Why one should use DX mode on an FX camera

One shouldn't. Not always anyhow. But there are some moments.

As a reminder, a camera with a big sensor to capture the photo is called FX in the Nikon world. Most FX cameras can take photos using only part of the sensor in "DX mode". There are plenty of good reasons to use DX mode.

1. A photo taken in DX mode is smaller, so it takes up less space on your memory card, so you can shoot longer without changing card, and you can get away with smaller cheaper cards.
2. You can fit more DX photos on your harddisk, so when you travel you have more photos to show your grandma or prospective employer.
3. The smaller size of DX photos means they take less time to transfer to your harddisk or tablet.
4. The smaller size of DX photos means that synchronisation with any cloud site you use to store photos is quicker and takes less bandwidth from other people on the same network - like your grandmother if she uses your WiFi.
5. DX photos are quicker to edit and display in post-processing software. You will be able to edit more DX photos in one day than FX photos.
6. With most cameras, shooting DX allows more fps (frames per second) than FX.
7. Shooting DX does not fill up the buffer and allows you to shoot for a longer time with your camera, when you hold down the shutter button in continuous shooting mode.
8. If you "crop" a photo shooting in DX mode, you still get a full RAW file, but smaller. If you crop an FX photo in post processing, you either simply hide part of the photo, which means the file is as big as it was to start with, or you have to save it as jpg or some other format, and you lose the advantages of having shot RAW.

Then there are of course moments when FX mode is better. Why would you otherwise have paid for it?

1. You can get a more narrow depth of field.
2. You get more detail.
3. You can get a wider angle of view with the same lens.

Sometimes the FX advantages matter. Sometimes they do not matter at all. Sometimes they matter a lot.

If I one day take 99 photos in DX mode with my camera and just one in FX mode, and the subject in FX mode absolutely deserved it, I will be happy that I brought an FX camera instead of a DX camera.

Camera Build Quality vs Image Quality

If one buys a high end camera, like a Nikon D3, a D300, a D700 or similar "professional" camera, and one keeps it for a certain time, a nagging question will inevitably arise: should I not replace it with a cheaper and better camera?

Nikon's high end cameras are built to feel like pure quality. They feel sturdy, are great to hold and the controls are a pleasure to use. The snag is that they will feel as sturdy a few years later, when there are entry level cameras that cost just a fraction, but which have higher resolution, less noise in dark settings with high ISO and a dynamic range that makes it easier to capture both sunlit areas and dark shades in the same photo. In other words, the photos will look better with a new cheap camera with a modern sensor.

This is not limited to just cameras. I somewhere read a test of 85mm lenses. Most viewers of the photos preferred the ones taken with "cheap" Nikon lenses, while the photographers often preferred the Zeiss 85mm lens, which felt much better to hold. According to DXOMarks' ratings, a Zeiss 85mm scores only 29 (weighted on different parameters), while a Nikon 85mm f/1.8G scores 40. However, the Zeiss lens costs three times as much as the Nikon lens.

There is a certain element of delusion here. We tend to prefer cameras and lenses that feel good, regardless of the actual output. We may do so even more, if we paid a lot for a camera a few years ago. We desperately want it to have kept its value.

However, this is not only delusion. There is a certain rational to it as well. Often the difference in image quality between a cheap new camera and an old one is not that big that it actually matters that much. On the other hand, the difference in "feel" is often huge. A camera that feels good is likely to be used more, and the photographer may be more inspired to take the perfect the photo.

There are really good artistic photos taken with cheap camera phones, and there were good photos taken more than a hundred years ago with the technology of the time. An artist does not necessarily need a lot of pixels or perfect rendition.

Are Nikon 1 cameras worth the investment? - A kind of review of the 32mm f/1.2 lens

With better and better phone cameras, the market for small point-and-shoot cameras shrink. A small camera is often not much better than a phone camera, and in a few cases it may be worse.

One of the attempts at capturing the low end or mid range camera market is the Nikon 1 series - mirrorless cameras with exchangeable lenses. They produce very good results, just like many phone cameras. Often a Nikon 1 takes better photos than a phone, but it will not fit in a small pocket. While many nowadays always carry their phone around, they often do not bother with a camera.

The question then arises if it is really worth it to invest in a Nikon 1 system.

Personally, I will say it is, if you get the 32mm f/1.2 lens. It costs a fortune, about three times the cheapest Nikon 1 camera, but it opens up possibilities that one does not have with other lenses. As an example, look at the photo below, taken inside Kunsthaus Zürich in dim light. With any other Nikon 1 lens, one would have had to crank up the ISO above 500, something that would have meant a grainier photo. In addition, it would have been difficult to isolate the sculpture in the front from the painting in the background, as no other Nikon 1 lens can achieve such a shallow Depth of Field as the 32mm f/1.2.

In the Background: Ferdinand Hodler's painting Heilige Stunde (1907). In the foreground: Aristide Maillol's sculpture Monument à Cézanne (1907). I have no idea why it is called like that. It does not look like him very much. Didn't Cézanne have a beard?

Another example of the shallow depth of field of the 32mm f/1.2 is this panther chameleon sitting peacefully on a twig. The shallow depth of field makes the eye focus on the chameleon in the foreground. Another chameleon in the background is so fuzzy that it can almost be taken for a dark leaf.

Panther chameleon, Furcifer pardalis. Photo taken in the Masoala Regenwald in Zürich Zoo.

Finally an example of shallow depth of field of some painted glass. The painting on the front of the bottle can be distinguished from the painting on the back of the same bottle, due to the shallow depth of field. This would hardly have been possible with another current Nikon 1 lens.

Painted glass bottle from le Musée de l'Œuvre Notre-Dame in Strasbourg. 

Does this mean that a Nikon 1 serves no purpose with other lenses than the 32mm f/1.2? No, they are decent cameras with most lenses, but the number of situations where they are better than a good smartphone goes up if one gets the 32mm f/1.2. Hopefully Nikon will provide other equally good lenses in the future.

Which hobby is cheapest: buying cameras or taking photos?

That may be a good question to ask oneself.

Buying photo equipment is such an easy thing to get into if one has spare money lying around. On the internet, there are plenty of comparisons of lenses, of sensors, of auto-focus systems, of low-light capabilities, high ISO, low ISO, bokeh, dynamic range, depth of field and so on. There are plenty of web pages, blogs and forums where people compare one against the other, and recommend one over the other as superior according to select criteria. The criteria may be measurable and absolute, and yet completely irrelevant, as the next camera around the corner will be even better.

Taking photos can be much more challenging. What kind of photos do you want to take? What kind of photos of yours do you think other people want to look at? How do you take unique photos - photos that look like no one else's photos? There are no absolute rules. There are no easily measurable criteria that always can tell you if one photo is "better" than another. A photo that sells well may not get much "likes" on photo sites or social media. A photo people rate high may not be the one you like best yourself. It is all very fuzzy.

But it is much cheaper to take photos than to buy cameras.

And it is often more fun.

Handy lens that fits in your coat pocket. The current price for a new one is around 9000 Euro.

Old Camera with Big Sensor - New Camera with Small Sensor

There is a widely accepted view that large camera sensors produce better pictures. In Nikon terminology, that means that a big FX sensor is better than a smaller DX sensor, which is better than the really small CX sensor. That is true in most cases. However, when one compares old cameras with new ones, occasionally the roles are reversed.

Some examples using DXOMark's criteria:

The 2012 DX camera D5200 vs the 2007 FX camera D3:

That's a five year difference. The DX camera has a better overall score, but it still lags behind the FX in some areas, like low-light ISO.

The 2013 CX camera Nikon 1 S1 vs the 2005 DX camera D70:

This is an eight year difference, and even though the CX Nikon 1 has an overall advantage in DXOMark's rating, it still lags behind the larger sensor when it comes to low light.

Like all comparisons, this is not the whole truth of course. There are many other aspects on cameras than what is measured by DXOMark. The point is simply that for certain things, new and small can be better than old and big, even when it comes to camera sensors.