DX to FX

No, the mirror box is too small.

Why would you want to do it?

Another reason is that chips (sensors) a mounted on a motherboard

and that alone would be so expensive… unjustifiable.

Again, why would you want to do it?

Yeah, I'd like to know too. Why?

--Ron

Sorry for the delay in replying.  I bought a D3200 camera thinking it had a full frame (35mm) sensor.  I mis-read the description on the sellers website.  I just can't be bothered selling the DX and getting an FX.  I just thought it might be easier to change the sensor.  However, since my post I understand that there may be additional issues with the DX/FX sensor selection in the camera's software.  Any thoughts?

The D3200 is a much smaller body than any FX body Nikon make. It also has far fewer buttons in the UI. This means that it is even less possible than using a body that is closer to the FX bodies in size and interface.

If it could be done, Nikon would be making it as the trend has been towards miniaturization where a smaller form factor without loss of picture quality is the goal.

Sorry for the delay in replying.  I bought a D3200 camera thinking it had a full frame (35mm) sensor.  I mis-read the description on the sellers website.  I just can't be bothered selling the DX and getting an FX.  I just thought it might be easier to change the sensor.  However, since my post I understand that there may be additional issues with the DX/FX sensor selection in the camera's software.  Any thoughts?

Why do you want FX,what do you think would let you down with DX.

Hi, from what I read, the FX is a bigger sensor and receives more image detail equalling better image quality. I find the image quality a little dull, despite using varying settings and image save types and am presuming that its the sensor. I have post capture software that can improve that, but I'dlike to get the best image possible from source.

To be honest and not trying to be rude only helpful,FX is not a magic bullet,lets see some DX results so we can help before buying into FX.

Thanks for your replies.  Unfortunately I won't have time to post any examples but thanks for the offer to compare. I'll probably swap for an FX because the DX results seem to be no better than my compact Vivitar.  As I said previously, I thought I was getting an FX anyway.  Just exploring a quicker solution.  I also have and use my Pentax film camera but for obvious reasons the DSLR has its advantages.

Before you ditch the D3200, are you shooting in raw or jpg? If you shoot in raw, what raw converter do you use?

The only real advantage with FX over a reasonably modern DX sensor is the slightly larger dynamic range at any ISO and the better signal to noise ratio at high ISO.

I'll probably swap for an FX because the DX results seem to be no better than my compact Vivitar.

The sensor size (the area) of the DX is about 10 times bigger than that of your Vivitar, and you don't see any significant difference in image quality.

Now you are going to get an FX sensor that has only about twice the area of the DX and you are expecting to see a difference?

Before you ditch the D3200, are you shooting in raw or jpg? If you shoot in raw, what raw converter do you use?

 

The only real advantage with FX over a reasonably modern DX sensor is the slightly larger dynamic range at any ISO and the better signal to noise ratio at high ISO.

I have used both.  Imported into either Corel Draw or Adobe PS, using their standard raw file facilities.  The drop in quality could be to do with ISO issues, (interpolation and noise, and light and dark area detail). I guess it's just about getting a regular set of suitable settings from trial and error.  I am no expert in digital and I still have and use 35mm film Pentax (lens quality), process only then high quality film scan into Corel or PS.  I am just trying to get to the same quality with digital.  I try to get the best withing my justifiable budget and, as I said previously, I was intending to get an FX sensor on Nikon (because I believe Nikon digital is better), but I ended up with a DX.  I suppose in the end we have to work within the boundaries of the technology we have so it's not really an issue.  Thanks for your advice and comments.

It might be worth trying Nikon's own raw converter as most generic raw converters don't get as much detail out of the same raw files. The difference isn't as great as with the more expensive bodies as they use Picture Controls that the other converters just ignore.

If you shoot to the right without blowing your highlights, you should get good results from the D3200, but bracketing your shots is a good idea while you learn how your camera meters and exposes.

Thanks Merco_61. I'll try the Nikon raw converter.  I just assumed that Adobe PS, the premier graphics package, would utilise a good raw manipulation package, but I get your point about the generic converters not being suitable. With regard to metering.  I guess that, like film TTLM. you have to get to know what is best for the camera you have. A bit like knowing how your favourite brush will perform when watercolour painting. Such a lot to think about when photographing but that the constraints of the medium.  Thanks again.

Adobe are the industry standard, not because they make the best tools, but by more or less supporting most hardware. You *can* get very good results from ACR, but it takes lots of experience and lots of presets for how you want to interpret a scene to get fast results.

When it comes to metering, I usually use center-weighted metering rather than Matrix as I know how to apply compensation without having to think about it, having used it for the last 40 years or so, ever since I got my first body with a built-in TTL meter. Matrix usually get things right, but if the meter misidentifies the scene, there is no warning.