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
Nikon DSLR Cameras
General Digital SLR Cameras
Please show me samples why full frame is better than crop? Take the challenge
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="J-see" data-source="post: 389230" data-attributes="member: 31330"><p>For most photography it matters little if you use FX or DX. You pick the format you like and get the buttons you pay for.</p><p></p><p>There are only two arenas where the debate FX vs DX counts and that is wildlife and macro. It's purely about the crop advantage in regards to quality.</p><p></p><p>I've shot most of my macro with the DX and let's just assume it takes slightly better quality shots. But the price I pay is only being able to take a fraction of the shots I could take with the FX. In macro it is all about detail and while the DX has the crop advantage, the moment you need to push the ISO, the noise starts to ruin that detail. 75% of my macro shots are the lens pointed downwards. If there's one direction that lacks light, it is there. I need to have good days with good light to be able to shoot good macro shots. That's less an issue with the FX. An additional issue with macro is the closing down of the lens it requires. That demands loads of light which low ISO very often can't provide.</p><p></p><p>The other is birding. Some of you live in a tropical paradise but here it's not always great. Today I went birding for a bit and most shots required 1600 ISO to get my 1/1000th or 1/1250th shutter speed for flyers. With the DX 1600 ISO makes it harder to get a good shot, let's not even talk about 3200 or 6400.</p><p></p><p>The crop advantage comes at a cost but it depends on the circumstances if that cost matters. Here, for me, it makes the difference.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J-see, post: 389230, member: 31330"] For most photography it matters little if you use FX or DX. You pick the format you like and get the buttons you pay for. There are only two arenas where the debate FX vs DX counts and that is wildlife and macro. It's purely about the crop advantage in regards to quality. I've shot most of my macro with the DX and let's just assume it takes slightly better quality shots. But the price I pay is only being able to take a fraction of the shots I could take with the FX. In macro it is all about detail and while the DX has the crop advantage, the moment you need to push the ISO, the noise starts to ruin that detail. 75% of my macro shots are the lens pointed downwards. If there's one direction that lacks light, it is there. I need to have good days with good light to be able to shoot good macro shots. That's less an issue with the FX. An additional issue with macro is the closing down of the lens it requires. That demands loads of light which low ISO very often can't provide. The other is birding. Some of you live in a tropical paradise but here it's not always great. Today I went birding for a bit and most shots required 1600 ISO to get my 1/1000th or 1/1250th shutter speed for flyers. With the DX 1600 ISO makes it harder to get a good shot, let's not even talk about 3200 or 6400. The crop advantage comes at a cost but it depends on the circumstances if that cost matters. Here, for me, it makes the difference. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
General Digital SLR Cameras
Please show me samples why full frame is better than crop? Take the challenge
Top