size, weight & cost

NPhoto - - Feature -

This is where you might ex­pect Nikon’s DX cam­eras to have an ad­van­tage, and they do at the begin­ners’ end of the mar­ket. But once you start look­ing at more ad­vanced mod­els the dif­fer­ences quickly dis­ap­pear. In­deed, the D500’s body is slightly larger than the D750’s, not smaller. It’s true that DX lenses are gen­er­ally smaller than their FX coun­ter­parts and less ex­pen­sive, but that’s partly be­cause there is a dearth of pro-qual­ity con­stant-aper­ture zooms at shorter fo­cal lengths for the DX for­mat. Vari­able-aper­ture lenses are lighter and cheaper partly due to their lower spec.

You might as­sume that an FX-for­mat Nikon sys­tem would be big­ger, heav­ier and more ex­pen­sive, but there’s more go­ing on than just an in­crease in size. In fact, the range of lenses avail­able for the DX and FX for­mats is not di­rectly equiv­a­lent. Di­rect lens com­par­isons are dif­fi­cult be­cause most DX-for­mat lenses are de­signed for cost-con­scious con­sumers, while most FX-for­mat lenses are de­signed for qual­ity-con­scious pros. Our ta­bles com­pare like-for-like lenses as closely as we can get them, but there are im­por­tant dif­fer­ences in the three key lens ar­eas we’ve cho­sen. What it boils down to is that DX gives you the value, but FX gives you the choice. Cur­rently, Nikon’s lens de­vel­op­ment seems heav­ily fo­cused (sorry) on the FX for­mat rather than DX

If you try to match lens specs across both for­mats, the costs work out closer than you might ex­pect

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.