Is DX superior to FX?

donaldejose

I have read that additional pixels have to be a 25% increase before you can see an effect. If that is true you should see the effect of a change from 16 to 24 but I don't know how large you have to be printing to be able to see that effect. At 8x10 I don't think you would see it. At 16x24? At 24 x 36 I expect you would see it.

spraynpray

Is DX superior to FX?

With such an unrealistically generalised question being asked in the first place, it is no wonder this thread is so long. For those FX devotees who are currently twisting around trying not to concede any 'superiority' of DX over FX, take another look at the question being asked - the answer to that question is 'no', of course because the question doesn't allow any leeway - it's all or nothing. If it were 'are there any ways in which DX could be considered superior over FX', sensible debate could follow.

spraynpray

I have read that additional pixels have to be a 25% increase before you can see an effect. If that is true you should see the effect of a change from 16 to 24 but I don't know how large you have to be printing to be able to see that effect. At 8x10 I don't think you would see it. At 16x24? At 24 x 36 I expect you would see it.

My D7100 has made my 70-300VR unbearably soft now, so I have to keep it to use on the D7000, then flog it and get the 80-400G when I've made some money somehow.

Fortunately my 17-55 still gives pleasing results on the D7100 or I'd be flogging that for the Siggy 18-35 f1.8 which is bitingly sharp on my mates 7D.

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

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



Those differences are very small now - hardly much to crow about and the D7100 is probably harder on the 24mm f1.4 than the D800 is due to it's higher pixel density.

WestEndBoy

Spraynpray, I think you are overestimating DX somewhat. However, I have seen your pictures and they are better than the ones that I have been taking with my D800.

So who am I to argue.

GreenFlash

When you use a term like superior, then I suppose you have to define a standard against which superiority is judged.
What I think the discussion shows is that depending on the standard, dx may be superior in some cases, fx in others. But even then it's not so simple:
Examples: if the standard is "quality of image delivered per dollar expended", then it looks to me like a fully functional dx camera with a selection of extremely high quality lenses to cover a range of functions, will cost about $3000 to $4000. To get the same functionality from fx may cost between six and seven thousand dollars. Beyond $7000 fx begins to win on this standard, at least in some situations.
Talking about Iq only, it depends how you administer the test. If the test is: "Using the same lens, from which camera can I get the best iq?" There are many circumstances in which the current crop of dx sensors with more dense pixels win, and others in which fx will win, and an increasingly wide range of uses in which the two would be substantially equal. Fx folks argue you can't do the test that way. In telescopic work, they say, the only fair way to test is by letting the fx camera use a more powerful lens. Dx responds, well if dx used that lens the dx image would still be superior. So it depends how you frame the test.
But especially with the new crop of higher end dx designed lenses (which deliver closer to the sensors' ability to record, and the newer lower noise sensors, which translates into better high ISO performance, the goal posts have moved quite a bit.

sevencrossing

lets look at this another way

its your anniversary and your wife expects a bottle of superior champagne

When comes to value for money, a bottle of bubble from the local supermarket might be very good and terrific value for money

but by superior, your beloved is going to expect something like a bottle of Dom Pérignon 2004

there may not be a huge difference between the two, but non the less there will be a difference

MikeGunter

Hi all,

It seems that this thread is now at 158 posts - incredible as that is...

To the OP - the short answer to the title - 'Not no, but hell no'.

Is DX more economical? Hell yes, but why didn't you ask that question?

;-)

From full frame shooter of over 40 years and DX shooter of 10,

My best,

Mike

PB_PM

But even then it's not so simple:
Examples: if the standard is "quality of image delivered per dollar expended", then it looks to me like a fully functional dx camera with a selection of extremely high quality lenses to cover a range of functions, will cost about $3000 to $4000. To get the same functionality from fx may cost between six and seven thousand dollars. Beyond $7000 fx begins to win on this standard, at least in some situations.

I don't think there is any question as to whether DX or FX gives the best bang for your buck, at least when you look at the short term. The middle ground is more often than not the best (aka D90/D7000/D7100) bang for your buck in terms of getting the best of both worlds in performance and dollar value. On the other hand if you look at the long term value FX bodies cost about the same, or just a few hundred dollars more.

How? Yes you pay more upfront for an FX body, but the mean time in which said cameras are superior performers is also longer. The D700 was a superior camera to most DX cameras throughout it's four year production cycle. So you spend $2500-$2700 on the body, but it also gave you a lot for your money over that period of time. If you upgraded each DX cycle during that same time frame, you likely would have spent around $2500 (D90/D7000), unless you bought them right at the end of the production cycle when prices were the lowest. Yet those cameras still did not match the overall performance of the D700. The D7000 was very close, and better in some areas, but then you only had the performance for half the time. When you look at it that way, which camera(s) provide the best value for your money?

Now if you take the modern equivalent (D7100 vs D610) then that gap gets even smaller. In fact if you get four years out of the D610, rather than upgrading each DX cycle (second DX cycle is about when the DX starts to catch up) over that period, you actually save several hundred dollars on bodies, and get better performance over the years of ownership.

manhattanboy

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

Just ask someone who has to crop the images from the 7100. I am cropping the 7100 images shot in 1.3 crop mode: 7100 with a 300mm lens shot in 1.3 crop mode = 600mm equivalent. I may throw away up to 75% of that image in post to give me ~4 MP in the final image. That is not a lot of pixels in the end. Not saying that the D800 is not going to work, but there are SUPERIOR results to both the final image and to the work-flow by using the 7100. DX still has superiority over FX for hand held distance shooting. I use full frame for everything else, but not for distance.

manhattanboy

My D7100 has made my 70-300VR unbearably soft now, so I have to keep it to use on the D7000, then flog it and get the 80-400G when I've made some money somehow.

LOL, similar thing happened to me. Shooting with the 300 f4 now, but really miss VR as all the shots now are at 1/1600 or faster to keep the image sharp enough for the 7100's demanding pixel density.

DaveyJ

spraynpray's comment brought a big laugh from me! I am sure he meant it to be humorous and it was! High end gear does not guarantee results out when you are photographing and WE ALL know that. Having the right photo op does if WE are READY. One situation about high end gear I would like to pass on is having been in the car and bike race world for a number of years i saw many who were very egotistical about their gear, but some guys would show up with old beat up vehicles and because they could ride, they'd pull off very impressive results. Another spraynpray comment that is very important for us all to note is the top five results in his club's competition were DX. To me I still see both FX and DX as great sensor sizes. Beyond FX (say medium format and UP) I also am firmly convinced the results are VERY expensive and NOT WORTH IT!

This has been a very interesting topic. But I think we are comparing the TWO best formats in photography today! I would like to have a complete FX rig! But with increasing age and reduced ability to move about I can only wish that we each are capable of getting the shots we want with the gear we have. I'd quickly trade to lower capability gear to some degree if I could be able to get around and afford travel like I used to! I'd also credit NR as the site I go to to find out what is out there I can afford!

SquamishPhoto

Just ask someone who has to crop the images from the 7100. I am cropping the 7100 images shot in 1.3 crop mode: 7100 with a 300mm lens shot in 1.3 crop mode = 600mm equivalent. I may throw away up to 75% of that image in post to give me ~4 MP in the final image. That is not a lot of pixels in the end. Not saying that the D800 is not going to work, but there are SUPERIOR results to both the final image and to the work-flow by using the 7100. DX still has superiority over FX for hand held distance shooting. I use full frame for everything else, but not for distance.

Can you not get any closer to whatever it is that you are so incredibly far away from? Seems to me that if you're going through that much trouble to get your images than even your allegedly superior present day set up is evidently inadequate for the task. You need a longer lens, sir. :]

Msmoto

The issue for many of us is how close can we get to our subject……. nothing can make up for being too far away except a lot of money…. 800mm f/5.6 with the 1.2 teleconverter…. And even then, sometimes we simply cannot get the shot we want.

In shooting long teles there are also many other issues, atmospheric conditions, weight, need for support, and no one can say a smaller sensor is an advantage except in very special circumstances.

Both crop sensor and full frame have some unique advantages, but most pros use a full frame body and the reason is the final quality of the image is in most cases better.

manhattanboy

You need a longer lens, sir. :]

Agreed! :-bd

I use full frame for most everything now but still find it easier to lug around a DX just for the reach. I've looked into several superteles, but until Nikon makes a D.O. lens that is hand holdable, then forget it. For what its worth, I do not think there is THAT much difference in the picture quality that I would say someone with only a DX camera needs to buy FX, but I mainly like the shooting features that the FX cameras have that the DX ones don't. Is that pompous? Maybe, but its an honest answer.

The issue for many of us is how close can we get to our subject……
[ ]
In shooting long teles there are also many other issues, atmospheric conditions, weight, need for support, and no one can say a smaller sensor is an advantage except in very special circumstances.

The weight and need for support are less for smaller sensors to get to a given view. If they made a CX camera with an optical viewfinder then I would try that. The 1 series are too hard to shoot BIF with a big lens attached mainly because of the crappy viewfinder. With enough light, small sensors are not necessarily bad, but as the pixel density increases, the sharpness of the lens must also increase, and unfortunately most companies are not producing super-sharp lenses for crop or smaller sensors (maybe Fuji is an exception, but I have not shot with those yet). What I have experienced with tiny sensors is that there is a blurring and smearing from an ever so slightly out of focus image; it looks great when downsized to a print, but is terrible if you ever had to view 100%. Hence the present day mantra where even with plenty of light, bigger sensors lead to better images as there is a greater area to focus the photons onto and more slop allowed in the focus for a given shot.

Ade

Unfortunately I don't think it's possible/practical to make an OVF for the CX system suitable for BIF. Mirrorless OVFs are not "through the lens" since there is no mirror or pentaprism. So they are basically just a a simple lens with some framing lines attached to the top of the camera.

FreezeAction

If I'm shooting landscapes where the entire photo is the subject then I want Ansel Adams, Clyde Butcher depth of field. If I'm shooting a bird in the landscape and only the bird is the subject then a very shallow depth of field with a creamy bokeh. I've stood before some of Clyde Butcher's 5x9' darkroom photos and the total depth of field is awesome to say the least. From a distance it looks like you can just continue to walk right into the print.

TaoTeJared

If I'm shooting landscapes where the entire photo is the subject then I want Ansel Adams, Clyde Butcher depth of field. If I'm shooting a bird in the landscape and only the bird is the subject then a very shallow depth of field with a creamy bokeh. I've stood before some of Clyde Butcher's 5x9' darkroom photos and the total depth of field is awesome to say the least. From a distance it looks like you can just continue to walk right into the print.

I hope you understand that primarily has to do with the film format with it's size, and the DOF setting. DOF from those systems is not transferable to DX or FX as (due to the small size) diffraction sets in much, much earlier and degrades the image.

His images are amazing BTW!

FreezeAction

Wide angle lens still tend to give much greater DoF than teles. Maybe one day Nikon will build the equivalent of Canon's 17 TS lens. I understand the supposed f11 rule for diffraction with digital OK. Still even at f10 a lot of depth of field can be had with a 17mm FF lens. A 25-30 MM lens on MF I hope would give a deep enough depth of field especially if Schneider builds their version of a TS lens for the Ricoh/Pentax MF body. If memory is correct Schneider is building a 28mm TS lens now for medium format.

DenverShooter

The issue for many of us is how close can we get to our subject……. nothing can make up for being too far away except a lot of money…. 800mm f/5.6 with the 1.2 teleconverter…. And even then, sometimes we simply cannot get the shot we want.

In shooting long teles there are also many other issues, atmospheric conditions, weight, need for support, and no one can say a smaller sensor is an advantage except in very special circumstances.

Both crop sensor and full frame have some unique advantages, but most pros use a full frame body and the reason is the final quality of the image is in most cases better.

That atmospheric thing can work against you on hot days with lots of pavement between you and the subject. Cool mornings are better than mid day. The Nikon 800mm F/5.6 is lighter than the Nikon 600mm F/4 and I can hand hold it if necessary. I will be popping ibuprofen the next day however.

I have been printing a lot of poster sized prints lately (24 in by 36 in) and here is where you start to see where things can go wrong based upon how much you needed to crop and the resultant image size. With big prints 8.5 by 11 is a proof size prior to making a 24 in by 36 in for me.

Lets take shooting at 600 mm. On my D7000 that would mean I would be using my Nikon 400mm F/2.8 and on my D800E that would be using my Nikon 600mm F/5.6. My D7000 with a modest crop will start to show signs of "distress" earlier than my D800E at the same crop ratio. As much as we hate it its all about the physics.

The rest of the arguments are "less filling/taste great" subjectivity.

Last May I spent 10 days in Germany and my body of choice was my D800E..

Denver Shooter

Msmoto

Always good to hear from experience…..

FreezeAction

I printed my first full 24x36 poster yesterday from the D5300. Even with the kit lens, ( had both a 50mm prime and a 70-200 2.8 with me but things to fluid to take time to change lenses) it turned out much better than I ever expected. Just for a test I enlarged a D800 image Nikon furnishes for testing to 44x66 and printed the bottom 24x66. The 14x24 wide angle zoom was used to make the photograph. It did have a very deep depth of field suitable for landscape work at f8, 15mm. Image link. The first image on the page. And for a bit of humor, I showed it to my cardiologist who is a hobby photographer with a bigger than mine Epson printer who printed all the artwork lining his medical center walls on canvas and he thought surely the camera must have cost 100k! Nikon disregard that last statement even if true....

manhattanboy

Lets take shooting at 600 mm. On my D7000 that would mean I would be using my Nikon 400mm F/2.8 and on my D800E that would be using my Nikon 600mm F/5.6. My D7000 with a modest crop will start to show signs of "distress" earlier than my D800E at the same crop ratio. As much as we hate it its all about the physics.

The rest of the arguments are "less filling/taste great" subjectivity.

The above is similar to my experience albeit I am not shooting with telephotos as nice as those! ^:)^ My preference would be to stick the 600mm on the D7100, shoot in crop mode, and get in at 1200mm effective for the shot.

Love your references DenverShooter. Are you a Coors man?
If anyone is from St. Louis and can chime in with a "King of Beers" reference to the DX/FX debate, I would be impressed

SquamishPhoto

Neither Coors nor Bud are anywhere near beer royalty, despite the crown. If its not from a Trappist brewery then it doesn't win, sorry.

MikeGunter

"Neither Coors nor Bud are anywhere near beer royalty, despite the crown. If its not from a Trappist brewery then it doesn't win, sorry."

+ ∞

My contemplative best,

Mike

DenverShooter

Lets take shooting at 600 mm. On my D7000 that would mean I would be using my Nikon 400mm F/2.8 and on my D800E that would be using my Nikon 600mm F/5.6. My D7000 with a modest crop will start to show signs of "distress" earlier than my D800E at the same crop ratio. As much as we hate it its all about the physics.

The rest of the arguments are "less filling/taste great" subjectivity.

The above is similar to my experience albeit I am not shooting with telephotos as nice as those! ^:)^ My preference would be to stick the 600mm on the D7100, shoot in crop mode, and get in at 1200mm effective for the shot.

Love your references DenverShooter. Are you a Coors man?
If anyone is from St. Louis and can chime in with a "King of Beers" reference to the DX/FX debate, I would be impressed

I had to give up drinking beer a couple of years back on orders from the Dr. Couldn't handle the Carbs in beer (or in much of anything else either). Of course thats why they make Vodka! Lost 40 lbs as a result of the no carb thing which just makes it easier to carry all of that big glass around.

I did fall off the wagon a bit when I was in Germany last May. I had a really killer Konig Pilsner in a bar in Potsdam after a long day of traipsing through various gardens and castles. It poured buckets for the whole 10 days I was in Germany...

The backpack with the D800E and the Nikon Trinity (14-24/24-70/70-200) along with a SB 910 and 10.5mm F/2.8 weighed in at 19 Lbs...

Denver Shooter