Please show me samples why full frame is better than crop? Take the challenge

[J-see]

Thinking about this, the sensitivity probably explains why the difference between crop and full matter less for some of my lenses. What my DX grabs in detail because of its crop advantage, the FX grabs because of its increased sensitivity. It'll play less of a role at higher shutters but when shooting long exposure like these night shots, that sensitivity makes a whole difference to the captured data. I'll try to shoot some long exposure with both tonight and see what it does to the details. It could explain why I had those differences while testing both.

That's probably why the D750 shots don't clip or wash out that much compared to my D3300 at the same settings.

 

[jay_dean]

DX vs FX. We've all heard this argument time and time again. Theres always the DX lovers fighting their corner with the 'get more reach' chestnut, and the FX lovers snooting they have much bigger pixels. DX or FX? Its a confusing conundrum for many people, and not a helpful one. You can do loads of reading on the internet, you'll have different people saying different things. That always says to me there's no concrete conclusion as to which one is the outright best. I used to shoot DX, i now shoot FX, I prefer it, that's just my opinion. If you shoot DX and are happy with it, then great, by all means stick with it. You pays yer money and yer takes yer choice

 

[J-see]

One of the problems is that we too often think of better as therefor the other being bad. Imagine we'd apply that to ourselves.

In everything I do there's someone out there being better at it, or faster, or more efficient. If I would think about that as many do about technology and I'd have very little self-esteem, I'd feel like a sucker.

Just because something does better, it doesn't mean that what doesn't is therefor bad. It just means the other is better at it.

 

[Marcel]

I think it would be very difficult to prove something like this with the web and display limitations. The true test is to take the same shot with equivalent lenses with both formats at different iso values and then print them same size. We can talk and argue as much as we want, but seeing a print is still the real comparison.

 

[J-see]

I think it would be very difficult to prove something like this with the web and display limitations. The true test is to take the same shot with equivalent lenses with both formats at different iso values and then print them same size. We can talk and argue as much as we want, but seeing a print is still the real comparison.

I'm going to try and shoot two identical shots at a shutter as long as possible. Sensitivity should show most in those. It could explain why at one second my FX shots seemed sharper but at 1/100th, the DX was better. More pixels/area is always a factor regardless the duration but sensitivity makes an increasingly difference when the exposure time is longer. The NEF should reveal that.

 

[AC016]

If you guys hadn't noticed, the OP has not been back since the day he posted this. That was nearly 3 months ago. But if you want to keep beating the dead horse, have at it.

 

[J-see]

If you guys hadn't noticed, the OP has not been back since the day he posted this. That was nearly 3 months ago. But if you want to keep beating the dead horse, have at it.

It's not about beating a dead horse but finding out when our gear works at its best.

 

[AC016]

It's not about beating a dead horse but finding out when our gear works at its best.

FX vs DX = go bang you head on the wall :stupid:

 

[J-see]

I guess you then also don't bother about what lens you pick for any given situation. After all, anyone of them can take a good shot.

 

[Eyelight]

If you guys hadn't noticed, the OP has not been back since the day he posted this. That was nearly 3 months ago. But if you want to keep beating the dead horse, have at it.

I think the underlying issue is the horse is of the undead variety. You think you've beaten it down and then here it goes, galloping past with some newer better tech that changes the playing field.

 

[sonicbuffalo_RIP]

One is not better than the other. I like FF for the reason that I can use a lens and get a wider field of view. I like DX because I can shoot it and get a narrower field of view. That being said, and to bring it full circle, there are way more professional FX lenses than DX lenses. Any tests will be flawed, and skewed depending on lens your shooting and what camera body you're shooting. The other variable is the lab tests. Remember that most FF bodies test better in the professional labs than the DX counterparts. You pay more for better quality. You can't beat DX for the money. I will close by saying FF mirrorless is the clear winner. Don't argue with me, you know I'm right!

 

[J-see]

I think the underlying issue is the horse is of the undead variety. You think you've beaten it down and then here it goes, galloping past with some newer better tech that changes the playing field.

That's the problem. Whatever used to be true not necessarily is when new technology is added. I'm a curious guy and like to know what my gear does under all circumstances. My D3300 is almost out the door since I plan to go full FX but if it turns out to do a better job during certain conditions, it'd be silly to get rid of it and not use it when those conditions are met. Just like I pick a lens depending upon the conditions, I too can pick a sensor.

 

[Blacktop]

If you guys hadn't noticed, the OP has not been back since the day he posted this. That was nearly 3 months ago. But if you want to keep beating the dead horse, have at it.

Yes ,I've noticed. One man's dead horse is another man's interesting read.

 

[Pretzel]

Dead Horse on Dilbert.com

 

[Rick M]

Digitally, I've shot Cx, M4/3, Dx and Fx.They all have advantages/disadvantages. The biggest impact has been DoF which is good both ways. Razor thin on Fx is nice. I also like getting the speed of 2.8 with the DoF of 5.6 on my 4/3rds Oly, great for landscapes/HDR.