15MP is more than enough for my Event Photography.
I am wondering if there may be other benefits than increasing the reach of my lens.

After shooting MotoCross pictures today, I have the following questions.
You may have others.

Will the DX mode Shadow the area outside the crop in the ViewFinder?
Will the cross type focus points cover more of the cropped area?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I hear it will be shadowed for DX , focus points I don't know . I think most will shot DX for
everyday images , I'm guessing with better dynamic range and color . Who needs a 74 mb RAW File snap shot .

Hans K.

My Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery. nikonus@nikonians.org

I am thinking that if the focus points are further apart and cover more of the image, tracking will be better.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I am thinking that if the focus points are further apart and
>cover more of the image, tracking will be better.

This can be a blessing or a curse. If you are shooting singular subjects against a clean background, the wide spread focus points can be terrific. If you need to pick a subject out of a crowd (like most sports shooters have to do), it means that you get locked to using a single focus point most of the time, or at most nine central ones. You don't get to use the great 3D matrix stuff because your focus walks all over the field as you pan. Been there, done that with the DX cameras. I shoot single point 95% of the time now, unless I am doing tennis or some other singular activity.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

It looks like focus and metering points maybe in the DX box most of the time . With a screen shot of the D800 brochure . I also use spot / single point for most AF .

Hans K.

My Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery. nikonus@nikonians.org

Attachment #1, (nikonians file)

>I am thinking that if the focus points are further apart and
>cover more of the image, tracking will be better.

The focus points don't move, the array just covers more of the reduced frame.

Engaging one of the crop modes changes only the area of the scene that is recorded. With any given lens and distance, the relationship between AF points and subject is not altered by using a crop mode, so tracking ability should be identical.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

The plus of the in-camera DX mode (compared to later cropping): The camera meter uses only the DX area, so a bright highlight outside of the DX area won't affect the exposure.

The minus of the DX mode (compared to later cropping): You are locked into the center crop. If you shoot the FX frame and crop later, you have more image at your disposal to crop from. I.e. in case a piece of your subject is cut off by the edge of the DX frame, you're out of luck. If you shoot in FX mode you can adjust the crop later.

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian

http://www.tkphoto.me/

I think this discussion is missing the point for the dx mode. It is an option for sports, wildlife, perhaps some event work where speed and image size trump mega bites and post processing. Going back to at least the D2x (2.0 crop)it has been available. The D3 and D3s also offered 1.2 and 4x5 modes. Just another tool for the photographer. Think news service that want small jpegs not jumbo files that some magazines desire.

Dave

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Have you actually ever used an FX camera in DX mode for sports or wildlife? I found it highly impractical. The viewfinder becomes smaller than even the "tunnel-vision" D3100 viewfinder. If you miss the composition slightly, you're out of luck, as the frame outside of the DX part is not recorded. No big deal for static subjects where you have time to compose, but it is for fast moving ones like sports. So I'm curious how it worked for you. I prefer to crop in post. The only downside is the metering as I mentioned, but that's easy to work around, as I shoot sports in manual mode or spot metering anyway.

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian

http://www.tkphoto.me/

Quote

The plus of the in-camera DX mode (compared to later cropping): The camera meter uses only the DX area, so a bright highlight outside of the DX area won't affect the exposure.

Unquote

Is this an opinion or a fact? Two days ago I decided to use a Nikkor DX 18-200 on my D700. The first time I have tried it and in a few images I had the sun in the area outside of the frame and wasn't sure if it was affecting exposure. Sometimes I "missed" seeing the frame and had to constantly zoom wider to re adjust. I was shooting fairly static subjects and static ones. I enjoyed the extra zoom possibilities but at the wider end - 18mm - I often wished I could have used the portion outside the frame. I will try again without the constrains of the frame because I could see possibilities of the extra space being cropped down to a panoramic at the wide end. Overall I had mixed feelings about the use of the mode. The ability to mount a 18-200 lens was the big advantage.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

>Is this an opinion or a fact?

I've certainly seen it stated somewhere. I've just tried it with my D3s, and there was a difference in indicated exposure between FX and DX modes when a bright light was situated in the FX frame corner outside the DX crop area. This applied using both Matrix and CW metering.

I guess we won't know for sure with the D800 until someone tries it out

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>>Is this an opinion or a fact?
>
>I've certainly seen it stated somewhere. I've just tried it
>with my D3s, and there was a difference in indicated
>exposure between FX and DX modes when a bright light was
>situated in the FX frame corner outside the DX crop area.
>This applied using both Matrix and CW metering.
>
>I guess we won't know for sure with the D800 until someone
>tries it out

When you think about it the light entering the lens must be across the full frame? The cropping happens after the light has been captured and the exposure has been set? This seems to be the logical answer. For the light to come through the framed bit only then the area between the inner frame and the outer frame would have to be masked to stop light entering. A cardboard mask cut to the same size of the inner frame and held in front of the lens would prove or disprove it. This is obviously conjecture on my part.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

I think your imporession of how all this works is incorrect. My brief test suggests that the camera's metering logic is intelligent enough to ignore (or at least take less notice of) bright light sources outside the DX crop area when in crop mode. My D3s has 1005-pixel metering (the D800 will have many more) - spread across the frame - so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Actually I have and as I said it is just another tool. I do find it strange that there is the discussion on missing framing by using dx. Seems to me the people side of photography is going to miss framing just as often with fx as dx. Is there a thread about missing framing with a D300 , don't think so. As far as shading or blocked frame view, it is also something that with practice ceases to be a factor. Again just a tool in the bag, more like Photoshop, how many photographers actually the graphic design feature that the program contains. Or the discussion could go to zoom lens vs primes, right?

Dave

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Roger -- I'm kind of at a loss as to why ysnyone would buy an FX camera and then turn it into a DX instrument. That gives no more "reach." It simply does the cropping of the full image for you. And if you accidentally crop something out of the DX frame that you wanted -- it's gone forever. The only possible benefit I see is a smaller file, faster downloads, less storage space... But that is surrendering the capability you paid for. Just random thoughts.

Alan
Waterloo, IL, USA
www.proimagingmidamerica.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

You're quite correct, Alan. There seems to be some misconception that using your FX lens on a DX camera is like adding a 1.5X extender. The photo you get from a DX camera and the DX crop photo from the FX camera is exactly the same. The difference is the DX photo looks bigger on your screen because it has more pixels than the FX crop so you can enlarge it more. This assumes both the DX and FX cameras have equal number of pixels in their sensors, like the D700 versus the D300. This will change with the D800. It will be the first camera made by Nikon where the DX crop is larger than say the 12mp D300. The D7000 will give the largest screen image at 16mp, larger than the 15mp DX crop of the D800.

Len

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

This weekend I took nearly 5,000 shots with my D5100 at a MotoCross Race.
My keeper rate was dismal shooting single point .
The camera and AF-S 28-300 lens combo were having trouble locking on in time for the shot.
I am spoiled by the >95% rate of the D3.
It had become too heavy for me to shoot all day, so I sold both bodies.

I am hoping the D800 is much better on both counts.
What I have not decided is whether to shoot medium JPEGs, 4x5, or DX mode at Events.
Portrait, weddings, and Landscape work would be shot FullFrame.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have found the D5100 in single point mode can cause problems because there is no way to lock the focus point as on the more expensive bodies. If I don't pay really close attention the focus point will wander and I start getting out of focus shots. I would expect the D800 would be much better in this respect.

Len

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Quote>I have found the D5100 in single point mode can cause
>problems because there is no way to lock the focus point as on
>the more expensive bodies. If I don't pay really close
>attention the focus point will wander and I start getting out
>of focus shots. I would expect the D800 would be much better
>in this respect.
>
>Len<Quote<<<

Yes, sad but true.
I like the size/weight and 1080 at 30fps Video but now have the V1 for that.
So the D5100 will probably go up for sale the same day the D800 arrives.
The D7000 with dual cards, better battery, and focus point lock is a much more suitable Event camera.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The caveat is that the D800 can acheive 6 fps in DX with a grip but only 4 fps in FX. So, if you are shooting sports where you might consider fps as a priority, DX mode can have an advantage. Now, the D800 may not be the best tool for that job, but if it's what you've got and you find yourself shooting sports, then DX mode may be a better tradeoff.

Brian

Quote>The caveat is that the D800 can acheive 6 fps in DX with a
>grip but only 4 fps in FX. So, if you are shooting sports
>where you might consider fps as a priority, DX mode can have
>an advantage. Now, the D800 may not be the best tool for that
>job, but if it's what you've got and you find yourself
>shooting sports, then DX mode may be a better tradeoff.
>
>Brian>Quote<<<

I would be shooting DX only for reach and file size.
Evidently it will not lock on a moving object better.
4fps is what I have used for years, it used to be 3fps
because I do not like getting two shots when I only want one.

At the start of a race is when I want more than one shot at a time.
4fps is more than fast enough for my use.
The only time I would use (CH)11fps would be either to show off or show up a Canon shooter.
I actually sent one of my competitors home by doing that, when he tripped over his ego.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

why buy a FX camera and use it in DX mode ? Rather save your money and wait for the D400 to come out, you can go buy a nice lens with the $1000 plus you will save.

Quote>Why buy a FX camera and use it in DX mode?
Rather save your money and wait for the D400 to come out,
you can go buy a nice lens with the $1000 plus you will save.<Quote<<

Most important reason for many of us "GearHeads" is that the D800 will be available sooner.

The FX camera has all the advantages of a FX Sensor.
I am buying the D800 for Landscape work and Video.
It will also have to be used for Event Photography to pay for itself.

The D400 is likely to use a Nikon version of the Sony 24mp DX Sensor that I do not like.
If it uses a Nikon 16mp Sensor I will buy it to replace my D7000 for Event work.
I see the D400 possibly supplementing, but not replacing the D800.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>why buy a FX camera and use it in DX mode ?

I would use it in DX mode for smaller file sizes. Who on earth needs 36MP files for candids? Processing perhaps 100 15MP files would go a lot quicker than 100 36MP files...(especially batch processing). I can automatically switch back got 36MP if I should need it instead of carrying two camaeras (DX and FX). There is a difference shooting at 4 FPS and 6 FPS and shooting candids, I rather shoot at 6 FPS as well. Who knows....I just may still carry my D2X for candids after all is said and done but I doubt it.

I have a 24" printer and your question almost equates to why on earth get a 24" printer and print 17" rolls on it? I print on the size roll that best does the job at hand.

Mel
An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia


Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

>Roger -- I'm kind of at a loss as to why ysnyone would buy an
>FX camera and then turn it into a DX instrument. That gives
>no more "reach." It simply does the cropping of the
>full image for you. And if you accidentally crop something
>out of the DX frame that you wanted -- it's gone forever. The
>only possible benefit I see is a smaller file, faster
>downloads, less storage space... But that is surrendering the
>capability you paid for. Just random thoughts.

In an earlier post I stated that I used a Nikkor 18-200 lens on My D700. I believe that there isn't a lens available in FX that covers that focal length. It would be too big and too costly, If someone for any reason wasn't wanting to carry two lenses to cover the range then it is an option. However I agree buying an FX camera and only using DX lenses makes little sense. If you are upgrading from a DX camera and then using a combination of DX and FX lenses is a reasonable usage.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

I get confused with the DX v crop comparison. Until recently I have not considered a D800, but would rather wait for the D300s upgrade. However, talk of being able to capture a large pixel image in DX mode with the D800 interests me. Having one camera to use for all my genres of photography is also attractive.

Firstly, is there any real proof that cropping results in the same quality of image as taken in DX? I have used DX crop on my D700 and apart from the small file size noticed little difference at all between FX crop and DX.

Secondly, I am also interested that Nikon have designated a grey border around the DX area making it easier to define the subject between FX and DX, will this make a difference do you think to elimating missed subject matter creeping into the FX area?

Finally, my principal reason for discounting the D800 was the frame rate, but that alone is largely addressed by extra fps in DX mode.

What I'm really trying to say is I have a dilemma. Do I consider keeping my D7000 as a spare body and transfer my wildlife work to a D800 along with my landscape and architectural work currently covered by my D700. Or, wait for the D300s replacement and trade my D7000 to finance it. Of course really the answer is wait and see when the D300s replacement arrives.

Except, e-bay has exploded with the sales of second hand D700 bodies and they are going for highly respectable prices, in fact some low shutter count bodies selling for 72% of a new body price! I don't want to miss out on the high resale values while I procrastinate
On the down side London Camera Exchange are offering only 50% trade in on a D700. In fairness there are no seller fees with a trade in.

The reality check is of course that no one knows what we get until the first users post the first images in DX crop so then can be compared. For that matter we still await an FX image also.

Decision, decisions, don't I hate them sometimes.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

On page 325 of David D Busch's D700 book he covers this subject. I don't want to reproduce what is stated because of copyright issues but he sums up ..... and you will be glad you retained those old lenses.
He has about 5 pages on the subject of DX crop on the D700 and he seems to favour the use of this mode. The use in the D800 will be more favourable?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

Thanks. I have a library of D700 books, by Darrell Young who says very little about the pros and cons, Simon Stafford who is not over keen on DX mode and J Dennis Thomas who is rather more upbeat. Unfortunately I do not have D Busch's book. I judge their keeness by the length of their discussion of the option. J Dennis Thomas sides that the use of a DX lens on an FX body gives improved results over an FX lens used in DX mode, for many reasons that I do understand. I have no DX lenses however.

Of course, the D800 will perform differently with a far more useable size image. Therefore, hopefully the D800 will be a more practical tool for DX mode with FX lenses. We will have to wait and see what the posters think when they start sharing their D800 data. Personally, I can't wait and if the D300s replacement arrives I will be able to make some real time comparisons.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

>J Dennis Thomas sides that the use of a DX lens on an
>FX body gives improved results over an FX lens used in DX
>mode, for many reasons that I do understand.

Without further detail, I don't think his statement means much - because it depends completely on which DX and FX len(es) are being considered. I can't imagine that a 55-300mm DX will exceed the performance of a 300mm f/2.8 "FX" under any circumstances

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Thanks Brian. As I say, having an FX D700, but no DX lenses I can't comment constructively. In the end I am now of the mind that I should forget the D800 for distant wildlife and wait and hope the d300s replacement (whenever) offers me 6-8 fps and high ISO, lower noise capabilties. Although APS-C sensor + low noise may be an athama compared to a FX sensor as proved by my D7000.

As an aside, yesterday I conducted some fairly tight printed target tests with my D700 with a 300mm f4 tripod mounted at ISO1000 on FX mode and cropped in Photoshop to DX size, D700 in DX mode and DX mode with a x1.4TC. I know this is hardly apples for apples and certainly not very scientific, when comparing what may be achieved with the D800 all things being equal. Interestingly, I saw no difference whatsoever in IQ between cropped, DX mode or DX + x1.4 TC. All cropped and DX images at 1/1000 @ f8 were very sharp.

We shall see.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Richard,
I would keep the D700 and D7000 until the D800 and D400 are in your hands.
Neither will go down much in value over the next 6 months but fluctuate with supply and demand.
A perceived flood on the market, will drive the price down and then it should recover.


I am beginning to think that it would be better for me to use the D800 with a smaller JPEG size than DX crop mode for Events.
4fps is what I now shoot at, I would not use 6fps.
Evidently the tracking would be the same and I would have more viewfinder to look thru.

I don't like the idea of having outside the crop area shaded.
Do you think that shaded area will be blacked out or will an object be visible thru it?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, ( file)

Thanks, yes there's a lot going on and plenty of time.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Roger,

Using the D800 in DX crop mode makes no sense for you.
The image quality will only be very slightly better than your current D7000.

Regards,
Bill

Visit me at My site

Thanks Bill. What I'm hoping to achieve is lower noise for D700 equivilent ISO's on an APS-C sensor and I know that's no easy task with the small sensor. As I've mentioned, I am hoping the D300s replacement will offer this. My concern is that when it does arrive it will be the 16Mb sensor that's in the D7000. Hopefully, it'll have an updated processor etc. Fingers crossed, but it can't come soon enough for me.

Failing that I shall probably keep the D700 in FX mode with its reach limitations and just accept that I'm am only going to get the images I want by getting closer. That's never easy with birds in flight!

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

I am a birder with a D2X and a 600 F4 that photographs birds, considering the D800. I have read all of the replies on this thread several times and I am still confused about the "reach" in the D800. Most of you are light years ahead of me in sensor knowledge. Will you please answer this question to help me understand?
EX. There is a rare duck 100 yards off the end of a pier and 3 birder/photographers are there lined up, all with the same 600 F4.
All of us see the duck in our viewfinders and want to focus on the eye. I have my D2X so looking at the duck it "appears" through my viewfinder like I have a 900MM lens. Next to me is a D700, and next to him is a D800. Now, when I view the duck through the D700 it appears smaller as it did with my F4. When I look through the D800 in FX mode the duck appears the same size as it does in the D700. Finally the question. When the D800 is switched to DX mode does the apparent size of the duck change to match the view of the D2X or does it stay the same?
This increase in size of the image in the viewfinder is very important to birders recording distant birds as it helps to get the focus point on the eye if the bird appears larger.
Thanks for laboring through my long hypothetical.
Roger

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi, Roger.

In your example, the bird (and its eye!) will not change in size in the D700 or D800 viewfinder when you switch the camera to DX crop mode. The crop mode is just masking out the edges of the viewfinder, not making the central area larger.

Those saying that the D800 increases their "reach" simply mean that, with the same lens and distance, they will have more pixels on the subject than they did with a D700.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Sorry Brian, didn't mean to cut across you, but I was writing a reply when you posted

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Sounds to me that shooting the D800 in FX mode would have the advantage for birding.
1. You will have a larger area of the Viewfinder to track and see it in.
2. If it is not centered perfectly you can crop it.
3. You will have more pixels of the FullSize picture to crop it from.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Hi, Roger.
>
>In your example, the bird (and its eye!) will not change in
>size in the D700 or D800 viewfinder when you switch the camera
>to DX crop mode. The crop mode is just masking out the edges
>of the viewfinder, not making the central area larger.

It will appear larger in the frame or the print. That is where the confusion comes from. This is one myth in photography that needs to be nailed. Unfortunately the biggest sinners with respect to the myth tend to be magazines who like to differentiate for the sake of camera sales.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

>It will appear larger in the frame or the print.

Yes, with DX Crop Mode the bird will fill more of the reduced frame, and if you make prints from the whole of the DX image and FX image, then the bird will appear larger in the DX image.

But... Roger was asking how it will look in the viewfinder, and there it will look exactly the same size as it does in FX mode. The outer area of the viewfinder will simply be masked off.

It's all relative...

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Roger. probably me, as I use reach a lot, sorry.

On an FX camera a non DX lenses focal length is exactly the lens size in millimetres. So, a 300mm AF-S non DX lens will have a focal length of 300mm. However, if you transfer that lens to a DX body e.g. D2x, D300, D7000 etc then the "smaller or APS-C sensor" gives a factor of x1.5, so on a DX camera the lens is 450mm equivilent focal length. If on the D700 or D800 one uses the DX facility then the camera only uses the same area of sensor (approximately) as that of a DX camera. The disadvantage mainly is one ends up with a small file size, approximately 5Mb on DX mode on a D700 because only a proportion of the FX sensor is used.

So, as I have all e.g.Full frame FX lenses then on my D700 they match the focal length of the lens. By extra reach I meant that the lens gets closer to the subject because of it's increased focal length on a DX body.

That's my very simple, not expansive way of explaining it. I am sure others will expand on it.

Hope that helps

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Thank you all very much--I get it now. Oh to be able to use a D800 and a D400 for a week-end. My wife and I share camera bodies. She is very detailed and does a lot of macro. I know she will be blown away by the D800. She scans her drawings in to Photoshop and paints pixel by pixel. Care to see what she does? bleighgallery.com
Now for me, I use a Gitzo tripod and Wimberly with my long lenses unless I am on a pelagic trip. Will my technique be able to handle the resolution of the D800? Would love to have the improved autofocus over the D2X. I imagine the D400 would be better suited for bird photography. My wife is voting to get the D800 we have on order. Perhaps she will let me try it sometime.
Thanks again,
Roger

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

You wife wins;>) That is what wives are for, to make our difficult choices go away. Her gallery is really interesting, I enjoyed the images a lot...but more hand art than photography her "need" for a D800 is probably more of a "want" which is how almost all choices are made anyway. Enjoy your new camera. Comparing AF, DR and noise, you will be very happy with the change.
Are you in Marin Inverness? We are neighbors of a sort. My home in over the hill to the west but I live 90% of the time in St Petersburg Russia.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Yes, she wins. Thanks for the comments on her artwork. Yes, that is hand art, but she does very well behind a camera as well. We have been away from photography for a while, but she still gets royalty checks from Corbis. She sees the beauty and photographs it. I appreciate your assurances on the D800 choice. I read your posts, seems you have an interesting life.
Yes, that is Inverness in Marin. Did you really mean to say you have a house West of us--there are not very many houses West?
Roger

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Actually it was a joke, my Marin house is closer to San Rafael but I was thinking of the FAR west as in north Western Russia. I hear that a politician can see it from her home. Inverness in Scotland shares some characteristics...
I lived for most of my life in Marin after growing up in Sacramento, had a recording studio in Sausalito for decades, and lived at various times in Sausalito, Tiburon, Mill Valley and San Rafael, while maintaining a quarter horse ranch in the Sierra Nevada,... long commute. Going back a little bit, had house west of you in Maui. The north coast is one of my favorite areas of the world. For 20 years had a home on the cliffs over the ocean 15 miles south of Mendocino. That rugged coast line is not very good for swimming but second to none for raw rugged beauty and one of the least populated regions of the state. Being either a photographer or painter just comes with residency it seems:>)
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

My wife introduced me to the area. It is wonderful for art, nature and birding. Hopefully our paths will cross sometime when you are here.
Regards,
Roger

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.