Posted: 4/18/2017 3:12:05 AM EDT
|
I recently acquired a D750.
I'm well versed in the mechanics of camera operation and photography but all my experience so far has been DX., This is my first entry into full frame. I know a lot of the basics carry over, but I can't help but wonder what differences there are. What do I need to know about FF cameras that's either modified or different entirely from DX cameras? Anything? Quirks I may wish to know? How to best maximize the image quality of that FF sensor etc? 
I can already say I like the wider field of view for a lot of things, and the true DOF for a given aperture is quite nice. |
| Although the DX and FX can use the same lenses, the D750 needs to be switched to the DX mode to "fill the frame" with DX lenses. I have a full selection of FX lenses so I don't usually need to do that but I've done it before on occasion. The FX lenses however are mostly of higher optical quality so there's that. Also I find that using heritage "F" lenses, like the 55 micro-Nikkor, work better some times on my D7000 than on my D750. The brighter viewfinder on the D750 is really nice though for easier manual focusing. |
|
Quoted:
Um... use FF lenses?
Other than getting used to the differences in FOV and DOF, the principles and operations of the cameras are really the same. 
|
|
Quoted:
This poster is right on the money.. I might add it takes some getting used to how clean images are in low light. The D750 has a little less at 25,600, but anything lower it's pretty much a tossup between the two. If there's less, it's not much. That's not saying the D750 is bad, that's saying the D500 is that good. 
D500 @ 25,600 
|
|
Quoted:
You might think I'm nuts for saying this, but the D500 and D750 raw files are very, very close in noise performance. The D750 has a little less at 25,600, but anything lower it's pretty much a tossup between the two. If there's less, it's not much. That's not saying the D750 is bad, that's saying the D500 is that good.
D500 @ 25,600
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/-DSC0155-189951.jpg 
|
|
Quoted:
You might think I'm nuts for saying this, but the D500 and D750 raw files are very, very close in noise performance. The D750 has a little less at 25,600, but anything lower it's pretty much a tossup between the two. If there's less, it's not much. That's not saying the D750 is bad, that's saying the D500 is that good.
D500 @ 25,600
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/-DSC0155-189951.jpg Some of the other things are the narrower DOF, no FOV equivalence conversion on lens focal lengths (a 35mm lens gives the FOV normally associated with a 35mm lens), and depending upon the body the build quality, handling, and viewfinder may be better (D500 build and handling are GTG as a "pro" DX). If you picked up photography using a APS-C body, you may need a little time to get used to the wider FOV of FF. There's a lot of personal preferences in what people like or don't, consider important or not, etc... so a large dose of YMMV. Have fun with it.
|
| You'll lose a little bit of perceived reach with telephoto lenses, but regain a huge margin with your wide angles. And, it's not necessarily a negative for the telephotos, because on the near end, they'll have a broader FOV with shallower DOF than if they were hosted on a DX; and stepping up to an FX with a higher resolution will allow you to regain the perceived reach by cropping in post processing - whereas, you simply can't widen FOV in post processing. |
|
Quoted:
You'll lose a little bit of perceived reach with telephoto lenses, but regain a huge margin with your wide angles. And, it's not necessarily a negative for the telephotos, because on the near end, they'll have a broader FOV with shallower DOF than if they were hosted on a DX; and stepping up to an FX with a higher resolution will allow you to regain the perceived reach by cropping in post processing - whereas, you simply can't widen FOV in post processing. |