I think it is wrong too. The light coming out of the same lens is exactly the same image, regardless of sensor size. DX does crop it smaller, so if the same megapixels, the FX pixels are half again larger dimension which could be better signal to noise (kinda depends on which sensors are discussed). And the smaller cropped DX image does have to be enlarged half again more, never a good thing. But if from the same lens, it started as the same image. It may be about the size or number of pixels, or specific sensors, or future degree of enlargement, but it is not about quantity of light.
Help me understand FX vs. DX
- Thread starter Chris@sabor
- Start date
Noise levels can be measured. A pixel with twice the surface area will gather twice the amount of photons during the same time. That results into a shot that has a better quality of signal. Like I said in another reply; the amount of exposure is identical since that is a % of the full well capacity but the quality is different since that depends upon the signal measured (photon count).
You can check the dB (or SNR) of all cams at every ISO and then compare those to check how much better an FX performs (signal-wise). That difference can be expressed in stops of light.
The "new" sensors will use different technology (BSI from what I read) where again light gathering is of the importance. The surface area will remain identical but the quantum efficiency will be higher which results into the same difference in regards to signal noise.
Last edited:
J-see is not wrong.
Even if what comes out the back of a lens is the same, the sensor pixels in the DX mostly are different. True the 50mp sensors are the same if you crop them to the size of APS-C, if you do not crop the more megapixel will give you a better impression.
One other point, not mentioned too often is that producers of cameras change the way the image is translated from the sensor to a jpg or raw file depending on the price of the camera. The 50mp camera is more expensive has better processors and stronger algorithms (I do not like it, but is is reality).
salukfan111
Senior Member
90% of the magic that occurs between the ass of the lens and the sd card occurs after the sensor. Once the cost of the high end sd cards (those capable of buffering 5 or more 50mp shots) comes down, all FFs will go to the same sensors currently used in DX (just upsized) and the r and d will go into pushing dx sized sensors towards 50mp. Nearly all of any perceived superiority of FF happens after the sensor. If nikon put their best effort into a dx camera they could blow away the 810 with it. All of us have fallen victim to an elaborate marketing scheme.
salukfan111
Senior Member
For starts here is an objective review of dx vs. fx without all the fanboy nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UarjxZZcu6U
You do realize that many FFs (of drastically differing quality levels) use the same exact sony sensor don't you? What do you suppose the difference between those is if the sensor is the same? Why do you think the 750 with a smaller sensor cleans the 810s clock on high iso.
Last edited:
salukfan111; You do realize that many FFs (of drastically differing quality levels) use the same exact sony sensor don't you? What do you suppose the difference between those is if the sensor is the same? Why do you think the 750 with a smaller sensor cleans the 810s clock on high iso.[/QUOTE said:
Could you narrow down which of all those videos has the information you're repeating?
How can a 24mp sensor be the same as a 36mp sensor? Explain why the 750 is smaller than the 810.
Last edited:
Yes, I would like to know as well.:indecisiveness:
I don't know much about all the technical mumbo jumbo. I only know that when I put an image from my D7100 next to a similar image from my D750, the D750 will blow it away by miles every time .
It is not fanboyism, it is a fact.
The D7100 is a fantastic camera and I highly recommend it to anyone who might ask about it, but the IQ ,the focusing and the low noise at higher ISO won't even come close to the D750.
salukfan111
Senior Member
I was trying to make a point about the stuff between the sensor and sd card to show the importance of what happens after the sensor. The 610 and 750 would be the point of comparison for the same sensor.
Those differences between the 7100 and 750 have little to do with the sensor and everything to do with NIKON propriatary firmware and hardware between the sensor and SD card along with other hardware features. If you truly believe the 7100 and 7200 are the best NIKON can produce with their current level tech, then I don't even know what to say about that.
Last edited:
salukfan111
Senior Member
Your problem is that you assume those things are due to it having a FF sensor and not the fact that premium level cameras get better electronics, hardware, and firmware than amateur level cameras. I would concede the 750, and 810 are better camera and the only place an amateur camera like 7100 or 7200 can compete is for birding. I have no idea why Nikon isn't producing a DX camera with all the goodies and would have to guess it is marketing and the "management" of fanboys. Planned obsolenscense and establishment of quality levels by withholding tech from entry level equipment are the most powerful forces in the universe.
Last edited:
You still haven't explained how the D750 has a smaller sensor than a D810.
Yeah, we all know about stuff that 'goes on' after the shutter closes. But that's not what we're discussing here. We're talking about when the shutter is open.
When did I say that?
Ever think that it's simply due to the fact that DX sensors are cheaper, they're marketed towards noobs and amateurs? People who don't need all the bells and whistles, like the D3xxx and D5xxx series?
Last edited:
salukfan111
Senior Member
The point I was trying to make is that two FF can have aspects that are different in ways you wouldn't expect due to things other than the sensor. I probably should have provide a separate paragraph (I'm an engineer not an english teacher). The best way to argue that tech is important is to take a high level product and point out something a lower level of product is able to beat it at.
The whole jest of the responses from me is that Nikon establishes their product line and pricing based upon the level of tech. FF sensors cost more than DX and if they offered a kick ass DX it would hurt their premium camera sales. For Nikon and Canon to maintain the mythos that allows maximum penetration and sales for entry level, amateur level, semi pro, and pro requires that people believe things like these levels are due to sensors and not mostly due to tech other than sensors. Audi does the same exact thing with their a3,a4,a5,a6,a7,a8 / s4,s5,s6,s7/rs4,rs5,rs6,rs7, r8 and s8. In reality, they'd be fine with an a3, a4, a5, a6, rs6, rs7, s8, and r8 were each car to be given the max tech available. Giving up those other models means they have more issues undercutting BMW and Mercedes sales.
Not all FX bodies have the same sensors. They can't. You can't use one sensor for a 24mp body as well as a 36mp body.
Nikon doesn't even use the same brand of sensors. They make their own, they have some made to their specifications, and then they just outright buy another brand and adjust the cameras to them. But even within the same 3-rd party sensor makers, there's plenty to choose from.
Nikon doesn't even use the same brand of sensors. They make their own, they have some made to their specifications, and then they just outright buy another brand and adjust the cameras to them. But even within the same 3-rd party sensor makers, there's plenty to choose from.
Danno
Senior Member
I watched all of them... they are only 2-3 minutes each and they kind of gave a calmer explanation to this issue.
OP, I understand the desire to acquire as much info as you can before making a purchase. You are wise to do so, and I hope that the argumentative nature of much of this thread hasn't thrown you off course.
Just to put it in perspective, you will not be thinking about the size of your sensor when you are out shooting. You'll think about light, composition, exposure, focus, and using your creativity. How many photons hit a sensor deep in the core of your camera is very secondary.
Just to put it in perspective, you will not be thinking about the size of your sensor when you are out shooting. You'll think about light, composition, exposure, focus, and using your creativity. How many photons hit a sensor deep in the core of your camera is very secondary.
Incorrect. While what happens after the sensor does play a role, it is all about light gathering and that is entirely done by the sensor. Why do you think the D4(s) has such massive sensor pixels? More light, better colors, less noise. It's about surface area times quantum efficiency. The reason there is no DX capable of doing what an FX does (in terms of light) is purely of a technical reason; too small sensor pixels. If they develop a lower Mpix DX tomorrow, they could increase the pixel size and gain the same light gathering as an FX but no 24Mpix will be able.
Even the D810's increase in Mpix comes at the expense of light gathering because you can't put more pixels on a surface area and maintain their size. If they develop a 50Mpix FX with exactly the same pixels as a DX it'll have the same low light performance a current DX has.
I personally would never trade light for pixels.
New technology like the BSI sensors might make the new DX outperform the current FX but since that technology can and will be applied to FX too, DX will always run behind. It simply lacks the surface area to compete. Just like no FX can ever compete against a medium format.
Last edited:
Last I knew, there wasn't any definitive answer to whether or not the D610 and D750 used the same sensor. Some people were speculating it was, but Nikon never confirmed it from what I've read/heard.