Is DX superior to FX?

Bokeh_Hunter

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.

I have been to the DIA airport gallery many times and over the years it has dwindled down what it has which is too bad. 7 years ago it showcased some great images. In the last few years, not so much.
That aside, yes I'm sure you are seeing the blow-ups of the 12mp images that were probably cropped on top of it. I have seen recent pictures of him with a D800E in hand so I'm sure the IQ will increase.

Interestingly I have seen/read many articles on Steve McCurry who shoots both Nikon and Hasselblad - traveling. If you thought FX teles were big, MedFmt are enormous, and also don't have about 1/2 the reach.

On another note, last month's Popular Photography showcased Art Wolf who is releasing a new book. He was one of the first digital converts and while pulling images together, he made the decision to go back out and re-shoot most everything he could because the IQ of the current systems have set the "standard expectation" for the level of IQ, noise, etc. That touches on why I (probably like many) like the D800, we know the IQ will hold up to that "standard expectation" for much longer.

donaldejose

Thanks TTJ, I stand corrected about Mangelson shooting DX prior to the D3. Man it must have been tough shooting wildlife with medium format. The D3 was out in 2008. If you look at Mangelson's galleries from 2000 to 2007 you see birds in flight and close-ups of dangerous animals that would be very hard to do in medium format. Perhaps he was shooting some 35mm film prior to the D3?

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.

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.


You may think I am pointing at a dandelion instead of a pot of gold. But look further, its actually a rainbow I am pointing at and not plant material that becomes straw. ;-) When it rains things do get muddy. Nikon needs to get its gumboots on.

-4EV lowlight focusing, F2-2.8 (24-105 VR equivalent FOV), 15FPS. Laser assisted AF (15M range). Internet not just Wifi, etc etc..... So when will FX have these bits? yeah we don't need these "stuff" on a MF camera its the IQ that counts. ;-)

itsnotmeyouknow

As a professional photographer for many years and now partially retired, I am puzzled by the penchant for shallow depth of field.

I have to disagree a little. Shooting with shallow DOF you force the viewer to look at what you want them to look at. If everything is in focus, then the viewer can choose, and for example, the person(s) might become less important in the weighting of the photo then the more interesting background. Just my 2 cents, and 2 cents is worth much these days anymore LOL.

I seem to be shooting more and more at about f5.6
DX superior? No but "best bang for the buck" Absolutely!

Where I shoot depends on the lens, for example, if there is no VR then I keep the f stop wide to keep the shutter speed up. But that is a given LOL. In general the f4-f8 seems to be great depending on the lens. If the lens is wide open at 5.6, then stop down to f8 might actually beget a sharper and better picture, but that again depends on the lens.

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.

My bolding.

The fact that you use shallow depth of field is not necessarily a skill in composition. You are forcing people to see what your subject is by having a single part of the image in focus, thereby making it obvious. Good compositional skills would mean you don't have to make it this obvious to show what the subject is.

WestEndBoy

As a professional photographer for many years and now partially retired, I am puzzled by the penchant for shallow depth of field.

I have to disagree a little. Shooting with shallow DOF you force the viewer to look at what you want them to look at. If everything is in focus, then the viewer can choose, and for example, the person(s) might become less important in the weighting of the photo then the more interesting background. Just my 2 cents, and 2 cents is worth much these days anymore LOL.

I seem to be shooting more and more at about f5.6
DX superior? No but "best bang for the buck" Absolutely!

Where I shoot depends on the lens, for example, if there is no VR then I keep the f stop wide to keep the shutter speed up. But that is a given LOL. In general the f4-f8 seems to be great depending on the lens. If the lens is wide open at 5.6, then stop down to f8 might actually beget a sharper and better picture, but that again depends on the lens.

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.

My bolding.

The fact that you use shallow depth of field is not necessarily a skill in composition. You are forcing people to see what your subject is by having a single part of the image in focus, thereby making it obvious. Good compositional skills would mean you don't have to make it this obvious to show what the subject is.



I don't agree with that. While there are likely lots of cases there this is true, you are essentially saying that a shallow depth of field "means" that composition is poor.

WestEndBoy

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.

You may think I am pointing at a dandelion instead of a pot of gold. But look further, its actually a rainbow I am pointing at and not plant material that becomes straw. ;-) When it rains things do get muddy. Nikon needs to get its gumboots on.

-4EV lowlight focusing, F2-2.8 (24-105 VR equivalent FOV), 15FPS. Laser assisted AF (15M range). Internet not just Wifi, etc etc..... So when will FX have these bits? yeah we don't need these "stuff" on a MF camera its the IQ that counts. ;-)

Which camera focuses at -4EV? Does it actually focus better than a D750, or is this a spec measured in a lab under ideal conditions?

Which zoom lens bests FX at 2.8 in depth of field? The Sigma 1.8 zoom doesn't as 1.8 in DX is roughly equal to 2.8 in FX. Light gathering power will essentially be the same as well.

Laser assisted AF. That would be cool. Does anybody have it?

Who has internet besides a phone?

Bokeh_Hunter

Thanks TTJ, I stand corrected about Mangelson shooting DX prior to the D3. Man it must have been tough shooting wildlife with medium format. The D3 was out in 2008. If you look at Mangelson's galleries from 2000 to 2007 you see birds in flight and close=ups of dangerous animals that would be very hard to do in medium format. Perhaps he was shooting some 35mm film prior to the D3?

That is a really good question. I believe I read an interview where he felt 35mm just wasn't good enough and that is why he shot MedFmt. I'm not sure how far that went though. There comes a point where different systems allows one to get images that otherwise would not be able too. He has never came across as unrealistic and "Set" on a system. Quite frankly I believe those people only exist on the internet. I know many of his wildlife photos were shot with MedFmt. I have seen pictures of him from many years ago with a MedFmt body and a huge tele lens. That is why so many of his images are so amazing. I follow stories about him and he is one of those guys that will work for months to get a single shot. It takes a lot of talent to be able to perform in a split second after months of waiting. He uses a specially coated glass on his frames that just makes the images pop like no other. You just know there is very little photo shop or darkroom work done on his images.

manhattanboy

This reminds me of literature class. If you don't make your reader struggle to discover the hidden meaning then it's not good prose, LOL.
You really can't control what people see in a photo.
Take a photo and ask several random people what they take away. They all have different answers.
But that's what's awesome. Peoples own perceptions and experience color their view of the world and by doing so you get to pier into their being.

Msmoto

What an interesting thread…… in some ways it is similar to the question about fuel mileage. Is a car that gets 40 mpg better than one that gets 20 mpg or caries 5 people vs. 3 people. The find use is simply different when comparing formats.

If DX were superior to FX, then it might follow that a micro 4/3rds is better than medium format…. huh?

If one looks at advantages, well 40 mpg is better than 20 mpg from an economic point, but maybe the 20 mpg vehicle will pull a larger load…..

Makes little sense to discuss the idea of superiority when maybe a better approach would be "I like DX because…." or "I like FX because…."

Oh well...

sevencrossing

Makes little sense to discuss the idea of superiority when maybe a better approach would be "I like DX because…." or "I like FX because…."

donaldejose
A discussion of advantages and disadvantages of both DX and FX can be enlightening -

Can I suggest we do just that

I did if fact start something similar, but after being told to "get a life" deleted it

Had this thread been entitled Is Canon superior to Nikon it would have been immediately closed

WestEndBoy

Let's stipulate that DX is "superior" to FX for the following reasons:

1.
Lighter and/or smaller.
2.
Cheaper
3.
Pixel density "puts more pixels on the bird" in certain situations.

Can anybody think of any other reason why DX is superior that is not some variation on the above? The following points are not reasons in my view:

1.
"DX is good enough." Only somebody who did not consider IQ very important would advance this argument and it is certainly not an argument that DX is superior, only that people should not place value on FX superiority.
2.
"DX IQ is indistinguishable from FX IQ "X" percentage of the time." So? It is "100-X"% of the time that makes FX IQ superior. X will be different for different photographers.
3.
"DX uses only the centre where the best sharpness is." This is not a reason because FX can be cropped in camera or in post to accomplish this. However, DX cannot go the other way.
4.
"Unless you blow it up in prints (insert said size here), nobody can tell." I pixel peep all the time on my computer and never print anything. This argument is getting less and less relevant every day. Also, this is a variation on #1.

Have I missed something?

spraynpray

This thread isn't a good advert for people wondering about joining NRF.

The title is: 'Is DX superior to FX' - it doesn't say 'in all ways' so the answer has to be 'yes' because it is superior in some ways.

If the somewhat loose titling was meant to say 'in all ways' then clearly it is a 'no'. Perhaps the OP who was last active on July 16 ( that's you @GreenFlash) could clear up that point for us then we could stop this endless nonsense?

sevencrossing

This thread isn't a good advert for people wondering about joining NRF.

Yet again i am forced to agree with S&P

Golf007sd

I have personally stayed away from this topic because I see both sides of the argument...moreover, have lived it first hand.

This thread just makes me cringe.....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.

Once again, I agree with TTJ.

donaldejose

Per msmoto's suggestion:

I like DX because it comes in smaller lighter bodies/lenses which I can more conveniently carry around on non-photographic excursions. The Image Quality is sufficient for any use to which I will put those images. Hence, the size/weight of the system determines its choice.

I like FX for photographic excursions and studio use because its superior Image Quality is more important in those situations then size and weight.

I admit that I could reduce the size and weight of an FX travel system by selecting a light body (such as D600/D610/D750) and pair it with a light weight lens (such as 50mm f1.8 or 1.4). However, a D5100, D5200, or D5300 paired with a 35mm f1.8 or an 18-55mm zoom is really just so awfully versatile for its size and weight. It is hard to beat the Nikon D3100, D3200, D3300, D5100, D5200, D5300 when you rank cameras on Image Quality per gram of weight or "best bang per gram."

I also admit the current image quality of DX is so good most people who are requesting studio portraits from me wouldn't know the difference if I took them on a Nikon D3100-D3300 or D5100-D5300 DX body. It disappoints me when people only seem to want images printed at 5x6 for around the house or posted on the internet. I especially detest people who only want to look at their images on cell phones.

brownie314

This thread isn't a good advert for people wondering about joining NRF.

The title is: 'Is DX superior to FX' - it doesn't say 'in all ways' so the answer has to be 'yes' because it is superior in some ways.

If the somewhat loose titling was meant to say 'in all ways' then clearly it is a 'no'. Perhaps the OP who was last active on July 16 ( that's you @GreenFlash) could clear up that point for us then we could stop this endless nonsense?

Yes, this thread was inactive for a while, but then we were having a similar discussion on another thread that was started for a different reason, and someone suggested we move out conversation to this thread. So this thread become re-activated. Problem is, the conversation from the other thread wasn't exactly "is DX superior to FX". It was more along the lines of "is DX good enough for almost all purposes".

I recently read an product review of the D750 from a wedding photographer. He posted some images he took with the D750 in almost no light. They were amazing. This high ISO of that camera is off the charts. And if you need to shoot like that on a regular basis - well the handwriting is on the wall - the D750 is your camera.

But I wonder, if you don't spend your life shooting at candle light - if something like a D7100 would not serve you just as well. Or, everyone hold your breath, something like the Olympus EM1. You could fit the EM1 and many lenses in the same space a D750 with kit lens would occupy. Now, if money, size, weight do not matter to you - then please, get the best - get a D750, or D4s, or whatever. But when those other things do become a consideration, maybe the inferior IQ of the m4/3 system, or DX system is something you can live with. And beyond that, how many of your "customers" (whether paying, or just family and friends) would really know the difference.

snakebunk

Let's stipulate that DX is "superior" to FX for the following reasons:
1.
Lighter and/or smaller.
2.
Cheaper
3.
Pixel density "puts more pixels on the bird" in certain situations.

Yes! That's it. A large sensor is best except for size, money and pixel density.

I think it is great that we can choose between two sizes within the same mount. Not so great that pro Nikon cameras only come in one size.

WestEndBoy

A pro camera usually appeals to a pro because of ergonomics, which usually means a bigger camera.

brownie314

A pro camera usually appeals to a pro because of ergonomics, which usually means a bigger camera.

Yes, this is probably the exact problem we are having with the "superior" - Superior for which person? When I was younger I used to foolishly get drawn into arguments about who is a better athlete - American football, futbal, basketball, baseball, etc. The fact is - this is not a valid argument - because they are all specialized for their sport. I think we are having the same problem here.

Ironheart

To paraphrase @msmoto, it's kinda like asking "is a Prius superior to a pickup truck". Without the context of "for what purpose" you have nothing to discuss. Try to put a yard of gravel in a Prius...

DaveyJ

Ironheart is so right! For those who are WORKING and also bringing along a camera to document things, DX makes a lot of sense. The alternative is an even smaller camera. Still I personally think this thread just stirs up tension. However if the question was asked "Does Nikon think most of us NEED a FX Nikon" the answer does seem to be yes right now.

Our company budget for imagery gear this year was well beyond a D810 and a batch of high end Nikkor lens. Yet very little actually was spent on Nikon gear. Until Nikon makes another DX DSLR that really attracts field still and video use for us.....We will continue to await say a D7200. I use Nikon gear now way more than the guys I work with. The most used Nikons for us now are D7100, D3200, and Nikon AW 1 in that order.

We have passed on the D750 and the D810 as I feel that for field use when there is heavy machinery, sawdust and dirt, always more mud than we want.......DX is where we chose to spend our money. And if it comes to spending say another $10,000 on camera gear Red Epics, Black Magic Cameras, and even Go Pros seem to get the job done and I no longer call all the shots here on what gets spent. My guys would just buy another D7200 like they were buying a new water pump.

So in this discussion it seems we each pretty much know where we look for the next camera offering, and in fact WHAT WE USE now. Nikon leadership though needs to examine their presence in the DX field. Their FX offerings to me are really great, and very up to date. DX though has been glossed over.

sevencrossing

Ironheart is so right! For those who are WORKING and also bringing along a camera to document things, DX makes a lot of sense

but that again depends on the sort of WORK and how detailed you require the documentation

dissent

Some more DX vs. FX discussion, courtesy of Neil van Niekerk -

http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-cameras-comparison-depth-of-field/#more-24137

... because it's not really the Internets if you don't argue and argue about something, reach (apparent) resolution of the issue, only to keep on discussing and arguing about it. This works out quite well in many cases for me, since it often takes quite a while for information to penetrate my dense cranium (e.g., I expect to keep working for a bit longer to come to grips with much of the discussion in this thread).

Bokeh_Hunter

I have personally stayed away from this topic because I see both sides of the argument...moreover, have lived it first hand.

This thread just makes me cringe.....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.

Once again, I agree with TTJ.

I suggest we close this thread and start a new one based on MSmotos suggestion.


Makes little sense to discuss the idea of superiority when maybe a better approach would be "I like DX because…." or "I like FX because…."

Oh well...

Photobug

I also second @Bokeh_Hunter's recommendation to close this one and reopen on that says why I like my DX and why I like my FX. For someone that is sitting on the fence, it would be great reading. It could even be two threads, one for DX and one for FX to make it easier reading or just do it in one. Nice idea MsMoto.