Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Help me understand FX vs. DX
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Vincent" data-source="post: 519526" data-attributes="member: 15675"><p>Chris as you saw it is a very valid question.</p><p></p><p>FX (general larger sensor): </p><p>- Generally larger pixels for same MP count (D750)</p><p>- Possible more pixels (D810) which allow to have more detail when resolution is reduced or allow to crop.</p><p>- uses more light (uses more of the circle of an FX lens)</p><p>- captures more light, but you need to be closer to your subject</p><p></p><p>DX (generally smaller sensor): </p><p>- Generally smaller pixels (more noise), but more pixels on the subject</p><p>- uses less light (uses less of the circle of an FX lens)</p><p>- captures less light, but you get the same field of view farther away from your subject</p><p></p><p>Larger pixels are good for quality (generally high ISO and colour depth per pixel). e.g. D4S, Sony A7S, Canon 1DX, ...</p><p>More pixels are good for resolution (more detail). e.g. D810, Sony A7RII, Canon 5DS R, ... but most go here to Medium Format (A lot of large pixels) Pentax 645, Hasselblad or Phase One </p><p>Example here are the high end cameras, since they are created as options for the professional users and proof that even they need to choose.</p><p></p><p>DX might waste light (uses less of the circle of FX lenses), but allows for smaller solutions (DX lenses) + impression of more reach (narrower field of view). The size of pixels like on a DX 24MP is currently not offered by Nikon on FX, so when you crop an FX to DX size you always loose megapixels (= detail) with the same lens and distance.</p><p></p><p>As others have concluded it depends on your situation between the D750 (better in dim light) and D7200 (better detail) and the difference is not huge, even if I believe it is important in practice, as most say having both is ideal. The D810 is a good intermediate between them. The other point is that the best Medium Format is unusable due to size and cost and availability.</p><p></p><p>That is why there is not one clear answer: you need to balance practical use, budget and importance of quality vs detail. Quality versus detail is where you seem to be in doubt still, like most involved in the discussion.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you understood something, FX captures more light for the same image (that means you need to be closer to the subject though), but you mix that up with there is a need a different aperture for the have the same exposure, which is wrong.</p><p></p><p>Exposure is only dependent on aperture and shutter speed, try to remember that.</p><p>On the other hand this does not help at all. I find the aperture crop factor as promoted by photozone for Depth of field equivalence, also not very helpful.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Vincent, post: 519526, member: 15675"] Chris as you saw it is a very valid question. FX (general larger sensor): - Generally larger pixels for same MP count (D750) - Possible more pixels (D810) which allow to have more detail when resolution is reduced or allow to crop. - uses more light (uses more of the circle of an FX lens) - captures more light, but you need to be closer to your subject DX (generally smaller sensor): - Generally smaller pixels (more noise), but more pixels on the subject - uses less light (uses less of the circle of an FX lens) - captures less light, but you get the same field of view farther away from your subject Larger pixels are good for quality (generally high ISO and colour depth per pixel). e.g. D4S, Sony A7S, Canon 1DX, ... More pixels are good for resolution (more detail). e.g. D810, Sony A7RII, Canon 5DS R, ... but most go here to Medium Format (A lot of large pixels) Pentax 645, Hasselblad or Phase One Example here are the high end cameras, since they are created as options for the professional users and proof that even they need to choose. DX might waste light (uses less of the circle of FX lenses), but allows for smaller solutions (DX lenses) + impression of more reach (narrower field of view). The size of pixels like on a DX 24MP is currently not offered by Nikon on FX, so when you crop an FX to DX size you always loose megapixels (= detail) with the same lens and distance. As others have concluded it depends on your situation between the D750 (better in dim light) and D7200 (better detail) and the difference is not huge, even if I believe it is important in practice, as most say having both is ideal. The D810 is a good intermediate between them. The other point is that the best Medium Format is unusable due to size and cost and availability. That is why there is not one clear answer: you need to balance practical use, budget and importance of quality vs detail. Quality versus detail is where you seem to be in doubt still, like most involved in the discussion. I think you understood something, FX captures more light for the same image (that means you need to be closer to the subject though), but you mix that up with there is a need a different aperture for the have the same exposure, which is wrong. Exposure is only dependent on aperture and shutter speed, try to remember that. On the other hand this does not help at all. I find the aperture crop factor as promoted by photozone for Depth of field equivalence, also not very helpful. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Help me understand FX vs. DX
Top
