[giallo]

Originally Posted by flar

I've been thinking about the pros and cons of full frame lately, since the FX Nikon D600 is rumored to be coming out this fall. I was dead set on FX for the longest time, but now I'm not so sure. It might make sense in my situation to stay with DX.


Advantages of full frame:
-bigger, brighter viewfinder
-lower noise at high ISO
-shallower depth of field
-lower diffraction->better resolution


Advantages of crop sensor:
-longer reach at telephoto end
-smaller, lighter camera and lenses
-more lenses available, and they're cheaper


Not sure if the D600 will have the high ISO advantage. The higher megapixel count (24) works against the high ISO advantage of full frame because the pixels have to be packed closer together. The sensor also may be of a lower quality.

Also not sure if the viewfinder will be better in the D600 than in DX cameras. Packing a full frame sensor into a smaller body may mean compromises in the pentaprism.

The D600 should have an advantage in resolution, but this becomes less important if a DX camera with 24 megapixels comes out.

The D600 is supposed to be about the size of the D7000, which is nice, because I'm finding camera gear to be too heavy to lug around already.

For lenses:

FX does give an advantage at the wide end, but it's pricey. To get the angle of view from the Nikon 14-24mm you would need a 9-16 on DX, so there is no DX equivalent. (The Sigma 8.5-16mm doesn't count because there is no comparison in quality with the 14-24).

Other wide angle zooms for FX start at 16, 17 and 18mm, which give the same view as 10, 11 or 12mm lenses on DX, which are all available for much cheaper. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a bargain compared to the FX lenses.

The other factor is convenience. The standard 24-70 on FX would require a 16-50mm lens on DX to get the equivalent view. I already have a high quality 16-85 on DX, which is equivalent to 24-128 on FX. A very useful range because it extends into telephoto territory, where the 24-70 does not. Longer zoom ranges on FX start to compromise quality.

I'd probably still be shooting with a DX camera had I not decided to go 'pro'. If you plan on only sharing your photos digitally, I see no reason to upgrade to a FX camera. Of course, if you're interested in producing very large prints or selling to clients that demand the industry standard file sizes, then a FX camera is a must.