DX to FX change not worth the hassle ??

DaveyJ

Having once in a while shot important stages of our work with an iPhone 6 as for some reason a real camera was not there on the job we KNOW a iPhone is in no way capable of producing an image which looks right on a HD screen compared to a even modest D3200 image with a 18-55 kit lens. As a slide show comes to an iPhone image it goes soft and fuzzy, not sharp and clear. When a DX image comes on the screen it is just as good as an FX image. So my conclusion is that switching to FX from DX is NOT worth the hassle.

iPhones only work where we work in some areas. Mountains block cell tower commo. Even when I was shooting in large format the large image printing was digitized at some point most of the time. This thread seems to say is FX that much better than DX. When iPhone picture quality is thrown in convenience and all is the PRIMARY DRIVER. This to me is all about having a tool that can get the job at hand done. Cell phones have their limitations. So do FX cameras. Lastly.....I have never been impressed with depth of field and clarity of any cell phone image. WestEndPhoto's post makes me wonder if DX has any place. EIther it is FX or iPhone! Is there no middle ground? Is there no such thing as big enough.

In our farm work (pretty diverse today compared to farming 50 years ago....We see tractors, excavators, chainsaws, and ALMOST very piece of equipment in a HUGE assortment of sizes. Most of the time a mini-excavator will outperform a very big one as the big ones are reserved for the really big sites and work....many times the big ones are way to big and tear up way to much. So we are very used to needing the right tool for the job. FX cameras are in fact a specialized tool. iPhones are taking a huge % of today's photos. We often have an iPhone on the job. Rarely are we THAT desperate to take a photo on one. So we feel a Nikon 1 AW 1 is "worth the hassle" and that a DX Nikon is as also. To me as a company owner.....iPhones are extremely useful for texting, making voice calls.....and the photography thing is on the device as it works for many. But DX is very much worth the hassle. FX though is maybe fine for you AND many others but that many is a lesser number than DX users....and iPhone is a bigger percentage of users.

You pays your money and takes your chances!!

WestEndFoto

No, I think DX has a place. Probably not on the f-mount long term, but it has a place. As you point out, for many applications, it is good enough. My post's motivation was to hear more of your thoughts.

PS, some of my best shots are with my Coolpix A, which is DX. Special lens and sensor for sure, but I know what the potential is.

spraynpray

As you point out, for many applications, it is good enough.

A somewhat grudging compliment Jeff, for some applications it is better than FX.

WestEndFoto

As you point out, for many applications, it is good enough.

A somewhat grudging compliment Jeff, for some applications it is better than FX.

Well yes, it is grudging. This is because there is nothing in my portfolio that I have shot with FX and would have preferred DX. However, all of my DX shots I would have preferred FX.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westendfoto/

That does not mean that my DX shots are bad (unless you critique them from an artistic perspective). It also does not mean that FX, for some shots, would have produced anything more than a tiny improvement. It also does not mean that certain of my FX shots would not have been close enough or even indistinguishable had I shot them in DX.

However, I am not going to carry around a DX camera (with one exception described below) because there are numerous shots in my portfolio where FX is clearly superior - do I run home and grab my FX camera for those shots? Easier just to have FX in the first place. This is particularly so where depth of field or resolution is concerned (if shot at f/8.0 on a sharp lens such as my primes, I doubt it matters if you are shooting DX of FX, but if I am shooting wider at a wider aperture where the lens is less sharp, I don’t want to throw away limited lens resolution with DX).

My exception noted above is that I have a requirement for a camera that fits in my shirt pocket. No interchangeable lens APS-C/DX camera works for that – but my DX Coolpix A does. I can sit across from the table from the prime minister with my Coolpix A invisibly in my suit pocket, but I will creep him out with my D800 hanging off my shoulder.

So following is where I think DX is better. I recommend DX over FX for most people for these reasons. I have also commented on what are MY thoughts for MY purposes.

Lighter:
I don’t care. Heck, my next purchase will be a D820 and then I will carry around both my D800 and and D820 both with big fat heavy primes, MB-D12s, RRS L-Plates and GPS device on both. My tummy is soft and I need all the exercise I can get.

Smaller:
I don’t care except for the application that my Coolpix A is fulfilling.

Cheaper:
I don’t care. Well, within reason. But there is nothing in the Nikon lineup that I could not buy this afternoon without having to make a significant change in another part of my life if I was sufficiently motivated.

Higher pixel density is able to exploit super sharp lenses (the reach argument distills down to this):
I might care about this if I shot wildlife with Nikon’s superteles, but I don’t (opportunity is the problem, not interest). Also, as FX camera increase resolution, this will become a moot point. Finally, I am investing in a system that I expect to use for 20 – 50 years (my favorite lens that I bought brand new two years ago was introduced by Nikon in 1983) in which case any camera that we are debating today will be ancient history.

Have I missed anything???

Maybe, but the following are not advantages of DX in my view:
Depth of field - just stop down your FX lens. Focal length – just buy the right one in FX. Etc…..

manhattanboy

My exception noted above is that I have a requirement for a camera that fits in my shirt pocket.

Try the L16....
https://light.co/camera
LOL something like this is eventually going to do away with everything except telephoto.

Ironheart

Maybe, but the following are not advantages of DX in my view:
Depth of field - just stop down your FX lens. Focal length – just buy the right one in FX. Etc…..

If you stop down your lens to increase DoF you will need to raise the ISO to compensate. Hence, thereby evaporating the 1-stop advantage that FX has. DX density will increase before FX density. It's just the way of the world (I can explain why in gory detail if anyone cares).

There are situations where you can't buy the focal length and speed needed in FX. How do you get to 1200mm f/5.6 in FX?

WestEndFoto

Interesting. Properly implemented as an interferometer, that would reduce the diffraction problem.

WestEndFoto

Maybe, but the following are not advantages of DX in my view:
Depth of field - just stop down your FX lens. Focal length – just buy the right one in FX. Etc…..

If you stop down your lens to increase DoF you will need to raise the ISO to compensate. Hence, thereby evaporating the 1-stop advantage that FX has. DX density will increase before FX density. It's just the way of the world (I can explain why in gory detail if anyone cares).

There are situations where you can't buy the focal length and speed needed in FX. How do you get to 1200mm f/5.6 in FX?

OK, in the specific case where you are trying to achieve a certain DOF and are finicky enough that opening up a stop is a deal breaker, that could matter. I will give you that. But that is a very specific case. I would probably not bring up esoteric cases such as these with 98% of users when trying to explain the pros and cons of DX.

I agree that DX density is likely to increase ahead of FX density, but I don't believe that we are far from the day where lens is out resolved by the sensor at any aperture. It certainly is on my D800 wider than about f/2.0 with my primes. And most DX shooters are not shooting super sharp super teles, they are shooting super zooms. Anything more than about a dozen or so megapixels on those is a waste. FX will have a 1.5^2 times the resolution of DX because FX is using 1.5^2 times the area (of the lens) of DX. Well before a hundred megapixels, this will be a moot point with either FX or DX.

spraynpray

I was specifically referring to macro. DoF is greater at a given aperture with DX and diffraction sets in sooner in FX.

Ironheart

I just want @WestEndPhoto to admit that there are at least three areas where DX is better than FX

1) Macro where DoF is needed
2) Wildlife where PoS (Pixels On Subject) matters
3) All day carry situations (events, hiking, etc...) where weight matters

Note that 1 can be overcome with software if the subject is static
2 & 3 are pretty much the laws of physics, but 3 can be overcome while hiking if you have a burro named mistletoe:

Parke1953

Ironheart I'm having trouble with #2. How is DX better than FX for wildlife. So are you saying that you can't put all the pixels on the subject with a FX camera. Just asking.

WestEndFoto

Ironheart I'm having trouble with #2. How is DX better than FX for wildlife. So are you saying that you can't put all the pixels on the subject with a FX camera. Just asking.

First I will address #2 in response to Ironheart's most immediate post and Parke1953's post.

In my above post, my point "Higher pixel density is able to exploit super sharp lenses (the reach argument distills down to this):" concurs with Ironheart. However, as Parke1953 points out, it is a special case, namely a distant animal where you can't get all the pixels on the subject - such as a bird. In this case, with the current generation of DX and FX cameras, I would rather have DX.

As Parke1953 points out, if you can get all the pixels on the subject, then I would rather have FX.

However, I do think that this is a special case. In a few years, I suspect that the pixel density of any camera, FX or DX, will exceed the resolution of any lens, even Nikon's supertelephoto primes. Then I would rather have FX.

WestEndFoto

I just want @WestEndPhoto to admit that there are at least three areas where DX is better than FX

3) All day carry situations (events, hiking, etc...) where weight matters

Note that 1 can be overcome with software if the subject is static
2 & 3 are pretty much the laws of physics, but 3 can be overcome while hiking if you have a burro named mistletoe:

Agree for most people and as I stated above, I often make this recommendation. However, for me, it doesn't matter. When I spent 12 days in Italy in March, I had my D800 with battery grip, RRS L Plate etc. on my left shoulder, a vest with most of my primes in the pockets (20 2.8, 28 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 135 2.0 and 200 f4, minus what was on the camera) and my RRS tripod in my right hand. It weighed 22 lbs and while I did sometimes notice the weight, it was worth every pound. Heck, when I backpack I have 50 or 60 lbs on my back. You get used to it.

And as a bonus, when I only carry my D800 with the batter grip, GPS and RRS L Plate, it feels as light as a feather.

WestEndFoto

I was specifically referring to macro. DoF is greater at a given aperture with DX and diffraction sets in sooner in FX.

The part about the DOF sounds right, but there is a nagging "but" in the back of my head that I can't make go away. I am going to fool around on the following website over the weekend:

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

snakebunk

I think the DX to FX change is only worth the hassle if there is an advantage for you, something that makes you want FX. Each photographer needs to think about the pros and cons in the context of his or her photography.

The reasons I mostly shoot with FX are:
1. Nikon doesn't make any DX camera with top build quality and cf cards.
2. I can fit more on a larger sensor and there is more room for cropping.
3. I get a shallower DOF in those cases I can get close enough and use all of the sensor (i.e. when I don't crop out something smaller than DX).
4. I almost only shoot with tele lenses, which are FX, and with an FX camera I can potentially use more of the information given by the sensor. This can also give me better ISO performance.

If Nikon made a DX camera with top build quality and CF cards, I would maybe buy one to use as a second camera because of the higher fps and pixel density compared to the D8XX. There are a couple of kind of long threads about it for those interested .

Vipmediastar_JZ

1) Macro where DoF is needed
2) Wildlife where PoS (Pixels On Subject) matters
3) All day carry situations (events, hiking, etc...) where weight matters

3. Nikon Df

DaveyJ

@Ironheart: Whose burro is that? I think it is William Henry Jackson's. Thank you for posting that photo!!

DaveyJ

I took an extended trip from the Adirondacks to the west. I drove out in a at the time new Chevy Corvette. It was an awesome trip. However all the trunk was FILLED with camera equipment. The LS 1 engine proved how great fuel economy that the car could get. I averaged 37.5 gallons per mile. I took along an F5 Nikon, three lens from wide to up to 300mm. The Fuji GX 617, Linhof 617, and the F5 took the best photos. Today I would do the same trip with a D7200, D7100, and lens from 10-20 zoom to the new 200-500 Nikkor. The Fuji GX 617 was one of the best of all these film cameras. Digital though I believe has film beat ten ways to Sunday. For wildlife I would always pick a D7100 or D7200 and appropriate lens. I would NOT get caught with a 400 or 500mm lens on my camera with the possibility of having a Brown Bear walk right up to me!

Ironheart

@Ironheart: Whose burro is that? I think it is William Henry Jackson's. Thank you for posting that photo!!

Mistletoe is Ansel's faithful burro. He couldn't have taken any of the photos of the high Sierras without her. Mistletoe carried over 100lbs of camera and other gear and food, and Ansel carried 30lbs of camera gear himself.

spraynpray

TBH I am seeing so much good macro with M4/3rds, I often wonder about getting one just for macro.

esquilo

1) Macro where DoF is needed
2) Wildlife where PoS (Pixels On Subject) matters
3) All day carry situations (events, hiking, etc...) where weight matters

DoF is not the main point for using DX for macro work. Stopping down more or using stacking takes care of that. The main reason to use DX for macro is The higher pixel density. Once you hit 1:1 magnification and can't go further it's the pixels on subject that matters.

My favorite combo for macro is my AF-S 50 mm f/1.8, a macro ring, the FT-1 adapter and Nikon1 J3.

spraynpray

Stopping down has its limits and those limits (diffraction) do get better with the smaller sensor of DX over FX (the topic of this thread) so of course more so with smaller sensors than DX. I see diffraction effects clearly over f13 on my D7100/60mm micro but the effects at f16 are bearable for the extra tiny about of DoF. You can't just stop FX down more to gain DoF as diffraction sets in earlier.

@Ironheart: I thought your point with the Burro photo was to say that you have to be a Burro to carry FX all day!

DaveyJ

I photographed several times with Ansel Adams. I never saw the burro, but I do recall that he did use a burro by that name. William Henry Jackson was using a bigger view camera and I think he was using a couple of mules.....I spent our color peak day in Lake Placid and on the ground used my Nikon DX and the wonderful 16-80 new lens. I carried another DX body with me and had other lens. Never switched. The DJi Inspire took some of the best stills and video. We will add a 4/3rds sensor camera and two sharp lens to that Sony camera on board.