I cleaned this thread up because you guys are going off-topic and it's turning into a long back and forth. Keep the comments on DX vs FX and remember that NONE of you has the correct answer. It's just a discussion. There is no need to get all worked up over this topic!!!
Dx v. Fx Why is full frame better?
(96 posts) (35 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
NikoDoby to the rescue! I for one would be one to encourage people to get the best camera they can AFFORD. Since most of my interaction with photographers is with amateurs I find myself recommending a usually DSLR camera. Rarely do I ever recommend a FX digital. In fact the one photographer I am most concerned with selling a FX DSLR (Nikon) is myself. There is a FX advantage as the thread implies, and DX advantages. Also I am sure anyone with a D3X must know what they are getting into. The reason I am here today is I believe what drives Nikon Rumors increased traffic (I assume) is that we are ten days off an announcement from Nikon??
What that intro will be might relate to what my outfit may buy next. Rather than buy a video camera (again) to add to our 8, I am going to buy a Nikon DSLR partly for the newer video and partly for the prowess it WILL have as a still digital camera. I do NOT plan on a D4 but admit I have in the past owned more expensive single lens. I can't afford that kind of excess now, but I also cannot afford to miss the better quality video that both Nikon and Canon have now. Will it be on a D400 or a D800 (by that I mean a D300s replacement or a D700 replacement) I don't know? Right now I GUESS it might be a D400 but as I am not sure I need more information. Why don't I just accept what I have now? Simple! I have seen D7000 video better than video I used on Nikon DSLR which although I am delighted with but a little sharper would be MUCH better. I would also admit that I still see the point each poster has made. I also admit that Nikon Rumors is currently my largest source of camera info but I still check out Thom Hogan,etc, and of course Nikon USA! I live in an area that doesn't have camera clubs, etc. I also have less time to check out stuff like that just trying to pay bills with work.Posted 1 year ago # -
DaveyJ
Please take this as friendly advise, space out your post, skip a line between sentences, it makes it easier to read.
your take on the FX DX is very interesting and people might just pass over it because it is not as easy to read.
Just my take, it may not be everybodys.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
If I may add to the discussion, as far as I'm concerned, considering I take pictures of airplanes, DX is the answer: Lighter equipment, longer zoom/tele lenses, and cheaper in the end. I suppose this also applies to wild life photographers since we share the same problems.
Quality wise, my photos are good for printing in magazines. It's all up to me to get the right photos (But that's another story…).
Just my 2 cents… :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
One of my favorite subjects is night photography, landscapes with stars and Milky Way. Right now I'm shooting DX but feel limited. I'm using a 20mm f2.8 which is barely adequate and has some coma wide open even on DX. I want to go wider and faster, but there isn't much available in fast wide primes for DX. Going FX will help higher ISO and wider field of view. I could go with some faster lenses 24mm 1.4 (would be wider on FX than 20mm on DX) or go super wide with the 14-24mm 2.8.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Jeff H said:
........ I plan to move forward into portrait and wedding photography.That was the original question, a year ago. For portraits and wedding photography, were image quality is more important than lightness, a full frame camera eg a D700 will produce better tonal range than any current DX
Yes, if you are going to personally carry your equipment on a long hike, if you want put the camera in an underwater housing , if you only use the center of the image from a 600mm lens, or if you are on a tight budget. DX might well be better
Things may change, but at the moment full frame is definitely better for weddings
Jump said:
Ignorance is thinking the guy with the D3x will automatically get the better shot.
I have seen some brilliant candid wedding shots, with throw away cameras, but not in a dim church, where flash is verboten
Or were the bride wants a 20x 30 enlargement
Posted 1 year ago # -
@casperwb: Good point. Well here I am again on Nikon Rumors trying to see what might get introduced this month. @dslr: I live in an area with a often very clear night sky. The best Northern lights I have ever seen were right here. I don't have good images of that as that was my large format era.
My favorite wide lens for this night skyscape at present is the 12-24 Nikkor DX and on D700 the 20-35 Nikkor on FX. I do the moon shots with the 70-300VR but if you just wanted moon only the 300mmF4 Nikkor with a teleconverter is pretty good. When it comes to hooking up a Nikon to a Celestron scope, I have found that DX is all we could get an adapter for. Printing night shots is very difficult. My opinion this is high tech and DX or FX cameras would need special gear and tripods to make it happen. I have had more tripod issues with night sky photos than all other camera work put together.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi all,
"Better" is a loaded word which suggests that it's a 'one sizes fits all' and that's likely not the case.
The nature and look of the DOF will be different in a full frame from a DX over the ranges of the focal length lenses and the choices of lenses, too.
I do get the sense that the tonal range in the FX (thus far) is greater, in the lower light, higher ISO shooting.
My best,
Mike
Posted 1 year ago # -
FX is just cleaner...when i see pics shot with the 12mpx, it's just amazing how sharp they and noise free they are...(see img below as example, late night with a D700 and crappy 20 2.8; was PP'ed a bit, but...)
compared to this one, you can visibly see noise:
(shot with Pana LX5, which isn't DX, but you get my comparo point)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Go to http://imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
put in a Nikon FX camera and a Nikon DX camera.
You can then compare two images of the same subject taken on DX and FX.
FX is clearly superior. But do you need that superiority and do you want to pay the cost for it?
It becomes a matter of what you really need and what you want and what you are willing to spend.
Posted 1 year ago # -
donaldejose said:
FX is clearly superior.What is superior? A computer monitor and software to zoom in to pixel depth. How many used 20x loups to look at image prints? I kid at how we pixel peep way too much. At most ISOs you will have a hard time telling the difference on a 8x10 from 4 feet away.
I do agree that FX does have more sharpness and low iso capability vs the same DX sensor. At a local shop there is a guy who owns both the D300 and D700 who used a dual mount arm on a tripod and same 85mm 1.4 lenses to shoot 100's of side by side subjects, landscapes, people, low light, mid-day etc. and printed them all on 4x6, 8x10, 9x16, 11x14s. The FX did look better at all levels - if you knew what to look for. If you didn't know what you were looking at, you could never tell the difference in all but a couple of low light images.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think there is a difference between DX and FX images, but it depends on what and how you shoot. There is a different feel to images made with an FX camera, I just like the output better. Maybe it is in my mind, but that's how I feel after switching to FX 7 months ago (after 3 years of DX use).
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared is correct. By superior I mean technically superior if you enlarge the image to 100% and look for minute details. The naked eye of a technically unsophisticated person looking at normal size prints will not be able to tell any difference.
I also suggest this it true about pixel numbers. 6 to 10 megapixels is more than enough for sharp prints at 8x10 or 11x14 and perhaps even larger.
I have read of many side by side comparison tests in which people passing by cannot tell which print was taken with a higher megapixel sensor or with an FX sensor. It is interesting now that we have the inexpensive D3100 with its 14 megapixel sensor at the bottom of the Nikon lineup. The cheapest Nikon body is more than good enough for any prints up to perhaps 20x30. I doubt anyone buying that camera will make such huge prints. Are we now in a time of megapixel "overkill?"
Posted 1 year ago # -
Unfortunately, a lot of publishers, stock agencies, etc are full frame biased and I've even seem one stock agency that specifically lists the cameras that are acceptable to them for taking pictures they wish to use. They are nearly all Full Frame, except for a few listed APS-C bodies. However, I bet if you changed the EXIF data on some DX photos they'd never know they weren't FX. It's like they think you're professional only if you use expensive cameras.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JJump said:
Unfortunately, a lot of publishers, stock agencies, etc are full frame biased and I've even seem one stock agency that specifically lists the cameras that are acceptable to them for taking pictures they wish to use. They are nearly all Full Frame, except for a few listed APS-C bodies. However, I bet if you changed the EXIF data on some DX photos they'd never know they weren't FX. It's like they think you're professional only if you use expensive cameras.I know one guy who dumped Canon for a sony a900 a few months after it went live. After a year and a half of using it for a unnamed stock agency a new manager decided to look at his raw data and dumped him as it was not a pro camera like those 5d's he shot with... Either they are brainwashed by camera company titles or they know nothing about the important side of photography...
Posted 1 year ago # -
I used to sell more photos to magazines and commercial display prints than I do now. I was using large format then. I did have one publisher actually tell me that he viewed large format pictures often as large empty pictures and in many cases preferred 35mm (film). I agree stock agencies right now lean toward FX over DX.
In my own use of DX and FX I see very distinct advantages of both. I'd rather be at the right place at the right time with a D3100 and a good Nikkor lens, maybe a 70-300VR than have a D3X and not have a suitable subject. My cameras bring us work. DX is far more practical in the field. Clients we work for are astonished to see what we use for cameras (almost always DX) and a D700 and bigger lens would be all the more risky. When the images get reviewed latter for summary usually ones get selected that show lots of details and shallow depth of field is a liability, not an asset.
I save the D700 for lower light personal use. Clearly FX superiority is in stock photos sales. I pity those who have to play in such a jaded ballpark. I have seen DSLR work by amateurs with say Nikon D90 that I thought was great.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Newfie said:
I’m beginning to wonder if Nikon is transitioning to an FX format dSLR manufacturer only. Consider this; dSLR technology is rapidly approaching its apex. Most new features are tied to speed, performance, ergonomics and workflow. Advances in image quality continue but at a much slower pace. The D800 may well be the apex of resolution capabilities of current technology and possibly even dynamic range. It will take significant advances to get D800 and D4 users to upgrade.If camera bodies are maxing out in terms of technology……how will Nikon continue to grow and drive sales? I think they are moving their full lineup over to the FX format. The D600 is a prime example. A camera like this will attract millions of DX users…..most of whom will need to begin investing in FF lenses….very profitable FF lenses.
My guess is that Nikon will phase out the DX format within eight years or two camera generations. For those with DX lenses…..they will still work and at 24MP, a DX lens on something like a D600 will still be a powerful tool.
Just my two cents.
AND
sevencrossing said:
My gut feeling if there will continue to be a market for a budget DSLR and we will continue to see demand for cameras such as the D3200But apart from this forum, I see a limited demand for a D400
D7000 replacement? not too sure
So wonderful to have varied opinions... and, my suspicions are that the smaller sensor will eventually be even more important than the FX format. Of course, predictions are simply opinions made to look like prophecies, but I do think the D400 will be coming out and the demand will be very high. As the ability of the glass to resolve even better, the sensor technology gives us higher and higher ISOs with more resolution, the smaller sensor will be the trend.
My guess is the vast majority of NIkon's profit comes from the small sensor sales. And the idea of a transition is interesting discussion, but highly doubtful.
Posted 10 months ago # -
I think the argument has changed with the introduction of the D4 the D800 and the possibility of a D600
The big advantage of the current range of Nikon Dx cameras is cheapness and to some extend lightness and size
I was often tried to my convince my teacher at colledge, to give up his Hasselblad and buy a Nikon. He correctly pointed out, "a good bigun is alway better than a good littelum"
Posted 10 months ago # -
This isn't quite on point but I think still relevant to the discussion.
I just had some old photos printed to 11x14 size. Some came from a D80 (so out of date now that it has been replaced by the D90 which itself was replaced by the D7000 which is soon to be replaced by the D7200!) and some from the D7000. They are remarkably similar. I cannot see a difference in detail or noise (they are all shot at base ISO in good light). While I am absolutely positive the D90 sensor is better than the D80 sensor and the D7000 sensor is much better than the D90 sensor, in an 11x14 print it is not a noticeable difference, which surprised me. I just bought a D800 because I was seduced by all those 36 megapixels. But looking at these 11x14 prints I have to wonder if I would even need, or use, all those megapixels? Can they show up in an 11x14 size print? I have not yet printed any D800 images to 11x14 so some difference may be visible but I doubt it because I don't think the print paper can display any more sharpness than I see in my prints from the D80.
Conclusion: FX has advantages and is clearly superior if you are printing five feet wide. BUT for most of us for most of our photography a DX from the 14 megapixel D3100 on up shot at base ISO in good light will produce images indistinguishable from FX when printed to 8x10 or 11x14. The D400 should be a "step up" in DX image quality over the D7000 and should be all one needs for publishable results. It should sell for about $2,000 and offer more features than any other Nikon DX body. I am hoping it will have high FPS and high ISO image quality. If it has those features it will be the only camera 90% of us really need.
Posted 10 months ago # -
For those of us who have a lot of time with 35mm Nikons, the larger viewfinder is delightful. I hate squinting into the smaller viewfinder of DX cameras. Wearing eyeglasses makes this worse.
Just a comfort/feel thing, but so much of photography is sensual, anyway.
I have a D200 (ugh), D700, and D7000. Probably getting a D800.
Posted 10 months ago # -
" I just bought a D800 because I was seduced by all those 36 megapixels. But looking at these 11x14 prints I have to wonder if I would even need, or use, all those megapixels? Can they show up in an 11x14 size print? I have not yet printed any D800 images to 11x14 so some difference may be visible but I doubt it because I don't think the print paper can display any more sharpness than I see in my prints from the D80."
My local printing vendor's highest supported resolution is 400ppi, which for 14x11 would be 5600x4400. If you're cropping a D800 image to 1.25:1, you would be scaling the image down less than 10%.
However, 400ppi is very high resolution for a continuous tone photograph, so much so that you would have to inspect it with a loupe to see pixels. The advantage of such a high resolution is that noise will be much finer and less noticeable at normal viewing distances. (This is the same advantage medium format has over 35mm in film.)
Posted 10 months ago # -
msmoto said:
my suspicions are that the smaller sensor will eventually be even more important than the FX format.[and]
My guess is the vast majority of NIkon's profit comes from the small sensor sales. And the idea of a transition is interesting discussion, but highly doubtful.
I was going to ask you to define "important", but I think you did.
Nothing to do with image quality etc, all to do with marketplace and what sells (to the mass market).
Any manufacturer who wants to STAY being a manufacturer (especially one the size of Nikon), needs to first and foremost produce goods that sell - and most of all, sell to the largest market possible. Its called business, not being a hobbyist.
Of course, if the mass market wants a D4/D800 not a J1 as most of us who have used FX do, then........ I just hope that someone from Nikon actually reads these pages :(
Posted 10 months ago # -
I think everyone should look at this PAD post by NSXType-R on Flickr, shot with a D40, 35mm f1.8 Nikkor and shot wide open. It shows such nice tonal quality from a Nikon 6.1 Mp sensor , several years old, yet performing like a champ.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29754093@N02/7437279984/sizes/k/in/photostream/
Posted 10 months ago # -
Good example msmoto.
Does this example mean KR is right: no one really needs more than 6 mp? Ha, Ha.
Posted 10 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
