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

haroldp

Anyone using a random public sample to judge, is clearly setting out to prove something, it was taught in journalism schools when I was there 40 years ago (teaching photography). It s a well established technique to credibly prove that Chateau Petrus is indistinguishable from Thunderbird. The skill of presentation doesn't matter, the test audience doesn't care about the differences.

Of course a skilled photographer will likely get better results from a D3300 than one much less skilled will get from a D810, or any equipment. That point is true but irrelevant.

Th question at decision time is will a specific photographer get consistently better results from one than the other. If the Photog does not have the skills to exploit a machine like the D810, than the answer is no.

Will a photog who has the kills get better results from a D810 than a lesser machine ? sometimes.

Modern cameras are so good that under good conditions (good light, access to subject for framing, time to set up, and slow subject motion) it does not matter what you use. In those conditions I use a Fuji and 'kit' lens.

However in difficult conditions it matters a lot. That is what you are paying for with pro cameras and fast or exotic lenses.

... H

WestEndFoto

I once set out to investigate what was behind the Pepsi challenge. I recreated the test and as expected, Pepsi won.

I then required the testers to drink the whole can - both of them. As with all the tests, they were being paid so they were motivated to do a reasonable job. It was double blind of course (a mere blind test is a scam, it is easy to skew the results and I documented and proved that as well). The sample size was 40. To my surprise, the results were exactly the same.......except for one little detail. Coke won.

I then went back to the original test where the tester drank a smaller amount. I then started slowly increasing the sweetness of the Coke by adding sugar, until I was able to get Coke to win.

So hopefully one can appreciate why I am sceptical of asking a random sample of the public what is better. According to the Pepsi challenge, Pepsi should have higher sales than Coke. This of course is not reality and the above experiment provided insight as to why the Pepsi challenge does not accord with reality.

DaveyJ

Having spent as much as any of you on photography in recent years......I can say that Terry 7732 is probably even more right than most here realize. A D3300 with the same lens that you would use on a D810 very well might produce even better images than a D810. FX is LOST to us here at this farming operation which gets called in FREQUENTLY to assist venues, towns, and businesses to pump up their videos and websites like we have. Many we work with are tax exempt as they are either non profit accomplishing needed missions.....The current interest in standard FX cameras is rapidly declining. Sales volume will follow that same path. Nikon's photo market share will decline severely if it cannot adapt.

I would myself right now be hard pressed to buy Nikon stock compared to a few upstart imagery groups that have a newly emerging slant on a different view point. The emphasis seems to be solidly higher res images from SMALLER cameras and lens....not the big honking lens and cameras like FX. It is my belief that DX has FX almost soundly beat when it comes to a more modern day photography. THE SINGLE reason I follow Nikon Rumors is NOT to repeat my personal disaster of investing so much in medium and large format when B&H ALONE of cameras sales places said STAY WITH 35MM.

FX is fine for those who think the benefits of bigger is better. For my money BIGGER is far worse and a dead end street. The fact is we here need wide depth of field and everything in our images in focus to the greatest degree possible. Single focused points of view in an blurry photo with some single spot a "pro" thought was the point of interest I find almost the most insulting single aspect of pictures. If I wanted blurry I would use thick glasses for that coke bottle effect for a large portion of the view. To me that is tunnel vision. Still see the point of Nikon FX cameras and lens. But if I were in Nikon marketing, or more appropriately to this forum.....making a next purchase of a Nikon DX versus and FX camera or even a lens......make mine DX, although a lens that can do FX or DX there the principle of smaller, lighter is better if satisfactory image quality can be attained applies for us.

donaldejose

DavyJ: Very interesting point of view and contrary to conventional wisdom which holds that a bigger sensor is always better. Apparently, IQ from the DX size sensor has now become "good enough" that other factors dominate according to the purpose for which the photo is taken in the first place. A similar interesting point of view is demonstrated by CostalConn's post in PAD today. It cannot be contested that Nikon's dynamic range is much better than Canon's dynamic range. However, Canon's "inferior sensor" is still good enough that it is not the limiting factor in taking a great photo.

WestEndFoto

DavyJ: Very interesting point of view and contrary to conventional wisdom which holds that a bigger sensor is always better. Apparently, IQ from the DX size sensor has now become "good enough" that other factors dominate according to the purpose for which the photo is taken in the first place. A similar interesting point of view is demonstrated by CostalConn's post in PAD today. It cannot be contested that Nikon dynamic range is much better than Canon's dynamic range. However, Cannon's "inferior sensor" is still good enough that it is not the limiting factor in taking a great photo.

This is a reasoned perspective that I mostly agree with.

heartyfisher

Waiting for the new Nikon V4 ... i wonder if it can beat the 7Dm2 .. :-)

DaveyJ

If I had to go buy a DSLR camera TODAY....it would be a D7200 with hopefully yet another Nikkor lens. Sure don't even know what that lens would be. I do think one of the biggest losses of Nikon leadership has not being able to launch a lightweight 200-500 VR lens. And I AVOID using a 2.8 or wider lens. nowadays I find myself using the 55-300VR Nikkor a far amount. I for one do not gravitate to fixed f stop lens....as variable aperture lens to me means lighter and more agile.

We are using DJ i Inspire rigs and the results are often rated as the best imagery places have had taken....since it is a big picture eagle eye view. My belief that DX is "good" enough demonstrates clearly the compromises we ALL make in life. It isn't just the dollars to purchase something....it is trying to get the best expedient tool for the job. Still I see the point for FX cameras and lens. But to stay viable....we have had to move on, And finally OUR target markets look for these things in photos and video.....sharp, edge to edge in focus, color, subject compared to what often for them is THEIR place which has had thousands of photos taken by all sorts of gear. Never once would I say that I wouldn't WELCOME many Nikon Rumors folks on the same photo shoots to add their unique perspective! One of the greatest advantages in Nikon Rumors is getting up to speed on other passionate photographers current missions and interest. I do feel that Nikon dynamic range and quality of their offerings is about as good as it gets. Lastly I say....thank goodness the D7200 is available for "corner cutters" like me....today we are getting set to put up a timber frame building. The camera to document some technical
aspects was a Nikon 1 AW 1. I would have been more certain of the quality with a D7200 and almost any lens! DX has it's place!

Photobug

Well that just killed 45 minutes reading the last 100 messages. )
I was disappointed no one has done the testing yet. But the opinions and comments have been interesting.
Still slammed for time so I am not in a good position to perform the test.

I do agree that DX has it's place because so many consumer really don't want to spend the $$$ for a quality lens, they don't take a lot of pictures, and they don't care about the technical stuff. I also laugh when I see the number of people buying a lens/DSLR in the store or shooting pictures with their $25 filter. Okay, I am off topic.

heartyfisher

:-) excited !! ... Ordered the a new D7200 !!
sorry .. you know .. just excited ...

Anyway I may be able to do "the test" !! but I have forgotten what exactly we are testing and what parameters and what to shoot and how to shoot.. sorry just too excited with my new toy to think about a proper test.. I just want to go shooting !! some one remind me .. I went and read back a few pages but things just wouldn't sink in .. ;-) my mind kept drifting back to how nice my new toy may be ... when I get my hands on it .. @-)

BTW Weird thing happened .. One of my old equipment came back alive !! my D70 had a bum screen where after a photo is taken the back LCD wont show the picture or only show the top half .. anyway.. its working again !! so I can actually do some interesting tests .. comparing 3 formats (CX,DX,FX) and 4 generations of sensors, D70 CCD, Fuji s5, D7000, N1V1, D7200, D610 {I will be selling several of them I think :-) !! }, but I am not clear on what the parameters should be ...

PS: had a think and look through the thread a bit more.. I will be using my 70-200 F4 lense DX at 100mm F5.6 and FX at 150mm F8. I will find try to find some objects from nature(dried leaf) and man made (toy) (anything else? oh yeah, text, black detail, white detail.. moire..), Images in raw and jpg i will upload somewhere. Lighting with direct flash (SB800) (wont be pretty lighting but thats not the point of this test :-) ) anything else I forgot?

safyre

As someone who used a D90 for five years and finally made the jump to a D700 just half a year ago. I can say that the D700 is a significant upgrade to the D90 in terms of Dynamic Range, Color depth, ISO, and AF (Yes, you will actually be able to see the difference without pixel peeping). I'm not sure if this stuff still applies in a similar fashion to the current generation, but after using a D700, there's no way I'd go back to DX after it. These are the opinions of a semi-pro photog that shoots weddings, portraiture, and fashion.

sevencrossing

@safyre. Like you i went from a D90 to a D700 and was blown away by the difference. My next upgrade was to a D800 and again I was blown away by the improvement

for weddings and any pro, or semi pro, photography FX is the sensible format
at high ISO values FX wins hands down,
When it comes to wide angle lenses there is a better choice of glass. There is no ultra wide, wide aperture, dx glass

heartyfisher

Its just a nice niche waiting to be exploited. Canikon can ignore it for now.. but not for long.. the others (fuji/samsung/olymus etc ..) are filling up their dx lense line up nicely, soon it will be there.. 1 more year at the most. though the 11-16 F2.8 is already available.

sevencrossing

The Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-3.5 DX will certainly make Dx more attractive

spraynpray

I agree seven, but with the proviso that it is very good wide open too. If it is mediocre, then I'll have to stick with the 17-55 f2.8 and no VR.

sevencrossing

I doubt if it will have the same build quality , but i would be surprised if nikon have not managed to improve the optics during the last 10 years
i would love to see a comparison between this on you D7100 and the 24 -120 on your D750

Ironheart

Some are saying this is the 17-55 replacement. Look at the specs:
DX format
Electromagnetic diaphragm
Nano Crystal coating
ED glass
Fluorine coating
VR up to four stops

Photobug

Some are saying this is the 17-55 replacement. Look at the specs:
DX format
Electromagnetic diaphragm
Nano Crystal coating
ED glass
Fluorine coating
VR up to four stops

It could be. But like spraynpray said, who know how good the glass will be on the new lens. Having used the 17-55 F2.8 for so many years it was a terrific lens on the D200 and D300 and then my D7100. My hunch is that it will not match the quality but will be a nice range for many photographers.

Ironheart

I would generally agree, however only the top lenses have the fluorine coating, and all of the nano coated lenses are gold ring. Time will tell :-)

sevencrossing

As camera shake is a very common reason for unsharp images
I would guess four stop VR will enable many users who do not use tripods to take sharper pictures

spraynpray

I doubt if it will have the same build quality , but i would be surprised if nikon have not managed to improve the optics during the last 10 years
i would love to see a comparison between this on you D7100 and the 24 -120 on your D750

I do need to do that test.

Ironheart

Perhaps we should start a thread on this one, given that it will be here in two weeks :-)
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/06/30/price-and-first-picture-of-the-new-nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-16-80mm-f2-8-4e-ed-vr-lens.aspx/
It's got a gold ring, but at $899 probably won't compete with the 17-55, however would be great for a new high-end DX body (wink wink, nudge nudge)

donaldejose

Yes, great "kit lens" for higher end DX body. Also, I wouldn't be too quick to think it will not be very sharp just because it costs less than $1,000. The Nikon 85mm f1.8 costs $500 and is very sharp.

Ironheart

Oh I'm sure it will be sharp, it just doesn't appear to be the 17-55 replacement I thought it might be. It might very we'll have a place in my bag where the 18-55 sits today...

Ironheart

From the press release:
"This is also the first Nikon DX lens to feature an electromagnetic diaphragm; this innovation electronically adjusts the aperture within the lens, resulting in consistent exposure during high speed shooting. "
I wonder which high speed DX camera will require an electronic aperture :-??

snakebunk

I think/hope the D5 rumors indicate that Nikon will give all their cameras a substantial increase in fps. But I guess this new lense could also be an indication of a new dx camera. Maybe a high speed mirrorless dx camera is around the corner?