The crop factor doesn't need to be factored in since I check only the optical sharpness. 10 or 16 would count for that particular lens/sensor. But that's an overall number which I only use as a guideline.
Up till now I always assumed the DX was better for shots that required crop. I always shot macro with the DX. I haven't use the FX much for it since the season ended and I'll have to wait until next spring. For birding I used the D750 simply because I can gain more light by using higher ISO. The D3300 isn't that great compared.
It's that I wondered about it and did some test shots, I noticed that the "DX has better detail" isn't necessarily true. You don't really notice much when doing normal shots but when you crop the same part out of the FX shot and enlarge it to 150% to get the same size as the DX, it is obvious more megapixels doesn't necessarily translate into more detail. In theory yes but it would require both to be identical loss-wise.
It's possible my DX being a slightly worse unit of all sold but anyone having both types wouldn't do bad by doing the same test. If my cam can be bad, so could anyone's. Focusing won't be the issue since I have to manually focus the 200mm which is why I took plenty a shot and selected the best to rule out bad focus. If my DX would deliver better results, I'd shoot it without thinking twice. But as it shows, me just relying on what is written online isn't necessarily beneficial.
I didn't upgrade to a D810 based upon the idea for macro there would be no gain. I think I was wrong.
I checked the shots of the D7100 vs D800 but it's hard to say since they're not the same size. When comparing numbers it's possible it's different for you. It's 19/36 vs 11/24. Mine was 10/24 vs 19/24 using the D610 sensor. That's assuming you would have shot my lens.
Up till now I always assumed the DX was better for shots that required crop. I always shot macro with the DX. I haven't use the FX much for it since the season ended and I'll have to wait until next spring. For birding I used the D750 simply because I can gain more light by using higher ISO. The D3300 isn't that great compared.
It's that I wondered about it and did some test shots, I noticed that the "DX has better detail" isn't necessarily true. You don't really notice much when doing normal shots but when you crop the same part out of the FX shot and enlarge it to 150% to get the same size as the DX, it is obvious more megapixels doesn't necessarily translate into more detail. In theory yes but it would require both to be identical loss-wise.
It's possible my DX being a slightly worse unit of all sold but anyone having both types wouldn't do bad by doing the same test. If my cam can be bad, so could anyone's. Focusing won't be the issue since I have to manually focus the 200mm which is why I took plenty a shot and selected the best to rule out bad focus. If my DX would deliver better results, I'd shoot it without thinking twice. But as it shows, me just relying on what is written online isn't necessarily beneficial.
I didn't upgrade to a D810 based upon the idea for macro there would be no gain. I think I was wrong.
I checked the shots of the D7100 vs D800 but it's hard to say since they're not the same size. When comparing numbers it's possible it's different for you. It's 19/36 vs 11/24. Mine was 10/24 vs 19/24 using the D610 sensor. That's assuming you would have shot my lens.
Last edited:
