Is DX superior to FX?

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.

motives ?

Sorry, that was a bad direct translation from swedish. I meant subject, in my case birds.

I want a long prime lense because it gives me the best photographs of birds far away. At the same time there may be birds showing up real close and for them the area of the fx sensor is useful.

manhattanboy

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

I set 1.3x Crop mode in the 7100 for a total 2x magnifier from FX. The in-camera cropping can go down the line. The point is that there are times when you do not have enough lens and you have no choice but to crop. If you routinely run into those situations, then DX can actually be useful, as you are shooting a cropped pic on a cropped camera. Now I totally agree that the having the ability to do FF and crop frames in the 810 is awesome.
Personally I use a 2 camera setup and shoot FF at 200mm or less and a crop sensor above that. I wish I could shoot FF for everything, but small and light-weight FF superteles are limited by the optical laws of nature and by Nikon's exorbitant price tags. Give me something with the 7100's image quality or better and the ability to reach 600mm with a lens having flat MTFs that is less than 10 inches, less than a couple pounds, and less than a $1000 and I will be ecstatic. Until then I will keep shooting with the 7100. :P

Photobug

@manhattanboy - Personally I use a 2 camera setup and shoot FF at 200mm or less and a crop sensor above that. I wish I could shoot FF for everything, but small and light-weight FF superteles are limited by the optical laws of nature and by Nikon's exorbitant price tags. Give me something with the 7100's image quality or better and the ability to reach 600mm with a lens having flat MTFs that is less than 10 inches, less than a couple pounds, and less than a $1000 and I will be ecstatic. Until then I will keep shooting with the 7100. :P

+1 for using the pluses for both DX and FX. Lots of Pros have gone with the D7100 for the DX body since there is no D9300/D400.

I was leaning on moving to FX and then got to handle the D750 twice in 5 days and having read all the messages in this form. My conclusion....the combo of my D7100 for pictures over 200mm plus the D750 for pictures less than 200mm met my requirements and budget.

donaldejose

Cost, size of equipment and reach. Those are the reasons to go DX and the reasons some feel it is superior. If cost and size of equipment are not a concern one can go high mp FX and crop to DX size for reach. Some think (quite reasonably) that FX cropped to DX is the wave of the future. Others think (quite reasonably) Nikon has one more year to produce a top level DX body to compete with the Cannon 7DII and then we will be into the mirrorless era. 2015 should prove which point of view Nikon agrees with. 2016 should be the start of the mirrorless era.

brownie314

I am coming here from another thread. We were talking about the possibility of a higher end DX body from Nikon and got into this discussion of what the "optimal" size for sensor is. So that portion of the discussion was moved here.

Lots of people give lots of reasons for FX. Some make sense, some - to me at least - do not make a lot of long term sense.

One argument for FX was that the larger bodies give you better ergonomics - I agree. But there is no rule that says DX cannot be just as large as FX - but DX has the additional advantage of being able to get small - FX loses something here. So I think this portion of the argument goes to DX.

Another argument was that DX is not a "mount" but a sensor size. Well that is true. But you could say the same thing about FX. The F is the mount. It can take either a DX or FX sensor. But I suspect Nikon will eventually, if DX survives in Nikon, come with a new mirrorless mount for DX.

heartyfisher

Actually like the nikon1 sensor there is no reason the mirrorless should be DX or FX sized it may infact be some other size. Would anyone be interested in an EX mirrorless sensor? from nikon. say 1.33 crop (like leica) or 1.2 crop?

WestEndBoy

I would be interested in a large format mirrorless, say 200mm by 300mm. Can you imagine the wicked detail in the landscapes of such a monster.

sevencrossing

Lots of people give lots of reasons for FX. Some make sense, some - to me at least - do not make a lot of long term sense.
DX has the additional advantage of being able to get small -

No one is questioning that Dx has the advantage of being smaller lighter and cheaper
But this thread is not about advantages
it is about superiority
and when comes to superior quality - FX wins

PB_PM

No one is questioning that Dx has the advantage of being smaller lighter and cheaper
But this thread is not about advantages it is about superiority and when comes to superior quality - FX wins

End of story, right there. DX is a good all around kit for amateurs, or people who don't have the money to spend, but if you need an edge to set your product (images) apart FX still delivers that.

brownie314

No one is questioning that Dx has the advantage of being smaller lighter and cheaper
But this thread is not about advantages it is about superiority and when comes to superior quality - FX wins

End of story, right there. DX is a good all around kit for amateurs, or people who don't have the money to spend, but if you need an edge to set your product (images) apart FX still delivers that.

For most types of photography, I would image the end customers would be very hard pressed to tell the difference between DX and FX. Good post processing skills are probably more important than the different files produced by DX and FX. My suspicion is, however, that FX is the default pro gear today because - it did have a very significant IQ advantage in the past, and it remains the default "pro" format.

brownie314

Lots of people give lots of reasons for FX. Some make sense, some - to me at least - do not make a lot of long term sense.
DX has the additional advantage of being able to get small -

No one is questioning that Dx has the advantage of being smaller lighter and cheaper
But this thread is not about advantages
it is about superiority
and when comes to superior quality - FX wins

Yes this thread is about advantages. And smaller, lighter and cheaper ARE advantages. As well as focal length reach, and extended DOF.

We all know that FX will always have, all things being equal, an IQ advantage. Of course it will. Medium format will always have an advantage over FX. So this thread isn't about that - we all know that. Although that gap between DX, FX, and MX is becoming smaller.

This thread is asking the question - is DX, for all practical purposes, "good enough" for 99% of photographers. I can imagine there are a few photographers that have to have every last ounce of sensor performance available - and for those people - yes FX is the way to go. But most people - I would bet even some who think they fall into this ultra high performance sensor category - can get by with DX - and get by quite well.

heartyfisher

No one is questioning that Dx has the advantage of being smaller lighter and cheaper
But this thread is not about advantages it is about superiority and when comes to superior quality - FX wins

End of story, right there. DX is a good all around kit for amateurs, or people who don't have the money to spend, but if you need an edge to set your product (images) apart FX still delivers that.

right so how many of us have digital Medium format kits ? clearly FX is as a system is superior to Medium format just as DX is superior to FX.

PB_PM

Medium format and FX DSLR's are hardly in the same price range and not a reasonable comparison, no matter how often DX users pull out this straw man argument.

WestEndBoy

This thread is asking the question - is DX, for all practical purposes, "good enough" for 99% of photographers. I can imagine there are a few photographers that have to have every last ounce of sensor performance available - and for those people - yes FX is the way to go. But most people - I would bet even some who think they fall into this ultra high performance sensor category - can get by with DX - and get by quite well.

Really???? I thought it was asking, "Is DX superior to FX?"

heartyfisher

Medium format and FX DSLR's are hardly in the same price range and not a reasonable comparison, no matter how often DX users pull out this straw man argument.

Ok i got carried away with my comparisons.. but your point just proves that absolute Image Quality is not what makes a photographic system superior.

the DX system was superior.. I would say the FX system may have taken over in the Nikon world(D750), yet in the rest of the industry the DX still remains the most advanced system technically and feature wise. I can probably list a fair number of features on DX systems that would be lacking in the FX systems. I would further assert that nikon is artificially holding back the DX line of cameras. we all know if they wanted to make a DX pro camera they could make an awesome one! Simply stick the D7100 sensor in the 7 year old D300 and we have the top DX camera. And what about adding in 7 years worth of technical innovation into it ?

sevencrossing

This thread is asking the question - is DX, for all practical purposes, "good enough" for 99% of photographers. .

George Bernard Shaw England and America are two countries separated by a common language.

In England, superior means "Of great value or excellence; extraordinary"
If in in America, it means "Good enough"
I am please I live in England

spraynpray

This thread is asking the question - is DX, for all practical purposes, "good enough" for 99% of photographers. .

George Bernard Shaw England and America are two countries separated by a common language.

In England, superior means "Of great value or excellence; extraordinary"
If in in America, it means "Good enough"
I am pleased I live in England

OMG that is so funny on so many levels! )

Bokeh_Hunter

This thread just makes me cringe. Once side wants to make believe that the cheaper DX system they bought is just as good as the FX systems for $1,500-$4,000 more. The other side - well everyone shot DX prior to the D3/D700 (maybe Canon 5d) and we know there is a difference in many subtle ways that generic measurements by DXo will never find.

Hate to break it to you guys that have DX systems, but no, DX is not superior, it is not "super close," it will not catch up (which is a ridiculous statement as it would require FX to stall) and that is the way it will always be. It doesn't mean DX is a garbage camera. In great light or in controlled situations, it would be hard to tell the difference. Problem is, rarely is anyone shooting in perfect conditions and that is where the advantages of the FX sensors start to outperform and it continues to the edges where we shoot at.

There are times insecurities are justified, but over a F-ing camera is not one of them. Just be happy you have a damn good camera and move on.

donaldejose

I think the real issue here is with the word "superior." Both DX and FX have their advantages and disadvantages and one system may be better for one person (for many reasons) while a different system may be better for another person (for many reasons). We should all be able to agree to that. A discussion of advantages and disadvantages of both DX and FX can be enlightening but should not be cast as which is "superior." They are just different and, if cost is no object, the same person may prefer one over the other in a specific situation (such as birding, landscape, very low light, vary large prints, etc) because of certain advantages in that situation.

We should also remember that Nikon FX appeared with the D3 in 2008. DxOMark gave that sensor an overall score of 81. Today the Nikon DX D3200 also is 81, the Nikon DX D3300 is 82, the Nikon DX D5300 and DX D7100 are both 83, and the Nikon DX D5200 is 84. One could argue that in good light these DX sensors are "superior" to the D3 FX sesnor. But all that type of argumentative comparison is really foolishness. Prior to 2008 all Nikon pros used DX sensors and many wonderful photos were taken, sold, and printed to large sizes. Look at this page and check out the images shot before 2008 (some are even birds in flight and some were shot in low light) and note the large print sizes available. http://mangelsen.com/index.php/collections-by-year.html

The photos Mangelsen shot before 2008 had to be shot with a DX sensor. The Nikon 2005 D2x was DX and is rated by DxOMark at 59 overall and clean ISO up to 489. All of today's DX sensors would be able to do a much better job than that D2x sensor. For example, the D7100 is rated overall at 83 and clean ISO up to 1256. Surely the D7100 would be able to do a better job on all the images Mangelsen shot before 2008 than the camera he used and he would have lusted for a $1,200 D7100 in 2005 instead of the $5,000 D2x which was available. In fact, if the D7100 was available then, he most likely would have bought three D7100 bodies for less money than one D2x body. Mangelson's pre-FX era images are humbling and serve to remind us that the limiting factor in our photography most likely is not the equipment we have or can afford.

heartyfisher

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/another-nail-in-the-dx.html .. I think this article from Thom illustrates why the DX system should be "superior" to FX. he doesn't mention the Samsung NX1 probably bec we really haven't got it in hand at the moment but its clearly spot on on the DX format extended improvement curve in terms of innovation. The NX1 is clearly 1 step ahead of the sony which as described in the article is providing DX features that are not provided by FX cameras from Nikon or canon. I think Nikon "protecting" its D4S sales by not innovating in the DX systems and providing industry leading options will be the biggest mistake they can make. If they don't do anything about it in 2015 then the other manufacturers will. We are expecting the new Xtrans 24mp sensor from Fuji and the new Samsung 28mp NX1 sensor. (who knows what Sony will be bring out next ;-) ) Both are expected to challenge the D4S in high ISO. and at 15FPS with 205 phase-detect points covering 90% of the frame what's not to like? Not to mention Programmable intelligent Image recognition exposure trigger and other cool bits. Tell me again why the D4S is more expensive than the D750 and D810? bec IQ is not what makes a camera system superior, its the Feature set. This new batch of Non Nikon DX systems may just have it over its FX counterparts on feature set. So you say these innovation will get to FX "one day" but when is the D5 expected? 2 years from now, what about the D820? 3 years from now? Do you really think in 2-3 years time we won’t have a few more amazing features on the new batch of DX system? 2-3 years is 2 whole generations of DX cameras !! (That Nikon is not providing). What do you think the Samsung NX3 will have?

Further more, there are a whole list of features in the P&S cameras that are now making it into the mirrorless systems that the majority of people just don't see. and more on the way. Just bec Nikon is not innovating in the DX space does not mean that the DX system is not "superior". It may just mean that Nikon will be gone and we may never see the D5.

I have said this before. Nikon should have segmented the DX and FX systems and treated the DX system as its own product line to compete directly against the M43, Fuji, Canon APSC and now Samsung.

manhattanboy

Tell me again why the D4S is more expensive than the D750 and D810? bec IQ is not what makes a camera system superior, its the Feature set. This new batch of Non Nikon DX systems may just have it over its FX counterparts on feature set.

I think in a nutshell what you are saying is that there is more competition in the DX (or crop sensor) market and as a result innovation and improvement may be faster. It may end up being true as all of the other companies besides Canikon will have to try everything under the sun to drive sales given that everyone and their mother is now shooting nearly all pics with their cellphones.

Bokeh_Hunter

... Look at this page and check out the images shot before 2008 (some are even birds in flight and some were shot in low light) and note the large print sizes available. http://mangelsen.com/index.php/collections-by-year.html

The photos Mangelsen shot before 2008 had to be shot with a DX sensor. The Nikon 2005 D2x was DX and is rated by DxOMark at 59 overall and clean ISO up to 489. All of today's DX sensors would be able to do a much better job than that D2x sensor. For example, the D7100 is rated overall at 83 and clean ISO up to 1256. Surely the D7100 would be able to do a better job on all the images Mangelsen shot before 2008 than the camera he used and he would have lusted for a $1,200 D7100 in 2005 instead of the $5,000 D2x which was available. In fact, if the D7100 was available then, he most likely would have bought three D7100 bodies for less money than one D2x body. Mangelson's pre-FX era images are humbling and serve to remind us that the limiting factor in our photography most likely is not the equipment we have or can afford.

Just an FYI: One of Mangelson's galleries is close by (he is originally from Nebraska) and he shot/shoots Medium format film for years. He didn't shoot digital until the D3 and it is just for some wildlife. Not to take anything away from his images, but up close one can clearly tell the digital files from the MedFmt film ones. It is very clear which are which and the Digital (D3) just wasn't in the same ballpark of the MedFmt. Difference is that there would have been little chance in getting some of the images with a MedFmt system that the D3 got.
His images are magical and the computer screen does not do them justice at all.

tcole1983

Mangelson has a gallery in DIA and I wasn't super impressed. He has some good photos, but there were some that were awfully noisy blown up. Others were very clear...must be what Bokeh_hunter is talking about.

I have blown up some pictures shot with my D5000 to fairly large sizes and didn't see the same noise/pixelation that I saw in some of his larger prints at the gallery. I am however fairly adamant about shooting at the lowest ISO I can. The wedding I just shot was the exception because ISO 100 or 200 wasn't possible and a noisy picture was better than a blurry one. However outside is 99% under ISO 400.

WestEndBoy

It is for this reason that in the long term I see digital medium format as my "alternative to FX", not DX. It will take another decade though.

Bokeh_Hunter

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/another-nail-in-the-dx.html .. I think this article from Thom illustrates why the DX system should be "superior" to FX.

This is exactly what makes me cringe at this thread - grasping at straws. That article wasn't at all about a DX superiority, it was why a shooter moved to Sony. It was about how a former Nikon pro, Bob Krist, (who travels the world non-stop for NatGeo) has always liked smaller systems, and how Nikon hasn't caught up with the video options he needs along with the expanded lens line-up for a smaller system. It has little to do about sensor size except that is what is in the system. If you ever read any of Krist's views on systems, because of his job traveling & the older he gets, he is more concerned with weight and for him, he can accept the added time it takes to get an image. He is one who shoots in daylight, very little flash and has the extra time to set up shots that you need for DX.

There is no need to grasp at straws. Just because a system's chosen tradeoffs is based on "lighter & smaller" or the host of non-image taking advantages, does not make one Superior - it just makes it lighter and smaller. I don't like @sevencrossing assumption of american's vocabulary (as it is just a few on here that are trying to re-define it), but I do believe his point of "Good enough" does not equal "Superior" is the difference between these arguments. Features or a lack there of it, body size, lenses, etc. is not Sensor size limited, it is a manufacturer's choice. When you have pivoted off the question "Is DX superior to FX?" which is sensor based, it is an acknowledgment that clearly DX isn't.

The high-end compact introduced this year are all using 2/3rds, 1", m4/3s, sensors in them. There is no debate, the larger the sensor, the better the IQ you get from a system.

Tell me again why the D4S is more expensive than the D750 and D810? bec IQ is not what makes a camera system superior, its the Feature set. This new batch of Non Nikon DX systems may just have it over its FX counterparts on feature set.

It is clear that you haven't used many systems to base an informed opinion on if you are asking this question. Each body is part of a SYSTEM with a focus on a type of use. Again trying to muddy the waters of the discussion with unrelated items to the question. It is like you are searching for gold and said "Ah ha! Found some!" while pointing at a dandylion.