Is DX superior to FX?

sevencrossing

OED is indeed the Oxford English Dictionary and "Greater in size or power" is the OED definition of Superior

WestEndBoy

Is there anything that DX can do that FX can't? Nope? You can always switch your camera to DX if you prefer the results because you are shooting long or macro or some other reason.

Is there anything that FX can do that DX can't. Yup.

While cost and weight are certainly considerations, let's limit the definition to the OED definition. Otherwise you can argue that a Honda Civic is superior to a high end Mercedes. Based on cost and weight, the Honda is superior, but I doubt that many people would really argue that.

Ironheart

Many more people buy civics than SLS AMG GTs so you could say it is superior...

Mickslick

Great discussion. I shoot with both a D800 and Nikon Glass as well as a D7100, with mostly Sigma Glass. I travel with the D7100, and any more I really can't tell the difference in quality between the two. I shoot mostly landscapes, so I might notice more if I did more macro / fashion etc... Here is a link to a recent trip to the mid California coast, all shot with a D7100. http://www.michaelbrandtphotography.com/ca-coast-2014/

proudgeek

Thanks for sharing this work Michael. Outstanding.

PB_PM

Many more people buy civics than SLS AMG GTs so you could say it is superior...

Just because something is sold more does not make it superior. More cost effective maybe, but superior, that is questionable. There are more smartphones sold a month than DSLR's does that mean that smartphones are better cameras? Don't argue that smartphones aren't used for photography, because more smartphone pics are uploaded daily than by any other device.

donaldejose

Michael, your work is fantastic! Love the saturated colors and dramatic lighting.

WestEndBoy

Michael, your work is fantastic! Love the saturated colors and dramatic lighting.

Agreed. This is work for all of us to aspire to.

HipShot

Thanks for sharing this work Michael. Outstanding.

X2!

ads

"The D3x is noticeably noisier than the D600/D610, even though they are both 24MP cameras."

Err - really? I shoot a D3x and compared it back to back with a D600 when that came out because I was curious to see the difference - D3x noise was lower at every ISO.

The D600 goes to higher ISO levels (the D3x tops out at 6400), but it doesn't have less noise than a D3x at the same ISO.

Msmoto

I find these threads which are a function of preference and opinions are fascinating….. the Sine qua non of subjectivity….. LOL

manhattanboy

Is there anything that DX can do that FX can't?

Actually yes. DX can give me a hand-holdable 600mm equivalent.
DX still trumps FX in hand-held distance shooting. Nearly everything else is superior in FX.

Great discussion. I travel with the D7100, and any more I really can't tell the difference in quality between the two.
[ ]
Here is a link to a recent trip to the mid California coast, all shot with a D7100. http://www.michaelbrandtphotography.com/ca-coast-2014/

^^ Proof that the 7100 is an amazing camera and that crop sensors are more than capable.

SquamishPhoto

"The D3x is noticeably noisier than the D600/D610, even though they are both 24MP cameras."

Err - really? I shoot a D3x and compared it back to back with a D600 when that came out because I was curious to see the difference - D3x noise was lower at every ISO.

The D600 goes to higher ISO levels (the D3x tops out at 6400), but it doesn't have less noise than a D3x at the same ISO.

The entire industry of camera testing seems to disagree with you.

ads

"The entire industry of camera testing seems to disagree with you. "

I'll be sure to tell my photos to be more noisy then @squamishphoto.

WestEndBoy

Is there anything that DX can do that FX can't?

Actually yes. DX can give me a hand-holdable 600mm equivalent.
DX still trumps FX in hand-held distance shooting. Nearly everything else is superior in FX.

Do you mean image quality or weight? I am sure that you would get better image quality with FX on a 600mm f4.0 than DX on a 400mm f/2.8 (this is comparing apples to apples as the depth of field and field of view are about equivalent in these two scenarios Source: www.tawbaware.com). If you decide to make the comparison with the same lens, then you can either crop or shoot the FX camera in DX mode.

So let's set aside the argument that DX or FX is better. My point is that whatever DX can do, FX can do just be switching the camera to DX mode.

donaldejose

Sorry WestEndBoy. You cannot always equal DX with an FX sensor by switching it into DX mode. FX in DX mode cannot do "whatever DX can do." Even the entry level D3300 will now put 24 megapixels into the area covered by DX while the highest megapixel FX, the D800, can only put 16 megapixels into the area covered by DX in its DX mode. Remember that last generation of DX sensors, such as the D7000 and D5100 were 16 megapixel sensors? Thus, the DX mode in FX is about equal to or less than the last generation of DX bodies.

PB_PM

Unless you are making huge prints, or cropping by more than 75%, that is simply irrelevant @donaldegose .

donaldejose

Agreed, at 8x10 size or computer monitor size you wouldn't see a difference. I don't know where it would start to be seen. But you said: "whatever DX can do, FX can do just be [sic] switching the camera to DX mode" and that is not true because DX mode on the D800 cannot produce a 24mp image. 16mp is not equal to 24mp. Perhaps the D800x or the D4x will have 24mp in DX mode and then your statement will be correct.

WestEndBoy

Sorry WestEndBoy. You cannot always equal DX with an FX sensor by switching it into DX mode. FX in DX mode cannot do "whatever DX can do." Even the entry level D3300 will now put 24 megapixels into the area covered by DX while the highest megapixel FX, the D800, can only put 16 megapixels into the area covered by DX in its DX mode. Remember that last generation of DX sensors, such as the D7000 and D5100 were 16 megapixel sensors? Thus, the DX mode in FX is about equal to or less than the last generation of DX bodies.

OK, I will concede that point. However, I have to wonder how many lenses will be good enough to take advantage of 24 megapixels in that DX area or DX image circle of an FX lens etc. If someone is using anything but the finest professional lenses, then I doubt that increasing pixel density to that extent will produce a noticeable benefit. It would be interesting to see some tests of that specific point.

donaldejose

I think you can look at if "from the bottom up" as to expected future products from Nikon. All DX sensors are now 24mp and increasingly without an AA filter and they are rated to go to ISO 6400. Apparently, that pixel density is working just fine. These DX sensors are "the bottom" of Nikon's DSLR line. When you scale up that DX pixel density to FX size it should imply that a 54mp FX sensor without an AA filter will work "just fine" up to ISO 6400. If Nikon's Expeed 4 or 5 can handle the data flow I would expect to see some 50mp sensor in FX; perhaps a D800x or a D4x. So the future Nikon FX line up should be a 24mp D5 and a 50mp D810. I think the D620 or D630 entry level FX will likely stay at 24mp.

What about lenses? A new line will be produced for high mp sensors. The Otis and the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art are early members of that group. It will be a weird and wonderful world when we are using 50mp sensors and extremely sharp lenses to produce images we almost always look at downsized to about 3 to 5 mp!

PB_PM

But you said: "whatever DX can do, FX can do just be [sic] switching the camera to DX mode"

You might want to check again, that was not me.

proudgeek

I've read this thread with tremendous interest, even though some of the more technical portions of it have gone over my head. The answer it seems to me (at a simple level) is that DX is preferable when you're looking for additional reach and you have appropriate light so you don't have to push the ISO. In other words, shoot sports by day using DX if you need to, but you may be better off shooting at night using FX.

For me, I would like to have a second body to complement my D800. For my uses, the camera should for many reasons be the D400/D9300. As for whether I have the glass that will take full advantage of all 24 megapixels of a 24mpx sensor, I believe I do (a 300mm f/2.8). I think I would use it to shoot sports and wildlife in decent light and for macro work where I can't get close enough (like bugs). I'm happy to wait to see what happens.

For me, buying a D800 or D600 only to shoot it in DX mode all the time doesn't make a ton of sense. I have shot my D800 in DX mode, and the results are fine, but nothing like I've become used to with the body in FX mode.

donaldejose

I stand corrected.

sevencrossing

manhattanboy
^^ Proof that the 7100 is an amazing camera and that crop sensors are more than capable.

No one is denying this
No one is denying the current generation of Nikon DX cameras are exceeding good
But I cannot accept they are superior to the current generation of Nikon Fx cameras
yes a 24 mp DX sensor will put more pixels on the image than a cropped 36 mp Fx sensor
but this seems to be a theoretical advantage; I have yet to see a FX / DX comparison proving the few more mp on a D7100 DX file produces a superior image to a cropped D800 Fx file

when you need
the maximum dynamic range
the minimum noise at high ISO Values
to take full advantage of something like the 24mm f1.4
Fx is the only answer

proudgeek

Sevencrossing I'm inclined to agree. I'd like to see someone do a real test:
D800 + 70-200 @ 150mm
D7100 + 70-200 @ 100mm

with every other setting as identical as possible.