Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 75 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 51 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 762 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 180 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Is DX superior to FX?
GreenFlash
Posts: 19Member
Hi Everyone:
I signed up a few days ago and have been reading many of the past threads. I love the positive focus of everyone's comments.
I have the D600, the D7000 and the D5300, and some great fx prime glass. But I have been slowly coming to the conclusion that we have just about reached the point where half frame DSLR's are for most purposes, superior to full frame.
A few examples:
Granted, the larger fx sensor should receive more light per pixel. But does it? For example, with the Sigma 17-35 1.8, and others coming along, both sharpness and aperture just about match the best of very high quality, much more expensive fx glass. It looks to me like the amount of light being delivered to the sensor is limited, not by the size of the sensor, but by the size of the lens...i.e. the light gathering capability of the lens. So using the same diameter lens, but designing it to focus the light on the aps=c sensor seems like it would increase light intensity to the sensor which would largely offset the extra light advantage which fx reputedly has.
More than that, as long as there is enough light, the pixel density of the 24 mp half frame is greater and gives you better detail from the same lens than even the 800e. Moon pictures with the 5300 at full zoom on the Nikon 70-300 are clearly superior to those from the D600,
Finally imho most of the time we want greater depth of field, not less, and dx gives you greater depth of field.
Well what does anyone think?
I signed up a few days ago and have been reading many of the past threads. I love the positive focus of everyone's comments.
I have the D600, the D7000 and the D5300, and some great fx prime glass. But I have been slowly coming to the conclusion that we have just about reached the point where half frame DSLR's are for most purposes, superior to full frame.
A few examples:
Granted, the larger fx sensor should receive more light per pixel. But does it? For example, with the Sigma 17-35 1.8, and others coming along, both sharpness and aperture just about match the best of very high quality, much more expensive fx glass. It looks to me like the amount of light being delivered to the sensor is limited, not by the size of the sensor, but by the size of the lens...i.e. the light gathering capability of the lens. So using the same diameter lens, but designing it to focus the light on the aps=c sensor seems like it would increase light intensity to the sensor which would largely offset the extra light advantage which fx reputedly has.
More than that, as long as there is enough light, the pixel density of the 24 mp half frame is greater and gives you better detail from the same lens than even the 800e. Moon pictures with the 5300 at full zoom on the Nikon 70-300 are clearly superior to those from the D600,
Finally imho most of the time we want greater depth of field, not less, and dx gives you greater depth of field.
Well what does anyone think?
This discussion has been closed.
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
Depth of field is dependant on the glass, however you still have to factor in your technique (f).
Dx has one very big advantage over Fx, it cheaper, but when it come to quality, regardless of cost and weight, FX wins every time
Yes the difference is getting smaller but there is a difference
BUT that is a choice at that point. I am opposite of desiring any of the "DX advantages" completely and find them all handicaps. It is safe to say most pros feel the same way. I want the shallowest DOF possible with with widest lenses. FX is still far superior to DX in low light. FX also has all the glass options available, DX does not, nor will probably ever.
Just a note, DX is NOT half frame (or even close) nor is that term used. The correct term is "Crop Factor" or "Crop Sensor" or simply DX. That is just an incorrect understanding of the physics behind lens design. The "focus" of light on DX or FX is the same so the intensity is always equal.
On the Density, you need to account that you are having to crop for the moon on the FX shot much more than DX. If you shot the same equivalent focal length on both systems, the density is the same.
@TaoTeJared: I don't know how close is close but DX is not very far away from half the size of FX.
I have been enjoying shooting with the Sigma 1.8 17-35 on my D 5300 because it not only allows me better low light, but also the ability to zoom so I can utilize the full sensor for the image I want. In low light, I can get better images with the new Sigma 1.4 35mm on the D600, but the ability to zoom of the dx lens does help offset that advantage.
To try to quantify the fx low light advantage, if the sensor is roughly twice is large, wouldn't the advantage be roughly equal one f stop. And for that you have to pay with much larger more expensive equipment.
Let's say you shoot a 24 mp dx with a 12 mp image size. That produces a pixel density close to a 24 mp fx. Does anyone know, when you reduce the image size that way, are the sensors designed so you get the benefit of larger effective pixels? Does it improve the low light performance to reduce number of pixels? If it does, do we get close to the same level of effective low light performance that way? Then add the ability to zoom and the dx camera may get the superior shot.
What do you think?
Yes you lose a stop but my gut feeling is the IQ from a D600 + the 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED
would be superior to the D5300 with the Sigma 1.8 17-35
And for that you have to pay with much larger more expensive equipment.
When comes to size and cost, DX might be "superior"
but the word "superior" is normally used for quality, not value for money
DX superior? No but "best bang for the buck" Absolutely!
@ GreenFlash - "Granted, the larger fx sensor should receive more light per pixel. But does it? "
Yes. It's what you do with that matters.
I'm a DX shooter looking for an FX body, like DaveyJ, and like DaveyJ, I broke bread with Ansel in his home in Carmel. And his prints were tack sharp with deep depths of fields. I sincerely don't know if bokeh is a trend, fad, fashion, or firm aesthetic (which by definition is a shifting beauty - an irony in itself - I digress).
@ GreenFlash - finding a modern Nikon with a recent sensor with 12 MP is likely not going to happen. It doesn't seem like something the company is going to market.
My best,
Mike
DX still trumps FX for one important area: hand-held distance shooting.
Otherwise shooting with an FX does give superior results for any given lens; IMHO it allows more slop on the focus for each (larger) pixel, leading to better looking images. I disagree with the DR and pixel binning arguments as advantages for full frame, as even a Nikon DX sensor will blow away a full frame Canon sensor in the DR department.
Ultimately, the higher pixel density of DX actually proves to be a curse, as the lenses need to be sharper to be evenly matched, and this translates into more money; hence DX is not always so budget friendly. If we could only get Zeiss to make a cheap autofocusing DX telephoto prime lens with outstanding IQ...I guess there is always hope for a Sigma version since they appear to want to challenge Zeiss.
Seven Crossing, A Quick check at Dxomark...the Sigma on the D5300 rates a little higher than the Nikon 24-70 2.8g on the D600. 18 effective mp compared to 15. I also can get a Tokina dx wide angle zoom albeit with a little less zoom range, than the Nikon 14-24. The 14 to 24 has a slightly better rating, but $2000 vs $500 ...Donaldejose, Your comment on allowing a little more slop for pixel sizes might explain why most lenses do rate higher on fx cameras than on dx. But just my observation, it seems like the manufacturers price comparable quality dx lenses lower than fx, based on their perceptions of the prices the market will bear and also the potential greater volume of sales in the dx market.
Mike, I was thinking of the setting on my D5300 that lets me shoot images that are 4496x3000 pixels, actually about 13.5 mp. I don't understand sensor design well enough to know, but if it actually breaks the sensor into fewer mp then it could be that each pixel would be better, because larger.
Perhaps my understanding of optics is really weak, but I don't think it is true to say that DX uses only the inner part of the LENS. Rather, it uses the inner part of the entire IMAGE that is formed by the lens. My (admittedly poor) understanding of optics is that every object in the FOV uses every part of the lens. However, lens design is such that the image formed by the lens will strongly tend to be sharper on-axis and less sharp the farther off-axis you go. Since DX sensors are physically smaller than the image that's formed by a lens designed to accommodate an FX sensor, an off-axis object in the outer less sharp portions of the image at the edge of the FOV is cropped while an object in the sharper central portion remains behind.
If someone has a ray tracing program, perhaps they can clarify this important point for me. I'm always game to learn more about optics.
I use both and enjoy images with both narrow and deep depth of field, and know many others who do as well. In my eyes DX, or FX, is neither superior or inferior to the other. They have different segments of the market, based on price and user requirements.
The results of the 200-400 f/4 will be better on the FX body but it will be better still on the DX in any application where you are looking for as long a reach as possible. Just as the FX body has a big advantage at the wide end, the DX has the same advantage at the narrow.
What it comes down to is that if you choose the right gear for a shot it will work better for that shot. Large or small sensors are not really any different from long or short lenses. Except of course for the fact that light has a finite wavelength and the F-mount was designed for 35 mm film. The wavelength of light limits the sensor pitch that can be resolved for a given aperture without diffraction which is starting to have an impact. But the bigger effect is that the DX lenses have to be designed around the limits of the 35mm mirror box.
But I will be looking seriously at the D9300 when it arrives.. hope that they give it a 1.33 crop.
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
@ GreenFlash - "Mike, I was thinking of the setting on my D5300 that lets me shoot images that are 4496x3000 pixels, actually about 13.5 mp. I don't understand sensor design well enough to know, but if it actually breaks the sensor into fewer mp then it could be that each pixel would be better, because larger."
I'm not sure why that would matter. Light is going to fall where it falls.
If you process the image in RAW, you will get more for your money. Ansel would have loved Photoshop. ;-)
He spent as much time in the darkroom as he did shooting.
My best,
Mike
But in real life, there is a lot more to IQ than Dxomark....
At the risk of repeating myself, when it comes to bangs for your bucks a DX Nikon dslr such the D5300 is hard to beat
But if you want superior quality, regardless of cost and weight, FX is the leader, may be by only a canvas, but none the less, the leader
( I am assuming the comparison is made in the real world, with current generation sensors)
It depends on what sort of photography you do. Landscape photographers desire deep depth of field. It doesn't matter whether you use DX or FX if you use them correctly.
It's a little easier to get bokeh with FX, but that doesn't mean you can't do it with DX either.
Regardless of my splitting hairs :-B , you are right that the DOF is slimmer on FX for a given vantage or view. The OP wanted a larger DOF, hence part of the argument in favor of DX over FX, and the discussion about AA's pics.
Pro build quality is the #1 consideration I have, followed by VR, then by how much I will use it, followed image rendition by the lens and somewhere near the bottom is what measurements of the lens have been recorded.
No, I claim that is incorrect. All parts of the FOV use all parts of the lens.
I think there is a little technical misunderstanding about how lenses work that has affected this thread.
So here's a technical note about light and lenses. (I took a college course in it a few years ago.)
We all know that when we use a stopped down shutter as with an f 8, 11 or 16 f stop, we are intentionally excluding the light from the outer part of the lens. But we still get the whole image. So what happens is that the light from each part of the image hits the entire lens and is bent differently at all the different parts of the lens so that the light from the part of the image in focus moves through all the different parts of the lens to arrive at exactly the same point on the image sensor. (The guy who figures out how to do that is the one who makes the big bucks) The angle of the light from different distances, hits the lens at slightly different angles so when the light bends and hits the sensor, only part of the light...the light from things at a particular distance, is in perfect focus. To focus we move the lens forward and back to choose the part of the image we want in focus. When the shutter is stopped down, only the light passing through the center of the lens gets to the sensor. Because it is bent less, it is more in focus, and hence we have greater depth of field when the lens is stopped down.
The lens is designed to take all the light hitting the front of the lens from the intended fov and bend it so that it will hit the image sensor. The larger the lens is the more light it gathers. but also, the more the light has to be bent, so, the less the depth of field. If light from a larger lens (that is fully open) is focused on a smaller sensor, the intensity of the light on the sensor is greater. (We have all tried to make fire with a magnifying glass. To do it we want the light to be focused on the smallest point. Hence more heat at that point.
That's why I was thinking that If the light from the same fov passes through a lens of comparable diameter, but is bent to hit a smaller sensor, the light intensity on the sensor will be greater. So that would at least somewhat offset the reputed low light advantage of fx format cameras.
As was pointed out, the lens has to be awfully accurate to deal with the smaller pixels. But if the lenses are up to the job, maybe we have come to a time when DX really is equal or better.
So I pose the above referenced new 18-35 mm 1.8 Sigma and the 11-16 2.8mm Tokina as examples of high quality fx sized lenses with a dx sized output, that have comparable ratings to the best fx lenses out there.
To me there is also the question whether, when the pixels are made ever smaller, there is a point of dimishing returns. That is, is there a practical limit on pixel size on the sensors, below which sensor accuracy declines at more than a proportional pace?
But also the question I posed, if you shoot at a reduced number of pixels, will each pixel be larger and hence receive more light and be more accurate? (and allow lower ISO's and faster shutter speeds at lower light levels?
Size also matters because if you are in a studio, you can use bigger lenses and sensors and get more light and thus ever clearer images. But as pointed out, size also matters a lot for people who carry their cameras and lenses to locations that could be down right inconvenient. Cost matters, because Iq ultimately requires the best equipment for the job, and if the same quality is cheaper, you can afford more of it.
In a way, the discussion sort of explains the D9300. If fx were superior in all cases, it could be argued that the D 9300 would be irrelevant. But clearly, it is not.
;-)
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.