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

manhattanboy

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

This is the best suggestion you have made and I agree with it 100%. Likely in 10 years time Nikon will be a small mom and pop operation given the rate that the rest of the photo industry is moving. Thom's article today hit it right on the head: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/offense-or-defense.html
The only way they can hope to survive on their current strategy is to make "pro" photography much, much cheaper so that the gen X, Y, and Z will even think about buying a camera:

develop some lens for real world applications rather than just propping up a very limited number of photo pros. [...]
But 400 to 800mm equivalent....I'd get on it if I were Nikon.

The only thing smartphones will not readily obliterate is telephoto shooting. Even that D4s like shutter speed and buffer everyone drools over: have you held the shutter on the iPhone6+? You can easily roll off hundreds of photos all while maintaining continuous autofocus. Flash, low light, IQ, etc. all of those things will be eaten up eventually by smartphone innovations or add ons to smartphones. Telephoto really is where Canikon needs to focus their remaining efforts while they still have capital to do so. It really plays to one of their cores strengths, which is optics.

WestEndFoto

Hmmm..... I like reading Thom but he is making a lot os stretches here. He seems to be advocating using a dedicated camera to take pictures of checks. Why would anybody buy that when there smartphone works fine.

And your comment that smartphones will obliterate everything except telephotoes? I don't see a sub-CX sensor attached to a tiny lens doing that. Basic engineering and physics will see to that.

Nikon makes a premium product. Even their Nikon 1 is a premium product, though I admit that it may not be premium enough to survive. But Nikon is not betting the farm on CX. History is littered with the ashes of companies that lost their focus on their core competency and tried to serve every market. I am glad that Nikon has the discipline to avoid that.

DaveyJ

I see this as less of MY problem and more of a Nikon survival issue. There are plenty of ways i can spend my money. But for me and many buyers it is a matter of price point. I never bought a Porsche 911 as I owned a car that beat them on the track in the class I was racing. My racing days are over. Now my guys are racing motorcycles. That type of racing is an awful lot rider ability. The Nikon p900 is selling very well. It is NOT an expensive camera. It will help keep Nikon in the Coolpix game. Like we used to say in racing.....there is a race going on and NIKON in this case is NOT IN IT!!!!

The lack of longer DX glass is actually puzzling to me. Recently I contacted a number of Nikon users who are pro photographers about another matter. Nikon's p900 is using state of the art VR. I cannot believe this could not be done in DX. But then I am not a lens designer. Also anytime I have called B&H about older Nikon 300mm with a narrower aperture they always say they have none used. I have a travel agent friend gal who has been on trips with me and uses one of the Coolpix ultra zooms, not the p900 with pretty amazing results. Big Nikon FX long glass comes with TWO penalties. Weight and price. Price alone means very few buyers!!!

spraynpray

That P900 has my attention I don't mind telling ya!

heartyfisher

...
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.
...
.

But we do have a 450mm equivalent .... in the 18-300mm zooms. 2 of them.. Actually if you take in to account the additional DX 1.3 cropping, the equivalent FOV is 600mm. So we do already have what you are asking for.

DaveyJ

I DO NOT MEAN the 300mm lens. I am talking probably 500mm and up! I have a whole fleet of excellent 70-300mm lens. Thay have allowed me to take some great wildlife shots. No this issue is strictly longer glass than that!

manhattanboy

And your comment that smartphones will obliterate everything except telephotoes? I don't see a sub-CX sensor attached to a tiny lens doing that. Basic engineering and physics will see to that.

Imagine a small Fovean like sensor that you can pan around and let the computations take care of generating an amazing image. Also imagine two sensors, with one of differing sensitivity to photons, that can computationally be combined to create greater DR or improved low light performance. These things are likely to happen to some degree for smart phones and will slowly consume Canikon like a slow terminal cancer.

I DO NOT MEAN the 300mm lens. I am talking probably 500mm and up! I have a whole fleet of excellent 70-300mm lens. Thay have allowed me to take some great wildlife shots. No this issue is strictly longer glass than that!

A nice prime like the 300 f4 may still be a worthwhile purchase. The reason is that the improved IQ allows for greater cropping of the DX image. That 2x image (1.5x in camera cropped by 1.3x), can still be cropped further in post if you feed it a razor sharp image. That's a big benefit of the prime IMHO, and that's before we mention the improved AF over the 70-300....

WestEndFoto

And your comment that smartphones will obliterate everything except telephotoes? I don't see a sub-CX sensor attached to a tiny lens doing that. Basic engineering and physics will see to that.

Imagine a small Fovean like sensor that you can pan around and let the computations take care of generating an amazing image. Also imagine two sensors, with one of differing sensitivity to photons, that can computationally be combined to create greater DR or improved low light performance. These things are likely to happen to some degree for smart phones and will slowly consume Canikon like a slow terminal cancer.

I DO NOT MEAN the 300mm lens. I am talking probably 500mm and up! I have a whole fleet of excellent 70-300mm lens. Thay have allowed me to take some great wildlife shots. No this issue is strictly longer glass than that!

A nice prime like the 300 f4 may still be a worthwhile purchase. The reason is that the improved IQ allows for greater cropping of the DX image. That 2x image (1.5x in camera cropped by 1.3x), can still be cropped further in post if you feed it a razor sharp image. That's a big benefit of the prime IMHO, and that's before we mention the improved AF over the 70-300....

I can imagine a lot of things, but that does not mean they will come to pass. If you had said, "Maybe.......", then I would concur on "maybe". But you say it with absolute certainty, like the egg is going to break when it is halfway to the floor.

Further, the sensor is only one component of an optical system. The lenses are the real limiting factor. They are limited by diffraction, which is a hard limitation of physics just like the speed of light. Any sensor that significantly exceeds the optical performance of the lens adds no benefit. For lenses, this limitation is only reduced as the lens gets bigger. It is why astronomers like big telescopes. The bigger the aperture, the greater then resolving power. More information can be found here:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Now diffraction becomes less of a concern as the aperture increases as the Cambridge site demonstrates. Lenses decline in performance due to other aberrations and these are real engineering issues that are typically resolved by increased size. Compare the Sigma 35 1.4 Art to the Nikon 50mm 1.4G, or the Otus 85 1.4 to the Nikon 85 1.4G. They are much bigger than the Nikons. These manufactures solve these technical problems with massive lenses costing a thousand plus dollars that are not likely to appear on smartphones anytime soon.

Now if somebody can invent an optical glass with zero dispersion, that would be a revolution. I put my money for significant improvements in resolution not with sensors, but low dispersion optics such as Phase Fresnel and fluorite elements.

sevencrossing

Further, the sensor is only one component of an optical system. The lenses are the real limiting factor.

Which is why the whole DX vs FX vs MF vs CF is a bit of a WOFT

There is not a lot of point on putting a Zeiss Otus on a D100

or putting Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5 F on a D810

When deciding whether to buy, a Dxyz or Dabc you must look at
Your budget
What you are going to photograph
How much gear you want to lug around
and untimely. Why are you buying the camera in the first place


Remember the salesmans motto

Most punters are buying something, they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress someone they have never met

snakebunk

I agree with sevencrossing. And most of all it depends on what you want to do. If you are taking photos in perfect conditions of non moving objects at 100 ISO I think the least expensive dx camera will be hard to beat. If you are taking photos of a soccer game a rainy Sunday it is a different story.

I also do not see the point for Nikon in doing a 150-600. I don't think they can beat Sigma and Tamron in that segment. But more pf lenses with one less stop in aperture could be great (e.g. 400/4, 500/5.6 or 600/5.6).

DaveyJ

The Nikon lens I encourage (and I am not alone) would be a prime 500mm DX or so. The target I think would be 500 to 600 f 5.6.

DaveyJ

I am researching the Nikon 300f4 (the new one). I have NO INTEREST in the older ones. Why? Too heavy. The TC 2X I assume is a viable option with that. The problem as has been noted here already is that the 70-300 Nikkors (which I love and own) are NOT that great at 300 and do not lend themselves to Tele Converters....
But that is a $2,500 investment at least. Makes the p900 look like a viable option for many of US! Nikon needs to be somewhat less pricey here to sell many units. I also have to look for our purposes here what that same money spent on some other TYPE of photo gear could produce for our company greater results. That decision for me is being calculated by hundreds of others....and that could result in shrinking market share and cause Nikon to shrink in size and influence...If however Phase Fresnel or fluorite elements elements could be added to lower dispersion in a cost effective improvement.....might be the ticket. Nikon being a lens manufacturer of the highest order this seemingly impossible leap forward might just happen?

sevencrossing

. Makes the p900 look like a viable option for many of US!

provided fast focusing is not required and IQ is not too important

for bif fast focusing is pretty important and, at the moment, that means a DSLR and a fast lens

spraynpray

Snak

I also do not see the point for Nikon in doing a 150-600. I don't think they can beat Sigma and Tamron in that segment. But more pf lenses with one less stop in aperture could be great (e.g. 400/4, 500/5.6 or 600/5.6).

You are missing my point snakebunk. I am not saying Nikon need to make a 150-600, I am saying that if Tamron can make a really useful long zoom for £989, then why the heck do Nikon's prices go off the scale? Coastalconn has just posted an image from his new Canon 500mm and to be honest, it doesn't look as good as his old Tamron. Maybe he is still getting used to it, but it hasn't impressed me yet like his Tamron did, and Canon do make some good glass. I see the price of Nikon lenses being more of a deterrent against buying a lot of gear than anything else. I can see that there is only a real need for DX system glass up to probably 200mm but the prices of the longer FX zooms and primes is just madness even if you do have a D810.

manhattanboy

I see the price of Nikon lenses being more of a deterrent against buying a lot of gear than anything else

Amen to that! =D>

I can see that there is only a real need for DX system glass up to probably 200mm but the prices of the longer FX zooms and primes is just madness even if you do have a D810

I want lenses past 200mm for DX, in fact I want them past 400mm. Nonetheless, I do agree with you that the Nikon prices past 300mm are madness, especially when Canon has had a 400mm prime for $1K for what feels like decades. I do LOVE the new 300PF though even with all of its VR troubles. I am torn right now between going with another 300PF or the 80-400 for the 810... The current 300PF has found a home glued to my 7100 leaving the 810 envious and sadly stuck with a measly 85mm.

If you had said, "Maybe.......", then I would concur on "maybe". But you say it with absolute certainty, like the egg is going to break when it is halfway to the floor.

Maybe things will work out well for the Camera industry and this smartphone fad will have no effect on them
In all seriousness, I too look forward to lens breakthroughs but I disagree that lens breakthroughs are going to be the primary driver of the photo industry in the next 10 years. For folks perhaps like you and me, we will greatly appreciate the lens breakthroughs, but for all upcoming Gen Y and Z'ers, outside of their smartphones their only exposure to a "camera" will be that thing on the end of the selfie stick.

spraynpray

My reason for saying I only see a need for DX system lenses up to 200mm is simply that the changeover points are different to FX and so my DX lenses (11-16 & 17-55) have a nice change point whereas I find a 24mm change over point very awkward on DX. After 200mm I don't find it matters.

DaveyJ

Some of the best long range photos I have seen with anything short of canons is from pseries Nikon ultrazoom Coolpix. The high end bird photos I have seen (or done myself) were often done from blinds and there 70-300mm were used. Also when I shot them I tried to avoid the 300 end.

DaveyJ

My comments do NOT address birds in flight which I have tried a fair amount and know it is tough. Biggest problem there was to get cooperative birds. I have almost resorted to getting falcons.....

Vipmediastar_JZ

Maybe I missed it. Has anybody done the test yet with a fx and dx body on a zoom?
I don't have a dx body to do the test.

snakebunk

@spraynpray: Yes, Nikon lenses are overpriced compared to third parties. I think we've seen that in the Sigma Art lenses. What saves them is the lenses that noones else can yet make quite as good. My guess is that they have a lot of overhead costs, for example expensive marketing.

Terry7732

There was an article recently in a British magazine on this very subject.
The journalist had no particular brand loyalty so used the following equipment:
D750 plus D7200 plus Nikon 24-70 2.8
5DMklll plus 7DMkll plus Canon 24-70 2.8
He chose three separate subjects, all outdoors:
Portrait, Street Scene and a Garden.
Photographs were taken with all four cameras with appropriate adjustment being made for the view through the crop sensor models in order to produce a similar result.
The results were printed on professional grade A3 photographic paper and then shown to 50 random members of the public, who were asked for their preference.
The results showed:
D750 - 4
D7200 - 3
5D Mklll - 4
7D Mkll - 5
Undecided - 34
This seem to support the view that many members have expressed previously in this thread, that in the majority of cases, in normal use it does not matter which format you use, the difference is not noticeable.
There are of course exceptions where unusual conditions are present.

WestEndFoto

There was an article recently in a British magazine on this very subject.
The journalist had no particular brand loyalty so used the following equipment:
D750 plus D7200 plus Nikon 24-70 2.8
5DMklll plus 7DMkll plus Canon 24-70 2.8
He chose three separate subjects, all outdoors:
Portrait, Street Scene and a Garden.
Photographs were taken with all four cameras with appropriate adjustment being made for the view through the crop sensor models in order to produce a similar result.
The results were printed on professional grade A3 photographic paper and then shown to 50 random members of the public, who were asked for their preference.
The results showed:
D750 - 4
D7200 - 3
5D Mklll - 4
7D Mkll - 5
Undecided - 34
This seem to support the view that many members have expressed previously in this thread, that in the majority of cases, in normal use it does not matter which format you use, the difference is not noticeable.
There are of course exceptions where unusual conditions are present.

What if "50 Random Members of the Public" is not your audience, but viewers that are very critical and knowledgeable? I would put more stock in a study like this if it tested 50 random members of a degree photography program.

And what were the images of? I don't do snapshots.

When I think about it, the only random sample that counts is myself. I am into this hobby for me, not anybody else.

haroldp

WestEndFoto has a good point here.

Using 'random' observers does not even establish that they do not see a difference, only that they do not care.
They may just as well have equally selected iphone shots.

Similar techniques with 'random' judges have been used to 'prove' that there is no difference between audio components, wine, or whatever else the writers agenda is to 'equalize'.

Most people do not care about small differences in photo quality, the standard being that if the person or thing is somehow recognizable, that is the threshold for good enough.

This forum is not a random sample, but a self selected sample of people who do care about nuances in quality.

I am peripherally involved with bird photographers, many of whom will accept photo quality that I would not, because their goal is to identify the species and prove the sighting. Their hobby and is perfectly valid, but that does not make it mine

.... H

Terry7732

The audience here is not the relevant point, and I think it is rather condescending to infer that they are a bunch of idiot snappers who do not know what they are talking about.
The photographs were taken by a professional photographic journalist who certainly does know what he is doing and, as I pointed out, it involved a reasonable cross section of subjects.
The journalist did not set out to prove or disprove anything, but it was more on the lines of a research project.
His conclusion was that modern sensor and processor technology is so good that there is little to choose between different cameras unless there are specific conditions that demand one particular camera (low light for example), and that the defining component of a set up is the quality of the lens.
I for one will freely admit that an experienced professional would very likely get as good as or maybe even better result with a D3300 as I would with my D810 whilst using the same lens.

WestEndFoto

There is no link to the article to even allow us to make a judgement about who or what the source is. And if there was, would it be peer reviewed and would the author make the details of how they performed the study available?

It is not condescending to point out weaknesses in an argument.

I actually think that there is an element of truth in the article, but as usual with most reviewers, they are missing the point. Cameras are just photon detectors that you bolt on to the ends of the real determinants of image quality. I would be more interested in a comparision of DX and FX lenses. But that is really hard as there are numerous variables with lenses that are harder to measure and control for, unlike a camera. Plus camera reviews sell more magazines than lens reviews.