Always a lot of discussion because of "What format should I get FX or DX". Let me ask you this who has used both--Have you ever missed a shot because you had a DX or FX format?? Wish you had the other?
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#1. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
mklass Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Fri 28-Jun-13 01:18 PM
If I've planned well, I have the right equipment.
If it is more of a spontaneous shot, I usually am shooting with a zoom and adjust, or do the best I can zooming with my feet.
It's more a function of the lens than the sensor format.
Visit my nikonians gallery
#2. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
dclarhorn Nikonian since 31st Mar 2002Fri 28-Jun-13 01:23 PM
I've missed shots using either format. I'm always prepared, but if you're out shooting a lot, there's always some instance or situation where you don't have the proper lens for that particular shot. So, for me it's an issue with lens choice not FX or DX format.
#3. "and you have no longer worryRE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
GiantTristan Nikonian since 08th Jan 2006Fri 28-Jun-13 05:20 PM
With the D700, I always kept my D200 with the 70-200/2.8 to make use of the "longer reach" and to maintain sufficient "pixel density". With the high resolution FX cameras D600 and D800 I don't think this is any longer an issue.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#4. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
blw Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Fri 28-Jun-13 10:21 PM
No, not because of the format. I've had the wrong equipment, and missed shots because of that. Ie, I had a camera (DX) that really needed ISO 6400, f/2.8 to get the right shutter speed. Frankly, that wasn't viable. If I'd have had a camera capable of good enough ISO 6400 (and the one I have now is FX and it will do it), I would have gotten the shots. This is motorsport at night.
Having said that, I now have both FX and DX, and I do choose my tools accordingly. I'm not afraid of DX, and I know what I can and cannot do with my DX camera. (And nearly all of its limitations are because it's an old camera, not because it's DX.) I generally pick up DX first for macro work, for birding, and FX for most other things.
One could probably claim to have missed shots because the wrong lens was on the camera, say something not wide enough on DX or not long enough on FX - but that's got nothing to do with the format, only that the wrong lens was on the camera. That happens even with the "right" format.
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
#5. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 4
quenton8 Nikonian since 11th Apr 2010Sat 29-Jun-13 12:22 AM
I don't suppose I "missed" one, but I do have to shoot in our church, often in the evening, without flash.
I try and set-up my tripod in the balcony which gives me a good view and stability, but I am often shooting with my D90 at ISO 1600, and even at that with a shutter speed of 1/15 second -- not easy.
Being able to kick it up a couple of ISO notches would be wonderful!!!
I usually get my shots, mostly because I will take many (100+) of an event, so something comes out OK.
I have longed for the D600 for some time, but probably will never go there because of the lens costs, I currently use the kit 18-105 that came with the D90, or the 7-300 F4-5.6 -- but even if I had a faster lens I need some depth of field too.
#6. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 5
w0gm Nikonian since 03rd Jan 2006Sat 29-Jun-13 12:49 AM
As others have said, no, not because of the format. Remember that, with the modern high end FX cameras, to get the same "reach" as a DX camera, all you have to do is crop the image. Cropping a D800 image to the same dimensions as a D300 DX frame will still give a superior image in the number of pixels and all the other important qualities (noise, etc.). I finally gave up and sold my DX camera bodies and lenses.
Not having the right lens on or not having good high ISO capability has bothered me more than any format issues.
Fort Collins, CO
#7. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
>Always a lot of discussion because of "What format
>should I get FX or DX". Let me ask you this who has
>used both--Have you ever missed a shot because you had a DX or
>FX format?? Wish you had the other?
I would not say I have "missed" any shots, but I have had a few shots that needed alternative cropping when the field of view for the DX sensor and the 70-200mm @ 70mm was still too narrow for the close action I was shooting. An FX sensor would have helped a few times for the slightly wider FOV.
Now that I shoot mostly FX, the DX pixel density would sometimes be nice. Everything is a compromise since I normally am shooting with one body and one lens, lens changes happening only for planned reasons most of the time.
Seattle, WA, USA
D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX
#8. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
I've missed more shots by not having my bag with me than not having the best body for the shot. I may have to start thinking more if the D400 comes out as rumored, if it has 24mp, fast focus and say 8fps then there will be some stewing over taking the crop body or not. Right now my D3x let's me crop an image with only slightly less pixels than the D300s, and my D800e yields more pixels than the D300s. I'd love to have a DX body the size of my D800e, using the same format controls and the above specs... Where's my pen... Dear Santa... Lol.
Will shoot for fame...fun...food... a heck I'll shoot anytime anywhere.
#9. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
I've never "missed" a shot because of FX vs. DX, but a few times, if I had a different body (FX vs. DX) I might have had a somewhat better image. That said, it's really having the right lenses with either body, for a particular shooting situation, which makes a difference, but overall, I really think you can likely get a wonderful out of most every situation with thought.
I think the photographer makes the biggest difference when it comes down to it. The right body and lenses definitely count (Heck, I would have outfitted myself with much less expensive equipment if it didn't matter.), but I think the photographer is the most important, by far, in the equation of making quality images.
A Nikonians Team Member
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.
#10. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
No not because of the format - usually because of the poor ISO performance or more likely my own poor performance
D2Xs + AF20-35mm f2.8 + AF35-70mm f2.8 + AF80-200mm f2.8
Hunger pays a heavy price to the shining Gods of speed and steel
LIKE me on Facebook
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#11. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 10
Martin Turner Nikonian since 19th Jun 2006Sat 29-Jun-13 02:54 PM
I've missed lots of shots by having neither a DX nor an FX camera with me at the time.
I've never been in a position where having a DX or an FX with the appropriate lens would have made any difference. A 17-55 on a DX gives slightly more reach than a 24-70 on FX, but not so that you would miss the shot.
M A R T I N T U R N E R
Nikonians membership: my most important photographic investment, after the camera
My Nikonians blog, Learning from the Portrait Masters, http://blog.nikonians.org/martin_turner/
#13. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
No! I have never missed a shot due to format (DX, FX, 35mm, or even medium or large format). That said, I usually shoot multiple bodies sometimes both FX and DX, other times all FX, and other times all DX depending on the ambient conditions and the subject.
With the exception of shooting sports or action in very low light without flash, a DX body is more than up to any other task.
#14. "RE: Missed a shot because of FX vs DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
I missed an upside down and backwards shot once because I left my view camera at home, but never because of FX/DX.
I have a 70-200mm f/2.8 AFS VR that amazed me when I moved from film to DX (D200). Later with the move to FX (D700), I found I occasionally wished for a bit more reach on my kids soccer field, a TC14EII fixed that.
I have a 17-55mm f/2.8 AFS DX lens that opened up a whole new world over the 18-70mm DX kit lens that came with my D200. I still use it on my D2Hs. With the rumors of a D400 later this year, I wonder if I should keep it along with the 70-200mm and rebuild my DX kit.
However, my FX capabilities are way beyond just that nostalgic reflection and neither have anything to do with me getting or not getting a shot.
When I travel, I use a DX fixed lens 35mm fov equivalent Fuji X100. There are times I miss a shot because it's not a zoom. I've come to use a Fuji X10 (28-110mm equiv fov) zoom lens compact to fill in the blanks. That camera is neither FX or DX.
So for me it's much more about proper use of the equipment at hand than the format.
All written tongue in cheek of course.
Each of the two formats have their merits and arguably one format could be preferred over the other for a particular solution, but both have been shown by photographers here and everywhere to take perfectly good images.
It's still, ISO, aperture and shutter-speed, right?