Events and Nikon DX vs FX

[Juliette]

Hello, thank you to all who helped with my agonizing decision but I finally opted for the Nikon z6iii. I also purchased Steve's book. In it he mentions some benefits to shooting DX and I was wondering if in my use case, I should use it more often.

For large birds, which is my wildlife preference, I'll opt for FX. However, for event shooting, I'm wondering if DX would be better. I shoot for a band 75% of my work and they are mostly outdoors marching in parades. Lots and lots of movement, action, crowd scenes, etc. My editing is laborious.

What do you think? Should I shoot DX to alleviate that burden? What would I lose?

 

[Doug A.]

If your editing is laborious, why not just shoot JPEGs instead of DX. Greatly reduced file size. I shoot events for my church which are only used by them for social media. Shooting JPEGs makes that a much more fast and easy thing to deal with for that scenario. I much prefer that over shooting DX with an FX camera.

 

[Juliette]

That's a good thought but shooting only JPEG is not for me. A RAW file’s flexibility for post-processing is way easier to adjust. With all the shady areas and changes in location/weather patterns, I can easily recover shadows, highlights, colors, white balance - you name it. However, now I'm wondering if I simply choose RAW + JPEG and start with JPEGS when I get home and if I need to edit, do so with the RAW....Thank you!

 

[JAJohnson]

However, for event shooting, I'm wondering if DX would be better. I shoot for a band 75% of my work and they are mostly outdoors marching in parades. Lots and lots of movement, action, crowd scenes, etc. My editing is laborious.

What do you think? Should I shoot DX to alleviate that burden? What would I lose?

Just curious, other than file size why do you think shooting DX alleviates your editing burden? Is it a matter of smaller file size or something else?

 

[Juliette]

Just curious, other than file size why do you think shooting DX alleviates your editing burden? Is it a matter of smaller file size or something else?

It's based on Steve's book and for copyright reasons, I won't quote here but the gist is that the DX mode just reads out the middle part of an FX sensor. It's the same as taking a full-frame image and cropping it later, except the file size is a bit smaller. You might use DX mode if you are 100% sure you only need the middle part of the image and want to conserve memory card - or in my case, prefer not to stop and change out cards.

 

[John Navitsky]

are you shooing zoom or prime?

i think it makes sense to have a button to toggle to dx when shooting a prime. i totally wouldn’t bother when shooting a zoom, i’d just zoom.

 

[Juliette]

are you shooing zoom or prime?

i think it makes sense to have a button to toggle to dx when shooting a prime. i totally wouldn’t bother when shooting a zoom, i’d just zoom.

Thanks @John Navitsky. I've been thinking about all the lenses I use since I typed this. I agree with you. I shoot mostly primes so I could easily envision how shooting DX would be helpful. Plus I hear it helps the AF system. I do have occasions where I shoot with a zoom, depending on how much space I have and how big the group is, etc. And yes - I planned to add DX/FX option to My Menu along with DX alert setting.

 

[wotan1]

switching to dx gives you greater reach but it also cuts down on your pixels. Not a big deal when shooting with a prime lens on a 47mp camera but the z6ii you have half the pixels (24mp) and have less pixels to lose. In the end the amount of pixels you need depends on what you plan to do with the image. You need a wal sized mural even 47mp may not be enough but for web and casual use 24mp reduced by dx will probably do just fine.

 

[Doug A.]

If you want the flexibility of shooting RAW for editing purposes, but lament the laborious editing....then shooting DX is not going to gain you anything in that regard.

 

[Nimi]

No reason to even think about DX. Just none.

You're reducing your resolution to 10mp and compromising dynamic range and increasing noise. Crop in post.

 

[John Navitsky]

as an example for this event the dogs are in a ring where they walk down the middle, i was shooting the 135 1.8 which was perfect framing for that. then they go around the far side of the ring where i’d punch in with dx like here. yes, this can be done in post, but it also saved me time and gave me a better view while shooting.

https://flic.kr/p/2qbNtno

 

[Juliette]

switching to dx gives you greater reach but it also cuts down on your pixels. Not a big deal when shooting with a prime lens on a 47mp camera but the z6ii you have half the pixels (24mp) and have less pixels to lose. In the end the amount of pixels you need depends on what you plan to do with the image. You need a wal sized mural even 47mp may not be enough but for web and casual use 24mp reduced by dx will probably do just fine.

Good point. I have the z6iii not the z6ii but I get what you mean. Same megapixels. However, the images are purely for the band's social media site, so that's easy!

 

[Juliette]

as an example for this event the dogs are in a ring where they walk down the middle, i was shooting the 135 1.8 which was perfect framing for that. then they go around the far side of the ring where i’d punch in with dx like here. yes, this can be done in post, but it also saved me time and gave me a better view while shooting.

https://flic.kr/p/2qbNtno

Yes @John Navitsky - that's very helpful. This kind of scenario pops up for me at least 30% of the time. I will set it DX/FX on My Menu and adjust accordingly. Thanks for confirming.

 

[Replytoken]

No reason to even think about DX. Just none.

You're reducing your resolution to 10mp and compromising dynamic range and increasing noise. Crop in post.

I agree, but if you crop that much in post you will still find more noise.

--Ken

 

[Replytoken]

However, the images are purely for the band's social media site, so that's easy!

If that is the only use, then yes, you do not need a lot of resolution. But cropping is not really the ideal solution to that use. For example, you could find an older 12MP camera like a D700 which will give you smaller file sizes with a full frame image. Have you considered longer lenses if the reason you are cropping is to fill the frame (which I am not sure it the reason in your case, but is most often cited by folks asking the question)? Or have you considered some of the compressed raw file settings if the file size is the issue?

--Ken

 

[Replytoken]

My editing is laborious.

In re-reading your OP, it is still not clear what the actual issue is that is making editing laborious. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more on this?

--Ken

 

[fcotterill]

Notwithstanding that in-camera DX has penalties on dynamic range and loss pixels, Nikon ILCs have offered other frame options (since the D850 if not earlier DSLRs). I mention this because I've used 1:1 format on birds when the outer frame portions are superfluous.
You can also short JPG+RAW to keep the editing options as insurance. Nikon PC files can be optimized for very good JPG image quality

 

[TurtleCat]

One other aspect that may help (or may not). If editing is laborious but you like the look of what you see in the viewfinder consider Nikon NX studio which is free and the only software that can exactly reproduce what the camera showed you

 

[Juliette]

@Replytoken - last night before turning in, I looked back at my original post and thought to myself that I did not provide enough of an explanation about the the actual problem, but it was late. So thanks for highlighting this. The problem is the sheer volume and amount of culling and editing. In hindsight, I think I understand that for wildlife it's easier to me. I enjoy shooting for ME with no expectations, so editing is a joy. When you have expectations from a client, it's not quite as fun. I don't dislike the work at all and am grateful for it, but I think what I'm realizing is that editing is no long fun for me. When Adobe first came out with Lightroom Cloud options, I was already getting to the point of disliking editing.

So all that said, when I read Steve's book on customizing the Z6III and saw the mention of using DX to crop in camera instead of post, I mistakenly thought this might make the process easier. However, I have a system set up that from an editing standpoint, probably could stand a little refinement but overall is as easy as it can get, yet still time-consuming. Time is the most important commodity to me at the moment. Anything that saves me time is a joy. So there you go. First world problems.

@fcotterill suggested what I had commented last night and I think is the best solution. Just keep shooting RAW but also add JPG. Use the RAW as insurance but try to get by with JPGS first.

Thank you all for helping me sort this out and for entertaining my wayward quandary! I think I have my answer.

 

[DougC]

I would suggest programming one of your back buttons to switch from FX to DX and simply make the switch on the fly as needed. That’s what I do with all my nature shots. As for reducing your editing, shoot in short bursts rather than prolonged ones and avoid 30+ frames of what is essentially the same image.

 

[Replytoken]

@Replytoken - last night before turning in, I looked back at my original post and thought to myself that I did not provide enough of an explanation about the the actual problem, but it was late. So thanks for highlighting this. The problem is the sheer volume and amount of culling and editing. In hindsight, I think I understand that for wildlife it's easier to me. I enjoy shooting for ME with no expectations, so editing is a joy. When you have expectations from a client, it's not quite as fun. I don't dislike the work at all and am grateful for it, but I think what I'm realizing is that editing is no long fun for me. When Adobe first came out with Lightroom Cloud options, I was already getting to the point of disliking editing.

So all that said, when I read Steve's book on customizing the Z6III and saw the mention of using DX to crop in camera instead of post, I mistakenly thought this might make the process easier. However, I have a system set up that from an editing standpoint, probably could stand a little refinement but overall is as easy as it can get, yet still time-consuming. Time is the most important commodity to me at the moment. Anything that saves me time is a joy. So there you go. First world problems.

@fcotterill suggested what I had commented last night and I think is the best solution. Just keep shooting RAW but also add JPG. Use the RAW as insurance but try to get by with JPGS first.

Thank you all for helping me sort this out and for entertaining my wayward quandary! I think I have my answer.

While I do not make my living from photography, I do share your frustrations with editing, and how much time it can take. But being both picky and indecisive, I know I can also be my worst enemy when editing, especially when I remind myself that that my audience does not have the luxury of seeing all of the images I shoot. It is always tempting to share that I have so many photos to potentially offer, but I just keep reminding myself that I only need the number requested or needed, and that I can deal with the others later on. And to be honest, nobody wants to look at more than a handful at one time anyways.

If I had your assignments, I would consider three things. First, consider shooting raw + jpeg in case the jpeg files are good enough (especially for social media). Second, I would play around with the picture controls on whatever camera you are using to see if you can get them dialed in to give you a really good jpeg (assuming your shooting conditions and technique permit), using a similar discipline as if you were shooting slide film. Finally, I would try a different culling and editing approach. I know this can be quite hard to both get right and make it stick, but it is probably a good path to less frustration with culling and editing. Perhaps you sit down alone or with a trusted colleague and try to identify the standout top images on your first pass? Then cull and edit from just these images, and leave the rest alone in your LR catalog. I know this goes against my personality, but I also know that I let perfect be the enemy of good and my output suffers for it.

Whatever approach you take, I wish you well. The ability to cull and edit has neve been easy for me, despite many of my efforts.

Good luck,

--Ken

 

[Flyboy]

The FX and DX debate goes on and on...I have used DX since entering Digital, because the cameras were cheaper and what I could afford. I'm not a pro any more, and find DX provides all I need. YMMV! Even when I was shooting with my 6 MP D50, I never was limited, except when the Costco site said "You can't crop that large" My response? "The HECK I can't!"; continued and got some award-winning enlargements.
I suppose the additional "reach" provided by the DX program some FX cameras provide is an advantage, as well as the 1.3 X offered by some DX cameras, but I find that is used seldom, and always set beforehand. (I'd be sure to press the wrong button, and have to start all over again...possibly why I never did become a Fighter Pilot! )

 

[Juliette]

While I do not make my living from photography, I do share your frustrations with editing, and how much time it can take. But being both picky and indecisive, I know I can also be my worst enemy when editing, especially when I remind myself that that my audience does not have the luxury of seeing all of the images I shoot. It is always tempting to share that I have so many photos to potentially offer, but I just keep reminding myself that I only need the number requested or needed, and that I can deal with the others later on. And to be honest, nobody wants to look at more than a handful at one time anyways.

If I had your assignments, I would consider three things. First, consider shooting raw + jpeg in case the jpeg files are good enough (especially for social media). Second, I would play around with the picture controls on whatever camera you are using to see if you can get them dialed in to give you a really good jpeg (assuming your shooting conditions and technique permit), using a similar discipline as if you were shooting slide film. Finally, I would try a different culling and editing approach. I know this can be quite hard to both get right and make it stick, but it is probably a good path to less frustration with culling and editing. Perhaps you sit down alone or with a trusted colleague and try to identify the standout top images on your first pass? Then cull and edit from just these images, and leave the rest alone in your LR catalog. I know this goes against my personality, but I also know that I let perfect be the enemy of good and my output suffers for it.

Whatever approach you take, I wish you well. The ability to cull and edit has neve been easy for me, despite many of my efforts.

Good luck,

--Ken

This is really sound advice, @Replytoken thank you Ken. I too can be my own worst enemy! I definitely will be implementing the suggestions you proposed here. thanks again! p.s. Oh the days of slide film!

 

[Replytoken]

This is really sound advice, @Replytoken thank you Ken. I too can be my own worst enemy! I definitely will be implementing the suggestions you proposed here. thanks again! p.s. Oh the days of slide film!

We all tend to be our own worst enemies because we all want to do the best we can. It is a double-edged sword. We should do good work, but unless, for example, we are printing and selling large pieces of work where small imperfections can be easily seen, most folks don't care about that level of detail. And I just have a hard time believing that folks on social media are the exception to the rule. Most of what is posted has a half-life of a few minutes to a couple of days. You know what your truly great work is, and you can pull those pieces for a show when you want to share your work in a setting where folks can linger with each image.

And FWIW, there was a study done a number of years ago where half of a class was asked to produce a large number of pieces of art and the other half were asked to produce just one piece for their final grade. I believe the takeaway was that the folks who produced lots of art actually produced better quality work. So if you do get in the hang of culling and editing more quickly for social media posts, you might find your editing and shooting skills improving just that much faster.

--Ken

 

[Juliette]

We all tend to be our own worst enemies because we all want to do the best we can. It is a double-edged sword. We should do good work, but unless, for example, we are printing and selling large pieces of work where small imperfections can be easily seen, most folks don't care about that level of detail. And I just have a hard time believing that folks on social media are the exception to the rule. Most of what is posted has a half-life of a few minutes to a couple of days. You know what your truly great work is, and you can pull those pieces for a show when you want to share your work in a setting where folks can linger with each image.

And FWIW, there was a study done a number of years ago where half of a class was asked to produce a large number of pieces of art and the other half were asked to produce just one piece for their final grade. I believe the takeaway was that the folks who produced lots of art actually produced better quality work. So if you do get in the hang of culling and editing more quickly for social media posts, you might find your editing and shooting skills improving just that much faster.

--Ken

well said, Ken. I'll keep at it!