A Concise Explanation On Everything Related to Cropped vs. Full Sensors

These things come up all the time, and get answered repeatedly, so perhaps a sticky with articles relating to how FX and DX are different is warranted, either here or in the Learning Photography forum?

This is a well explained synopsis on the differences you can expect between the two types of sensors that spans all manufacturers, and why your may prefer one format to the other.

On ‘Crop Factor’: What it Means And How to Apply it to Your Photography

Great information. I think a lot of times I see people wanting to know about IQ difference. I for one would love to see a comparison picture between a D7000 and D600 using the same lens and taken of the same subject. I also see a lot threads about IQ comparison so if you have something like that then add it to it. I think a sticky is a great idea on this subject.

I could have shot something like that a month ago, but with the IR conversion on my D7000 it wouldn't be valid.

I think where you really see differences in the formats are at the extremes. In native ISO and bright light you're probably not going to see significant differences. Start bumping ISO or do some significant cropping and that's where I see the real differences. We make a lot of noise about pixel density, but pixel size is equally important. You have similar numbers of MP's on the D600 and the D7100, but the D600's receptors are significantly larger, allowing much more light information to be captured (all other things being equal). This information is accessible in post-processing and will allow you to do much more with an image while retaining high IQ.

Mansurov has some great pieces on sensors. Here are a couple that really helped me understand the differences.

Benefits of a High Resolution Sensor
Nikon DX vs FX

Both good articles, the second one is what got me to leaning towards the FX. I am more of a visual person which is why I would like to see a side-by-side comparison. But I think in the second article he cover the High ISO noise really well, which is why I am leaning towards the FX sensor.

I guess I should have asked about the comparison before you did the IR conversion, oh well. Still enjoy the IR pic's which are something new to me.

I would offer a third take on FX/DX, at FX - DX Lens Crop Factor

The FX sensor is obviously simply a wider view due to a larger sensor. If standing at the same place, taking a picture of the same thing with same lens, with the same (FX) camera, switched between FX and DX modes, there can be absolutely no difference in the pixels of any 100% blowup. It is exactly the same image and sensor pixels - DX is simply cropped - and it subsequently has to be enlarged more (to print the same size print, but making it appear telephoto). So FX is simply always a wider view (wide angle, so to speak).

Between different FX and DX cameras, the sensors are different, and the pixel densities can be different, which becomes a sensor issue, not a crop issue. FX used to imply larger pixels and obvious lower noise rates, but that distinction is fading (new FX sensors are more crowded, and new DX sensors are pretty awesome too).

Wayne, I have to say, quite simply, that you're simply way off base in your simplified view of the differences.

Crop is one aspect of the differences. Pixel density, while independent of sensor size, is another important aspect as it dictates pixel size, regardless of sensor, and pixel size directly impacts light information and subsequently IQ. An FX sensor can appear, on paper, to be "more crowded" than a DX sensor, but if you compare the 36MP D800 to the 24MP D7100 you'll find that pixel density is greater on the DX camera and the pixel size smaller, with the D800 pixel size and density being comparable to the D7000. So the difference you have there is the investment/cost of the sensor technology itself, because they are in no way equal or you would have been hearing all about the shortcomings of glass with the D7000.

I'm poking at you a little bit, but it's because reinforces the fallacy that the differences are "simple", and there are far too many people try to explain them that way. The differences are an amalgam of many factors, none of which should be considered on its own - because each impacts the others. Boiling the differences down to any one aspect as a part of any sort of decision making will leave you scratching your head when the others rear their heads down the road. "Simply" stepping back changes so many image factors, from perspective to depth of field, all of which can be compensated for if you fully understand all of them.

BackdoorHippie said:

Wayne, I have to say, quite simply, that you're simply way off base in your simplified view of the differences.

Crop is one aspect of the differences. Pixel density, while independent of sensor size, is another important aspect as it dictates pixel size, regardless of sensor, and pixel size directly impacts light information and subsequently IQ. An FX sensor can appear, on paper, to be "more crowded" than a DX sensor, but if you compare the 36MP D800 to the 24MP D7100 you'll find that pixel density is greater on the DX camera and the pixel size smaller, with the D800 pixel size and density being comparable to the D7000. So the difference you have there is the investment/cost of the sensor technology itself, because they are in no way equal or you would have been hearing all about the shortcomings of glass with the D7000.

Click to expand...

Which was pretty much exactly my point. The differences in D7000 and D7100 are not because of DX, they are because of sensor, which is NOT related to sensor size being cropped. You cannot compare say D700 and D800 and attribute it to FX, any more than any other two cameras.

I have a D800. Recently on a long vacation, I managed to get about 1500 RAW images on one 32GB card. I did that by shooting DX mode all I could (nothing critical about these pictures). However, without giving it much thought, I carried only a 24-120 lens, and discovered the only difference I saw (and it was extremely obvious), is that 24mm offers absolutely zero wide angle on DX. DX crop is more telephoto, FX is more wide angle. This is crop. The rest is sensor variations.


EDIT: FWIW, I am just saying this:

DxO scores: (assumed significant here)

D300 DX 67 (old)
D700 FX 80 (old) Old arguments apply, about large pixels.

D3200 DX 81 (new)
D7100 DX 83 (new)
D5200 DX 84 (new) Old arguments weaken (equal or more than D700)

D4 FX 89
D600 FX 94
D800 FX 95

I do wonder what D800 could do if 24 megapixels? (but D600 is. There seems a little more to it).

And the D800 is great, but we cannot claim FX superiority for the D3200, D5200, D7100. Sensors are improving. Times seem to be changing, somewhat.

Sigh........ To me, being a newbie, this has been a complicated and confusing issue, with neither sensor variation coming out on top. To me it seem that each have their own ways the excel. So it all comes back to preferences in my newbie opinion.
The larger sensor being true field of view vs the smaller sensor being altered field of view, based on the 35mm standard. So for a newbie, I think it would be much easier to work with if the benefits of each sensor size was pointed out. That way a newbie would have a better idea of which direction he/she should go based on his/her preferences. Then the newbie could learn to work with what they have without wondering if their choice was the right one or not, since we would be just mostly guessing and going by other people's recommendations(their preferences).
I've seen several times where the member regretted buying their first or even first few camera choices, and was only happy once the switched types.
So my question is, can anyone point out the where each type excels? No need to point out the area that is lacking, since the other type likely excels in it.
These other explanations of the differences only serve to confuse unless you are much more knowledgeable about this subject, or have a fairly good understanding of the math involved.
Can this idea be done? Even if it lacks some minor details it would still be better than just confusion. Lol
Thank you for your patience and help!

Bill...I hope this helps explain it to you. I really don't see any other way of explaining it.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=crop...qJMjPrQG-kYDYDQ&ved=0CDYQsAQ&biw=1152&bih=552

Everything You Need to Know About Full Frame Sensors vs Crop Sensors in 2 Minutes - Photography Tips in Two

Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor – Which is Right For You?

Bill16 said:

Sigh........ To me, being a newbie, this has been a complicated and confusing issue, with neither sensor variation coming out on top. To me it seem that each have their own ways the excel. So it all comes back to preferences in my newbie opinion.
The larger sensor being true field of view vs the smaller sensor being altered field of view, based on the 35mm standard. So for a newbie, I think it would be much easier to work with if the benefits of each sensor size was pointed out. That way a newbie would have a better idea of which direction he/she should go based on his/her preferences. Then the newbie could learn to work with what they have without wondering if their choice was the right one or not, since we would be just mostly guessing and going by other people's recommendations(their preferences).
I've seen several times where the member regretted buying their first or even first few camera choices, and was only happy once the switched types.
So my question is, can anyone point out the where each type excels? No need to point out the area that is lacking, since the other type likely excels in it.
These other explanations of the differences only serve to confuse unless you are much more knowledgeable about this subject, or have a fairly good understanding of the math involved.
Can this idea be done? Even if it lacks some minor details it would still be better than just confusion. Lol
Thank you for your patience and help!

Click to expand...

If you are totally new to photography with no experience shooting a 35 m&m film camera and are not planning on making a living at photography then go for the smaller sensor. Less money for the camera a lenses. Get a d7100 and you will be in hog heaven. Start off with one good lens like the 18-105 and play. Once you get going good you will figure out what your next lens should be. Go have fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Thank you both very much for your help! Jack, your links were very helpful in explaining what I was wanting to know. I believe I've made my choice on which camera I want to eventually get.
Don though I appreciate your practical and sage advice, it seems to me that I'm the viewer I most need to please. So my choice needs to be for the camera most likely to please myself and I believe it will be the D800. Getting some extra zoom out of each lens doesn't seem worth the loss of the benefits the larger sensor seem to offer that sound cool to me. Low light and much larger landscape shots. Landscape shots are my second interest besides macro.
I'm not sure what lenses I might want besides the ones I already have, but I don't think I'll need very many. I don't feel a big need for AF and have been really enjoying manual mode and my 105mm prime the most.
Anyway Jack's links sorta settled it for me.
Thank you both again for all your help.

Bill16 said:

So my choice needs to be for the camera most likely to please myself and I believe it will be the D800. Getting some extra zoom out of each lens doesn't seem worth the loss of the benefits the larger sensor seem to offer that sound cool to me. Low light and much larger landscape shots. Landscape shots are my second interest besides macro.

Click to expand...

I also have a D800 Bill, and it's great. FX is like old times (remembering back to 35mm film - lenses have the same angle of view we initially learned). However, FX is different than DX, and realize it will make a few changes. For example, your 18-35mm lens is DX and won't cover the FX frame, so it will have to be replaced (you could still shoot DX with it). However, then (on FX) wide angle will actually work like wide angle, instead of telescoped like DX.

The D800 is 36 megapixels, which is a 108 MB RGB image (in computer memory). Shooting RAW is nearly 40 MB files. So, first thing, you will want a fast memory card for the camera, and a USB 3.0 card reader for the computer. And a pretty large hard drive disk for image storage. And probably a larger i7 computer of the fastest variety. The large files make a noticeable difference at the computer.

But, FX and 36 megapixels can offer a lot. Recently on a vacation, inside dark places like the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris - cameras allowed but no flash. Shooting at ISO 2500 was easy as pie, but DX mode at 24mm was not nearly wide enough, the wide view required FX mode.

But 36 megapixels does capture a ton of detail, extreme crops are easy. For example,


'
Click it for a better view. Left is full frame, with ample space left around it to crop to various print sizes.
Middle is a typical crop, and Right is a 100% view. 36 megapixels captures lots of detail.

Thank you very much Wayne! I figure to keep my D3100 as a secondary, so the 18-55mm lens will be left with it. I hardly use it lately anyway. The computer needs will take a while, but so will buying the D800. Lol
Well the one thing I have a lot of, is time.