Full Frame vs. DX

Yes, using DX lenses would result in a net loss of resolution. Which is why most folks looking to go FX, do it all the way with FX lenses, some of which, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread aren't as unaffordable as one would think.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3
of the time.



D80/D90 gallery: http://esfotoclix.com
Photo blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1

eNo said:

myzel said:

So where is the distortion advantage?

Click to expand...

At around 24mm. Compare a the 24-70 to the 16-85VR. Do we get similar results?

Click to expand...

OK at 24 mm FX equivalent viewing angle:
16-85 mm: -2.54% barrel
14-24mm: - 0,24% barrel

10-24mm: not tested at 16mm; 18mm is 0.52 pincushion 14mm is -0.45 barrel, 16 m could be very close to the value of the 14-24 mm - 16mm is probably the sweet spot of the 10-24 mm.

To bad that photozone doesn’t have a 24-70mm FX test, but it would be difficult to reach the same values of the 10-24mm DX.

eNo said:

I must say I am a little surprised that at the SWA there is little to no advantage, as you point out.

Click to expand...

I’m always surprised how good the newer Nikkors are. The Nikon engineers are making the right decisions with their lens designs.

But, while it’s fun to compare those values, lets not forget that the image quality of a lens is not only the distortion or the sharpness.

Lenses are compromises and the Nikon engineers are doing a good job, but I would be very surprised if they could make a 10-16mm f/2.8 DX lens with the same image quality of the 14-24 mm FX lens.

It’s just not so simple that FX is better at wide angle or DX better at longer focal lengths.

In my opinion the main difference is DoF and high ISO XOR high resolution (exclusive or).

eNo said:

It sure is fun to shoot sporting events with a tele, isn't it? But for that, you can always keep your DX body. Different tools for different jobs.

Click to expand...

I think my Tokina would cover FX from about 18mm, so I'd likely keep it.

I'm retired for health reasons, which equates to, um, financially impaired. While I do have some personal cash put by, two bodies (one over $1500) would go over about as well with my wife (who's still working) as - well - two wives.

bflood said:

Optical quality is controlled by the lens, and the body and its sensor cannot add anything to image quality.

Click to expand...

But the body can detract from IQ. Seriously, if you had to choose between a modern body and sensor and a (when released) pro grade 10 year old lens, or a 10 year old body and a new high grade lens - you'd pick the old sensor?

I do subscribe to the "buy the best glass you can afford" theory, but there comes a point where you're shooting yourself in the foot by hanging on to old sensor technology. I do admit that we're getting closer to the "good enough" point, though, certainly in pixel quantity.

TFergus said:

As far as people that claim it's not worth it because they lose reach, don't understand the word "crop". You can crop your FF photos to get the same "reach" as a DX but with better resolution and a lot better high ISO performance ... if you need that.

Yes you end up with less MP's but that would only be an issue if you're printing posters, etc. High MP counts are great for the cropping ability.... that's the best benefit in my opinion.

Click to expand...

.

Not entirely true, especially with with the D700 (you need to take pixel density into account.) When you crop to DX equiv on the 12mp D700, you end up with something like 4 or 5MP, with slightly lower resolution and about equivalent visible noise as say with the D90 or D300.

The 24MP FF bodies can be cropped to DX better, but will have worse visible noise.

Point is you can crop a FF image to DX FOV & magnification, but its somewhat of a myth that you will still retain much better IQ than DX if you do so.

Another reason why a lot of pros keep DX bodies for certain telephoto needs.

.

I can't argue that putting a 600/4 on a 2 or 3 mpixel body will produce disappointing images. But the OP started the thread saying he has a D80. If he spends the money to change from a 300 mm max focal length on the D80 to a 400/2.8 on a D700, the improvement in image quality will be from the lens, not the body. Now if he wants to shoot in lots of low light-high ISO environements, the larger sensor will be a hands-down improvement. Likewise, going beyond 16X20 is tough for a single image from an APS-size sensor, and a larger sensor would help.

I certainly agree that an older small sensor can be a detriment to image quality, but in this case I think that his starting point is not a bad one with the D80.

eNo.... true you can slap those lenses onto the FX body..... I think for some that would work.... but financially, do you think that would be a sound decision? Get a $2700 body or a $5K body and put a $300-$500 lens on it?

I don't know about everyone else... but if that was the extent of my going to FX, I'd rather keep the DX format and get the most out of that.

For one thing the FX body.... whatever you are going to get will depreciate in value... the lens would not depreciate as much and is a much better investment. So for me, at least, I would invest in the glass if I go FX.

eNo said:

LeungPhotos said:

The cheapest FX camera you can buy would be $2700 + tax or more if you're in Europe.

Why would you buy that and use DX lenses so that you can only get 5mp images?

FX lenses in most cases are more expensive also....

Click to expand...

I used to think that also, but unless you're going for the pro, constant f/2.8 lenses (which are also heavier, btw), this need not be the case. Examples: AF 24-85 f/2.8-4 and VR70-300, two excellent, available-new lenses that are "FX ready." Since I own these, they are part of the reason I keep being tempted by the D700...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3
of the time.



D80/D90 gallery: http://esfotoclix.com
Photo blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1

Click to expand...

--



http://leungphotography.smugmug.com
::: $5 smugmug discount on my site :::

You have said it twice....and not sure why you have said so.

Roman
--

The best tools of a successful photographer as well as a 'well lived' life is appreciation and a sense of adventure.

These are the tools of mastery of all things.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

eNo said:

At around 24mm. Compare a the 24-70 to the 16-85VR. Do we get similar results?

Click to expand...

Actually not: the 16-85 is much better if we look at distortion (according to slrgear.com):

• 16-85 has 0.75% distortion at 16mm (eq. 24mm) on DX
• 24-70 has 1% distortion at 24mm on FX

Not sure why he feels that way. I personally have a 20x24 printed from a 4/3 sensor (Olympus E-510) which is plenty nice. People who doubt that it can be done should blow something up to the required size, then crop it to an 8x10 (or whatever) and print it. Then keep their noses off it when they look at it!

I have no idea what max I can get out of my D90. My walls aren't large enough.

Here are some 12MP files printed out.



And the tree on the left is 40" x 60"



With proper technique in shooting, quality lenses, Post Processing, and printing, you can get some suprising results from your current gear.

Roman

James Sherman said:

Not sure why he feels that way. I personally have a 20x24 printed from a 4/3 sensor (Olympus E-510) which is plenty nice. People who doubt that it can be done should blow something up to the required size, then crop it to an 8x10 (or whatever) and print it. Then keep their noses off it when they look at it!

I have no idea what max I can get out of my D90. My walls aren't large enough.

Click to expand...

--

The best tools of a successful photographer as well as a 'well lived' life is appreciation and a sense of adventure.

These are the tools of mastery of all things.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/