Fx vs Dx Comparisons
- Thread starter Rick M
- Start date
Two pictures taken minutes apart on a tripod. One is DX and the other FX. Let's see how many can find a difference and make the right pick.
Both were taken raw and I used Apple Viewer to just resize them to 1000x665 at 240 dpi for web. I then opened CS5 to copy them in a blank canvas just to strip them of their respective exifs. Iso 400, 1/8 f8.
Both were taken raw and I used Apple Viewer to just resize them to 1000x665 at 240 dpi for web. I then opened CS5 to copy them in a blank canvas just to strip them of their respective exifs. Iso 400, 1/8 f8.
Last edited:
jcottone45
Senior Member
i'd say #1 is dx and #2 is fx...
Dof looks larger on the second one.
I think i see more detail on #2 also.
i agree #1 is dx & #2 is fx simply because i tried an old non cpu lens on my d300s with very similar results.
Just my .02 cents
jcottone45
Senior Member
So which one is which????
I'm going to wait until a few more people get a crack at it. It'll be mystery until then. My main point is that on this kind of media (web reduced size), it's very difficult to make an opinion. I find the shots very similar.
So for the next answers, the point is not to decide which is which, but to explain what (if there is that much difference) pleases you more in one shot than the other.
AperturePriority
New member
DOF thicker on the second tells us it is DX, because photographer had to back up to take picture with same FOV!I'd say #1 is DX and #2 is FX...
DOF looks larger on the second one.
I think I see more detail on #2 also.
The tripod never moved, but the zoom did change focal length.
Hi Marcel.
On the first set, at first glance, I was going to one was FX due to the deeper red color rendition since I had a particular or modified standard picture control with my D700. However this only changed when I saw the exposure. Since both were taken using the same settings, the second appears to be much brighter, so I'll choose one as DX two as FX.
On the second set, I choose one as FX due to the clarity on the baker's face.
Your posts are more challenging.
Sorry for the delay due to time zone difference.
On the first set, at first glance, I was going to one was FX due to the deeper red color rendition since I had a particular or modified standard picture control with my D700. However this only changed when I saw the exposure. Since both were taken using the same settings, the second appears to be much brighter, so I'll choose one as DX two as FX.
On the second set, I choose one as FX due to the clarity on the baker's face.
Your posts are more challenging.
Sorry for the delay due to time zone difference.
On those 4 images I wouldn't run out and buy a D700 unless I wanted better low light ability.....
The first image looks a little darker then the second
The writing on the label is sharper in the third image I'm not sure if it's because the image is a tad darker...
Thanks Marcel for taking the time to do this....Which is which, I don't have a clue, maybe 1 & 3 taken with DX
The first image looks a little darker then the second
The writing on the label is sharper in the third image I'm not sure if it's because the image is a tad darker...
Thanks Marcel for taking the time to do this....Which is which, I don't have a clue, maybe 1 & 3 taken with DX
Baker and honey bear bottle snap #1 is FX??? It appeals to me more than the other because if the way the light is...much more golden hour looking stuff...would you say saturation? Note how I just sort of automatically assume without any proof that the more appealing picture therefore better picture is FX?
AperturePriority
New member
Look at DOF of each of them, I can tell: In both sets, the firsts are FX. And the seconds of each set are DX.
In the second set, the DX less sharp (actually, blurrier) dues to crop factor 1.5 when photographer use slow speed (1/30) with handholding.
In the second set, the DX less sharp (actually, blurrier) dues to crop factor 1.5 when photographer use slow speed (1/30) with handholding.
Last edited:
OK guys, time for truth.
In both cases, shot ONE is….(drum roll) FX
Where it gets interesting is that for the DX shots, the table was with the D90 and the 35-70 2.8, and for the second one it was the D7000 with the 17-55 2.8. So, since the baker shot was reduced in size, you can see the baker is a tad larger than the FX shot made with the D700.
Thanks for your interest with this "non scientific" experience.
In both cases, shot ONE is….(drum roll) FX
Where it gets interesting is that for the DX shots, the table was with the D90 and the 35-70 2.8, and for the second one it was the D7000 with the 17-55 2.8. So, since the baker shot was reduced in size, you can see the baker is a tad larger than the FX shot made with the D700.
Thanks for your interest with this "non scientific" experience.
You're right on that one. There was some of it involved and in general, I found I could go with slower shutter speeds with my D700 than with the D7000.
Great observation. Maybe next time I'll play with f stops to make the DOF the same. Then we'll see if people can see the difference on the web. Probably if I was to post the original files there might be more difference. But in good light and low iso, FX and DX are not that much different IMHO.