Is DX superior to FX?

manhattanboy

I am not sure that proves anything, as the limiting factor on a test like that will be the lens. For a test that illustrates the difference between the formats, try a low light shot and then try a shot with high dynamic range.

FF rules in low light, and has a slight advantage in DR as well.
However, those are 2 advantages of FX.
I could flip it and ask what camera is going to allow me the least amount of weight on a long hike with the best ability to take pictures of far away birds.. That would be a DX.

These cameras (FX and DX) are different tools for slightly different purposes. They can do the same thing, but each has its own strengths. Its pointless to debate this to eternity. The fact that we have a 99+ page thread on a pro DX camera speaks volumes about how many people appreciate what the advantages of a good DX camera are.

PB_PM

I could flip it and ask what camera is going to allow me the least amount of weight on a long hike with the best ability to take pictures of far away birds.. That would be a DX.

Actually a much smaller sensor (1 inch, aka CX) would be better if that is your aim. The difference in weight between DX and FX bodies is only a few hundred grams, hardly enough to be noticeable on a long hike. That said, DX does offer a better balance of sensor size and apparent reach. Of course that advantage for DX over FX goes away quickly, as the need for higher shutter speeds (for birds) are needed, and higher ISO levels go hand in hand with that in all but the most ideal lighting conditions. One of the main reasons I went FX was for wildlife photography, and the fact that the best birding conditions are at the time of day when FX shines over DX.

WestEndBoy

Cheaper and lighter. That is it. You are right, I grew up hunting and the best time to see wildlife is around dawn and dusk - poor lighting conditions.

Oh, there is a pixel on the bird advantage when you compare a 24mp DX sensor to a 36mp FX sensor, but that will dissapear with a 48mp FX sensor. Soon after that it won't be relavent as the sensors will out resolve even the finest telephotos.

donaldejose

There is one advantage for DX which may always remain: cost. "the larger full frame/FX sensor costs eight times as much to make, all else equal, and is the most expensive part in the DSLR-type cameras" Thom Hogan

WestEndBoy

Yes, that is a huge advantage and why DX outsells FX by a huge margin. It is why medium format has not found market traction yet (yes, there is an implied prediction here).

KnockKnock

@Terry7732, was the image in question a daylight shot at ISO100? Your story is a solid point and a good reminder for 90% of cases, at most print sizes, it's obvious that any 12MP camera will do, but I think many here are aware of strengths/weaknesses, and an ISO 6400 with deep shadows, near and far objects and rich colors would be more of a differentiator.

Golf007sd

WestEndBoy is right. The crop advantage is not what it used to be. Remember, the D810 had 16mp inside the DX crop area, which is to say significantly more than D300. It's not perfect, but it's not bad, either. You can shoot wider with the D810 and crop your photo to perfection. At 48 megapixels, you would have 21mp inside the crop area.

The advantages of the crop sensor are disappearing.

+1

FF rules in low light, and has a slight advantage in DR as well.
However, those are 2 advantages of FX.
I could flip it and ask what camera is going to allow me the least amount of weight on a long hike with the best ability to take pictures of far away birds.. That would be a DX.

These cameras (FX and DX) are different tools for slightly different purposes. They can do the same thing, but each has its own strengths. Its pointless to debate this to eternity.

+1

It is important to remember that as one raises ISO, dynamic range does suffer. This is where good glass comes in to play.

spraynpray

WestEndBoy is right. The crop advantage is not what it used to be. Remember, the D810 had 16mp inside the DX crop area, which is to say significantly more than D300. It's not perfect, but it's not bad, either. You can shoot wider with the D810 and crop your photo to perfection. At 48 megapixels, you would have 21mp inside the crop area.

The advantages of the crop sensor are disappearing.

So where does it say that if they make a 48mp FX they won't bump the mp of DX?

heartyfisher

Ok I will join in and play :-)

The High ISO advantage of the FX over the DX has always been almost 1 stop. In the early days of FX that meant that we could shoot 1600 instead of 800 ISO. which meant that we had 4 ev of ISO boost instead of 3 (200-1600 vs 200-800) these days we can shoot from 100-6400 vs 100-12800 ie 7EV vs 8 EV boost. ie the percentage of difference between FX over DX has halved!


The advantages of the FF sensor are disappearing. ;-)
Also Consider that the Samsung NX1 boasts 100-25600
and The Fuji Xtrans DX sensor always had High ISO and DR as good as nikon's FX sensor and better than Canon's FF.

(seriously though how many % of your shots are above 400 ISO? I think mine are about 5-10% )

sevencrossing

(seriously though how many % of your shots are above 400 ISO? I think mine are about 5-10% )

Same here. For personal use, I am not too bothered about not being able to shoot a high ISO values

but as a professional, the ability to produce high quality results, in difficult lighting conditions is essential

These day i am doing less and less professional work and when my D800 falls apart, I will seriously consider going back to Dx. A D7100 would be lighter and cheaper

tcole1983

I will chime in after just shooting my first wedding and really paid gig. If I consistently did event photography I would shoot FX...no doubt. Every little bit in dynamic range and high ISO performance is needed. Even with good glass you are pushing any camera to its limits. So if I made money I would put down the $2000+ and get an FX body.

Is FX necessary for most of what I use my camera for. No. I have been completely happy with my DX bodies and they do everything I need. I don't usually shoot black cats in coal holes and need the super ISO capabilities. I have good glass and overall I get pictures I like. I really wouldn't even get FX if I did more portrait work. I can use lighting and get great results out of my lenses that I don't feel the need for FX in that category. The real challenge is indoors with poor lighting and having to shoot at ISO 1600+.

WestEndBoy

WestEndBoy is right. The crop advantage is not what it used to be. Remember, the D810 had 16mp inside the DX crop area, which is to say significantly more than D300. It's not perfect, but it's not bad, either. You can shoot wider with the D810 and crop your photo to perfection. At 48 megapixels, you would have 21mp inside the crop area.

The advantages of the crop sensor are disappearing.

So where does it say that if they make a 48mp FX they won't bump the mp of DX?

I am sure that they will, but most lenses will be the limiting factor. Even on my D800, increasing the megapixels will not increase the performance of my 85 (one of the sharpest lenses you can buy) unless I am shooting at F8 (not good for shooting birds in anything but the best light). When the lens is the limiting factor, the "pixels on the bird" is the same in DX and FX.

Photobug

Ok I will join in and play :-)
(seriously though how many % of your shots are above 400 ISO? I think mine are about 5-10% )

Until early this year, very very few of my picture were high ISO. Then after reading a lot of info here on AUTO-ISO I tried it on vacation when shooting in museums and homes were no flash was allowed. Bet 15% of the pictures on vacation were shot inside with no flash and high ISO.

WestEndBoy

Ok I will join in and play :-)

The High ISO advantage of the FX over the DX has always been almost 1 stop. In the early days of FX that meant that we could shoot 1600 instead of 800 ISO. which meant that we had 4 ev of ISO boost instead of 3 (200-1600 vs 200-800) these days we can shoot from 100-6400 vs 100-12800 ie 7EV vs 8 EV boost. ie the percentage of difference between FX over DX has halved!


The advantages of the FF sensor are disappearing. ;-)
Also Consider that the Samsung NX1 boasts 100-25600
and The Fuji Xtrans DX sensor always had High ISO and DR as good as nikon's FX sensor and better than Canon's FF.

(seriously though how many % of your shots are above 400 ISO? I think mine are about 5-10% )

These statistics are "native ISOs" which are more to do with the marketing department than how the sensor actually performs at these ISOs. Actually, that says nothing about how the sensor performs at these ISO's.

ISO performance, assuming the same sensor cut to the DX or FX size, is a function of the sensor area. The FX sensor is 2.25 times larger than the DX sensor and will therefore have always have a little more than a 1 stop advantage. (Note, if you are pixel peaking, you will see the same noise at the pixel level and think the sensors perform the same. However, if you look at the image at the same effective resolution which is what we do in the real world, you will see the FX advantage.)

If an engineer does something magical with a DX sensor that eliminates the FX sensor advantage, then he or she only has to do the same magic on the FX sensor and the advantage will be restored.

heartyfisher

The reason the FX sensor advantage, on average, is LESS than 1 stop is bec DX sensor development is always faster (due to the market size of DX cameras vs FX cameras). ie. the new tech always comes out first on DX. by the time that tech gets to the FX cameras its the next generation of DX sensors already. Furthermore, it looks like the DX tech dev is accelerating esp note the NX1, it has some tech that is Unique to smaller size pixels that will not scale to large pixels.

WestEndBoy

That is possible, but even if true, FX will eventually catch up because of the same basic laws I described above. Moore's law is also slowing down, so that temporary advantage of FX, even if it exists, will disappear too.

On a similar vein though, since FX has such a natural advantage, I have often wondered if the designers have compromised on ISO to gain an advantage in another area, such as sharpness or colour. Don't know the answer to that.....

sevencrossing

For Dx to be superior to Fx, it has not just to catch it up, it has to overtake it

heartyfisher

For Dx to be superior to Fx, it has not just to catch it up, it has to overtake it

I thought that was established already ;-) the only advantage left is the high ISO and that's only a minor criteria as shown above, that advantage is getting smaller.

snakebunk

For me the greatest benefit with fx is that I can fit larger motives. This is very important when you photograph from a hide with a long prime lense.

donaldejose

Realistically, FX can always be about 1 stop better at high ISO and it won't matter most of the time if DX is "good enough" at "high enough" ISO that "almost all of the time" a photographer is able to get the shot he or she wants using DX equipment. If we are not there yet with the D7100 we soon will be with the next top DX camera Nikon releases. A extreme situation where you absolutely need to shoot at 12,800 ISO will be rare enough to no longer justify 100% of the time carrying the added weight and paying the added expense of using FX equipment all the time. This is the way DX will be superior to FX for all practical purposes. If I am correct in this, and I may not be, we will see a few more years of lots of people riding the FX bandwagon and then we will see a resurgence of DX use because people will realize the FX weight and cost have become "overkill." DX will than have a "rebirth" among professionals and advanced amateurs. Nikon should prepare the basis for this by producing a DX "holy trinity" and a set of 35,50,85mm FX equivalent high mp DX primes. Nikon now has a fine line of FX bodies out sufficient to increase its FX market share (just add a 50mp sensor next year) over the next few years. Nikon can now take a year to push high-end DX bodies and lenses. Hopefully, that is what they will do.

WestEndBoy

I am putting my money on a different horse.

I think that is ten years or less, Nikon's entry level DSLR will be an FX camera about the same price (in 2014 dollars), size and weight as the D5300.

I think that sensor cost will decline dramatically until it is only a significant cost portion for the cheapest camera. Nikon's sensor in their top line body (D6, D830, D910?) will only be slightly better. The box where the mirror is the same size in DX as it is in FX, so there is no reason that FX has to be bigger or heavier. I think that they are only bigger and heavier now because only serious enthusiasts and professionals can afford FX and they want a bigger form factor.

Generally, this will mean that DSLRs will be like SLRs of the 90s. The sensor (film) was/is very similar with a small quality/cost difference between the low and high end. Lens systems and camera ergonomics were/will be what counts.

In fact, this cheap FX body, call it the D400 (the naming system suggests this, anything less has already been used) will probably be mirrorless. This does not mean that mirrorless will be taking over. I think that mid-to -top end professional bodies will still have mirrors because they will still have superior focusing performance and mirrorless cameras will be considered a "cheap" alternative, but perform somewhere between mirrorless and mirrored today (probably closer to mirrorless). The appeal of mirrorless in the entry level FX camera will be that it will be slightly cheaper and lighter (and perhaps smaller along the top, but that space might be used for an OVF).

manhattanboy

I am putting my money on a different horse.

I think that is ten years or less, Nikon's entry level DSLR will be an FX camera about the same price (in 2014 dollars), size and weight as the D5300.

You are forgetting one serious advantage of a "crop" sensor, and that is "reach".
Unless Nikon swaps all lenses to DO and dramatically reduces their price to where one can use a 400+ on FX at the same price as a 300 on DX, then at least some tele shooters will continue to prefer an already cropped image, e.g. DX camera.

There are enough lenses and competition that almost everything at 200mm or less really is superior in FX. However, over that then DX starts to have significant advantages, be they cost, weight, increased pixel density, reduced post-cropping time, etc.

Regarding the ISO: I routinely shoot DX up to ~3K ISO, and I would say anything ~1,000 can look equivalent to ISO 100 with good post-processing. If its night time and I am shooting indoors without a flash, what camera do I reach for? Of course its not the DX, but that's obvious to most of the intelligent readers of this site.

If all FX works fully for everything you do, then great. I personally would love something like the 1v3 with the new 300 lens if it had an optical view finder. The next closet thing is a DX camera for now.

WestEndBoy

Why would Nikon support an entire hardware line when DX can be set "in-camera".

heartyfisher

For me the greatest benefit with fx is that I can fit larger motives. This is very important when you photograph from a hide with a long prime lense.

motives ?

heartyfisher

Why would Nikon support an entire hardware line when DX can be set "in-camera".

If nikon doesnt do it someone else will and has.. it does look like nikon has abandoned the DX format. If 2015 is not the year of the Nikon DX DSLR it will be the year of the mirror less APSC. Starting with the Samsung NX1. I have been scouting it out and there is nothing I don't like about it besides the fact that its not in the shops yet ! :-) and it not a Nikon !

Besides the Samsung NX1, I bet Fuji has got a couple or 3 new cameras with the new rumoured 24MP Xtrans sensor ready for feb 2015.