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

spraynpray

If Pixel peeping is obsessive, then this whole thread - which is about the small difference between DX and FX - is obsessive.

'Pixel peeping' is necessary to learn the behaviour of ones gear in all situations so as to maximise the advantages to be obtained by certain methods of usage. When the time comes that you have a fabulous image that you want to blow up huge, that is not the time to realise that it looks like hell because you have not learned how to get the best out of it.

sevencrossing

then this whole thread - which is about the small difference between DX and FX - is obsessive.

I could not agree more

WestEndFoto

Yes, but that does not invalidate the premise behind the thread. It is a good debate and learning exercise. Many of us spend quite a bit on photography relative to our resources, be it CX, DX or FX, in an effort to achieve the best quality. Is that obsessive? I don’t really think so. I think that it becomes obsessive when it gets in the way of being a good photographer, or gets in the way of life in general.

There is a new thread where a Newbie is asking about wide angle lenses. There is a poor selection of wide angle lenses for DX and while this is not really an issue with DX (I concede that there may be some technical hurdles, though I don’t think that they are deal breakers), it is a result of Nikon’s marketing decisions and is a valid reason to prefer FX to DX if you like shooting landscapes or other wide angle subjects.

spraynpray

I agree with you there @WestEndFoto, but then again, I was out photographing Avocets earlier and I took the D750 for it's highlight protection exposure facility which worked like a dream BUT I should have taken the D7100 for it's reach and coped with the exposure manually as although I had been within 4 metres of them the day before, I couldn't get closer than about 30-40 feet today. This is the inverse of your post - one where DX is better for BIF. Whatever expensive lens you put on an FX, the DX body will either bring it closer or enable you to use a shorter (and cheaper) lens.

My longest lens is currently the 70-200 f4. ( I would like the 80-400G...

JonMcGuffin

I think quite frankly we've carried this one pretty far off topic honestly.

Let's try this again

Though we can test it, and it might be a good idea but the reality is that through the combined experience and observations of those here have returned the following:

- Though there may be differences in IQ between the two different sized sensors in terms of pixel sharpness and quality of those pixels, those differences are either non-existent, scientifically unprovable, or so small that one cannot see them unless they are using either a massive print or a massive monitor and even then it would require looking at the image at such a distance that would be completely unrealistic and physically impossible to see the entire picture for what it is (the point of the picture).

- FX sensor based cameras do have some unarguable advantages against their DX counterparts such as light sensitivity and noise production under low light however that advantage along with a handful of others has generally been diminishing over time. DX sensor based cameras also have some advantages against their FX counterparts assuming one wants a greater depth of field, wants the higher pixel pitch on the sensor, and also size/weight and price are all typically less but that isn't universally true.

I think we probably can and should leave it at exactly that because, that's about what it boils down too and I think that's all we will really ever be able to really demonstrate.

donaldejose

spraynpray illustrates the utility of debating the various merits of CX, DX and FX because allows us to know how to select the best tool for the project at hand. The only real advantage of CX is the very small size of bodies and lenses. Great for travel snapshots. The best advantage of DX is cost and reach. DX is the best "bang for the buck in Nikon equipment. The advantage of FX is low light and extremely large printing. How much do you lose with each step down in size? Simple rule of thumb: about one stop. However, the "traditional gap" is closing when you can shoot at 100 to 400 ISO. The D7200 and the new backside illuminated Nikon 1 sensor are making meaningful gains. If Thom Hogan is correct and we see a D400 this year we may see another slight step up from the D7200.

Take this chart ironheart linked us to http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm and look at the Nikon D3 compared to the Nikon D7200. The DX sensor is has superior dynamic range from ISO 100 to ISO 400. Rather amazing. Compare the D4 with the D7200 and that DX sensor is still superior from ISO 100 up to ISO 200 where D4 shows superiority. If you have enough light to be shooting at ISO 100 (and won't be printing larger than 16 x 24 inches) the D7200 should be superior to FX even for landscapes and portraits. Amazing again! To gain dynamic range superiority over the D7200 you have to go to the D600, D610, D750, D800, or D810.

tman

My respect for DX (my D7000) went way up when I started shooting my son playing broad daylight sports. It's not as fast AF as I'd like but the reach vs weight is quite nice especially with primes. In bright light low ISO and high shutter speed, my technique not the camera is the limitation. For me the driving force for getting FX (750) is the viewfinder and I just find that my film camera does a better job rendering shots with large aperture than my D7000 does and I suspect FX will do something similar to the film sensor. But I now realize I will keep using the D7000 for sports.

DaveyJ

I did check on the Nikon 1 V3 today with a couple of lens and was told it is discontinued and no longer available. I have even been looking some at the Nikon p900 but the long end of that zoom is pushing it beyond my requirements. The Nikon 1 V3 seems to be a good point for me. I have to go back and check if it was the J3 or the V3 which was not available....The IQ trade off to me is worth it. If I can't get it in the field there is almost an outfit I could not use. Thank goodness the D810 exists but for my money and the time I have left I need DX as a MAXIMUM and probably CX sensors. Which right now to me means Nikon 1. The Nikon I AW I we have is awesome. I am CONSIDERING buying another white Nikon 1 AW I and adding some of your lens. I would think the 70-300 Nikon 1 lens is very useful????

DaveyJ

Wow! The Nikon 1 70-300mm is about $1,000! It also has a five star rating!

DaveyJ

Right now I am contemplating buying ANOTHER Nikon 1 AW1 with a 11-27mm underwater lens and adding a 30-100Nikon 1 lens giving me some of the stuff ironheart has. But the DX camera such as the D7100 I use now is awesome....Can't use it UW though! I do know when the D400 comes out I will pass on it! It will be too expensive for me now. The Nikon 1 70-300mm I also would pass on. Our budgets to buy gear is a reality we all have to face! I do myself GREATLY appreciate a big viewfinder like the DX cameras.

DaveyJ

Let me point out a specific and great disadvantage of Nikon DX. No DX lens above 300mm! Potentially that is a gap I would try to fill first if i were a lens designer at Nikon. Look at the demand for the Nikon p900 if you think reach is not important to many!

heartyfisher

Let me point out a specific and great disadvantage of Nikon DX. No DX lens above 300mm! Potentially that is a gap I would try to fill first if i were a lens designer at Nikon. Look at the demand for the Nikon p900 if you think reach is not important to many!

I am quite sure the reason there isnt a DX lens above 300mm is because there wont be any advantage in making one, no other manufacturer does (unless all they have are DX or M43 sensors). For such long focal length lenses the limiting factor is the size of the front element. ie a 500mm DX lense would be the same size as a 500mm FX lense. I would say it will never happen. ( would be cool when we get a 400 or 500mm PF VR though ! )

DaveyJ

I do not think that wide aperture lenses have as many advantages as some do. If the 400 or 500 DX lens was say at least f6.3 or narrower that could reduce the front element to an acceptable degree. And a VR lens would be almost a must. I also think a FX capable narrower aperture lens would sell better than Nikon thinks. Lens in the $2,000 range just do not rush out the doors! I don't know enough about 35mm APS-C design requirements to calculate the needed front element. If it could be at least as small as 77mm that would seem at the edge of almost too big.....

sevencrossing

If you want budget 400 - 500mm lens look at the 300mm f 4 and a TC as heartyfisher say's there is no cost saving in making tele primes DX

I know many of you are hoping Nikon will bring out A Pro DX that with many of features of D4s for a fraction of the price . I am sure Nikon will bring out a range of affordable f 6.3 DX primes at the same time

snakebunk

If Nikon wants to make an affordable and/or lightweight tele prime I think 5.6 is better so you can use a teleconverter with auto focus. 600/5.6 could be an interesting lense, maybe with pf technology. Good for enthusiast bird photographers.

sevencrossing

If Nikon wants to make an affordable and/or lightweight tele prime I think 5.6 is better

Nikon is listening. The affordable 800mm is only f5.6

Ironheart

And a svelte 4.6kg (10+lbs) without the carrying case :@)

snakebunk

If Nikon wants to make an affordable and/or lightweight tele prime I think 5.6 is better

Nikon is listening. The affordable 800mm is only f5.6

You are lucky. I could probably buy it but am not in position to call it affordable.

DaveyJ

Anything north of a $2,000 will not make as much money for Nikon and they need to develop some lens for real world applications rather than just propping up a very limited number of photo pros. We are invited to a event which will have world wide attention and our reason for being brought in is aerial photography (stills and mostly video). The percentage of publicized DSLR FX camera will I am going to guess be minimal since it breaks no new ground. PBS and the video program people will be there and they will be shooting pro video. If this were a world sports events there would be big tractor trailers with high end television cameras. I think Nikon should be jumping into long relatively inexpensive glass. I think the Nikon 800mm is a great lens, but the sales and bragging rights do not go hand in glove. Time to get real and make something like the p900 for DX cameras. Although I do feel 2000mm equivalent is way to out there. But 400 to 800mm equivalent....I'd get on it if I were Nikon.

I see a 300mm F4 with TC as higher than the market will bear in terms of overall sales. That combo is always going to get some sales.....I think of this as close but no cigar from a marketing standpoint. I am certain if Nikon decided to make a DX camera with p900 attributes they could do it and make money and keep market share.....

sevencrossing

....and they need to develop some lens for real world applications rather than just propping up a very limited number of photo pros.

+ 1

Nikon really are crap when it comes to offering a choice of lenses

There is currently only, 51 prime and 29 zoom, F mount lenses

WestEndFoto

....and they need to develop some lens for real world applications rather than just propping up a very limited number of photo pros.

+ 1

Nikon really are crap when it comes to offering a choice of lenses

There is currently only, 51 prime and 29 zoom, F mount lenses

Seriously. I don't know a company can expect to survive with only 80 lenses in its lineup.

spraynpray

Nobody can complain about the quality really, but I do agree on the DX range. We are always talking bang for the buck - why can't Nikon do something like Tamron with their 150-600 VC for £989. Nikon have the 80-400 for £1900...

sevencrossing

why can't Nikon do something like Tamron with their 150-600 VC for £989. Nikon have the 80-400 for £1900... -

what would rather have

The choice of the nikon 80 -400 OR the Tamy 150 -600
OR
The choice of a Nikon 150- 600 or a Tamy 150 -600

Bit like saying, why can't you have a 911 for price of Fiesta

Porsche could certainly do it but there are lots of reason why they don't

Brand image is one of them

donaldejose

Perhaps cheap high mm DX glass can be found in older less expensive used FX glass. For example the 300mm f4 can be purchased for less than $1,000 if you go back one generation and for less than $500 if you go back two generations. This gives you a cheap 450mm lens on DX which is quite reasonable. Sure its not the latest and greatest glass but it may well be good enough for the task at hand.

Ironheart

'Specially since you are using the best part of the lens, the center.