 I’d

have to raise the ISO and it gets pretty ugly at 3200 or 6400 – I’ve got a D700 coming this

week – figure I’d give it a shot – It’ll be interesting to see the difference under those

conditions – I know what the DX sensor will do ….. looking forward to up loading my first

with an FX – I’ll cover a night baseball game and do some night work on the town square –

maybe the D700 will take adding the 1.4 TC at 6400 and stay pretty clean of noise – it won’t

take long to find out – I appreaciate all the info and feed back!

Thanks!

REPLY

30) Paul

June 7, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Is there anything on the set up menu of the D700 that I particularly need to

pay attention to that’s different than the D300?

Seems like most of the focus settings are the same ….

Tks

Paul

31) Nasim Mansurov

June 8, 2010 at 10:49 am

Paul, if ISO 2500 was acceptable to you on DX, ISO 6400 will also be quite

acceptable, for sure. For my photography, I personally prefer to keep ISO under 1600,

but use 3200 and even 6400 every once in a while.

I am sure you will be more than impressed with the quality of your images from an FX

sensor. For me, it is a night and day difference, especially for fast-action photography.

The bigger viewfinder will also let you see more and focus better, so you will have a lot

more keepers.

32) Nasim Mansurov

June 8, 2010 at 10:50 am

Paul, did you already receive your D700? :) Yes, most of the focus settings are

the same, so the learning curve for you is very minimal.

Good luck with your photography, looking forward for your shots from the D700!

26) Dawn Taylor

May 24, 2010 at 9:38 pm

Wow…you make me really want the D700! I am going to have to do some serious thinking

now. Replacing all my DX lenses will be an added expense to the change and may not happen as fast as I’d

like it sure seems like it would be worth it in the long run. Thanks so much for your help.

REPLY

28) Nasim Mansurov

June 4, 2010 at 4:22 pm

Dawn, you are most welcome! Please let me know if you have any questions.

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

15/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

REPLY

33) Paul

June 28, 2010 at 7:25 pm

Well I’ve run probably 5K shots through the D700 – Tried to use it in a variety of environments

– the more demanding situations I shoot in – Low light – the swing of a batter at the plate ect. – Had alot

of thoughts going through my head concerning it the last couple of weeks – Still got some things to

determine – It’s my first work with the FX sensor.

First thing I noticed – my 24-70 2.8 was a 24-70 again – had to make myself move closer even shooting

‘grip and grins’ for the paper. I’ve used DX for about 10 years. Funny we’re such creatures of habit.

The weight – I’ve been a full size camera body guy for a long time – anything other than that just doesn’t

feel right in my hand – It is noticeably heavier than the D300 with the same MD10.

The camera set up was very comfortable – similar to the 300.

Framing FX vs. DX – for some aspects of the sports I shoot the crop factor with the full size sensor is an

issue but nothing that the 1.4 TC can’t take care of when ample light is available. I loose a little pop in the

shot with the TC but usually make a small adjustment in exposure or editing to bring it out a little more –

The DX-FX cropping feature on the menue is something I will probably work into my shooting work flow

under certain situations – first time I’ve ever had that feature available and I like it so far – remember I shot

mainly for news papers – the loss of image size is rarely an issue.

Noise at High ISO – 1600 and above I consider a high ISO – some guys consider anything 800 and over

high – but their usually not sports photographers – I shoot alot of night sports at 2500 – I’m amazed at

the difference in the noise levels in the FX and DX senors – I didn’t realize I had developed a habit of

shooting the DX a little hot – Guess it’s a carry over from the TriX 400 BW film days – always shot it a little

hot – with DX even at ISO 200 any shadows which the camera sees as underexposed is going to have

quite a bit of noise in it – I use the exposure compensation setting to dial things up a little better – use the

histogram alot setting exposures – anyway – the FX sensor is so much cleaner throughout the shot – How

much faster can I shoot? – I’d say as clean as the FX is at 2500 I can push it to 4000 when I need the speed

and not pay to high of price for the adjustment –

Well I guess that’s enough for the time being – I’ll post an up date from time to time – maybe I’ll figure out

if I can load a shot or two …….

As far as the FX vs. DX senors I appreciate all the info you’ve given me – I have to say I found everything

you’ve said to be accurate – I’m pleased with my investment – I just have to apply the info to the type I do

………

Really wish Nikon had gone full size years ago!

Thanks again!

Paul

REPLY

34) Nasim Mansurov

July 3, 2010 at 9:49 pm

Paul, thanks for sharing your experience with the Nikon D700!

Yes, the D700 is certainly heavier than the D300 (170 grams difference), so I tend to only take the

battery grip with me when I shoot landscapes and need to use the L bracket. As you noted, the feel is

exactly the same as with the D300, even with the MB-D10. When it comes to slight loss of reach, I too

do not consider it an issue for my wildlife photography, because I attach the 1.4x TC in most cases and

the nice thing is, if the lighting conditions are poor, I still have the chance to remove the 1.4x TC and

get superb autofocus and low-light performance out of the camera and lens. For the glass that I use

(Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S and Nikon 200-400mm f/4.0 VR), adding the

1.4x TC is almost unnoticeable when it comes to contrast and sharpness. I’m so used to the 1.4x TC,

that I rarely go out without it when I need the reach.

In terms of noise, one of the annoying things about DX, is shadow noise as you pointed out – never

was a fan of it. Having grain in pictures at base ISO is not pleasant and running noise-reduction

software is just a waste of time. Once you see how clean the images are on FX, it is hard to go back to

DX – my D300 has been gathering dust on the shelf for months now!

I am very happy to see that you are enjoying your D700 – it is a nice review from a pro-sports

photographer and I am sure many other photographers will find your review very useful.

Thank you once again for your feedback! If you would like to share some of your images with our

readers, you could either upload them to Flickr and then provide the URL here, or we could put them

up as a case study, in which case it would probably be best to email me the images.

Sincerely,

Nasim

REPLY

35) Paul

July 19, 2010 at 7:38 am

I really appreciate all your work on the DX-FX info …… in every situation I’ve

encountered to date your information has been on the money …….

I used it over the weekend covering an indoor swim meet at the University of the South …… shot

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

16/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

from a range of 1600-2000-2500 ISO at a variety of shutter speeds dialing the camera into the

conditions and the noise level or should I say lack of noise is great ….. it was the type situation I

could have worked through with the FX – BUT it would have taken alot more time in editing …..

great to start with a better original image!

Thanks again for all your help ………

just a note – taking a look a lightroom3 – downloaded the trial – never used anything but Nixon

and Photoshop in the past …… using Capture NX2 presently – all the importing and exporting is

really different ……. haven’t found the word “save” or “save as” anywhere! HA!

but giving it a shot …… found a couple features I really like!

Paul

REPLY

40) Nasim Mansurov

July 29, 2010 at 2:16 am

Paul, I’m glad that you are enjoying your D700 and trying out LR3.

Lightroom is very powerful, I would recommend to get Scott Kelby’s LR book or view some of

the online articles/videos on LR3. Easy to learn and yet very powerful!

REPLY

36) buji

July 19, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Great discussion Nasim, better one that I came across on the internet. I am a D90 user and have

been planning to move to FX because I do have to increase ISO in my settings and the grain get to

noticeable on the D90. I have started to buy FX lenses only and am using them on the D90. I use the Noise

Reduction in CNX2.

I have not upgraded, because all the rumors out there about the D700 upgrade (you also mentioned it). I

am waiting to see what comes out, depending on that I may go for the new D700 or the D3s.

Here are my three questions:

1) Is the D700 upgrade coming out soon?

2) Did you ever needed Noise Reduction, if yes what worked best for you?

3) I use CNX2 because I have been reading that it reads the Nikon NEF files best? You mentioned that you

use Lightroom; do you see any benefit of having CNX2 for the reason if it reading NEF files best?

REPLY

37) sm

July 19, 2010 at 4:12 pm

hi Buji,

I use LR (Lightroom) for capturing D90 raw files and LR3 is pretty good in my humble opinion. I like to

keep things simple and using LR simplies the workflow quite a bit. It also has Noise Reduction within it,

which I beleive works pretty well. See Nasim’s latest post on this.

Btw, which FX lenses are you currently using on D90? Whats your experience with them?

REPLY

38) buji

July 19, 2010 at 5:19 pm

Thx, I actually saw the post on Noise Reduction right after my comment, which is very

helpful. I considered Dfine, but understood it does not currently plug into CNX2. A few people

have remarked the strength of LR, incl workflow efficiencies. I’ve considered it, but I really like

CNX2, so I’ll need more convincing I guess :)

I’ve used the 50mm/1.4G (love it!) as my main lens for the last 18 months and just got the 24-70/2.8

for zooming flexibility in near range. 70-200/2.8 vrii in my dreams, but out of reach for now.

REPLY

42) Nasim Mansurov

July 29, 2010 at 2:25 am

Oops, should have read your comment before responding, oh well :)

The best way to see if you like LR3 is to try it. I believe Adobe gives a 30 day trial version for

free…

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

17/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

41) Nasim Mansurov

July 29, 2010 at 2:23 am

Buji, there is plenty of speculation in the air about an update to D700. Some people say

there will be one this summer, others say there won’t. I would wait at least until Photokina to see

what happens. I’m suspecting an update to D3000 and D90, and not sure about D700. Schedule-wise,

it was supposed to be released this year, but Nikon might delay the release until next year for financial

reasons.

In terms of noise reduction, I do use it for shots above ISO 1600, but selectively. I recently wrote an

article on noise reduction, so check it out.

Capture NX can read some image attributes other software can’t, but I don’t really use those (such as

sharpening/saturation and d-lighting) – I tweak those in Lightroom and it is working out great for me.

Hope this helps.

REPLY

39) Yousif Dafalla

July 27, 2010 at 3:51 am

Thank you very much.

This is a very useful and Fantastic Article.

Thank you again

REPLY

43) Nasim Mansurov

July 29, 2010 at 2:25 am

Yousif, you are most welcome!

REPLY

44) Ben

August 9, 2010 at 3:49 am

Very clearly and thoroughly explained. Thank you.

REPLY

45) Nasim Mansurov

August 18, 2010 at 3:51 pm

Ben, you are most welcome!

REPLY

46) Eric

August 25, 2010 at 5:15 am

Nasim, Another great article. Since I visited your site, I can’t stop reading all your articles!

I bought D5000 last year and to be honest, I wish I bought FX back then. I still think D5000 is great

camera but I really want FX now.

I’m a hobbyist and not a professional photographer, meaning that I don’t making living or sell my pics (at

least not yet).

Am I just being “wanting next best thing” if I buy D3s or D700 ? It is alot of money but I really wanna get

my hands on D3s.

What do you think?

REPLY

48) Nasim Mansurov

September 1, 2010 at 10:44 pm

Thank you Eric! Well, if you switch to FX (especially D3s) from D5000, it will certainly be a

big change for you. Not only in terms of weight, features and new functionalities you will have to

learn, but also image quality…

Let me warn you though – buying cameras is always a bad investment. If you only shoot for fun, I

would buy quality lenses and a good camera body like D90/D700 instead (D90 replacement should be

out this year). If money is not an issue for you, then go for the D3s and get some good-quality pro-

level lenses.

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

18/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

50) Eric

September 2, 2010 at 6:16 am

Nasim, Thanks for the reply. As you might’ve guessed from other posts on your blog, I

ended up getting good used D3 instead of D3s new or D700 new or used. I knew I always want

some D3 or D3s level of Speed and 100% viewfinder but just couldn’t spend money for D3s. I got a

good deal on this used D3 and very happy with it. I could’ve saved some money for D700 used but

I knew I would regret not getting D3 or D3s. Thanks for the reply and great site!

REPLY

47) Dan Wynne

August 29, 2010 at 6:09 pm

Great article Nasim.

I’ve got a d5000 with kit lenses 18-55 and 55-200. I did alot of baseball photos this year and was very

pleased with the results, I’ll be doing soccer this fall. But I’ve tried taking the camera indoors for

basketball and volleyball. As you know I either have to settle for noise at a higher ISO or blur with a slower

shutter speed. I’ve been considering picking up the 70-200 f2.8 VRII and wanted your opinion,

worthwhile investment for my DX body or will noise still be too much of an issue at the higher ISO?

Thanx! – Danny

REPLY

49) Nasim Mansurov

September 1, 2010 at 10:47 pm

Dan, shooting indoors with a DX body is certainly going to be challenging. Ideally, it would

be best to get an FX body + 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII, but if budget is an issue, I would go for the lens

first and see how you like the results. If you are dealing with dim indoors environment, you might

have to use flashes instead…

REPLY

72) Wayne

December 5, 2010 at 10:24 am

I just came across this article and your questions. I have been shooting just what you talk

about in varying light conditions of school gyms, including those that have motion detector lights that

go out for half the court when there is no activity like you find during an elementary school basketball

game.

I went from a D100 (plus extras) to a D200/grip and 800 flash and a 70-200VR 2.8. I set the flash to Fill

mode and high speed sync, Shutter Priority 1/250 (Nikon’s crappy flash sync speed) and almost always

bounce the flash off a back wall. That gives even lighting and not the “deer in the headlights” look of

a direct flash. The D200 does a very good job of exposure adjustment and controlling the flash.

My reason for explanation is to second Nasim’s comments on “lens before camera”. The 70-200VR 2.8

is remarkable! In tough light, it works great with the camera to track a player through the mayhem.

The old days of having to predict a focus spot are just a memory. The setup is bulky with everything

attached but I find it reasonably balance with the battery holder.

My biggest complaint with the DX is the small viewfinder area. I wear glasses and I lose even more

viewfinder area, especially the information portion and don’t like the feeling of moving my face

around while concentrating on the subject. I have found that I just let the camera do the work after

initial setup when doing sports shooting. That issue, and higher ISO/low noise, has led me to go with a

D700. I don’t have any time on it yet so can’t compare low light gym shots.

We’ve all read it before and some of us seem to fight it, just like I did (or do) …..good lenses before

new camera…..find a good used 70-200VR 2.8 for sports in difficult situations and you will buy a new

bag that keeps it attached and ready.

REPLY

51) iulia cosman

October 20, 2010 at 1:04 am

Thank you for the article, it was extremely helpful clearing the difference between DX and FX,

the importance of the size of the pixels etc. It made a very big difference in my undesrstand on whitch

camera suits whitch photographic need.

I started to shoot weddings with a D90 but I really need a better camera and started reserch on which one

to choose.I undestand the great difference between DX and FX, and I can’t decide between D700 and

D3s.Is it worth spending almost twice the money on D3s for wedding photography? Could I get

aproximatly the same results from D700 with good lenses?

Thank you.

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

19/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

REPLY

52) Nasim Mansurov

October 22, 2010 at 2:21 am

Iulia, yes, the Nikon D700 is a great camera and you can certainly get very comparable

results to D3s if you use the camera right and have good lenses. I know many photographers use the

D700, although they can easily afford the D3s…

REPLY

53) Brooke

October 23, 2010 at 5:51 pm

Ah, thank you VERY much for writing this! I’ve been looking for an article saturated with

information and not so many opinions. It seems everyone likes to voice their concerns but never the facts

haha. Your article was extremely helpful to me. I have a perfect idea of what type of upgrade will suit me.

Thank you =^_^=

REPLY

59) Nasim Mansurov

November 17, 2010 at 10:44 am

Brooke, thank you for your feedback – I’m glad you found the article useful.

REPLY

54) Jacques

October 27, 2010 at 8:18 am

Very well written and clearly explained. Thanks!

REPLY

60) Nasim Mansurov

November 17, 2010 at 10:44 am

Thank you for your feedback Jacques!

REPLY

55) Clifford

November 1, 2010 at 5:21 pm

wonderful explanation! thanks

Clifford

D80, 18-200mm VR

REPLY

61) Nasim Mansurov

November 17, 2010 at 10:45 am

Clifford you are most welcome!

REPLY

56) Hans

November 2, 2010 at 4:48 am

This is an awesome article!

REPLY

62) Nasim Mansurov

November 17, 2010 at 10:45 am

Thank you for your feedback Hans!

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

20/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

57) Praveen

November 3, 2010 at 1:43 am

first of all thanks for this wonderful post, explaining the topic very clearly. its very easy to

understand for a amateur like me. Appreciation for the effort you have put for this.

THANKS AGAIN.

REPLY

63) Nasim Mansurov

November 17, 2010 at 10:45 am

You are most welcome Praveen!

REPLY

58) Jim

November 12, 2010 at 10:32 am

Great article! It answered all my questions but one:

Are lenses made specifically for the DX format still subject to the ‘multiplier’ of 1.5, or has that already

been taken into account? For example, is the 70-300 DX lens that came with my D90 still comparable to a

105-450 FX lens on an FX sensor? I want to buy a ‘standard’ lens for the D90, and in my 35mm film days

that was a 50mm lens. So, do I get a 50mm DX lens for the same field of view, or should I get a 35mm DX

lens?

Thanks!!

REPLY

64) Nasim Mansurov

November 17, 2010 at 10:47 am

Jim,

I have just recently posted an article on “Equivalent Focal Length and Field of View“, which specifically

answers your question. To make the long story short, the multiplier of 1.5 has to be applied regardless

of whether it is a DX or FX lens – the lens optics stay the same. So yes, the 70-300mm will be

comparable to 105-450mm in terms of field of view and your 35mm will be like a normal 50mm lens.

REPLY

65) jim

November 23, 2010 at 10:00 pm

Excellent article! NASIM IF YOU HAVE A 300 MM F4 LENS, WHAT IS THE BEST SENSOR FOR

SHARP WILDLIFE SHOTS-DX OR FX?

REPLY

74) Nasim Mansurov

December 7, 2010 at 6:27 pm

Jim, FX hands down :)

REPLY

66) Hector

November 26, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Hi Nasim:

Thanks for your detailed information. It would help me to determine the correct camera for me and the

pro or cons of each sensor. Actually I am really interest to buy the D7000 that use DX sensor. The lens that

I am interest is the 28-300 f/3.5 AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. This lens is for FX camera, but

has a good zoom. As I read in your articule, FX lens can work in DX cameras. If I use this FX lens on DX

camera, can the focal length can be affected or reduced. I really appreciatte your recomendation.

thanks

REPLY

75) Nasim Mansurov

December 7, 2010 at 6:32 pm

Hector, sorry for a late response!

See my “Equivalent focal length and field of view” article, where I explain what happens to lenses on

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

21/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

cropped/DX sensors.

REPLY

67) Eric

November 27, 2010 at 2:29 pm

this is probably the best article i’ve read on this topic. the ISO 800 vs. 6400 comparison on

d300 vs d3s speaks for itself and is rather eye-opening.

i currently shoot with d90 and d300s and am considering an FX move. i need to pull the trigger today

(Nov. 27) b/c its the last day for Nikon Rebates. i’m planning on picking up 24-70 and 70-200 II and down

the line adding 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, probably 70-300 as well. i do mainly PJ and concert shooting so

landscape and wildlife arent a huge priority for me right now. i do have a sigma 15-30 i can use for W/A on

FX, but i’m not sure i need 16-34 or 14-24, though they both sound fantastic.

i know i will keep much of my DX kit for times when i need to be stealthy or weight is an issue and i like the

d90 w/35/1.8 combo for street (the d300s also matches well with the sigma 30, size- and balance-wise.)

…anyway, i am still on the fence over D700 vs. d3s. i’m a little concerned the d3s will make me forget

about the d300s, which i love, but for concert shooting in low-light, there is none currently better. so

that’s a plus for d3s. i’ve gone as high as 2500-3200 with the d300, which is a body i’m very comfortable

with, so it’s hard to imagine what clean 6400 would do for my shooting.

OTOH, it looks like the d700 is very competent at ISO 3200, with usable 6400, which would still give me a

boost over d300s in similar situations. the d700 is more portable than D3s and has pop-up flash for quick

fill. but in terms of cross-compatibility, d90, 300s and 700 all share the same battery and d300/700 share

the same grip. this could be very useful in the field, especially in travel situations, since you can essentially

switch batteries/use spares for all three cameras. however, the d3s uses a different battey–which means a

different kind of spare and different type of charger. i do want to do more travel shooting in the future,

and not sure a d3s would really be that great there–its too big/bulky and not unobtrusive at all. also too

expensive–why take a $5k camera to a country where it represents 5-10x their yearly income?

so, therein lies the rub–to go for the smaller, lighter body with better cross-format compatibility and very

good high ISO, or to shoot the moon and nab the bigger, bulkier body with excellent high ISO? i suppose i

can always get a d700 down the road, maybe when they fall to $1500 or so, which will probably happen

when the d800 comes out.

you probably wont be able to respond before i make my decision, but i thought i’d lay out my line of

thinking, in the hope it will help others in similar situations. i’m not sure i’m really asking a question

anyone can answer but me, anyway. so, suffice to say, nasim, you have confirmed that FX would be a

good move for me. keep up the good work!

REPLY

68) Nasim Mansurov

November 27, 2010 at 2:41 pm

Eric, given how much D700 has come down (currently $2,349 + rebates), I would personally

go for the D700. Not that I don’t love my D3s, but if you own a D300s, the D700 would make not only

a good economical sense for you, but also sharing batteries, charges, etc. I used to travel with my

D300 + D700 and two lenses and having one charger is certainly a bonus. My wife does not like the

D3s because it is too big for her and too heavy/bulky. The weight is not an issue for me, but when I

travel now, I have to take two separate chargers… In addition, the battery for the D3s is also pretty

darn expensive.

Plus, the D4 is going to be much better than D3s when it comes out early next year.

By the way, are you going to be purchasing your gear through B&H?

REPLY

69) mike

November 27, 2010 at 10:38 pm

A very nice article for a beginner professional. In this [republican created] down economy and

crushed housing market [ex-carpenter] the only other skill set i have to fall back on is photography.

Since I haven’t been active in this for well over a decade or two [since the advent of digital & my basement

dark room was scorned}, I'm currently looking for a new set-up.

I have, i believe, narrowed it to the D700. I like the new Olympus E5 [any comments?] & the Cannon Mark,

but the D700 seems untouchable for the money, do to your article.

Thanks

p.s. i only recently secured the site, so it is not up yet and i am waiting for my business license.

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

22/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

70) Nasim Mansurov

November 27, 2010 at 11:26 pm

Mike, today is the last day for the rebate for D700. Below is the link to the rebate. I have a

d700 and use it a lot! It is a great camera.

http://photographylife.com/nikon-rebates-are-expiring-today

REPLY

71) Nasim Mansurov

November 29, 2010 at 1:10 pm

Never mind – the rebates have been extended till 12/11/2010.

REPLY

73) John

December 5, 2010 at 10:28 am

Thanks for the article. Very clear explaination, details, expert knowledges….that help me

decide to submit my purchase yesterday

Estimate time for delivery from B7H is this coming friday for D700 and 18-120 f4 for $3328 after $300

saving.

I need your advice for couple of extra glass in the future. I am a beginner, not a pro photographer.

Thanks

John

REPLY

76) Nasim Mansurov

December 7, 2010 at 6:33 pm

John, looks like you got yourself a sweet deal! :)

Let me know if you have any questions on lenses in the future, will be glad to help!

REPLY

77) david leung

December 8, 2010 at 11:16 am

I can’t say enough thank you(s) for making the explanation so simple.

REPLY

79) Nasim Mansurov

December 10, 2010 at 4:43 pm

David, glad you found it helpful, thanks for stopping by!

REPLY

78) Mike

December 10, 2010 at 3:57 pm

Thank you. I stumbled on this looking for a simple answer. You provided a complex answer in a

simple way. Well done!

REPLY

80) Nasim Mansurov

December 10, 2010 at 4:43 pm

Thank you for your feedback Mike!

REPLY

81) Mon Montero

December 11, 2010 at 7:00 am

Hi Nasim, i just want your advised because some of my friend have a D700 camera (body only)

and he want to trade in to my newly bought D7000 kit, but his D700 have already 80,000 shutter release

(actuation?) and my D7000 have only 600 actuation, i really want to have a FX body camera, because i

always shoot indoors and mostly low light situation, but my budget is very tight so I decided to by DX

body (D7000) Until now i don’t know if i will trade my camera or not..What do u think? Thanks in

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

23/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

advanced..

REPLY

87) Nasim Mansurov

January 5, 2011 at 2:28 pm

Mon, 80,000 shutter actuations is not too bad. My D700 has over 150,000. As long as the

camera is in good condition, you should be safe.

REPLY

82) Prajakt

December 13, 2010 at 1:14 am

Hi Nasim,

Thanks a lot for such a nice article on important subject.

I need some help in taking decision on Nikon FX camera. I am using Canon 40D for last 3 years and mainly

into landscape photography. I always wanted to venture also into candid photography, but 40Ds high

ISO performance restricted me to some extent. Over the period, I personally feel that Nikon’s metering

and high ISO performance in field, are more advanced than equivalent Canons. I have made up my mind

to switch to Nikon brand. I had targeted intially for Nikon D700 but its a more than 2 years old body now. I

have seen couple of high ISO snaps from D7000 which look comparable till ISO 6400 to Nikon D700. I am

worried about my probable investment in D700 considering a relatively older technology to D7000. Also

there is a risk of Nikon launching another full frame (D700S / D700x) in next 2-3 months. The current cost

of D700 is stabilized and is in good range. But if Nikon launches another full frame, the cost would be

again touching $3000. With these parameters, would you recommend going along with D7000? Or should

I wait for Nikon to launch another full frame body? Or a combination of D7000 and full frame lenses like

16-35 F4 would be good? Please do reply me back.

Regards,

Prajakt

REPLY

88) Nasim Mansurov

January 5, 2011 at 5:14 pm

Prajakt, I would personally go with an FX camera. Wait until Nikon releases another FX

body. Not only will the prices on D700 drop, but that new FX body might be well worth the money

(when compared to D700).

REPLY

90) Prajakt

January 5, 2011 at 9:48 pm

Thanks Nasim for your response inspite of your busy schedule. I would wait for Nikon

to release there new full frame body. I have another query, if you can please respond to. In India,

when I discussed with my friends, they are of the opinion that going forward there would be much

R & D on APS-C sensor and DX lenses since the number of users of DX bodies are huge compared to

FX bodies. Becuase of this, the cost of DX bodies, DX lenses would be much regulated that FX

counterparts. And this might lead to very limited availability of options on FX lenses. Will it be a

valid argument to think about DX bodies and DX lenses?

Do reply :-)

REPLY

100) Nasim Mansurov

February 18, 2011 at 4:30 pm

Prajakt, no, I disagree with your friends. DX is not going to die for sure, but I would

not worry about price regulations, etc.

REPLY

84) Vlad

December 18, 2010 at 4:30 pm

Hi Nasim.

I have a question. In Nikon D3s specifications said that you can switch from FX to DX format.

So, if I put 70-200 lens on D3s in FX it will be full frame, but if I switch to DX same lens on D3s

will become 105-300 and I can see it through viewfinder 50% bigger ? Have you tried it with your D3s ? Let

me know if it works that way.

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

24/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

Thanks Vlad

REPLY

89) Nasim Mansurov

January 5, 2011 at 5:15 pm

Vlad, no, it doesn’t work that way. There is no magnification between DX and FX – all you

are getting, is a cropped image. Always shoot in FX mode when using FX lenses and crop in post-

production, if necessary.

REPLY

125) IAN

June 16, 2011 at 2:58 am

Hi Nasim…. came across your site today and you seemed to answer many of the queries

I had. Well presented…. But! had been looking for a second body for my Nikon D300 (DX

obviously) and my wife bought me a D700 body. All my DX lenses are not fully usable as talked

about on your site and above threads. D700 certainly has better ISO across the board. The other

thing I wanted from new body was use for wildlife and landscape but these are opposites in terms

of photo gear needs – unfortunately.

I know I can postcrop the FX image rather than use DX mode, but still I will be removing pixels with

a smaller resolution image so max print size ability will be reduced. On screen a reduced

(cropped)file size at 100% looks little different to 12mb FX view at 100% – but my print quality will not

be equal? Is this right?

Using DX mode on the D700 will give me only 5mb to start with as well, and so likely be the same

print quality.

I have a Sigma 120-400mm f4-5.6 so less reach yes but thinking this may still be the best lens to use

with the D700 as often in need of fast shutter and low light/high ISO need. The Sigma 10-20mm

wide zoom I have is really not good on D700 as have to use DX mode so don’t get the full frame

gain.. so thinking may stick to using it on the D300 in good light.

I have the option to return the D700 body but don’t think will be happy with a D7000 etc

anyway… should I put up with the DX/FX issue and these lenses??

What are the cost and lens options for FX use to cover these – I have been impressed with the

Sigma range as actual Nikons are quite pricey?

Any advice welcome… and again thanks for great discussion

Yours

IAN

REPLY

85) Pedro Albuquerque

December 26, 2010 at 3:42 pm

Hi Nasim,

Just to thank you for the great post, couldn’t be clearer. Thank you.

REPLY

101) Nasim Mansurov

February 18, 2011 at 4:30 pm

You are most welcome Pedro!

REPLY

86) Stuart Poonawala

January 2, 2011 at 11:52 am

This is a fantastic post, I was confused prior to reading this post, even the specialist Nikon

dealer in London didn’t convince me either way. FX for me now!

REPLY

102) Nasim Mansurov

February 18, 2011 at 4:30 pm

Stuart, thank you for your feedback!

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

25/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

91) Waseq

January 6, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Thanks for the article man!

I am planning to go for D7000. What do you think about that? DX sensor with 16.2 megapixels. Do you

think the large number of pixels in the small sensor be problematic? moreover i was confused by the 4

digit naming….previously Nikon’s 4 digit series were all entry levels. So do u think there is a catch here?

REPLY

103) Nasim Mansurov

February 18, 2011 at 4:32 pm

Waseq, the D7000 is a great DX camera – see my Nikon D7000 Review.

REPLY

92) Scorpionbee

January 12, 2011 at 12:08 pm

Hi Nasim,

Your article is excellent and it helps a lot for someone like me, trying to upgrade from DX to FX. I have a

question, I understand that using DX lens on FX model the image will be cropped by 1.5x. Which means if I

use my 18-200mm DX lens on both D300 and D700, the cropping of the image should be about the same.

How about the noise level? Will D700 do much better job than D300 or since it is cropped, they will be

about the same?

REPLY

104) Nasim Mansurov

February 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm

Scorpionbee, no, you got it wrong. The crop factor is related to the camera sensor, not the

lens. Therefore, your 18-200mm would be 27-300mm on D300 and 18-200mm on D700. However,

because it is a “DX” lens that is created only for cropped-sensor cameras, it will only work at half the

resolution on the D700.

And yes, FX is always going to be better at handling noise than DX, due to larger pixels.

REPLY

93) Snack

January 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm

No wonder why this article is at the very top rank when I did google search on DX vs FX.

I’ll also check out your other articles as they’re very useful.

Many thanks for sharing the knowledge.

REPLY

105) Nasim Mansurov

February 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm

You are most welcome Snack!

REPLY

94) Vaibhav

January 25, 2011 at 6:33 am

Awesome !

Got all the info !

REPLY

95) Greg

January 28, 2011 at 11:25 am

Great article! This will help me a great deal in making the jump from the D60, much appreciated!

REPLY

106) Nasim Mansurov

February 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

26/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

You are most welcome Greg!

REPLY

96) Philip Hymas

January 31, 2011 at 2:10 am

What an excellent explanation. I have been trying to decide whether to by a 55-300 DX lens for

my Nikon D5000 or a 70-300Fx . As I am an optimist and hope one day to be able to afford a D700, I think

I should go for the FX lens in spite of the extra weight and cost. Do you agree ?

Thanks again for your great site

Best

Philip

REPLY

107) Nasim Mansurov

February 18, 2011 at 4:35 pm

Philip, yes, I agree – the 70-300mm is also a better lens than the 55-300mm DX.

REPLY

98) Nikki

February 10, 2011 at 6:13 pm

Nasim,

Wow, what an incredible informative blog page. Thank you so much for providing great information on

photography. I just sold my D60 a few weeks ago (greatly underrated camera btw). Tomorrow, I will

purchase my very first D700. Words cannot describe my excitement! I was on the internet browsing FX vs.

DX and found your site. Any questions I had as to whether or not I should take the plunge into the FX

world were answered here. I feel confident that I am making the right decision. Again, thanks for lending

your expertise to us photographers.

REPLY

108) Nasim Mansurov

February 18, 2011 at 4:36 pm

Nikki, congratulations with your purchase and yes, you have made the right decision. The

D700 is a phenomenal camera and you will not be disappointed.

REPLY

99) Al Craig

February 16, 2011 at 5:23 pm

Many thanks for this very helpful overview and comparison shots. I’ve been trying to work out

whether or not to convert back to full frame and you’ve just made the decision for me. Excellent level of

detail – enough to guide a choice, but not too much to read.

REPLY

109) Nasim Mansurov

February 18, 2011 at 4:36 pm

Al, you are most welcome!

REPLY

110) Al Craig

February 22, 2011 at 10:56 am

Ok, so sorted the wait ready for the new Nikon full frame replacement for the D700, and now

for the software. I’m running a Mac Pro at home and Macbook Pro when I get away from work. I’ve been

using Nikon’s Capture NX2 for some time, but find it a little clunky at times. I’ve also got a trial version of

Aperture 3, but keep hearing a lot about Lightroom 3. I always shoot in RAW, and am generally most

interested in creating shots that will be good on screen or printed up to poster size from time to time.

If I go for Lightroom, do I also need the full Adobe CS5?

Any help would be appreciated.

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

27/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

112) Kevin

February 24, 2011 at 3:44 pm

Mr, Craig

If I may put some info into this, I also “used” NX2 and did indeed shoot in RAW. Went through all the

PS programs and also have LR 3.3 …… They have trial versions on CS5, I would research them and see

what you want and what may suit your taste. Yes I use my CS5 with LR 3.3 and the results are simply

amazing. But then again we all have different taste and needs that we would like to acomplish.

Be Safe Be Well,

Kevin Atwell

REPLY

111) Aravind

February 24, 2011 at 12:44 pm

Hello Nassim,

Wonderful and much detailed article.. anyone can easily understand. Thank you so much.

My question for you is, I have a D300s with 18-200 VR II lens. I am planning sell my D300s to move to

D700. Should I keep the 18-200 lens or sell it?. If I sell, then which would be the better lens I can go for to

satisfy 18-200 result. I cannot spend too much at this time. Your help on this is really appreciated

Thanks

Aravind

REPLY

113) Kevin

February 24, 2011 at 3:47 pm

They would have to pry my 18-200 mm from my cold dead hands……. Absolutely love this

lense… Just sayin

Cheers

Be Safe Be Well

Kevin

REPLY

114) Al Craig

February 24, 2011 at 4:28 pm

Hi Kevin

Thanks for that. I guess I need to get hold of CS5 to try it out. At the moment I find that NX2 does most of

what I want for straight photos, but lacks the ability to do some of the things that photoshop can do, and

may be more clunky in the process.

Best regards

Al Craig

REPLY

115) Rusty

March 18, 2011 at 9:53 pm

Hey Nasim,

thank you for that article. Reading through it cleared the question – and a lot of other things as well –

perfectly. Best thing is: I did not get bored while reading and even discovered a few things I can now

follow up.

Excellent work!

Rusty

REPLY

116) kiai pancal

March 21, 2011 at 9:48 am

Hi Nasim, i plan to buy d3s but i still haunted by dust in the sensor. I have d700 and the sensor

easy to get dusty. so i like to know after i buy d3s how i should do in order to clean or do the maintenance

by my self.

So far with my d700, i always put in my drawer and now the dust come to the view finder chamber, so i

need to send back to Nikon services.

My questions:

1. how often you clean your sensor

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

28/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

2. how to maintenance d3s from dust in sensor and view finder

3. how to clean it properly and using what ?

Thank you in advance.

br

REPLY

117) Jm

March 31, 2011 at 8:33 am

This was well written, well-elaborated and concise. Thank you for the effort and knowledge

shared.

REPLY

118) Rauphiluba

March 31, 2011 at 4:50 pm

thank for the information about DX and FX difference, even starter like me yet wants to have

the most powerful camera, FX has to be the one, but yes, it depends on your wallets.

thanks any way, God Bless.

REPLY

119) Stela

April 22, 2011 at 1:10 am

Waw… I was surprised especially as you actually apologized for a long post!! No apologies

accepted, because this is a very good article.. I am more on a beginner side and the article really helped me

to understand some basics :) and with that finally as well the difference between fx and dx :)

Thank you for your time! :)

REPLY

120) kiai pancalan maut

April 22, 2011 at 2:25 am

twice i red articles from this site and i end up bough the thingy, first 28-300mm and second

D3s… and i happy with it specially the d3s, now i feel that i want to sell my d700 and upgrade it to

another d3s…

lastly the combination d3s+28-300mm is deadly, now i rarely use my sb700 and only bring sb400 for travel

and use it only in case really emergency…..

Thank you Nasim… !! and good job …

REPLY

121) khalid

May 3, 2011 at 10:46 am

Hi Dear,

Thanks for the information. Actually before i was trying to go for Nikon D7000 Dx. but now i don’t like to

buy any of because i really need a true pictures for my photography, while the FX is extremely expansive

that i can not afford so i will wait for until the low price of FX. but its may new brand comes so that will

take times could you please give me some suggestion. i am totally confuse.

REPLY

122) Pads

May 17, 2011 at 8:37 am

Hello Nasim, this is good stuff! My question is pretty much similar to khalid’s inquiry. If I am to

jump to the FX realm, would you recommend for me to wait for the D700 upgrade (since it’s been out for

almost 3 or 4 years now) or just go ahead and jump the gun with D700+24-70 combo (or any lens for that

matter)? I just wanted to get the value on the camera body I am aiming for especially since the release of

the D7000 was very promising and growing to be the best and most recommended one on the market.

The D3s is a bit of stretch for me to reach especially sine the price of the body alone would cost me like a

D700 combo already.

Do let me know your 2 cents on this – or should I just get the FX lens of my choice and wait for the nex FX

body to be released? Currently using D90 + 17-55mm. Thanks in advance!

REPLY

123) Rob

May 20, 2011 at 2:28 pm

Nice post and plenty of explanatory details. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and

experience.

REPLY

124) Logan

May 21, 2011 at 7:21 am

Hi Nasim,

I am new to DSLR world. I had zillions of question in my mind to decide a good entry level camera to buy,

but info given in this site cleared most of them. This DX vs FX is really awesome, very simple & easy for a

novice to understand the jargons. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us.

Regards,

Logesh

REPLY

126) IAN

June 19, 2011 at 2:33 am

Hi Nasim…. came across your site today and you seemed to answer many of the queries I had.

Well presented…. But! had been looking for a second body for my Nikon D300 (DX obviously) and my

wife bought me a D700 body. All my DX lenses are not fully usable as talked about on your site and above

threads. D700 certainly has better ISO across the board. The other thing I wanted from new body was use

for wildlife and landscape but these are opposites in terms of photo gear needs – unfortunately.

I know I can postcrop the FX image rather than use DX mode, but still I will be removing pixels with a

smaller resolution image so max print size ability will be reduced. On screen a reduced (cropped)file size at

100% looks little different to 12mb FX view at 100% – but my print quality will not be equal? Is this right?

Using DX mode on the D700 will give me only 5mb to start with as well, and so likely be the same print

quality.

I have a Sigma 120-400mm f4-5.6 so less reach yes but thinking this may still be the best lens to use with

the D700 as often in need of fast shutter and low light/high ISO need. The Sigma 10-20mm wide zoom I

have is really not good on D700 as have to use DX mode so don’t get the full frame gain.. so thinking may

stick to using it on the D300 in good light.

I have the option to return the D700 body but don’t think will be happy with a D7000 etc anyway…

should I put up with the DX/FX issue and these lenses??

What are the cost and lens options for FX use to cover these – I have been impressed with the Sigma

range as actual Nikons are quite pricey?

Any advice welcome… and again thanks for great discussion

Yours

IAN

REPLY

127) SRUTAYU

June 25, 2011 at 9:59 pm

thankz a lot for ur guiding !!!

REPLY

128) Aaron Lucas

July 16, 2011 at 9:50 pm

Hello

I am planning to purchase a Nikon DX camera preferably D7000 or D5100, but I would be switching to FX

camera in the future. So, I would like to know if I should purchase DX lenses for a DX camera or can I use

FX lenses on a DX body without any limitation or problem? Plz help.

REPLY

129) Raul Rojas

July 31, 2011 at 7:18 am

Thanks for this great post! However… looks like you forgot to put time in the equation. I

would add that DX is lighter and can take exactly the same quality photos in about twice the time. For

landscapes, daylight moving objects, unless you need a real high speed shot. they are better. I

understand that you as a professional of photography are trying to justify the need of such a big sensor,

but, to be honest, most of the people want to buy a camera they can afford, with excelent quality and

don’t take pictures of 1/8000 shooting speed. For all of us, wellcome DX!!. Regards,

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

30/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

130) Milinda

August 1, 2011 at 4:19 pm

Thank you very much for the sharing of your valuable knowledge and experience. It is a great

post which explains everything in detail. Thanks again!!

REPLY

131) Paul

August 3, 2011 at 1:07 pm

I Just want to extend my great appreciation for your work on your Web site. I learned much

from this and other articles here. Thanks again!

REPLY

132) Michael Hubbard

August 7, 2011 at 8:12 am

Very informative; i have a much clearer understanding of the diferences between FX and DX

formats. Based on this information I think I will purchase FX capable lens for my D300 because i think my

next camera will be a D700. Thanks for all of the good information and the way it was presented.

REPLY

133) Nasim Mansurov

August 7, 2011 at 12:42 pm

You are most welcome, thank you for your feedback!

REPLY

134) yusuf

August 8, 2011 at 9:38 pm

thank u so much… It was really really informative, I could not find a better explanation on this

topic.

thanks once again.

REPLY

135) sherrybythesea

August 10, 2011 at 7:21 pm

Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge. I recently received the Nikon D700 FX as a gift

from my husband and am having a hard time selecting the right lens (es). I really want a general all around

lens I can use for shooting photos of my family, and I also need a lens for work, which is shooting interior

and exterior photos of houses. Everyone keeps recommending DX lenses to me, telling me that there is

really no difference in the lens for FX. Can you recommend which lens (es) you would use for what I’m

doing?

REPLY

136) chris hine

August 13, 2011 at 1:17 pm

Having a D300s and D90 I was wondering what all the fuss was about FX, I now know and

thanks to the fact that I have non DX lenses woll be pursuing a D3 with passion to get more from my

photography hobby, thank you so much.

REPLY

137) Glenn Franco Simmons

August 16, 2011 at 5:00 pm

Thank you for such a thorough analysis. I am considering an FX, and your article made me

realize that my first inclination, a D3X, is my choice. After reading another site, I was starting to think a

D3S would be better, but my passion is flower macros.

I have a D500 and a Nikon film camera, N60, and I like the fact that FX will more closely approximate what I

could do with my N60 for my specific uses, which include many macros.

Plus, I have my D5000 to shoot in situations that are more appropriate for it, but I contemplate using the

FX for all shots.

When looking at the Nikon site, I did notice a variety of FX cameras with different specs.

You have done an outstanding job here, and I really appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into this.

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

31/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

REPLY

138) Martin

August 18, 2011 at 1:09 am

Thanks Heaps Nasim – I didn’t realise te difference in noise between the two. I thought I was

tossing up between Nikon d7000 and a Canon D7, but it seems I should be tossing up between DX and

FX.

Or should I? I used to shoot overexposed images on ISO 1600 on 35mm for the washed our and grainy

effect. And also, do I really need to shoot at 6400, if I never could before on film? Or does this open up a

whole new world of low light photography for me?

The more I lern the harder it all becomes; awesome :-)

REPLY

139) Bill

August 24, 2011 at 6:09 am

Thanks, Nasim, for your very concise and clear explanations of the differences between DX and

FX cameras. Until today, I didn’t really have a clue, but I am really noticing the limitations of my D90,

especially in low light. By the time I can save to replace my DX with an FX, they will probably be on

generation 3+, which works for me. In the meantime, I will be buying FX compatible lenses, which as you

so ably pointed out, are not the same as DX lenses which I probably would have bought as my skills

progress. With that said, I am very impressed that you could say so efficiently through words and

examples what the other “professional” websites seem to be unable to do… that is to simplify and

explain in a comprehensible way the differences in sensor formats, picture outcomes and lens

compatibility implications to a newly emerging amateur enthusiast.

REPLY

144) Nasim Mansurov

August 24, 2011 at 9:33 pm

Bill, thank you for your feedback! I am glad that you found the article useful and easy to

understand – that’s certainly my goal. Have a wonderful rest of the week.

REPLY

140) Tony (NZ)

August 24, 2011 at 1:39 pm

Nasim, many thanks for the information you impart. Your approach to photography is

absolutley fantastic, surpassed only by your willingness to impart your knowledge and skills in a format

that is concise and understandable. As a Nikon user for many years, I struggle with the new technology

but find that reading your posts helps immensley and usually puts things in perspective.

I wish there was someway I could return the favour you do the whole photographic community, but in

the meantime my ‘thanks’ will have to suffice. Let us know should you ever consider a visit to New

Zealand.

REPLY

143) Nasim Mansurov

August 24, 2011 at 9:18 pm

Thank you for your feedback Tony, I really appreciate it! It is my dream to visit and

photograph New Zealand someday!

REPLY

141) Ted Hawkes

August 24, 2011 at 2:41 pm

Excellent post. I’m in the market and totally sold on FX (and almost sold on the D3s vs. the

D700). I dabble in video as well, and manufacturers are starting to roll out camcorders with

interchangeable lenses (finally!). It looks like I can get double the value from FX glass. Got anything on

D3s vs. D3x?

REPLY

142) Nasim Mansurov

August 24, 2011 at 9:16 pm

Ted, D3x is for landscape and fashion photographers that need the high resolution for

large prints. If you need a camera with the best low light capabilities, there is nothing out there that

even remotely compares to the D3s.

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

32/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

And by the way, B&H has the Nikon D3s in stock right now, which does not happen very often.

REPLY

145) Ted Hawkes

August 25, 2011 at 7:13 am

I actually found the article where you discuss this in detail right after I asked the question. Very

well done, totally get it now. I’m leaning toward the D700 for my next step up, thinking that for the price

point on the D3s I would want better resolution (not that I quite need 24 megapixels…), for which I’m

obviously going to have to wait. I don’t suppose any of y’all who’ve been following Nikon for decades

have a strong opinion on whether D700′s successor is being announced in the next few weeks? B&H and

other retailers are conspicuously out of stock. Judging by the recent evolution of DX models, it might

include a resolution bump worth waiting for.

REPLY

146) Ted Hawkes

August 25, 2011 at 7:17 am

Well, whaddyaknow? I just found your post from 8/20 and I guess I’m not the first one to

wonder about the D700′s successor…

REPLY

147) Nasim Mansurov

August 25, 2011 at 12:16 pm

Ted, I would wait till the end of September for a potential announcement. Yes, it will be

worth the wait.

REPLY

148) Newton

August 26, 2011 at 2:42 am

Thanks for sharing your knowledge on FX and DX, nice article.

REPLY

149) Nasim Mansurov

August 26, 2011 at 12:13 pm

Glad you found it useful Newton!

REPLY

150) Charles

August 26, 2011 at 11:40 am

Nasim , Thank you for the time spent in explaining the differences b2in the DX and FX Nikon

Sensors.

For me the most important thing to have in mind is lens diffraction limitation of the DX factor.

And while the DX megapixel count goes up , diffraction will limitation will be more of a problem.

I Was using An F4 and I am waiting to use my 35-70 AFD f:2.8 , 80-200 AFD f:2.8 along with my fast primes

on the new D800 (?).

How do you think these pro caliber lenses would perform with the latest FX nikon Sensor ? Should

someone consider changing to the new pro zooms and primes ?

Charles

REPLY

151) JOGINDER

August 31, 2011 at 7:34 am

Nasim,

this is one of the best site to learn A-Z about photography… I am from India, keep on posting informative

topics related to photography…

Joginder

INDIA

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

33/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

152) Logan

September 6, 2011 at 6:01 am

Once again, a nice article. I just recently understood discussions about the difference between

canon and nikon product lines (pixel and sensor size;wherein canon aims to have high pixels compared to

nikon’s focus on larger sensors.) and reading your article about DX and FX gives me a clearer picture of

the difference between full-frame and cropped sensors.(although is have a canon. ☺☺)

REPLY

153) PJ

September 7, 2011 at 1:37 pm

I admit I’m a skimmer. The short answer though is if you buy a DX camera there is no point in

buying an FX lens, correct?

And no the article is not too long. I appreciated the thoroughness.

REPLY

154) Vijayakumar

September 9, 2011 at 6:50 am

Nasim :

Thank you very much for the lucid explanation of DX and FX formats. I have one doubt. In case two

different lenses are available , say 24-70mm DX and 24-70mm for DX and FX cameras respectively, will their

actual focal length be different ? And if I use these lenses on DX and FX cameras respectively, will there be

a crop factor ? I mean will I get the same picture from both the cameras ? Does this crop factor appear only

when I use a FX lens on a DX camera.

REPLY

155) daniel

September 10, 2011 at 8:52 pm

tks Nasim, very informative and extremely helpful for me.

REPLY

156) Kike

September 13, 2011 at 3:56 pm

Hi Nasim,

Thanks for this excellent post. Your are really good and I appreciate you spend your time sharing this kind

of articles with all of us.

I was wondering why Nikon doesn’t put larger pixels (for better sensitive performance) instead of

increase the number of pixels on DX entry-level cameras.

I have a D5100 and I would prefer to have less noise at high ISOs with a 12mp/14mp sensor than a 16mp

sensor. Actually, I think 12mp is enough for non profesional shooting. Isn it?

What do you thing?

Thanks!!

REPLY

157) Priyesh Singh

September 18, 2011 at 10:07 pm

Hi Nasim,

I have been reading your website and the material and advice available is really awesome.

Need one advice from you. I have sold my Nikon D90 in june this year and have to buy a camera in

December from India. I live in Tanzania and we don’t get good deals here that’s why am buying from India

when I will travel there.

I am thinking to upgrade to FF after using my friend’s D3 for sometime. Love the bright viewfinder. If

budget would have permitted would have gone strt for D3S. I was zeroing on D700 with 24-120F4 lens.

Now is it still a good buy to have it in December as I wanted to wait for any replacement model coming in

market before that. Also I like to take some wildlife photos as well (Tanzania is famous for its parks,

serengeti etc are here itself). I have a Sigma 50-500 OS lens but I take more of normal day to day shots like

at beaches etc.

So looking at my usage, what would you advice, should I still remain with DX and go for a D7000

(although I don’t really like it due to buffer size and 3 shots braketing only) or go for D700.

Please advice.

Thanks and following you.

REPLY

158) Rosy

September 27, 2011 at 9:22 am

should i get the d700 now or wait for the d800. i have a nikon d80 and would love to upgrade.

i have a ‘starting’ photography business and i concentrate on portraits/family picutres/newborns, etc. I’ve

been asked to do family shoots at a daycare – they will be outdoor. I think i can get by with my Nikon D80

and my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8lens for this occasion –

but it’s a debate i have. this shoot can generate many future referrals. Would i get better results with the

d700

i truly am not waiting fo rthe latest and greatest – but everyone states i should wait for the d800, please

be honest with your responses

REPLY

159) ALICIA RIUS

September 29, 2011 at 7:02 am

Thank you so much for this article.

I’ve been doing a lot of research and at last, I found the most useful post. Your explanation was really

clear, specially for me which I had no idea about DX vs FX.

I appreciate when I find people that invest their time to clarifying such complex topics.

REPLY

160) B J Roy

October 6, 2011 at 4:23 pm

Extremely helpful. Thanks for all the detail. You have help me make up my mind – I was leaning

toward the FX because of Dynamic Range issues with what i photograph most. Not leaning any longer —

taking the jump. :) Again thanks.

REPLY

161) Jaouad

October 19, 2011 at 6:29 pm

I hesitated to buy a FX lens for a DX camera! but I’ll buy it quietly)

Thank you very much

REPLY

162) Callum

October 31, 2011 at 7:20 am

Hi Nasim,

Sorry for yet another query for you – I seem to have a lot for you at the moment!

I was wondering if the D7000 has changed your opinions at all in the DX vs FX debate in terms of low light

ability?

I still can’t decide what best suits my current needs – I prefer the lighter weight of the DX bodies and I

have 3 lenses I am happy with for use on DX, but at the same time I got to look at a D700 with 24-70mm

f2.8 at the weekend and the weight didn’t bother me too much (but that was just playing around with it

in the shop and not having to carry it all day!).

I’ve seen on another website a slightly tongue in cheek comment that the abilities of the D7000 now make

it less sense to buy the D700 for most people (by that I assume they mean amateur/hobbyist

photographers) for the price difference.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Callum

REPLY

163) Callum

October 31, 2011 at 11:35 am

Just another thought – are lenses like the 24-120mm f4 good enough to make the most of

FX cameras or do you really need to go to the pro lenses?

Thanks.

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

35/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

164) Gandalfsson

October 31, 2011 at 6:18 pm

Hi Nasim

I agree with you in the iso-department = fx vs. dx (nobody can not agree with you, I think, in this matter).

I have the D700 and the D7000 and the D700 is the clear winner in this area.

But you are not 100 % right in the dynamic range department – the D7000dx has better DR than even the

mighty D3x (even minor difference) !!! (I also have the D3x, just bought it)

But who would have expected that, I must say ?

REPLY

166) Vinny

November 3, 2011 at 7:16 am

Hi Nasim,

I upgraded my equipment this year with the plan to purchase both a DX and FX Nikon body. I have both

DX and FX lenses. I opted for the D7000 over the D3oo as my DX purchase mainly due to the reviews and

the fact my wife had the option to simply use the auto button so she could actually use the camera. I

planned to move forward with the purchase of of a D700 this month, but now I am pausing. Should I wait

until I have the cash for a D3s? I have been super impressed by the D7000 so I no longer feel the hurry to

get an FX body. Is the D3s that much superior to the D700? I am willing to wait if the difference is there. I

am not a pro but would consider myself an advanced amatuer.

REPLY

167) Titus Powell

November 11, 2011 at 10:43 am

Fantastic article; thank you for taking the time to explain so clearly and in so much detail.

REPLY

168) mobeme

November 20, 2011 at 8:34 am

Hi Nasim

Thank you for this great article. I’m confused about one thing though. As I understand, DX implies a 1.5

multiplier to get the 35mm equivalent focal length. Does DX format also have a bearing on the minimum

aperture if using FX lenses? Reason I say this is because in this article http://www.photozone.de/nikon–

nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/626-nikkorafd8518dx , a AF-D 85mm f/1.8 lens is said to be “equivalent of roughly a

130mm f/2.8 lens” i.e. the minimum aperture is multiplied by 1.5 too, effectively making the lens slower (?).

Many thanks in advance. G.

REPLY

169) endri

November 24, 2011 at 8:38 am

I got a d 7000 and want to bye a fix lens! Can you anybodu explain me the difference between

35mm&50mm?!

REPLY

170) Yayan Eterang

November 24, 2011 at 10:34 pm

Hi Nasim,

I’m from Batam, Indonesia. Just wanna say I love your articles.

REPLY

171) Danny Sanders

November 28, 2011 at 12:40 pm

Outstanding! Just the info I was look looking for.

REPLY

172) Valentin Butko

November 30, 2011 at 1:44 am

Добрый день, Насим. Может посоветуете, я стою перед выбором: в наличии D300s + 24-70

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

36/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

ф/2.8, хочу перейти на FX формат, как вы считаете на что лучше потратится: D700 + 70-200 ф/2.8 или

D3s ? Снимаю в основном репортаж (свадьбы и прочее).

REPLY

173) Eric

December 2, 2011 at 1:35 pm

Thanks very much. A very informative comparison study which shed a lot of light (no pun

intended) on the subject for me.

REPLY

174) mohammad sharifi-rad

December 14, 2011 at 1:51 am

Dear Master

Enjoyed reading your website and was really helpful.

Thanks a lot

mohammad sharifi-rad

REPLY

175) sung

December 17, 2011 at 11:23 pm

thank you for your great article. I was confused before, now i can actullay

describe it to my peers.

thank you again and i hope you keep writing article as helpful as this!

REPLY

176) Keith Doe

December 22, 2011 at 12:52 am

This was a great little article and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it! Very insightful and, as i’m

reading this over my cereal I’m feeling as though i’ve learnt something already today!

Just purchased myself the Nikon D300S and a few accessories (battery grip, 16-85 vr lens) and i’m

seriously looking forward to getting out and having a proper shoot with it! Hurry up christmas holidays!

Many thanks.

REPLY

177) Kirk

December 24, 2011 at 1:46 pm

Utterly fantastic article. I have now got an education in sensor formats and what they mean to

me. So well explained that all of my questions on the topic have been answered thoroughly. I appreciate

the effort you’ve put in to write this article, as well as the fact that you have made it search engine

friendly so it is easy to find when searching “DX vs FX” on Google. Great work!

I shoot mostly indoor hockey games and the ISO noise on my D5000 is significant and annoying. Great

camera for shooting outdoors in good light and portraits, but not so great for fast moving, dim light

situations.

Now I need to save up more cash for an FX body. Better yet, I now know why they’re worth so much

more money. I’m telling my wife that it’s your fault. She’ll likely be in touch. haha

REPLY

178) mikgadhoke

January 8, 2012 at 9:18 am

Excellent review and put so nicely in words.

REPLY

179) Wilson

January 9, 2012 at 7:41 pm

Your “Benefits of a High Resolution Sensor” article led me here. Just try to get down to the

basics to thoroughly understand pixels, sensors…

Definitely achieved the goals with this excellent article. Thank you for the clear explanation to make things

easier to all the readers!

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

37/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

180) LarryDC

January 16, 2012 at 11:42 am

This was a very Excellent posting. It addressed just questions I had about DX & FX. I am an old

film photogher moving to DSLRs, this posting has helped me to select my next camera.

Thanks

Larry

REPLY

181) Lynette Hagel

January 19, 2012 at 12:22 pm

Thanks so much for this information. You write in a way that makes it clear for everyone to

understand. Looking forward to reading your old posts as well as new ones.

REPLY

182) a au

January 22, 2012 at 5:29 pm

Thanks so much for this information and I get more understanding on the camera.Can I ask

you. If I want to get a new camera, is D700 better or D7000 best.

REPLY

183) Mike Butler

January 23, 2012 at 12:06 am

Found this article through Google and want to thank you for the best explanation of DX and

FX I have seen! I own a Nikon D200 and a Nikon D300 and am thinking of buying a new D800 when it

FINALLY appears. Of course, I have a bagful of lenses I have used on the 200 and 300 and don’t want to

spend another fortune — the cost of the new D800 will be enough! It seems that for most of the

photography I do, my current lenses will suffice until I win the lottery. Thank you!

REPLY

184) Prabhu

January 28, 2012 at 1:26 am

Hi Nasim

I am a new introducer. i read your article of DX and FX was excellent.

Thank you,

Prabhu.

REPLY

185) gwenhael appere

January 30, 2012 at 10:40 am

thank you very much for this article, it answered a lot of my questions…forums can be useful,

but also very confusing sometimes ! Thumbs up also for your website, lots of useful information, and

great pictures.

Still, i would like to ask you a clarification :

- you mentioned that Nikon FF bodies can automatically detect a DX lens, and therefore automatically

“switch”to DX mode…As an example, my 16-85 used on a D700 in DX mode would give me the same

image as on a D300s, but with a lower resolution…correct ? But can I use the D700 with an FF lens (let’s

say, 24-70) in a “DX mode” (is there such an option) ? Other than the field of view, would anything else

change ?

Thanks for your comments !

Gwen

REPLY

186) Allen Adnan

February 5, 2012 at 3:46 pm

first of all, I want to thank you for explaining the Points between the DX and FX .. I really

Appreciate that… going back to my Question ,, which is ;- i’m confused between D90 And D7000 ,, and I

know that The D7000 is much better than D90,, but still want some tips anything you can give i will

appreciate it .. and what lenses you recommend me to purchase? and do you recommend me to purchaase

only the body and get a e.g 18-200 mm lens instead.. and what do you think about 50 mm f/1.4 lens …. I

will be grateful if you could help me >>>

have a nice day sir :)

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

38/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

REPLY

187) kevin sweeney

February 5, 2012 at 5:26 pm

i enjoyed your article and found it to be very informative and well written it helped me

understand

dx vs fx

REPLY

188) Ian

February 7, 2012 at 8:45 am

Fantasic article, thank you – the blinds have been lifted! I have been waiting to see what the

new Nikon FX camera specs would be as I have long been disappointed by the noise that I get from my

DX. With 36mps, will the D800 be any better at coping with noise in low light than a D300?

REPLY

189) Krishna

February 7, 2012 at 9:49 am

Really nice explanation with better example.

pictures with very low light would be more useful.

REPLY

190) Tim Maguire

February 9, 2012 at 9:00 am

This is a very informative post. I had one question, when they refer the the FX I believe they

also call it “medium format”. If this is correct what would the DX be and what is “full format”.

Also, thank you for the ISO comparison. I was worried this was a problem with FX too, but it does not

seem to be the case. I really need an FX format camera now.

Thanks again!!

REPLY

191) Ray Schneider

February 9, 2012 at 8:09 pm

This string of comments is fabulous! Thanks all. As I take a lot of my photos while traveling

overseas, I tend to carry just an Nikon 18-200 VR lens with my D200. And I post-process most of my good

shots including sharpening etc.

So my question is, will a photo taken with the 18-200 that is sharpened etc, in post-processing look

comparable to a photo taken with a higher quality lens like the Nikon 24-70 that is also post-processed? Or

will the better lens always produce images that are better, all things being equal.

PS: I’m anticipating going FF to either the D700 or D800 – I would still anticipate using a lens like the

Nikon 28-300 VRII because I travel so much – any advice?

REPLY

192) aVi

February 11, 2012 at 12:45 pm

Very informative. Thank You. What lens would be most suited to the nikon d7000 for low light

conditions i.e. indoor and night photography? Please advise.

REPLY

193) Adil

February 14, 2012 at 6:17 am

Dear Nasim

I have been following your website for a few days now and I have learnt so much from your articles. I am

very grateful to you and appreciate the clarity in terms of the language you use.

I have one question for you today.

Do the FX format Nikons come with VR/IS on the body?

Adil

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

39/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

194) CJ

February 25, 2012 at 12:01 am

Hi Nasim,

I’ve been looking for this answer for a long time. In just one shot you’ve enlightened my mind. Thanks a

lot. I’m a beginner of this as I called profession. You’re helping a lot of people, and manufacturers as well.

More power to you. . .

God bless!

CJ

REPLY

195) Martin

March 1, 2012 at 5:14 am

Hi Nasim,

Fantastic article, thank you.

I am going to upgrade my Nikon D3100 to either the D700 or D800 (when it arrives) but which should I go

for. My hobby is shooting landscapes and I feel I will get a better image with a full frame camera, also as

this is just an hobby which if any wide angle lens would you advise. The Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8 costs around

£1300 but is there a slighly cheaper Sigma, Tamaron etc that you think would be suitable for my needs.

Thanks

Martin

REPLY

196) Venu

March 5, 2012 at 8:42 am

Hi Nasim,

By google search for DX vs Fx I landed on this page. Your blog about DX vs FX explained it all in a great

detail. And I was convenced that you are the right person to ask about my upgrade qustion. Background :

This is what I have now : Nikon D80, Nikon 18 – 200 VR ( unfortunately its a DX lense not FX) , Nikon 50

mm 1.8 ( FX) , Tamron 90 mm f2.8 Macro ( FX lense) , Nikon SB – 400, And a Potrait Studio setup in my

basement. I am an amature photographer. Nowhere close to a professional. Its my desire to improve my

photography skills to a Pro Level. But currently my foucs has been ‘Potraits of my Kids’. Now the actual

question : I have been owning a Nikon D80 since 2007, and I am very pleased with it. I am feelign a little

short handed with 10 mega pixel resolution on D80, to be able to take BIG prints without loosing quality.

D7000 (16 MPix) looks tempting. Also I read in your blog that D700 is the worlds best DSLR . D700 is still 12

mega pixel. What would you suggest me to upgrade to from D80? to D7000 or D700. I know they are DX

and FX . My primary goal is to have best over all DSLR ( DX or FX) since I can use all the lenses ( except 18 –

200 with DX crop) and be able to take BIG prints . Also aware from reading your blog that more mega

pixels in a small sensor would introduce noise at low light conditions. Please suggest me the best for my

needs. The usage is for personal and family but I would like to have a capable camera so I can learn to

become professional with it. Your suggestion is very valuable to me.

REPLY

197) edwin

March 12, 2012 at 5:21 pm

Hi Nasim

Thank you for your very informative website.

I have a Nikon D90 and have a (far) future plan to invest in an FX camera. I also want to do Macro

photography. I am wondering if I should buy a DX macro lense now because it is cheaper or buy an FX

macro lense with the thinking that I might buy an FX camera in the future. I am thinking of the 85mm

macro lense.

Thank you.

Edwin

REPLY

198) Paolo

March 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm

Hi Nasim,

Awesome article. Exactly the explanation I was looking for. I had my D300 stolen and was thinking of

replacing it with the D700 or the D3s. But now there is the D800 and the D4 coming out in about a week,

and am not sure which way to go. Any thoughts?

Thanks, Paolo

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

40/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

REPLY

199) Stephan

March 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm

Hello Nasim,

Great writeup… thank you much.

Regarding DX lenses, which are especially made for Nikon bodies having the smaller sensors, does it mean

on a camera body with the smaller sensor a DX lens will compensate for the crop factor and capture an

image at the stated focal length? Or will a 50mm DX lens on a, say D7000 (DX Model), still equate to a

75mm lens when compared to a film camera?

If you covered this before and I missed it, I apologize, but I couldn’t find the answer here.

Thanks,

Stephan

REPLY

201) Rattiporn

March 26, 2012 at 10:11 pm

Thank you very much. Your article is very informative. I am now have a clear understanding

between DX and FX lenses.

Cheers, =)

REPLY

202) Bishwa

April 1, 2012 at 9:06 pm

Hi Nasim,

Thanks so much for putting this info up for beginners like me. I really appreciate how clearly you

explained the issue, which was confusing me for a long time.

Best wishes,

Bishwa

REPLY

203) Manoj B.

April 1, 2012 at 11:19 pm

Well explained… thanks a lot…

REPLY

204) Bhaskar Ray

April 9, 2012 at 5:14 am

Hi Nasim,

Good evening. I am using D90(Dx format) with 18-105mm kit lens. Kindly advice me what sort of zoom

shall I use for my wild life photography with D90 ? will 70-300 mm do the needful? I believe it is a Fx lens.

Also advice me shall I buy Fx lens if I need to upgrade to D 800 because then Dx lens will be useless in D

800 or any Fx body. I am an ameteur photographer.

regards

Bhaskar

REPLY

205) akhil

April 11, 2012 at 2:33 am

hi your comments and ur presentation is simply amazing. the thing is im actually new into this

and know very little about all the convo’s taken place up could u suggest me any camera which would

suite me. i am looking into D90 and the price factor suits me. i just want to know if Sony a35 is worth

buying aswell.

thank you

REPLY

206) Siva Prasanna

April 14, 2012 at 7:22 pm

Wow… what an explanation! Thank you!

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

41/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

REPLY

207) Martin Shellabarger

April 19, 2012 at 10:30 am

I am looking for a camera for stop motion animation, and have it on good authority that the FX

sensors will cause a greatly reduced DOF in a stopmo environment, and DX will have a greater DOF. Since

shooting will be on a tripod under studio conditions where I can have longer exposure times, the image

noise problem at higher ISOs is not going to be a problem. What are the differences in the DOF between

FX and DX model lines?

REPLY

208) Velayudhan KK

April 20, 2012 at 6:27 am

Hi Nasim,

I appreciate the way you have explained the differences, pros and cons. It really helps any amateur

photographer. This has helped me in deciding what gears I have to select fo rmy use.

Thanks!

REPLY

209) Thepics Itook

April 22, 2012 at 8:28 pm

Great Information. I learn a lot reading your post.

Thanks.

REPLY

210) Yudi

April 22, 2012 at 9:15 pm

It really did!!:-) Thanks a Lot! Great Info!

REPLY

211) mjohn

April 24, 2012 at 1:54 am

Excellent… Got completely cleared on the doubts of DX and FX formats.

REPLY

212) Elizabeth

April 25, 2012 at 8:59 am

Outstanding, clear and precise explanation. This has helped me tremendously in deciding

which camera to buy for my needs. Thank you!

REPLY

213) CJ

April 25, 2012 at 10:14 am

Hello,

Thanks for such informative atricle. Just a quick question, I am planning to buy Nikon D5100 over Canon

600D. One of my friend pointed out that we cannot use FX lenses with D5100 but we can use all lense

range in Canon. Is it true?

Thanks

REPLY

214) musti

April 26, 2012 at 5:56 am

hi nasim

i ve a very important question; u mentioned above that :

“Large dynamic range – again, bigger pixel size allows collecting more light particles, which results in

larger dynamic range when compared to DX.”

well here is my question; after expeed 3 processor on d3200 u still think same? I can imagine probably u

dont have chance to have it yet its released but not in the stores till may but whats your opinion about

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

42/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

this?

thanx a lot and i love your work :)

REPLY

215) AMITAVA MAITI

May 1, 2012 at 10:14 pm

Dear NASIM,

This is the first time i am going to buy a DSLR camera , after lot of query i decided to buy NIKION D5100,

my question is is it a FX camera or should i fix FX lence on it….

REPLY

216) Adil

May 2, 2012 at 12:08 am

Dear Amithava,

D5100 is a DX format camera. You can use both DX and FX format lenses on D5100. FX lenses are

costlier compared to DX lenses, but have its advantages. The biggest advantage is that your

investment does not go waste if you decide to upgrade to a FX (D700, D800, …) format camera in the

future.

Adil

REPLY

217) AMITAVA MAITI

May 5, 2012 at 8:10 am

Dear Adil,

Thax a lot for your valuable information.

REPLY

218) AMITAVA MAITI

May 5, 2012 at 8:17 am

Dear Nasim,

Can u tell me when we can expect NIKION D3200 in india ?, now i am lit bit of confuse which one i should

go…..NIKON D3200 or NIKION D5100. As per the price point is concerned D3200 is Rs.5k less than D5100

and the technical specification is concerned i think D3200 will be lit bit ahead so please suggest me which

one i will buy..

REPLY

219) noush

May 20, 2012 at 2:29 am

Dear Nasim,

I’m very grateful for coming across your post, and your site. Really helps with my learning about DSLRs.

This really takes ‘what to buy’ on to a new level. It’s hard enough when deciding between a Nikon or

Canon!

I used Nikon SLR through art and design college (20 years ago) so I possibly have a slight favor towards

Nikons but not through any knowledge, and it feels like the Digital SLRs bring more choice, flexibility yet

more confusion. I’m a total novice in this area.

A couple of years ago I wanted to get back in to using an SLR as my instamatic Canon broke, so bought a

Nikon D5000 with a kit lens (18-55mm) as a starting point. Partly due to budget and also that it feels

compact in size. Although some of the time the quality of the pictures are decent, I find the auto-focus

really slow, and it really struggles in low light. So now I want to buy the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G. But this

lens sounds better suited to FX bodies, and before I go ahead and start to collect lenses do you think it’s

worth considering getting a second hand D7000 (or another more advanced FX body) from amazon? Or if

I am starting to get the kit all again, would you know if getting the equivalent in quality with a Canon

would be a better for lower budgets?

I get so many mixed views from professional photographers, most of whom favor Canons over Nikons,

but it’s not clear why. Some of them are fashion photographers.

Essentially I would like to (over time) get additional lenses to be able to make the most of photographing

portraits (natural, not studio based), landscapes, architecture, occasional wildlife, and of friend’s/family’s

children, so some sports action. Indoor and low light also required. I live in the UK so low light is an issue,

but I do travel to sunny climes. Can one camera body and multiple lenses manage all this?

REPLY

220) Ron

May 27, 2012 at 8:57 am

Thank you for a fantastic explanation of the dx vs. fx formats. For me it becomes a matter of

economics.

With so much invested in dx it would be hard to go to fx for better lighting and frame size when you could

try to reframe your shot or work on the lighting of the shot with a dx. I love that d700 though and it still

may not be out of the question. Again, thanks for the time spent on a well written article.

REPLY

221) Stu

May 28, 2012 at 8:16 am

Hi Nasim

Great info. MY dad was a pro but never saw the digital revolution. For similar quality and sharpness do

you suggest not using more than f11 in the DX format?

REPLY

222) Jiss

May 29, 2012 at 10:40 pm

Wonderfull article. A very usefull one

REPLY

223) Mike Butler

May 29, 2012 at 11:37 pm

I agree with Jiss (above). I currently own a D300 and have loved it to death for the last 4 years.

My previous D200 still lives in my office safe as my spare (but the D300 is so reliable, the D200 has never

been needed).

I have toyed with making my next Nikon a full frame, and this article has answered quite a number of

questions for me. Once I convince my dear wife that a D4 in an indispensable addition to my photographic

armoury, (and the money that was to be spent on our next holiday can be diverted to such a noble cause)

I will be in there with both feet!

REPLY

224) skelertor

June 1, 2012 at 2:38 am

very informative. Now I understand better.

REPLY

225) Ashwin Kumar

June 1, 2012 at 7:20 am

Great Article… very informative… thanks a lot!

REPLY

226) Mark

June 4, 2012 at 8:57 am

Thank you, this is very helpful. I’m currently using a Nikon D50 and want to upgrade (maybe to

the D700 or D7000). I shoot mostly gardens and landscape and I publish in magazines. Would you say I’d

be happier the with D700?

REPLY

227) Tarun Vaish

June 9, 2012 at 9:08 am

Beautifully explained. Made the concept crystal clear, specially by mentioning the advantages

and the disadvantages. Length doesn’t matter if the content is good! :)

REPLY

228) Gonzalo

June 12, 2012 at 5:31 am

Do not want to sound cocky but I think this is a VERY important question: What do you think

of the new Nikon D800 with its FX sensor but incredible pixel count? Does it bring the same noise and

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

44/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

detail problem of a DX sensor? Seems to me that unless they have some improved technology in place

cramming up more pixels in any sensor (including full frame FX) will produce noise even starting at ISO

400 or so. Would very much appreciate your opinion. I never tried a D800.

REPLY

229) Mike

June 28, 2012 at 5:03 am

The best explanation and reason for upgrading I have read, really good Nasim, my D300s could

be my backup camera if the D600 shapes up, of course we will all wait untill Nasim runs his rule over it

first, hopefully not to long to wait.

REPLY

230) Nnenna

July 4, 2012 at 12:31 am

Thanks so much, very nice learned a lot. Nice breakdown

REPLY

231) Tiki Leff

July 5, 2012 at 12:44 am

This article is extremely helpful. I am a professional photographer myself and I knew the

differences but the depth you went into is phenomenal. Thank you very much.

REPLY

232) alena

July 11, 2012 at 10:56 am

Thank you very much for explication Nasim.

REPLY

233) Mithun chakraborty

August 2, 2012 at 11:17 pm

Hi Nasim,

Really a great post. I am now much clear about the difference between Fx & Dx. Thanks again for this

post.

REPLY

234) Manuel Álvaro

August 4, 2012 at 3:31 pm

Thanks great post, :)

REPLY

235) Colin Murphy

August 7, 2012 at 9:51 pm

Thank you for the thorough explanations! Great info.

REPLY

236) Eduardo Almeida

August 13, 2012 at 6:53 am

Finnly some one explained it in a proper human being language the differences betwen FX and

DX, thank you very much for this.

REPLY

237) Piyush Bhatt

August 18, 2012 at 5:45 am

Thanks for the information. You have talked about FX lens on DX body.

How about DX lens on FX body does it go well equally. eg Nikon D800 body with 18-300 mm NiKon DX

lens. Is there any major disadvantage compared to 28-300 mm Nikon FX lens.

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

45/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

238) J Clark

August 31, 2012 at 1:03 am

Great post. Very detailed and explains everything very concisely. Thank you for putting in the

time.

REPLY

239) K Zaragoza

September 3, 2012 at 6:57 pm

This was a very helpful post. Thank you for detailing everything for us. More power to you.

REPLY

240) Jay

September 6, 2012 at 9:32 am

Thank you for the information. Very helpful.

REPLY

241) naveen

September 14, 2012 at 4:30 am

Very informative. The picture comparison really helped understanding the difference. Thank

you !

REPLY

242) Tomas Wahrmann

September 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm

Excellent article and very clear and useful explanation.

Thank you!

REPLY

243) Amit Pahuja

September 22, 2012 at 11:02 am

Great post. Really helped me in taking a decision for Fx Vs Dx format camera.

REPLY

244) Ata

September 23, 2012 at 3:35 pm

Dear Nasim,

Thank you so much for your very useful article.

This one was the best as the others.

I think that your origin is back to Azerbaijan, if yes, I’m from Tabriz/IRAN and i will be glad if i can speak to

you in Azeri.

With best Regards.

Ata.

REPLY

245) Robert

September 25, 2012 at 2:58 am

Great article thanks.

This helps me understand the differences and maybe guide me on my 1st DSLR.

My 1st thought was the Nikon D7000 but may consider the D600 now!

Cheers

REPLY

246) Dina

September 27, 2012 at 2:54 pm

Thanks for the great article

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

46/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

REPLY

247) sandeep Patil

September 28, 2012 at 12:53 am

Nasim, I have a new Nikon Dx camera D5100. I have taken hundreds of photographs but No

any photograph has equals the quality of Fx camera images. My images are of low contrast & sharpness. I

want to become a professional photographer in the nature & wildlife field. So how much is necessary to

buy a Full frame camera like Nikon D800 ?

REPLY

248) Ananda

October 1, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Thank you for this easy-to-understand explanation.This is exactly what I need to understand…

the very basic difference between the two. Thank you once again.

REPLY

249) Hal Stewart

October 7, 2012 at 7:42 pm

Thanks for writing so many informative articles. I believe you have an error in the DX vs. FX

article. You commented that the Nikon 70-200mm VRII had to updated to work better with FX. As I

understand it was the VRI that worked well on DX but not on FX.

REPLY

251) Hal Stewart

October 8, 2012 at 7:50 am

Sorry I read the comment again. My error – statement is correct.

REPLY

250) John

October 8, 2012 at 3:17 am

Thank you for the info about DX and FX.

I’m planning to purchase Nikon D600 but thinking around to find single lens that suitable for shooting

scenic, people, night view, and some object zooming focus.

Any lens recommend for this kind of shoot?

If I just use this AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR II DX does it enough?

Does DX lens can fix into FX DLSR body?

Hope someone can help.

REPLY

253) John

October 16, 2012 at 1:06 am

Having used AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR is a kind of one stop for all (plz don’t flame

me.. :) ). I have used it for around 3 yrs and its a good lens to start with. Now i ‘am going for Nikkor

50mm f/1.4D as i need to take more portraits..

REPLY

254) John

October 16, 2012 at 1:10 am

Yup, DX lens should fit well with FX body..

Quote from Nikon site..

“On an FX-format camera with a DX lens mounted, the camera will automatically engage its built-in DX

crop mode, thus recording an image only from the center section of the sensor.”

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g588ouey/the-dx-and-fx-formats.html

REPLY

255) John

October 16, 2012 at 7:52 pm

Thank you for the explanation.

Does AF-S 18-200mm FX lens available in the market? Should I go for FX or DX lens, since the picture

captured from FX lens are very impressive me. Or any recommend FX lens suitable for all-in-one

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

47/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

shot.

REPLY

252) rylle

October 15, 2012 at 7:06 am

Great post. I have learned so much from this. Thank you very much..

REPLY

256) Sylvain

October 17, 2012 at 2:53 am

Hello,

Great review.

However, something fundamental is missing, the depth of field. If you take the same picture (same

composition, same aperture) with a DX and FX the depth of field will be different, shorter on FX. For the

same compo you can blur the background more easily with a FX than a DX, with a DX than a point and

shoot or a cell phone …. this is not a feature of the cameras but optically fundamental.

REPLY

257) Vinoth

October 26, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Excellent information

Very clear and useful explanation about DX and FX sensors.

Thank you

REPLY

258) waki

November 1, 2012 at 7:48 pm

Hi!

Excellent post, but I have one question..

I’ve just started with photography and got Nikon d3100 (don’t ask me – my finances were short)

And since I’ve got 18-105mm dx lenses in a kit I’ve got a question..

I’m intending to buy some short “normal” lenses like 35mm or 50mm for indoor photography. I also

possess sb-910 and am looking forward to get better equipment when I’ll be able to. But could you just

tell me what the difference is if I use FX 50mm 1.8f lens on a d3100 versus DX 35mm 1.8f lens.. since they all

cost about 200€ and I’m not convinced in any yet. I know I’ll buy a fx camera but it might still take a year

or two, maybe more.. so therefor I do not know which to choose

Thank you for your information. I learn a lot everyday and Photographylife helps me pretty much with it!

REPLY

259) MJohn

November 1, 2012 at 10:42 pm

@waki

HI,

adding my 2 cents

both are wonderful lenses as they can stop down to 1.8. well 35mm will be more wider than 50mm and

can take more wider area than 50mm. however 50mm can take portraits well from a distant (it is 75mm full

frame equivalent) and produce beatiful bokeh backgrounds.

so it depends on your requirements. using your 18-105mm kit lenses at 35mm and 50mm, see that you

exactly require and buy accordingly.

REPLY

260) waki

November 4, 2012 at 7:56 am

@MJohn

Thank you for your reply. But I think you didn’t understand the question exactly.. so let me put it like this,

I have a DX body and now I’m wondering what are the pluses and the minuses of using FX lenses on it..

REPLY

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

48/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

261) Sylvain

November 4, 2012 at 8:07 am

@waki

The only minus of using FX lenses is the price (FX more expensive) and the size (FX lenses usually

bigger).

That it. After it will depend on the quality of the lens (FX lens usually better).

For your case between the 35mm-DX and 50mm-Dx they both coast about the same price and size the

same. So @MJohn is right compare 35 and 50 mm shoots and see what is the best for you.

REPLY

262) Renato

November 5, 2012 at 7:58 am

Fantastic help. Thank you!!!

REPLY

263) Dian Miao

November 11, 2012 at 6:57 am

This article really helped me.. Thanks a lot.. :)

REPLY

264) Dian Miao

November 11, 2012 at 7:18 am

One question here.

Let say D5200, 24.1 megapixels on APS-C or DX format CMOS sensor. The size of pixel is quite small and it

might has noise in high ISO, if I lower image quality say 14 megapixels, is it can improve the noise in high

ISO?

In other word, 24.1 megapixels on DX format sensor (image quality set to 14 megapixels) compare with 14

megapixels on DX format sensor (image quality set to 14 megapixels). Is it the noise level same for both

sensor in same high ISO?

REPLY

265) jimmy72

November 14, 2012 at 5:53 am

I still don’t get the ISO performance thing. Bigger pixels means more light gathered and better

low light performance…that I understand. But full frame sensors have more pixels. I haven’t tried a full

frame camera yet, so I am not saying they are not a lot better in low light, I am just saying that I don’t

understand why….. Look at this fairly realistic example:

full frame sensor (24mp) 36×24 = frame size 864mm

cropped sensor (12mp) 24×16 = frame size 364mm

…so the pixel size for the full frame is:

864 / 24 = 36 (lets just forget the millions to make it easier)

…and for the cropped frame

364 / 12 = 32

So in this case is it right to assume that the full frame camera gathers just a bit more light (12.5% more)?

That means that a camera costing often 5 or 6 times as much as a DX will give me just an eighth of a stop

better performance.

So either the difference is barely noticable or my maths is wrong.

REPLY

266) Sylvain

November 14, 2012 at 6:30 am

@jimmy72

Hi,

This article has been written in a time (March 2010) when no or few FX (or DX) format had more than a

ten of millions pixels existed. D800, D4, D600 wasn’t here yet so it refers to D3 and D700 (and

equivalent for other brand than Nikon), compared to D90, D300 etc ….

You are right now the pixel density of FX reach the pixel density of some (old) DX but the detector

improved and the low light performances improved for a fixed pixel size.

But you must compare same generation of FX and DX, for instance D600 and the new D3200 24m and

22m of pixels respectively, you will see that pixels in D600 or D800 are larger than in D3200.

If you compare D800 and D7000, the pixel density is the same but you compare a new camera to a

already 2 years old camera.

12/3/12 Nikon DX vs FX

49/49photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

REPLY

267) jimmy72

November 14, 2012 at 6:27 pm

I see what you’re saying, Sylvain. Thanks for the response.

REPLY

268) vanessa

November 21, 2012 at 9:05 am

great great article! tks so much for explaining it so simply… the best. i am choosing a camera

and your site is so helpfull – congrats!!! tks again for this one!. bjs =)

REPLY

Leave a CommentName *

Email *

Website

− four = 4

POST COMMENT

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Notify me of new posts by email.

COPYRIGHT © 2012 PHOTOGRAPHY LIFECOPYRIGHT © 2012 PHOTOGRAPHY LIFE

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE