FX vs DX Image Quality Comparison (yes.. this again) Your Thoughts?

donaldejose

Great link Ironheart. You can see about a one stop gap between DX and FX.

spraynpray

It is instructive to look at the Pentax 645Z too for it's superiority over FX. Small wonder 'itsnotmeyouknow' moved to Pentax. Now if Nikon came out with an MF....

heartyfisher

The J5 is at the CX limit ? ! Hmm.. I wonder what this theoretical limit is ? and where it comes from ... I think a separate thread may be in order ...

Back on topic ..
@JonMcGuffin Nicely summarised ( given your FX bias ;-) ) I want to say " but.., but .. but .." but it wont .. :-)

@donaldejose Hope someone can do that test soon too .. would be interesting..

donaldejose

Pentax 645z about a quarter of a stop better? It doesn't seem to be worth the additional trouble to me.

But how about this: compare the new D810 with the old D800. A slight increase at ISO 50 and 64, even at ISO 80 but then a slight drop from ISO 100 through ISO 12,800? Why would that be? I had expected the D810 to be slightly ahead in dynamic range at all ISOs.

Msmoto

I think I read, "real world test". And, this is precisely what will make the difference. No one else can tell me how I am going to manage the camera, as some things I might do well, others, not so good. And, how I "fit" the camera limitations will determine the results of my attempts at photography.

JonMcGuffin

I do agree with Jon's generalized summary but I would still like to see the data for the experiment he suggested because I do think the latest 24 mp DX sensor technology has changed the old rules of thumb I have been working with.

Here here.. I too would love to see the raw examples from the test you propose. Anybody have both a D750 and D7100/7200? along with a 24-70 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8/F4?

Jon

JonMcGuffin

Back on topic ..
@JonMcGuffin Nicely summarised ( given your FX bias ;-) ) I want the say " but.., but .. but .." but it wont .. :-)

Thank you! I'm trying to come to some form of general conclusion here and something I can stand on opinion wise and feel as though I have it right. Something I can share with those new users who at one point or another always hit this question.

FX bias.. lol Well, honestly, I do believe there is something to the way FX sensors create images that is just better than the DX counterparts but I 100% admit this is no different than the vinly record guys and their tube amps running around talking about the "soul" of their format.

I really don't want to be that guy; but I kinda am. Honestly, it misses the entire point of actually enjoying the music rather than focusing on the "technical quality" of the music. You start to forget what the music is supposed to do in the first place and start thinking about how clear it sounds, how little signal or distortion there is, etc. You basically abandon the very purpose and principals the music is there to begin with. You start buying music based on how "technically good" it sounds versus really enjoying the artists creation of it in the very first place. But of course, this technical production of the music can actually turn into a bit of art itself, and so the wheels on the bus continue to turn and all those on board argue and descend their opinions, etc.

Does this sound familiar to any of you? (wink)

Photobug

Excellent thread. I have not been around much over the past two weeks due to other priorities. I agree with these points as stated by another NRF member based upon shooting FX since the end of Nov 2014.
a) Better low light performance
b) Ability to use a shallower DOF
c) Better buffer than my wimpy d7100
d) Better high ISO performance regardless of light

Sure hope someone steps up to the plate and does the "real world" Comparison. I have a DX and FX body and the 24-70 & 70-200mm lens but I am still slammed. Someone needs to do the test and post the pictures here so we can continue this discussion. Oh I wish this was not such a busy week or I would tackle this assignment. Please.

WestEndFoto

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm
I am talking ISO vs DR plotted on an XY graph. Plug the numbers in yourself. This is fact. We can't measure IQ, it is too subjective, however this is a pretty good stand-in.

Very nice chart. The Canons certainly don't perform very well.

Of very practical use, it illustrates the advantages of shooting at the lowest ISO possible. I only shoot at something other than ISO 100 if I absolutely have to.

heartyfisher

I think the FX bias has gone far enough ;-) I like a, b, c, and d. but don’t forget e to z where DX is equal or better ;-)

WestEndFoto

It is instructive to look at the Pentax 645Z too for it's superiority over FX. Small wonder 'itsnotmeyouknow' moved to Pentax. Now if Nikon came out with an MF....

I would be first in line for a Nikon MF. But hopefully serious MF, not the turbocharged FX that the Pentax is.

WestEndFoto

I think the FX bias has gone far enough ;-) I like a, b, c, and d. but don’t forget e to z where DX is equal or better ;-)

e.
Lighter
f.
Cheaper
g.
Greater pixel density. Whups, that is not an advantage inherent to DX. It is simply an advantage of the current model lineup based on Nikon's choices. Cut an FX chip from the dies used to make the D7200's sensor and we are back to A to D.

Sorry heartyfisher, but I don't agree that there is a bias here, particularly when I consider the following dictionary definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias

a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography;
our strong bias in favor of the idea.

And especially in light of the DXO chart supplied by Ironheart. DXO needs to be taken with a certain grain of salt, but I am not aware of a party that does the rigorous testing that DXOMark does and is relatively unbiased. This is as unbiased as you can get combined with rigour.

Photobug, you forgot a fifth advantage, dynamic range, as the chart nicely supplied by Ironheart illustrates.

But really, should we really care about this? I think that everyone that expresses an opinion on this forum should include a link to their portfolio. I will then weight the credibility of their views by what I think of their portfolio. Spraynpray's D7100 images kick my D800 ass.

heartyfisher

"If you have a brain, you're automatically biased." - I recognise that I will very likely have bias ;-) . Nothing like a chess game to make you doubt your logic ability. While looking up definitions look at "blind spots" too..

Ok back to the topic at hand .. I think if we want someone to do "the test" let us define some criteria to make the job easier and more sucessful. I would nominate @JonMcGuffin to make the first cut , its his thread after all :-) and he seems the least biased of us ;-)

JonMcGuffin

Excellent thread. I have not been around much over the past two weeks due to other priorities. I agree with these points as stated by another NRF member based upon shooting FX since the end of Nov 2014.
a) Better low light performance
b) Ability to use a shallower DOF
c) Better buffer than my wimpy d7100
d) Better high ISO performance regardless of light

Sure hope someone steps up to the plate and does the "real world" Comparison. I have a DX and FX body and the 24-70 & 70-200mm lens but I am still slammed. Someone needs to do the test and post the pictures here so we can continue this discussion. Oh I wish this was not such a busy week or I would tackle this assignment. Please.

The thread isn't going anywhere, go ahead and do it when you can. I will say though that C above is really only a particular disadvantage related to the specific camera model, the D7200 I think has a better buffer than the D750 or at least on par, so that's just a mfg build consideration, not anything inherently beneficial to an FX sensor vs DX.

WestEndFoto

"If you have a brain, you're automatically biased." - I recognise that I will very likely have bias ;-) . Nothing like a chess game to make you doubt your logic ability. While looking definitions look at "blind spots" too..
blockquote>

Yes, that is well said I must admit!

spraynpray

@WestEndFoto:

Your conclusion on g? Funny thing is that Nikon never create the FX first, always the DX. The D800/D810 have been behind the DX range in pixel density since March 2013. This is an excellent example of bias I think. Now 'IF' Nikon make a 54mp FX, then one can use crop mode and get similar results to a DX for reach but then there is the matter of the HUGE price difference between the two bodies and lenses and fps. If that happens, you had better crow hard while you can because the next DX with maybe 36mp will be just around the corner (and so it goes on)!

Nobody has mentioned that the best part of the lens is used by DX and so IQ of an FX is not so good at the edges - that has been said many times in the past and is one of the precepts that we have accepted. Maybe the test can show this.

By the way, I am one of the least biassed on this topic even though I argue against the FX fanboys because I think their low opinion of DX is unjustified. I have both bodies. As @JonMcGuffin illustrated about analogue/digital sound sources and you touch on above - we are splitting hairs here and so that really goes to show that PRACTICALLY, any differences are pretty much academic.

So, let's have some suggestions about subject and conditions for these two DX/FX images and then whoever can provide them (could be me if I get time) will not waste their time.

I can provide D7100/D7200, D750, 70-200 f4 at 100 (DX) and 150 (FX).

Subject and conditions?

sevencrossing

I argue against the FX fanboys because I think their low opinion of DX is unjustified.

As as self confessed Fx fanboy. I do not have, and never have had, a low opinion of Dx

My first two DSLRs where Dx. I was very pleased with them. I bought them for illustrating websites, they did the job exceedingly well

I changed to FX when I started doing weddings, my web master wanted the ability to severely crop my stuff and I wanted to sell large prints

For me the D5500 has a massive advantage over my D800 It is half the weight and size

I am now completely retired, I longer do weddings or web illustrating. I am just shooting landscapes and I really do not like having to carrying my heavy FX camera

I am hopefully, my prayer for a lightweight camera, will be answered by the rumored FX mirrorless but if that has not come out by the time my D800 dies, I will seriously look at DX

No I am not waiting for the D400. I want quality not speed

Ironheart

And especially in light of the DXO chart supplied by Ironheart. DXO needs to be taken with a certain grain of salt, but I am not aware of a party that does the rigorous testing that DXOMark does and is relatively unbiased. This is as unbiased as you can get combined with rigour.

Photobug, you forgot a fifth advantage, dynamic range, as the chart nicely supplied by Ironheart illustrates.

Just want to clarify, the excellent work done by Bill Claff on that site is measured by him. There are only two cameras on the list, two old sigmas near the bottom, using DxO data.

The D7200 has changed the game, at ISO 100 the D810 has a measured DR of 11.02, the D7200 has a measured DR of 10.94, that's a difference of 0.08 of a stop or 7 tenths of a percent. This was the actual point I was hoping folks would notice on their own. Even at ISO 800 it is less than a half a stop. If you plot D810 D7200 and D810(DX) you will see that the D810 is a worse DX camera than the D7200.

The D400 will deliver quality and speed, it's DR will be equal to the D810 or better.

heartyfisher

;-) (cough .. canon cough ... ) I really think we need a thread just to discuss that site and its data and conclusions and insights we can gain.

DaveyJ

Regardless of all of this banter about FX versus DX which is an appropriate discussion in this forum...you have to realize that MOST of today's photographers are NOT GOING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A Nikon DX or FX. Our choice to be BLUNT is even buying a Nikon DSLR (and it sure as hell is NOT going to be a D4 or anything like that or the great D810.....the options are......A small Sony 4K video camera, or a Go Pro, or a Black Magic Camera, or a Red Epic.....and once in a great while picking up a Nikon DSLR of ANY type. The train is leaving the station folks.....and there aren't many photographers with an FX camera on this train. Where is the train destination? THE FUTURE!

There are photo based companies worth 8 billion dollars that were working out of a garage back when this FX versus DX controversy was mid-stream. Want an image quickly up on Facebook? How many people would use a Nikon DSLR FX camera? Almost none. There will always be those who debate high resolution photos and how to best achieve them. However the bulk of photos now are taken with cell phones. Unfortunately that is pretty much the end of high res imagery. My decided take on DX versus FX was resolved in my family a few years back. Our photo expenditures last year was $37K. Not one FX or DX camera in the mix.

Personally I see no future for ME in Nikon FX. WHy? I want max depth of field. Does a photo from an FX camera look more "natural"?????? Apparently my take on this is I would FAR rather put my money in a Nikon D7200 right now than a FX Nikon with prime lens. All the time the prime lens rant continues. I am going to guess my expenditures on 8x10 camera lens alone which ALL were primes exceeded what most of you ever spent on Prime 35mm prime lens. That era for me I DEEPLY regret. So for my too old, too late opinion....which most of you have already suffered to read....is that DX is FAR superior for me. Nikon is marginally keeping it's place in the photo market. We will always debate these matters. But in this tough competition era I think DX has the edge. And if Nikon doesn't know that already.....then as a company its days are numbered. I also VASTlY prefer the not only CONVENIENCE of a zoom lens....I prefer the speed, efficiency, and please don't give me a narrowly focused photo. At 70 plus my eyesight is WAY better than that!

And I will leave you with this last and I would THINK obvious conclusion. EXPENSIVE lens that are on the very edge of technical excellence....are so pricey that it fails the test of bang for the buck. What are many of the movie companies moving towards.....new amazing glass that can shoot new fresh perspectives and not cost a fortune. Some have predicted that such new lens will totally control the market soon. I do not personally believe that. But the times they are a changing.....

WestEndFoto

But Daveyj, this has been true for a hundred years. Nikon and its competitors have always been niches in photography focussed on the higher end.

WestEndFoto

@WestEndFoto:

Your conclusion on g? Funny thing is that Nikon never create the FX first, always the DX. The D800/D810 have been behind the DX range in pixel density since March 2013. This is an excellent example of bias I think. Now 'IF' Nikon make a 54mp FX, then one can use crop mode and get similar results to a DX for reach but then there is the matter of the HUGE price difference between the two bodies and lenses and fps. If that happens, you had better crow hard while you can because the next DX with maybe 36mp will be just around the corner (and so it goes on)!

Subject and conditions?

Isn't that what I said, price and marketing?

Nikon has chosen not to release a 50 megapixel FX camera. The could if they chose to.

WestEndFoto

@WestEndFoto:


Nobody has mentioned that the best part of the lens is used by DX and so IQ of an FX is not so good at the edges - that has been said many times in the past and is one of the precepts that we have accepted. Maybe the test can show this.

Subject and conditions?

It is true, but I don't think it is relavent. How is throwing away something great because it is not as good as the excellent middle an advantage of DX? Actually, I am not sure it is even true. While there is a decline on most lenses, it is a real stretch to say " not so great with the latest lenses. Even if it exists, I have not noticed this effect on any lenses that I own at the apertures that I am shooting them at.

WestEndFoto

@WestEndFoto

By the way, I am one of the least biassed on this topic even though I argue against the FX fanboys because I think their low opinion of DX is unjustified. I have both bodies. As @JonMcGuffin illustrated about analogue/digital sound sources and you touch on above - we are splitting hairs here and so that really goes to show that PRACTICALLY, any differences are pretty much academic.

Subject and conditions?

Spraynpray, when I google the meaning of Fanboy, I feel offended (well, not much) that I am potentially lumped in that category. In your view, am I a fanboy? If not me, then who else?

And it is the classic strategy of somebody that is insecure in their argument. Attack the presenter, not the argument.

Splitting hairs. That is a matter of perspective. Is it splitting hairs to argue the merits of the the Sigma 35mm Art over the Nikon 35G? It is if your budget barely gets you into a DSLR. For many of us on this site, it clearly is not.

And finally, arguing that FX is better than DX is not the same as arguing that DX is bad. We must not lose sight of that.

Ironheart

+1 on @DaveyJ. I'm in Europe right now with my Nikon 1 setup, 3 primes, 4 zooms and I can fit it all into 1/4th of my overhead carry-on. On DoF I couldn't agree more, when I look at the world with my eyes, the DoF is essentially infinite. As the proud owner of several Lytro devices, I mostly think of subject isolation as a post process issue. The synthetic "bokeh" algorithms are only getting better. In 3-5 years I'll be able to synthesize a Canon or a Zeiss and everything in between, and you won't be able to tell the difference. FX will soon be, if not already, the MF of the 21st century. That doesn't mean I won't own one or rent one when I need/want it. But for now I'm happy with my 800mm equiv that weighs as much as a can of beer and I don't need a Sherpa to haul around.

Sincerely,

DX/CX Fanboy ;-)