I totally agree with you Jack, except............ a Ferrari would make me a better driver.
Regular vs Full frame Cameras
- Thread starter Francois
- Start date
- Status
I totally agree with you Jack, except............ a Ferrari would make me a better driver.
Here are the originals with zero editing and all sharpening disabled.
I was pondering about the sharpness difference between the lens on the FX or DX while walking my dogs. I could never find a reason why; the sensor, the sensels...?
While thinking, I came up with a possible explanation that might make more sense to me than the rest of you.
When I'm at a certain distance of a building, I might see the outlines sharp but it's hard to distinguish details since they all blur together. When I get closer, the outlines don't necessarily get much sharper but the details do. The closer I get, the easier I can distinguish them.
It's not different for a lens and sensor. Where the crop provides an advantage to framing, it is a disadvantage to sharpness. Compared to an FX, it is further away from the subject and even while the shot is translated to the same dimensions when shown on a screen, the details are not as clear because of the distance increase.
According that logic, the further away from the subject, the sharper the FX will be when framing the same shot. What is a practical advantage for the DX is also an advantage in terms of DoF but a disadvantage in terms of actual quality. We however seldom notice because we hardly ever can compare identical shots.
I was pondering about the sharpness difference between the lens on the FX or DX while walking my dogs. I could never find a reason why; the sensor, the sensels...?
While thinking, I came up with a possible explanation that might make more sense to me than the rest of you.
When I'm at a certain distance of a building, I might see the outlines sharp but it's hard to distinguish details since they all blur together. When I get closer, the outlines don't necessarily get much sharper but the details do. The closer I get, the easier I can distinguish them.
It's not different for a lens and sensor. Where the crop provides an advantage to framing, it is a disadvantage to sharpness. Compared to an FX, it is further away from the subject and even while the shot is translated to the same dimensions when shown on a screen, the details are not as clear because of the distance increase.
According that logic, the further away from the subject, the sharper the FX will be when framing the same shot. What is a practical advantage for the DX is also an advantage in terms of DoF but a disadvantage in terms of actual quality. We however seldom notice because we hardly ever can compare identical shots.
Last edited:
I was a D300 fan for a long time, but I wanted less noise when I turned the ISO up. If you have plenty of light or don't need fast shutter speeds that's not an issue. When I upgraded I went FX with the D800 because I didn't feel that the next level of DX ISO performance was there at the time. I've since bought a D7100 for the crop factor that @BackdoorHippie mentioned although I still have the D800. If I'm honest, I could use the D7100 for everything and get great results with a much cheaper setup, even if I put good glass on it.
In my book, the only reason you should upgrade is if you D300 is causing a particular problem you're trying to fix. If it isn't it will carry on taking great pictures because it's one of the best products Nikon ever made.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
In my book, the only reason you should upgrade is if you D300 is causing a particular problem you're trying to fix. If it isn't it will carry on taking great pictures because it's one of the best products Nikon ever made.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Slipperman
Senior Member
well... (j/k)
Scott Murray
Senior Member
I just found my D80 again so once I find the charger I am going to be shooting with it and see how it performs with the 150-600 Tamron against my D600 and D800E. Should be fun hehe.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I made that previous remark tongue in cheek, and certainly without taking anything away from the DX format. I still have my D7100 and will still use it; that doesn't mean I have regrets about "going full frame" however, and that really was more my point.
...
...
I did a quick test of my logic to check if that matches reality. There's only so far I can go indoors until I hit a wall.
Again the same settings but now the opposite approach. I first shot the D750 and then increased the distance to frame the same shot with the D3300. The difference when it comes to detail sharpness should increase.
I have to try this outside when the weather is good. There I really can take some distance from the subject.
Evidently this is pixel peeping and doesn't matter that much in reality.
When shooting it matters less which of both you use. There will be some differences in DR and colors but not to such a degree it matters. It is only when you want to exactly frame a particular scene, the larger that scene and the further you are from it, the more the FX will outperform the DX at the level of sharpness.
If that matters or not is up to you.
Again the same settings but now the opposite approach. I first shot the D750 and then increased the distance to frame the same shot with the D3300. The difference when it comes to detail sharpness should increase.
I have to try this outside when the weather is good. There I really can take some distance from the subject.
Evidently this is pixel peeping and doesn't matter that much in reality.
When shooting it matters less which of both you use. There will be some differences in DR and colors but not to such a degree it matters. It is only when you want to exactly frame a particular scene, the larger that scene and the further you are from it, the more the FX will outperform the DX at the level of sharpness.
If that matters or not is up to you.
Last edited:
Scott Murray
Senior Member
My comparing my D80 to my D600/D800E was also tongue in cheek
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Well then... As long as everyone keeps their own tongues in their own cheeks, I think we're all good here.My comparing my D80 to my D600/D800E was also tongue in cheek
....
In practice I think it matters less which of both. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. But I can shoot the FX without a problem during certain conditions where I run into issues with the DX. Low light being one simply because of the noise.
I have tested differences a while ago but now realize I have been comparing apples and oranges.
If I want to check how they both perform, I have to shoot an identical scene using the same DoF. If I shoot a subject with the 200mm at 10 meters and use f/8, I can't shoot the DX at 15 meters and use the same aperture. I then have to open up to to about f/3something to get a similar DoF. Only then I have identical shots to compare.
Last edited:
Fortkentdad
Senior Member
Yep - that sums it up
Last May I was on the fence - DX or FX?
I was looking at the D7100 ($1,000) vs D610 ($1900).
Image Quality is really hard to compare - each had some advantages over the other.
There is the FF (FX) "cult" factor, aka 'bragging rights" - the "but I shoot Full Frame" nonsense.
DX - has the 'illusion" of shooting longer on the same lens (the so called "cropped factor" but that's been discussed to bits in another thread and long story short by cropping the image the DX lens appears to give you the effect of 1.4 x the focal length - a 100mm lens on DX camera gives similar image to a 140mm lens on a FX camera. BUT ... read the other post....
An FX camera can give new life to old lenses. But so can good DX camera (as long as it has motor in it, so not a 3300 or 5100 for example.
FX cameras can use DX lenses - but you get a smaller image - same as you would on a DX camera - so lenses are not 'wasted' but if you are only going to use DX lenses ever, then FX camera benefits are mostly lost.
In the end of the day I went for the D610 - 'just because". I like the feel and the camera - and got a good deal on it.
And a dear wife saying that it would probably be the last expensive camera I could buy (I'm retiring soon) so figured it was go big or go home now or never ....
I feel in actual use the D300 and D700 handle exactly the same just as I had hoped. The major controls that impact the image are in the same exact location. Truly when I am in a real shooting frenzy I often don't even know or care which one I am shooting....I can truly just concentrate on the capture.
Where the D700 blows the D300 away is high ISO performance....it is a very potent beast making even my budget 70-300 AF-s VR useable in low light action shooting!!
The further fact that the cameras both take my MB-D10 VG is even more exciting. As I have no interest in video or upgrading my computers to accommodate 24 or 36mp files leads me to believe I have the perfect kit for me!!
YMMV as always!
Where the D700 blows the D300 away is high ISO performance....it is a very potent beast making even my budget 70-300 AF-s VR useable in low light action shooting!!
The further fact that the cameras both take my MB-D10 VG is even more exciting. As I have no interest in video or upgrading my computers to accommodate 24 or 36mp files leads me to believe I have the perfect kit for me!!
YMMV as always!
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
Howdy Francois and welcome to Nikonites!
I can't provide much insight into FX vs DX, but glad to have you here.
I can't provide much insight into FX vs DX, but glad to have you here.
You really need to determine your objective. I went from Dx to Fx to Micro 4/3 rds. I like to learn the expensive way
. No one format can do what the others can, so there is no "best" format. I find all the test images on review sites of equal generations comical, but that's me. Find the format/body/lens combination that best fits your style and you will have the "best" format.We can (and love to) debate these "vs." questions to death. If you have a reasonable kit, opportunity and skill will trump gear most of the time.
Last edited:
- Status