where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
As we all know by now, the D7000 is at 16MP and has great low light qualities, I wonder how close it comes to bringing DX up to FX levels? 80%, 90%, closer still? Further away?
What about the "traditional view" that 16MP is close to full frame 35mm in terms of data content?
What ELSE has to change before DX can get close to rival FX format?
If you think it never will, just remember how long ago it was you said "NEVER" to something and it came true....
Hi,
I think you mean in terms of image quality. If you were to have an 8x10" print, likely very little if any difference, usually.
But if you were to _take_ a picture at 1EV with a D7000 and a D3x, it would be a different story. I think that's where there will always be a difference, if only by a percentage of the crop factor (which _may_ become somewhat trivial in the fullness of time - it just hasn't become so now).
Of course, even the optical value of the DOF from the FX has it's place, too.
I envy FX chippers. I just don't envy the extra baggage they carry. ;-)
My best,
Mike
bjrichus said:
What ELSE has to change before DX can get close to rival FX format?
Anything DX can do FX can do better. ;)
DX is a limitation. A very cost advantageous limitation, but still a limitation.
DX gives you smaller pentaprisms, smaller mirrors. and the potential for smaller lenses. The desire for F-mount backwards compatibility negates much of the theoretical benefits of two of those.
Given a DX sensor and a FX sensor of equal density there is no "free teleconverter" and there is no light gathering advantage to the FX. We don't see that situation today as FX sensors are expensive, the yields are low, and (all things being equal) density decreases yields even more. Once sensor density levels off (if not maxes out) the only difference between the two will be in the physical size and cost (which will still be consequential.)
ALL that said, if the tide rises high enough both boats will be "good enough". Humans have feeble senses which are easy to fool. It would take someone who understands the physics better than I to say if the tide can go that high or not.
DX will never equal FX. If you have a good quality DX sensor, you can make an FX sensor with better ISO/DR with the same resolution, or have higher MP for the save ISO/DR. In addition, there are other qualities of FX which can never really be acheieved on DX- smaller DoF, bigger and brighter viewfinders, overall better optical quality (since you are not relying as much on a small area of the lens), and you have more options for fast wide angles (there is still no equivalent to the 14-24, 24/1.4 on DX)
However, likewise, FX will never equal DX. For every long FX lens, it is 50% longer on DX with the same maximum aperture, and you get more DoF at the same aperture so you don't have to stop down as much to get more things in focus. Likewise, for every cheap FX sensor, you can make 2 cheaper and smaller DX sensors, and DX cameras use smaller mirror boxes and viewfinders, so DX cameras will always be cheaper, smaller and lighter.
Really, I think the question to be rephrased to DX being "good enough" that a move to FX no is no longer needed. That really depends on what you need a move to FX for. If it's just for high ISO, the D7000 is getting very close to the practical needs (ISO 6400 allows us to use slow lenses in low light hand held). Similarly, if we need high moderately resolution, the D7000 is pretty good at that already. For the more demanding of us, FX delivers even better results. On the other hand, if you need an advantage inherent to one format or the other, then there is no real substitute.
Compare a point and shoot to a DX . . . same as comparing DX to FX ;)
So far, the view seems to be that the "order" of things is:
P&S -> DX -> FX -> film.
(at least that is what I read from these replies - even if there isn't much talk of film nowadays and considering my original question cited the D7000).
I'd really like to see someone be brave enough to put a % to how far apart the different sensor 'formats' are from each other, not THAT they are apart from each other, we all know that, after all!
Thats funny. When someone asked about my camera and I know any technical answer is going to go in one ear and out the other thats close to the one I use. The difference between my camera and a point and shoot is like the difference between the point and shoot and a camera phoone=) Not perfect but it always seems to get what im saying across without looking like a ass.
aetas said:
Thats funny. When someone asked about my camera and I know any technical answer is going to go in one ear and out the other thats close to the one I use. The difference between my camera and a point and shoot is like the difference between the point and shoot and a camera phoone=) Not perfect but it always seems to get what im saying across without looking like a ass.
Hmmm... Camera Phones... I had forgotten about them. Currently worse than P&S in my view, but there are several art projects using them... Maybe a 24MP iPhone camera in a couple of years will be something of interest? Now THAT'S funny!
;-)
But cameraphones are catching up as many people forgo an upgrade from their 4 mp P&s'es to use their 8mp phones. While the D7000 is worthy to be shot alongside Fx it is the details that seem minor to Dx shooters that Fx users demand. Most of the D90 users I know are pros but more than half of them (the ones actually making decent money) keep it as a backup or cheap to replace if damage happens to a couple of D3's. Many amateurs usually and either dont make enough to get a camera better than the D5000 or they ran for the faster framerate of the D300s... The D7000 did change that though.
Overall as mentioned before,
Cameraphones < Point and shoots < Bridge < EVF < Dx < FX < 35mm Film < Medium Format < Large format Digital < Large format Film
kyoshinikon said:
But cameraphones are catching up ... Overall as mentioned before,
Cameraphones < Point and shoots < Bridge < EVF < Dx < FX < 35mm Film < Medium Format < Large format Digital < Large format Film
Lets be presumptuous...
Consumer Phones less than 6MP <- Point and shoots <- Bridge <- EVF <- DX <- FX <- 35mm Film <- 24MP Phone(!) <- Medium Format Film <- Large format Digital <- Large format (10x8) Film
:-)
Drab said:
Who said (35m) film is superior?
Anyone for the 10 minute argument?
I think I got it right from Monty Python with that quote ... or should I run for cover with the onslaught from dedicated film shooters?
By the way, I still have my trusty old 35mm film SLR ready to go (it's an F), if needed so don't shoot me, OK?
:-)
I will put up a percentage ! 20% ! Heh!
DX in the form of the D7000 is 20% better than its closest FX rival! the D700.
1) it has HD video the D700 does not.
2) its lighter
3) Its cheaper
4) It has about 1.5EV better DR.
5) It has more MP (4MP more!)
6) More FPS
7) 2K sensor metering system vs 1K
8) 2 memory slots
So what if the D700 has a bit better DOF. The price difference will get me a great f1.4 lens that will outlive both cameras twice over!
The DX format will save me $$ and Weight in the tele lenses I wont need to get, like a 600mm!
bjrichus said:
I think I got it right from Monty Python with that quote
No you didn't. ;-)
Drab, it's been shared before around the forum, but this is a pretty good read about how close to the physical detection limits we're getting:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/downloadable_2/Physical_Limits_2.pdf
I totally agree with you on the easily fooled human sensors. I don't think I'll ever need anything better than the D7000 but that's not to say I won't ever get anything better. Call me an easily fooled human consumer.
All depends on what your uses and focus of your concerns are.
Heartyfisher gave a great list but for me, none of those examples, are in my top 25 or so things that I look for.
For example, if you always shoot at ISO 200 and well lit macro shots there is almost no difference or DX (16mp vs 12mp) may even have an advantage.
One needs to remember that there are more control systems, build quality, etc. that is put into the D300s & all FX bodies. That is what keeps me away from the D7000 and probably will always keep me at a D300 or D700+ replacements.
As for film, I have just finished shooting my 6th roll of 3200 Ilford BW film (just for fun) and I can easily say that my D300 kicks it's butt in low light. I like the look for Ilford as a personal taste but on a technical degree, it's no match. On the film debate, I have just hit a point of "who cares?" :)
"For example, if you always shoot at ISO 200 and well lit macro shots there is almost no difference or DX (16mp vs 12mp) may even have an advantage."
Macro is one of the areas where DX has a BIG advantage. ( Greater than 100% ! lol as if % has any meaning at all in these kinds of comparisons haha!)
1) A bug at 1:1 on DX is 1.5 times LARGER than a 1:1 lens on FX.
2) The DOF is more on DX again a huge advantage at macro levels where DOF is so thin!
3) 16mp vs 12mp an even bigger boost is the objects size if you crop to equal number of pixels.
and dont forget the higher DR gets you much more details in shadows and highlights!
Still not there yet . . .
Hmmmm..... I'm hearing mixed messages from you guys.
One or two say film is best, some say "no way", some say DX is great and others FX (but not everyone) and one or two have also cited non-image issues (i.e. build quality of FX bodies) as a reason for using FX...
That all means isn't a single clear "winner" and that it depends on what you want to do. My first reaction is that this is not really a *big* surprise when there are many professionals on here, who will use whatever tool is the right one for the job whatever the cost of renting/using a particular tool might be.
On reflection, it does surprise me... that digital has come such a long way from its origins in such a short amount of time and that DX is a serious challenger, we now can't agree it's "not good"... Wouldn't have done that 5 or 6 years ago, now would we?
I remember when APS film came out... Now THAT was something that managed to polarize everyone's views (and rightly so as IMO it was junk because it was too small), but while DX format digital is also smaller than FX, it clearly isn't "junk".
I see very little point to DX. It throws away valuable information making wide angle lenses less effective.
If I ever wanted to crop (for "reach"), I'd rather do it myself. But I can no longer recover the information that was not recorded around the edges due to a smaller sensor.
I honestly hope that the FX sensor prices fall significantly in the next few years and the 36x24 format once again becomes the norm.
Hi all,
"Hmmmm..... I'm hearing mixed messages from you guys."
Perhaps from Nikon, too. After all, they make 'Pro' DX. ;-)
It doesn't take too much of a brain to figure out that more real estate on a chip will make more imaging magic happen - which I 'think' should be clear enough.
I had though the OP was trying to get a discussion as to the current state of DX imaging - particularly in light of the D7000's bright image. It might be a silly conversation, but as johhyapple's pointed out in the above pdf (thanks ja!) it might not be so silly.
My best,
Mike
For the "data content" part of your post - It has been said that a digital sensor will need at least 25 MP to match the resolution of 35mm. DX, FX and film all have their strengths and weaknesses. It is just a matter of what is most relevant to the needs of the individual.
Mike Gunter said:
It doesn't take too much of a brain to figure out that more real estate on a chip will make more imaging magic happen - which I 'think' should be clear enough.
At what point does this break down? What if a smaller (DX) sensor ends up doing as well as an FX sensor in a few (perhaps as few as 3) years time?
Mike Gunter said:
I had though the OP was trying to get a discussion as to the current state of DX imaging - particularly in light of the D7000's bright image. It might be a silly conversation, but as johhyapple's pointed out in the above pdf (thanks ja!) it might not be so silly.
Mike,
Indeed ... particularly in light of that interesting PDF doesn't it kind of makes sense to consider the D7000 as a potential pointer towards the end-game for DX (using current technologies that is)?
Extrapolating this further into the future, if we can get a DX camera body at the 20 to 24MP level with 8 or perhaps at a pinch 10 stops of DR (as I read it this is the theoretical limit as per the PDF), then what kind of FX body would need to be on the market to keep FX alive (I'll duck and run for cover with that remark)? 40 to 48MP? and at what price to make it a practical manufacturing proposition?
I note that the PDF made it quite clear that they were working with 2009 sensors. Now we are 20 to 24 months further on, where are things likely to go for this and maybe next years product set, all yet to be announced?
Fun times...
Hi bjrichus,
Keep in mind, a DX is always going to be smaller than a FX. ;-)
Your point might be it's not how bit it is, but what you do with it.
My best,
Mike
This seems to be a bit of a non-question really because presumeably the next FX released will have at least the same technology in the sensor as the newest DX and so the DX will never catch up with FX.
bjrichus said:
At what point does this break down? What if a smaller (DX) sensor ends up doing as well as an FX sensor in a few (perhaps as few as 3) years time?
It can't. Unless you make the fallacious comparison of generation N DX compared to generation N-1 FX.
Until one hits the limit of human perception (at what magnification though???) all a DX sensor is is 1/2 a FX sensor. FX sensors aren't made as dense for cost reasons today. They will be. The D3x is more dense than the D200. Soon enough the DNx will be as dense as the D300, then the DN+1x will be as dense as the D7000, and on and on.
You must log in to post.
