FF vs DX for wildlife

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Poll - Which camera system do you use:

  • Total voters
    125
  • Poll closed .
Ado Wolf

Ado Wolf

Well-known member
Member's gallery
Seeing how little focus or attention DX is getting from manufacturers today (ramp down phase),
and how many photographers on this forum use FF cameras or a combination of both,
I decided to make this poll, to help me (and hopefully others) decide whether to make the jump form DX to FF.
 
Member's gallery
I wanted to put in FX only since it's what I use most of the time, but it's still not all of the time. I still grab a DX camera from time to time - usually when I need something really compact (like the Z50).
 
Member's gallery
I checked DX only simply for the face my 2 camera bodies are DX (Nikon D7200 and Nikon D500). All the lenses I regularly use are FX (200-500, sigma 100-400, Nikon 105mm Micro). I only have 2 DX lenses that I shoot (Tokina 11-20 and a Tamron 18-400). Neither of these lenses are stellar performers and I sure wouldn't stick with DX just to salvage these 2 lenses.

I guess the main reason I'm in the DX camp is when I switched from film to digital, my first DSLR was a D5100 (yes I was slow to make the switch). Then I went to a D7200 and lastly I picked up a D500 used from a friend at the "right price". I'm interested in the Mirrorless cameras but after al the Luke-warm reviews of the Z cameras, I'm willing to wait a little longer. Heck, other than "desire" I have absolutely no reason to go mirrorless as my current gear works for me.

OK, I'll stop talking now.
Jefff
 
Member's gallery
If you use the same focal length lens on either DX or FX the birds image is the same size on the sensor. If you use FX its easier to follow birds in flight because you have a wider field of view, Then you must consider POI...the more the merrier. this stuff about DX increasing the focal length by 1.5 is rubbish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPD
Member's gallery
I'm on my 3rd Nikon FF body since 2010 (D700, D810 and D850) and ditched my old D300 that I had as a travel/lightweight camera in favour of a Fuji XT-1 in 2018, upgraded to an XT-2 and last September added a Fuji XT-4. I consider my Nikon kit as my main and 'proper' camera (still call my Fujis toy cameras) but use the Fuji system a whole lot more as I'm getting older.

For me it is no longer a question of what is 'best' as you can get excellent images from FF or crop cameras (and god help us MFT cameras), it is much more what camera will best do what you want. For the majority I'd say that DX will suit you perfectly and as a bonus you won't have to mortgage your house to get lenses.

However from a manufacturing POV I guess it is no cheaper to make a DX camera than a FF and the size is little different so I can see some makers pushing the FF bodies knowing they will sell more FF lenses too. I don't believe that DX is dead though. Too early for that. In time (a long time) DX might bite the dust but by then I guess that 3d holograms will have taken over as the norm.
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
I decided to make this poll, to help me (and hopefully others) decide whether to make the jump form DX to FF.
Click to expand...

I put in DX and FF as I have both and have shot them both for wildlife extensively (mostly small birds). Currently I am leaning heavily DX for wildlife and FF is reserved mostly for landscape and macro.

Given how good a camera the D500, D7500 and even the D7200 are, I wouldn't make the jump to FF for wildlife unless:
a) I already had something like a 400mm f2.8/500mm f4/600mm f4 lens in the bag.
b) I knew for sure I could get closer to my subjects
c) I could afford getting a high megapixel count body.

@dabhand16

Of what I know, the sensor in cameras is the most expensive component and crop sensor cameras are a few hundred dollars cheaper to produce than FF cameras (assuming everything else equal).
But marketing and overall customer perception allows manufacturers to have a higher profit margin on FF cameras (they are more desirable).
 
Member's gallery
Mostly FX. I find for most things a gripped D850 is better than a D500 except where I need the higher fps and/or a slightly better AF response. The extra stop or more of the D850 BSI is helpful and I think the D850 files take noise reduction in post better than the D500. Of my 6 active bodies, all are dslr and all but one FX. I think I have one DX lens, a Tokina 12-24 from back in the D2x days. I can't remember the last time it was mounted or used.
 
Member's gallery
I am relatively new to all of this compared to many of the folks on here. I am the type of personality that when I see something awesome, I obsess until I can produce similar results. Example in point, images by our beloved messiah (sorry for the blasphemy 😇 ) @Steve. The work in his videos and books has shoved me down the irreversible and expensive path of photography at a higher level. I have always enjoyed making a nice image, but not since young adulthood have I used much other than a phone. Not that great images can't come from some of today's phones. @DRwyoming @Callie and several others that post on here also have a quality level for which I strive. Realistically, these folks have years and years of practice which the rest of us can only gain by years and years of such shooting practice.

Lately, I have been following a photographer Steve Matheis, out of Jackson Hole, Wyoming on youtube as he photographs Great Grey Owls. I had Santa Claus order his "Phantom of the North" book and read the entire thing on Christmas morning. The book, which was worth every penny uses his images and the text is by a wildlife biologist who is on a multi-year study of the Owls.

When I see other people's amazing captures and the stories behind them, it simply fuels my need to practice and hope to create something that I am equally proud of. So the point of all this rambling and related to your original post would be this:

Just like you, I see most of these folks using FX. The D850 in a high percentage of cases. It makes some folks think "Man, I gotta get me a D850". What I have learned and noted from my obsession while out shooting, even if just common or boring wildlife is that certainly there is a difference in DX vs FX captures. But, that difference is such that it is difficult to put a descriptive word to. An increased "richness" is the word I could probably come closest with. The FX captures tend to just be creamier, smoother, and "richer" in some way. I shoot D500 and D810. HOWEVER, even with my opinion of being richer, the decision is almost always D500 simply based on the versatility of having an amazing autofocus and frame rate paired up with the added "reach" of DX if I need it due to subject size. I find it very difficult to fill an FX frame for a high percentage of what I shoot. If I target larger animals that I KNOW I can get close-ish to, I pick D810 every time. What I often find is when I make that decision, something awesome comes along that is smaller and there I am needing to crop so many pixels that there was almost no point in hitting the shutter button. That being said, IF I was to purchase a D850 (grip required for 9fps) I could always use a crop mode for a similar capability and perspective of reach that my D500 produces.

But, all of that makes no difference, as practice, practice, practice is what will improve my images. All the while knowing that putting two high quality captures, with equal fields of view side by side, and not knowing which was taken FX vs DX I would challenge most viewers to get the guess right more than 50% of the time. Sorry, that got really long and rambly, but hopefully, it adds at least one usable piece of info for your thought process and decision for your particular type of subjects in the viewfinder.

Ryan
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Thanks for the kinds words. However, don't put too much stock in the camera's format :)

I know my pics look pretty much the same no matter what body I shoot - and I think that applies to most experienced shooters. Sure, I have to make some adjustments to how I do things with DX over FX (like avoiding close backgrounds to help with separation), but it's not a big deal.

Here are a pair of D500 images that people really seem to like. I'm not sure how they would be any "better" with an FX camera. I think composition, light, the animal's pose, and the lens you use (both are with the 600mm) have far greater impact than the body itself.

lion-cub-on-rock.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

hanging-three-toed-sloth.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
@Steve Waooooo outstanding image quality on both of those shots 👍👍..

If you’d have asked me what camera do you think they were taken with I probably would have guessed “a D850” or better, definitely wouldn’t have guessed the D500 so a lot of the image quality surely must come down to the 600mm lens I this case ? Obviously not forgetting some Skills as well 😙😙..


Harry.G
 
Member's gallery
Thank you all for your valuable inputs and feedback. It helps a lot to discuss opinions and thoughts on this forum (so thanks @Steve for creating it).

Similar to @jeffnles1 I went from Nikon's film F60 to D3200 then D7200 and now D7500. I know Focal lengths only from a DX perspective.

My main challenge is like @KCPhoto and @StefanSC stated "reach" and cannot afford (at the moment) expensive F2.8/F4 primes. We don't have National Parks like in the US, where one can get relatively close to wildlife.. moreover I have to walk through heavy forests or climb steep mountains for miles to find wildlife, so weight is also critical (which is why I now favour the 300 PF over the 200-500).

I made sure to buy only FF glas as I knew the move to FF was inevitable.. but I feel buying a D850 /Z7ii and using it in DX crop mode is like buying a Porsche and driving only at 60 miles an hour.. (overkill)..

What is very interesting to see, is the majority either use both FF and DX or DX only..
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
I made sure to buy only FF glas as I knew the move to FF was inevitable.. but I feel buying a D850 /Z7ii and using it in DX crop mode is like buying a Porsche and driving only at 60 miles an hour.. (overkill)..
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I posted those pics :)

Full frame is ONLY an advantage if you can use the entire sensor - if you're cropping to DX all the time, why waste the money on full frame? Especially with the D500 out there!
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
This is exactly why I posted those pics :)

Full frame is ONLY an advantage if you can use the entire sensor - if you're cropping to DX all the time, why waste the money on full frame? Especially with the D500 out there!
Click to expand...

WOW!! That Sloth picture is off the charts of good to my eye. That is the stuff I am talking about....when it comes to striving to create something as amazing.

@Ado Wolf As Steve points out I certainly was not saying that my FX is better. (I probably worded poorly) Rather I was saying to my eye my D810 has an ever so slight something richer looking. Possibly it is simply that my post-processing methods favor the RAW from that camera in some way. Both my D7200 which got sold and my D500 produce images that I don't think could be decerned DX or FX when blindly lined up side by side. The ultimate reason I bought the D810 was for the fact I bought it 1 year ago today for under $1000 with only 3400 clicks on the shutter. Can't pass that up really when you only had one body at the time. Score +1 to me :)
 
Member's gallery
KCPhoto said:
WOW!! That Sloth picture is off the charts of good to my eye. That is the stuff I am talking about....when it comes to striving to create something as amazing.

@Ado Wolf As Steve points out I certainly was not saying that my FX is better. (I probably worded poorly) Rather I was saying to my eye my D810 has an ever so slight something richer looking. Possibly it is simply that my post-processing methods favor the RAW from that camera in some way. Both my D7200 which got sold and my D500 produce images that I don't think could be decerned DX or FX when blindly lined up side by side. The ultimate reason I bought the D810 was for the fact I bought it 1 year ago today for under $1000 with only 3400 clicks on the shutter. Can't pass that up really when you only had one body at the time. Score +1 to me :)
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Don't get me wrong either - FX has some advantages or we wound't use it. FX makes subject isolation and creamy backgrounds easier than DX, you generally have better ISO performance, and, depending on the camera, it gives you more resolution. Plus, with the exception of something like a D500, they usually have more tech and customization options. It all adds up. For me, I use FX mostly for the ISO and subject isolation advantage.
 
Member's gallery
I have a D7200 and D850. I turn to the D850 more often for wildlife, especially birds in flight, due to the autofocus system. Group AF is the best thing ever for me and wish the D7200 had it. I am waiting to see if a upgrade to the D500 comes out soon so it may drive the prices down on the current D500. I would like to keep my DX on the 200-500 and the FX on the 24-70. It seems to me, for my particular use and bodies, that the D850 had better detail than the D7200 when it is cropped down to the same size.
 
Member's gallery
I voted both, DX and FF and have over a long period shot with my DX cameras, D70S, D5100, D7100 and for the last few year my D500 which I love. I recently, just last year bought a new D850 after much conscious wrestling and I am so pleased I did. I love it, the feel, the ergonomics, the separation as Steve says but overall it just feels great. I use it with my 500PF and try not to crop a great deal but do at times and my point is, I just rationally and irrationally love my D850 and my D500. For me at my age these bodies and my 500PF satisfy me. A bit emotionally charge here but is that not what our passion for wildlife photography is all about? Here "endeth" the lesson. 😇
 
Member's gallery
I use both the D810 and the D500, both for different scenarios. More and more I have gravitated to the D500 when I need to grab just one camera.
This is going to sound odd to some, but there are times when I prefer my old D600 over the 810.
 
Member's gallery
I t seems to me that using an expensive (compared to DX) ff camera for wildlife then expensive glass is also needed for reach and bokeh.
Expensive cards, editing programs, computers etc to deal with high megapixel counts all pushing up the cost and making manufacturers very happy.
So as manufacturers phase out cropped sensor cameras we are herded into buying expensive FF cameras just to crop, unless we buy £13,000 cumbersome lenses of course.
Those that cannot or will not pay can buy a phone.
Long live the crop sensor cameras !
 
Member's gallery
I chose "FF & DX" but technically, I'm shooting exclusively with the full frame Z6 now (Z6II upgrade is planned). However - I will bump it into DX mode from time to time. Which of course is only just cropping in camera. The difference with mirrorless is, I'm seeing the crop live in the EVF. Of course the downside is I'm dropping my mp's from 24 to 10 (as discussed at length in other threads here).

I have glass on both Z & F sides (including the 200-500), so I've actually been toying with the idea of: Keeping the Z6, and grabbing a D500 for my last DSLR purchase - it's such an ideal wildlife body. APS-C to me makes perfect sense for wildlife, considering all factors.

That said - I'm likely staying committed to my move to the Z system. The FTZ works really well with my F lenses, and DX mode results have impressed me.
 
Member's gallery
With some FF cameras reaching pixel density of the crop cameras the answer gets even murkier. I currently own DX cameras, FF cameras that equal or best my DX cameras for pixel density and FF cameras in what I feel is the sweet spot for IQ of around 20 odd MPs (but only if you have the lens to use all of those 20MPsl).

Someone can buy a D850/Z7 or A7RIV or R5 etc. and be shooting in DX mode or always cropping in past the DX frame and getting no benefit (other than a lighter wallet) from owning those cameras. Or someone could be always using all the FX frame of those cameras and getting full benefit of the DR. Or someone could be actually saving money by using a D850 for both FF landscapes and DX crops of birds instead of owning a D850 and D500.

If you are always cropping images then buying a DX camera makes more sense. Only issue is the only system out there where this really makes sense is comparing the D500 to a D850 purchase. In other systems like Z, RF, FE the crop cameras are sort of dinky so you give up more than just unused FF pixels, ergonomics aren't great on the Z50 or Canon M or Sony A6xxx lines. Features are missing. In those systems even if I was going to be cropping most of the time I'd opt for the high-MP FF camera (Z7, A7RIV, R5).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top