Praise for DX on FX

proudgeek

I am also curious about those that have gone to a D800 from say a D90 or such.

I went from a D90 to a D800. Did I need it? No, but I really love photography and if you can't invest in your passions what can you invest in? It has paid for itself with some images I've sold, but that's really beside the point for me. The step up in terms of image quality absolutely blew me away. I could care less about the file size; computer processing capacity and storage are relatively inexpensive. I had planned on making the switch to FX for a couple of years and had been purchasing FX lenses, so there was no major added investment. There was that "in between" time when I was shooting a 17-35 and a 24-70 on a D90, which some would claim is a suboptimal solution, but I was fine with that. I was also shooting a 105, a 300, and a 70-200 on my D90, but that's less of an issue. In a perfect world, I guess a D600 would have been a great solution for me, but I was pretty scared off by the spotting issue.
Obviously tcole I can't tell you what to do, and I think the results you're getting from your current camera are excellent. Your thought process on DX being a more economical option is essentially correct, so if budget is an issue you obviously have to factor that in. I'd say rent one for a long weekend and see what you think. People here can talk all day long about what they like and don't like, but at the end of the day it's what you like and how you shoot and what results you want.

tcole1983

@proudgeek I think maybe that was misinterpreted. I meant is as at this time a D90 is 2+ generations behind. Even the newest DX would be a huge upgrade for a D90. So I think lot of comparison has been done with that mentality of upgrading...not only the jump to a huge MP FX body, but jumping several generations in new technology. Had someone gone from one of the new 24 MP DX bodies to a D800 would we think it is as great? Not saying it isn't great...I would own one if I had an extra couple grand laying around.

proudgeek

Not sure. Maybe. I would guess that if you were to jump from D5200 to a D7100 you'd be awfully happy, but since I've never shot with either I'd only be guessing. That said, I suspect that a D800 is far and away more camera than a D7100.

spraynpray

I'll jump in here @tcole1983. When I was looking at my next body change I was torn between the D610 and D7100 but in the end, I had experienced such a useful jump in low light high ISO performance from the D7100 after my D7000 and such a small improvement with the D610 after trying the D7100, that I decided it wasn't worth double the price of the D7100 to get the D610.

haroldp

The question as to what is 'good enough', and how much we can or are willing to pay for any given increment, is both a personal one, and dependent on the situation. Under god conditions, it almost doesn't matter. If the subjects hold still, all the cameras have good enough focus, (if properly calibrated). At F8, it is hard to tell one lens of a given FL from another.

I often slightly compromise maximum IQ for other factors (size, weight etc.). Otherwise I would shoot everything with a D800e or D810, and 24-70/2.8, 400/2.8 or 24/1.4 etc. (I cannot list them all, but we know which they are), or Leica's.

With a D3x, I thought the 24-120 was as good as the 24-70 within its range, on the D800e or D810, not so much. I still often travel with the 24-120/4.

Each of our decisions in this regard are equally valid for the person making that decision in their particular situation.

That being said, there are objectively real differences in potential, or attainable IQ in these choices, regardless of whether any of us think it is 'worth it'.

An FX sensor has a greater proportional advantage in size over DX, than Medium Format has over FX. At the same generation of technology, that will translate to a bump in potential IQ. To achieve that potential, one also needs appropriate lenses, focus capability, and most of all skills.

At the same pixel count, with equivalent quality lenses, matching FOV, D3 images (w 24-70) were clearly better than D300 images (w 17-55). The increment of improvement was small, and more noticeable as conditions got worse, and not remotely proportionate to the difference in cost, weight, etc. but it was unmistakeable.

I have just started with a D810 (sold my D800e), and do not know (or care very much) if it has better potential IQ than the 800e because the 800e is already better than I am much of the time.

However, as BIF is my latest passion, the D810's more powerful autofocus (probably related to computing capacity), faster frame rates and better high ISO (faster shutter speeds) improve my chances of actually achieving that potential IQ.

If I shot landscapes and portraits (which I do) exclusively, I would have stayed with the 800e which I still think is nearly perfect within its parameters.

My photographic and financial situation, and priorities make that choice rational for me. Not necessarily for others.

.... H

Photobug

@Haroldp - very nicely said. Too often we forget that everyone's prioritizes are different than ours.

spraynpray

@Haroldp: "An FX sensor has a greater proportional advantage in size over DX, than Medium Format has over FX. "

If you "do the math", the difference is within a hair of being exactly the same according to this chart:

http://mattsassamatt.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sensor-size7.png

Apart from that, I agree.

sevencrossing

@Haroldp
Gold star, very well put
You succinctly answer the endless. "Should I upgrade My D123 for a D 789 questions

haroldp

@Haroldp: "An FX sensor has a greater proportional advantage in size over DX, than Medium Format has over FX. "

If you "do the math", the difference is within a hair of being exactly the same according to this chart:

http://mattsassamatt.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sensor-size7.png

Apart from that, I agree.

We are actually both correct since there is no 'standard size for 'MF' digital, but it is not the main point.

FX at 36mm X 24mm (864 sqmm) is 2.25 X the area of DX (24 X 16mm)

There are three common sizes of MF digital being sold today.

44 X 36mm (the most common in unit sales, least expensive) - 1.7 X FX area

48 X 36mm (original MF digital, probably most number of camera / back models using it) 2 X FX area

54 X 40mm (premium backs 80mp Hasselblad / phase one etc curent state of art) 2.5 X FX area

not to mention the Leica S2 at 45 X 30 mm - 1.6 X FX area.

I think we are agreed on the main points.

Pistnbroke

Heartyfisher got most of the combinations but I use DX glass with a 1.5 or 1.7 Teleconverter and fill the FX frame.....No problems with quality.