Regular vs Full frame Cameras

[BackdoorArts]

That's what magnified means; increase the apparent size. That the original is identical is irrelevant, when compiled as a RAW file, my D3300 shot is magnified relative to my D750 shot since the smaller sensor has as many pixels.

If two would be taking the same shot with a DX and FX using the same lens, all sizes remain identical up to the sensor. If we could see the image projected on the sensor, both their sizes would be identical. Sizes meaning dimension to be clear. A real world meter is as large on my DX sensor as it is on my FX sensor if shooting the same lens at the same distance. That there's "more" shot is besides the point here. But once beyond the sensor, they become relative in size and the LCD on the one cam will show a bigger subject than the other.

That IS magnification.

It's not that different from what a zoom lens does compared to a prime. For both too the subject is identical in size and only by repositioning the one glass in relation to the other, we magnify. We don't magnify the subject, we magnify the image projected on the sensor. Mpix and sensor size fundamentally don't behave differently; the one in relation to the other defines the image projected.

I rest my case. Even when you're wrong you want to be right.

We don't magnify the subject, we magnify the image projected on the sensor.

Pardon me, but this is absolutely, 100%, undeniably incorrect. The image projected does not change!!! And if it doesn't change then it cannot be magnified, it can not be stupified, deep fried or anything else. Holy crap!!!

It is interpreted at a higher resolution, but that IS NOTmagnification, that is math. A D810 has a 36MP sensor which is the exact same size as the D750's 24MP sensor. The resulting image is of a higher resolution, meaning that the resulting image file is of greater overall dimension, but it's not "magnified". But wait, it's bigger, so it has to be, right?! Wrong!! You want to stick a word in there that is technically correct then use "enlarged", because that's what happens. The exact same projected optical source image is interpreted by different pixel densities and output at different sizes. That is enlargement not magnification.

 

[J-see]

I rest my case. Even when you're wrong you want to be right.

We don't magnify the subject, we magnify the image projected on the sensor.

Pardon me, but this is absolutely, 100%, undeniably incorrect. The image projected does not change!!! And if it doesn't change then it cannot be magnified, it can not be stupified, deep fried or anything else. Holy crap!!!

It is interpreted at a higher resolution, but that IS NOTmagnification, that is math. A D810 has a 36MP sensor which is the exact same size as the D750's 24MP sensor. The resulting image is of a higher resolution, meaning that the resulting image file is of greater overall dimension, but it's not "magnified". But wait, it's bigger, so it has to be, right?! Wrong!! You want to stick a word in there that is technically correct then use "enlarged", because that's what happens. The exact same source image is interpreted by different pixel densities and output at different sizes. That is enlargement not magnification.

Do you have any idea how a zoom lens works?

If I'm standing at some distance and you zoom in on me, do I get larger? I don't think so. Does the distance between you and me get shorter? I don't think so either. So what happens?

Magic?

Btw, guess what a synonym of enlarge is?

 

[Scott Murray]

From the Horses mouth, NIKON.

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/23822

 

[J-see]

From the Horses mouth, NIKON.

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/23822

I know the difference Scott but when it comes to macro, it is about the subject I shoot displayed in my shot and there both sizes are relative to the format. I can't get the same sized bug with the FX unless I afterwards manually do what the DX automatically does but I lose plenty a pixel when doing so.

 

[BackdoorArts]

Do you have any idea how a zoom lens works?

If I'm standing at some distance and you zoom in on me, do I get larger? I don't think so. Does the distance between you and me get shorter? I don't think so either. So what happens?

Magic?

Btw, guess what a synonym of enlarge is?

Once again, you prove my point!! I know exactly how a zoom lens works, by employing optics to magnify the projected image.

That is not what happens when you put a 50mm lens on a DX camera.

And Scott, if you want me to start parsing Nikon's butchering of the English language on their website and in their documents then you're going to have to start paying me. At least with their statement they almost use it correctly because they are talking about the "magnification of the focal length" and not of the image. J-can't-see hasn't come close to saying that, as he further demonstrates here.

 

[J-see]

Once again, you prove my point!! I know exactly how a zoom lens works, by employing optics to magnify the projected image.

That is not what happens when you put a 50mm lens on a DX camera.

And Scott, if you want me to start parsing Nikon's butchering of the English language on their website and in their documents then you're going to have to start paying me. At least with their statement they almost use it correctly because they are talking about the "magnification of the focal length" and not of the image. J-can't-see hasn't come close to saying that, as he further demonstrates here.

Seriously, you are trying to say I'm wrong and you are right because instead of magnifying it is actually enlarging?

Both mean the exact same thing.

It would be funny were it not sad.

 

[sonicbuffalo_RIP]

Time for another Diet Dr. Pepper. Then off to read something interesting. I think I understand Crop vs. FX a lot better now. Not that it was ever a problem.

 

[J-see]

The discussion was about 1:1 on both formats and why the one format has advantages in comparison to the other.

I don't see where there's anything to disagree. It's a fact a 1:1 macro lens can't go beyond 1:1 so on both formats, the dimensions of everything in scene as projected on the sensor are identical. It's only after the shot is taken and when displaying both, there is a difference in dimensions. That's because 1:1 is now relative and the dimensions are defined by the Mpix/sensor area. Again, it is only in comparison when displaying both. The dimensions of the one are *cough* enlarged *cough* in comparison to the other.

That's the advantage of DX vs FX.

 

[Scott Murray]

I know the difference Scott but when it comes to macro, it is about the subject I shoot displayed in my shot and there both sizes are relative to the format. I can't get the same sized bug with the FX unless I afterwards manually do what the DX automatically does but I lose plenty a pixel when doing so.

You are unable to get closer to the bug physically?

 

[J-see]

You are unable to get closer to the bug physically?

Not at all, my lens has the same 1:1 focus distance (around 50cm) regardless what cam I add to it. My DX can get as close, physically, as the FX. But since it only captures a portion of the image the FX does, my end result is different.

That's what it is about in the end, the bug displayed on my shot. If I show you both, the DX photo shows the bigger bug. In macro and birding, I have to post-crop a lot when shooting the FX to get a somewhat identical image.

 

[Scott Murray]

Not at all, my lens has the same 1:1 focus distance regardless what cam I add to it. My DX can get as close, physically, as the FX. But since it only captures a portion of the image the FX does, my end result is different.

That's what it is about in the end, the bug displayed on my shot. If I show you both, the DX photo shows the bigger bug. In macro and birding, I have to post-crop a lot when shooting the FX to get a somewhat identical image.

Yeah I understand but all I was referring to is you getting closer with the FX so it fills the frame, this would negate the whole debate here. I have numerous lenses and cameras and use them for the shot I want, I tend to try and fill the frame when shooting macro to avoid cropping, and yes I understand that this is unavoidable at times. I could take a shot of a 5mm bug with my nikon D800E FX and it would fill the frame easily. With my birding I bought a longer lens and try to get closer to them, I have not thought about DX for this as I still like the IQ out of the D600 and D800E. If I am unable to get close enough and dont get the shot then I try again and again and again after all if it was easy everyone would be doing it

 

[J-see]

Yeah I understand but all I was referring to is you getting closer with the FX so it fills the frame, this would negate the whole debate here. I have numerous lenses and cameras and use them for the shot I want, I tend to try and fill the frame when shooting macro to avoid cropping, and yes I understand that this is unavoidable at times. I could take a shot of a 5mm bug with my nikon D800E FX and it would fill the frame easily. With my birding I bought a longer lens and try to get closer to them, I have not thought about DX for this as I still like the IQ out of the D600 and D800E. If I am unable to get close enough and dont get the shot then I try again and again and again after all if it was easy everyone would be doing it

The problem is the "getting closer". In my case it is unavoidable when birding and shooting macro. In macro I am limited by 1:1 and when birding either by the length of my lens or the nerves of the bird.

It's a problem I only encounter when shooting the FX while knowing what the DX does. If I shoot the DX, I am seldom aware of the difference. If I want to shoot a subject and it is too large, I don't regret not having taken the FX because I can solve that problem by taking a step back. When shooting the DX I'm seldom aware of the differences unless low light becomes an issue.

For the FX that's different. You can't simply solve a size problem by taking a step forward because of limitations mentioned and you're more aware of the disadvantages compared to a DX during those shots.

But there where the FX has the advantage, which is when a shot can be fully framed, we are as unaware of it as we are unaware of the disadvantage when using the DX to frame the same shot.

 

[Scott Murray]

 

[Scott Murray]

Or the great Matt Granger

 

[Rick M]

Another way of determining the right system is to look at lens selection. Does the lineup meet your goals? Dx is a bit limited and do you want to supplement with Fx and the size/weight/$ ramifications?

 

[Eyelight]

Back to @Francois question, we can disregard most of the info presented after post #6. In a nutshell the difference between the two format sizes is negligible unless the final image is going to be enlarged to wall size or larger.

The main image difference is, a larger sensor will produce shallower depth of field at the same focal length, f/stop and field of view.

The other differences and more important for the average shooter (and average shot) is the features available on the various camera models and lens selection.

• Newer cameras have newer tech.
• FX cameras generally have more features.
• FX bodies and glass are bigger and weigh more.
• DX bodies and glass are smaller and weigh less.
• FX or DX glass produce the same field of view on a DX body.
• FX glass produces a larger field of view than DX glass on an FX body.

 

[BackdoorArts]

Seriously, you are trying to say I'm wrong and you are right because instead of magnifying it is actually enlarging?

Both mean the exact same thing.

It would be funny were it not sad.

Then cry me a river, because enlarge and magnify have never and will never mean the exact same thing. There are times where equivalency is acceptable and there are times when specificity is required to correctly communicate a concept. Don't believe me? Bring a negative to a printer and ask for a poster sized magnification while boosting the sad tones a bit and see where synonyms get you.

 

[hark]

This is my first post in nikonites and starting with a question. I presently have a D300s and my old D70. What is the major difference in using a Full frame vs these two cameras. I am considering selling these and move to only one camera. Is worth the changes?
Thanks for your help
Francois

Hi Francois! Your D70 and D300s are both older DX cameras. Between these cameras, the D300s is the better of the two. It is a workhorse camera but has its limitations with low light and high ISO (when compared with the latest DX and FX cameras). Whether or not it will be better for you to upgrade to full frame may also depend on which FX body you are considering. If you are considering a D610, D750, D8xx, it will be a step up in terms of low light and higher ISO performance.

The crop factor difference has been discussed (and rehashed). Here's my take on it in a nutshell: the advantages to DX are that it allows a better image on the long end (the telephoto end) than an FX when using the same focal length lens on each. For example...if I shoot a bird with a 300mm on DX, I will get a large image and can fill the frame providing I'm standing close enough. Now if I'm standing the the same exact spot using an FX with a 300mm lens, the image will appear smaller. Sure, I can crop the FX image and resample it to make it look the same size as the image taken with the DX, but overall the image straight out of DX tends to be better for enlargements than when you take an FX image and crop/resample it.

If you are looking to get a new camera, what lenses do you currently own? If they are all DX lenses, you will be limited if you go with an FX camera. You'd need to buy FX lenses to use an FX camera to its fullest potential. I'm not trying to dissuade you from going FX. It's a personal decision whether or not FX is for you. Personally I prefer FX myself. Which FX or DX cameras are you considering? That might help to give you more precise info.

 

[J-see]

Then cry me a river, because enlarge and magnify have never and will never mean the exact same thing. There are times where equivalency is acceptable and there are times when specificity is required to correctly communicate a concept. Don't believe me? Bring a negative to a printer and ask for a poster sized magnification while boosting the sad tones a bit and see where synonyms get you.

I guess you got to call Monsieur Dictionnaire then and tell him they've been using the synonyms wrongly for all those centuries but luckily they got you to set things right. In my language we even use the same word for both.

Backpeddling comes to mind and a seriously desperate attempt at it.

 

[hark]

Each time I come to this thread, I hear a song in my head (sorry, I'm a musician). It's this song...You've got to know when to hold 'em, Know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away, Know when to run. ♫



To me, when I hear the word magnify, I think of an additional piece of glass going between my eye and the subject. That would include microscopes, magnifying glasses, and tele-converters, but not a DX camera sensor.

A DX camera is simply recording an image on an already cropped sensor. To equate that image on an FX sensor, I'd have to manually go in and crop an FX image and resample it; however, while the files may look very much the same to the naked eye, when enlarging both for comparison, that's when the difference may show up.