I'm about to move into digital from film and I've been having a devil of time trying to decide between DX and FX. I could buy a Canon 7D or a Nikon D300 or I could buy a Canon 5D Mark II or a Nikon D700. Money isn't the issue but I hate to throw money where it's not needed, especially since I will also have to get a good set of lenses (probably about 3). Anyway, I won't be doing commercial or fashion photography. I do mostly portraiture, landscape, and low light photography. Most of my stuff winds up in magazines or in exhibitions. I understand that FX gives me better control of depth of field and that the sensor is larger. But I don't know if the differences between the two are significiant enough to make me want to go to FX. Happy to do it and coming from medium and large format, my tendency is to go for the bigger sensor. But, for what I do, is it worth it? Oh, don't do weddings. I'd rather dig ditches.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
DX vs FX
- Thread starter deaddog
- Start date
Only you can answer the question about whether FF is right for you.
The Nikon D300s, Canon 7D and Pentax K7 are all fine cameras, which are very capable of producing sellable results. There are lots of working professionals who use these cameras.
But, you say "money is no object" and you tell us that you sell your work.
In that case, if I were you, I wouldn't mess around with any cropped sensor camera. There is absolutely no doubt that larger sensors are capable of producing better quality images. Even us diehard 4/3 fans will admit that much.
The only downisides are cost, weight, and size... and if none of these are a problem for you then you should be taking a hard look at a Nikon D700, a Canon 5DII, a Sony A900 or maybe even a Nikon D3 or Canon IDsMkIII.
Just remember that the lenses will cost a bunch too, because there is no point in using cheap DX lenses with an FX body. But, cost may not be a problem for you.
--
Marty
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
Olympus E-30
Zuiko 9-18mm
Zuiko 14-54mm II
Zuiko 40-150mm I
Zuiko 70-300mm
Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 macro
The Nikon D300s, Canon 7D and Pentax K7 are all fine cameras, which are very capable of producing sellable results. There are lots of working professionals who use these cameras.
But, you say "money is no object" and you tell us that you sell your work.
In that case, if I were you, I wouldn't mess around with any cropped sensor camera. There is absolutely no doubt that larger sensors are capable of producing better quality images. Even us diehard 4/3 fans will admit that much.
The only downisides are cost, weight, and size... and if none of these are a problem for you then you should be taking a hard look at a Nikon D700, a Canon 5DII, a Sony A900 or maybe even a Nikon D3 or Canon IDsMkIII.
Just remember that the lenses will cost a bunch too, because there is no point in using cheap DX lenses with an FX body. But, cost may not be a problem for you.
--
Marty
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
Olympus E-30
Zuiko 9-18mm
Zuiko 14-54mm II
Zuiko 40-150mm I
Zuiko 70-300mm
Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 macro
thanks Marty. Money is money and I don't want to spend any more than I have to and I'll spend the bulk of that on the lenses. Weight is an issue as I travel a great deal and do a lot of walking (though I'm used to carrying a 4x5 outfit with a reis tripod around). It's the image I'm concerned with. For exhibition I generally print at 20x24 (old film days) and will probably not go much past 30x36 in digital. Oh, any most of my stuff is B&W. This may change with digital but I doubt it. So if I can get really great images from a cropped frame camera such as the 7D or the D300, then I'm happy. Any other wisdom?
One of the big differences you will notice between APS-C sized (or DX format as Nikon calls it) verses 135 Sized (or Full Frame, or FX in Nikon speak) is with a smaller sensor a shorter lens is required for the same angle of view (certain you can relate being familiar with 4x5 and medium format, a normal lens for 4x5 is around 150mm, 80mm for 6x6, 50mm for 135/Full-Frame, 35mm for APS-C) and just like going between 135 film and 6x6, because a normal lens is 80mm on 6x6, it has a shallower depth of field than 135. Likewise for the same field of view, an APS-C is going to have more depth of field. Most people I know who come from medium format film prefer full frame because of the shallower depth of field. Some people also like full frame just because if they're used to 35mm film, they know what an 85mm lens is going to look like on a full frame camera. But I'm assuming you're like me and having to remember 50 is closer to portrait length on a APS-C is not a big deal.
Because the 135 sized sensor is bigger, the ground glass is bigger, meaning the full frame cameras will have a bigger view finder.
Because the APS-C sensor is smaller you don't need as much glass to throw the image circle for it, so you can buy DX or EF-S lenses made specifically for APS-C that are lighter (and often cheaper) or you can use the FX or EF lenses and the sensor will only see the center of the lens (which is usually the best optically) and you won't see as many optical defects on the edges of the frame.
Also when shooting in low light the 135 cameras, having a larger sensor means each pixel on the sensor is larger and can capture more light. The Nikon D700/D3/D3s and the Canon 5D MK II both do very well at ISO settings up to 1600, and you can push it even higher. In the current generation of cameras the Nikon FX cameras are a bit better than the Canon but both are very good. The D300 and 7D are pretty good in low light, the D700 and 5D Mk II are just a bit better.
If you're used to 4x5 you may want to look at Nikon's PC (perspective control) or Canon's TS (Tilt-Shift) lenses both let you tilt and shift the lens similar to a 4x5. The controls are a little more limited than what you get on a view camera but the lenses are extremely sharp and you do have quite a bit of control.
Normally I say ignore megapixels, but if you are looking to print 20x24 (native size to the 2x3 frame would be 20x30 that would have to be cropped to 20x24) the 12MP of the D700/D3/D3s will get you there printing at 140ppi for a 20x30, but if you look very very close, you may notice a slight lost of detail, the 5D MK II captures more detail and would be able to print a 20x30 at 180 ppi giving you just a hint more detail when viewed extremely close up. In either case I generally consider printing such a size the upper limit and stick more to 16x20 size prints.
--
~Kurt--
~Kurt
Because the 135 sized sensor is bigger, the ground glass is bigger, meaning the full frame cameras will have a bigger view finder.
Because the APS-C sensor is smaller you don't need as much glass to throw the image circle for it, so you can buy DX or EF-S lenses made specifically for APS-C that are lighter (and often cheaper) or you can use the FX or EF lenses and the sensor will only see the center of the lens (which is usually the best optically) and you won't see as many optical defects on the edges of the frame.
Also when shooting in low light the 135 cameras, having a larger sensor means each pixel on the sensor is larger and can capture more light. The Nikon D700/D3/D3s and the Canon 5D MK II both do very well at ISO settings up to 1600, and you can push it even higher. In the current generation of cameras the Nikon FX cameras are a bit better than the Canon but both are very good. The D300 and 7D are pretty good in low light, the D700 and 5D Mk II are just a bit better.
If you're used to 4x5 you may want to look at Nikon's PC (perspective control) or Canon's TS (Tilt-Shift) lenses both let you tilt and shift the lens similar to a 4x5. The controls are a little more limited than what you get on a view camera but the lenses are extremely sharp and you do have quite a bit of control.
Normally I say ignore megapixels, but if you are looking to print 20x24 (native size to the 2x3 frame would be 20x30 that would have to be cropped to 20x24) the 12MP of the D700/D3/D3s will get you there printing at 140ppi for a 20x30, but if you look very very close, you may notice a slight lost of detail, the 5D MK II captures more detail and would be able to print a 20x30 at 180 ppi giving you just a hint more detail when viewed extremely close up. In either case I generally consider printing such a size the upper limit and stick more to 16x20 size prints.
--
~Kurt--
~Kurt
rgmoore
Senior Member
It depends a bit on your style and on how low light the "low light" really is. Taking your three areas of photography in order:
Landscape: If you love ultra-wide angle lenses, you'll probably find FX to be a better option. The available DX ultrawides are generally slower and not as well made as the best FX ultrawides. There's no real DX equivalent to the 16-35/2.8 II L or 14-24/2.8, and there's a real lack of ultrawide DX primes. OTOH, the DX solution can be much lighter, which can make a big difference.
Portrait: Again, lenses can be a problem. If you like shorter portrait focal lengths like 85mm or 105mm, you will probably be disappointed in the lack of equivalent focal length DX portrait lenses. OTOH, if you like longer focal lengths like 135mm or 200mm, there isn't nearly as big a difference. An 85/1.4 or 85/1.2 on DX will work about like a 135/2 on FX, both for focal length and DOF control.
Low light: It depends on how low is low, and how much noise bothers you. ISO 1600 is perfectly usable for color photography on the best DX cameras, and the FX models can do at least 1-2 stops better. The most objectionable part of those images is chroma noise, so B&W conversions look good at even higher ISO. At ISO 25,600 the D700 is supposed to produce B&W conversions that look a lot like TriX, and the D3s is supposed to be at least 1 stop better.
--
As with all creative work, the craft must be adequate for the demands of expression. I am disturbed when I find craft relegated to inferior consideration; I believe that the euphoric involvement with subject or self is not sufficient to justify the making and display of photographic images. --Ansel Adams
Those are all strengths of FX. How significant the differences are depends on the scene. Whether or not the differences are significant enough to "warrant" choosing FX over DX is a personal decision. The following link may help in regards to that decision:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#IQ
I suggest the Leica S2. With a 30x45mm sensor in what is essentially a 1d Canon size body you will easily hit your print size. It's very portable especially coming from 4x5 or medium format. Seems perfect for both portraiture and landscape. Leica glass designed specifically for the camera and as you are a working pro and your taxes will likely hit 50% in the next couple of years, you'll have something to deduct it from.
review, sample, analysis : http://dfarkas.blogspot.com/
review, sample, analysis : http://dfarkas.blogspot.com/
If yor printing landscapes that large than you will want 24mp at least. Look at the many samples and comparisons that have been done between 12mp and 24mp, then download some samples and print them so you can see for yourself, or go to the camera shop with a memory card and take some shots for resolution purposes and print them. For everything else 12mp will sufice. video can be handy if you doing a wedding or? and want to add a few short video clips for the DVD slide show.
For the money the 5D2 and D700 are the best choices in that price range right now if you can afford it. Don't forget with the 5D you can shoot raw in a smaller file size than 24mp. With FF you will have an easyer time manual focusing with bigger viewfinder.
If you need a really long fast lens get another crop body instead and save money with a shorter lens.
Check the lenses you want and how much they cost first. Nikon does not have any F4 pro lenses like Canon's 17-40 & 70-200 for full frame. If you want fast f2.8 lenses then the field is closer between the two.
--
Sincerely
Ron J
For the money the 5D2 and D700 are the best choices in that price range right now if you can afford it. Don't forget with the 5D you can shoot raw in a smaller file size than 24mp. With FF you will have an easyer time manual focusing with bigger viewfinder.
If you need a really long fast lens get another crop body instead and save money with a shorter lens.
Check the lenses you want and how much they cost first. Nikon does not have any F4 pro lenses like Canon's 17-40 & 70-200 for full frame. If you want fast f2.8 lenses then the field is closer between the two.
--
Sincerely
Ron J
The S2 is great for landscapes and studio portraits. But it is not made for low light situations. In the pre-production models I've used anything above 320 ISO gets quite a bit of noise and there are no lenses faster than f/2.5. A compromise would be something like the D3x which is 24MP and has better high ISO performance than the S2 but not as good as the D3/D3s. Also the price ends up somewhere between.
But if low light is not that important, the S2 is a really nice camera.
--
~Kurt
But if low light is not that important, the S2 is a really nice camera.
--
~Kurt
RRJackson
Senior Member
In terms of DOF an f/2.5 lens in front of a sensor that size is like an f/2 lens on 135-seized sensors or like an f/1.4 lens in front of an APS-sized sensor.
This is a common topic of discussion amongst people first getting into medium format photography. "But the lenses are so slow!" And then they try to focus a Zeiss 80mm f/2 on a 645 body and start complaining about how shallow the DOF is (it's about like an f/1.2 lens on 35mm cameras).
If Leica made an f/1.4 lens for the S2 people would complain that Leica's lenses were too big and heavy first (because the lenses would be too big and heavy, in all likelihood) and then they'd start complaining that the autofocus system doesn't work right when they couldn't get anything properly in focus.
There was no complaint in my statement, just stating the obvious that a D3 that can produce good images at 1600 ISO and has f/1.2 lenses is going to be better in low light than a camera that gets noisy at 640 ISO and doesn't have any lenses faster than f/2.5. As I said the S2 is great for landscape where you can use a tripod or in a studio where you are controlling the light. I use an H3D-II on a daily basis, in a studio setting. It's just not my tool of choice for hand holding in a dark room.
--
~Kurt
--
~Kurt
bikinchris
Forum Pro
With the uses you quote, an FX camera would be better.
The strength of Dx is in using long lenses. You can understand that when the field of view is the nearly the same, a Dx camera with a 300mm is lighter and less expensive than a FX camera with a 400mm. (Although the 400mm will give a more dramatic image)
The opposite is true with wide angles lenses. A FX camera is going to give you better images with wides and it's easier to design for. The Nikkor 14-24 is better than nearly every fixed focal length lens that came before it.
The viewfinders are much better on the Fx camera, so that will tilt it in favor of that direction.
--
I am an expert at contradicting myself. Just wait a while. It will be evident.
Chris, Broussard, LA
The strength of Dx is in using long lenses. You can understand that when the field of view is the nearly the same, a Dx camera with a 300mm is lighter and less expensive than a FX camera with a 400mm. (Although the 400mm will give a more dramatic image)
The opposite is true with wide angles lenses. A FX camera is going to give you better images with wides and it's easier to design for. The Nikkor 14-24 is better than nearly every fixed focal length lens that came before it.
The viewfinders are much better on the Fx camera, so that will tilt it in favor of that direction.
--
I am an expert at contradicting myself. Just wait a while. It will be evident.
Chris, Broussard, LA
Liye Zhang
New member
As far as wide angle goes, there is 7-14mm on 4/3s, and 10-20mm on Nikon/Canon. Even after accounting for the crop factor, they are almost as wide as the widest 35mm lens, and the 7-14mm is every bit as wide as 35mm ultra wide angles.
Heikki Kultala
Leading Member
S2 high iso (low light) performance sucks compared to 35mm CaNikons. And no big aperture lenses available either.
So for low light work, 35mm CaNikon is the best choice.
RRJackson
Senior Member
The only medium format lens I can think of that's wider than f/2.5 is the Zeiss 80mm f/2.
Bogdan_M
Senior Member
For Canon Nikon APS you have 16mm equivalent at most, and with slower apertures. On 4/3 it's theoretically better, but if you wqant to correct some of that horrible distortion you end up more around 16mm equivalent.
On full frame, otoh, you have either 14mm with f 2.8, or, if you don't need the fast aperture, 12mm (the Sigma 12-24). That's much wider than the crop options.
The only advantage of the cropped formats from an image standpoint is when you deal with small subjects and you need as much pixel density as you can get (like for macro or for birding).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bogdanmoisuc/
On full frame, otoh, you have either 14mm with f 2.8, or, if you don't need the fast aperture, 12mm (the Sigma 12-24). That's much wider than the crop options.
The only advantage of the cropped formats from an image standpoint is when you deal with small subjects and you need as much pixel density as you can get (like for macro or for birding).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bogdanmoisuc/
Bogdan_M
Senior Member
But you have a plethora of 1.2 and 1.4 lenses for 135...
I think the problem is more how the focal lengths are a bit awkward....
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bogdanmoisuc/
That's great but the OP said "I do mostly portraiture, landscape, and low light photography." Now I only have a few decades experience and a couple degrees in photography but when I hear "low light photography" to me it usually means high ISO and wide aperture. There are a few people who will refer to night photography with long exposure on a tripod as "low light photography" but that is generally in the minority. Therefor the general assumption is if low light photography is important, a camera that does not perform well at high ISO and that does not have access to fast glass would not be ideal. And just because no other medium format has fast glass doesn't mean someone who wants to shoot low light should get the S2. By that logic, the OP would be better off with a scan back on a 4x5. I use a Hasselblad H3DII-39MS on a daily basis and love it, but I'm not going to recommend it to anyone who lists "Low Light Photography" as one of their 3 intended uses.
A Ferrari is a nice car, great on the track or highway, but not the car I want to go off-roading with and just because other sports cars aren't good for off-roading it doesn't mean I'm going to buy the Ferrari.
~Kurt
A Ferrari is a nice car, great on the track or highway, but not the car I want to go off-roading with and just because other sports cars aren't good for off-roading it doesn't mean I'm going to buy the Ferrari.
--
~Kurt
RRJackson
Senior Member
I'm not saying he should. I was just pointing out that it's not some glaring deficiency in the S2 system, as I see people claiming in a lot of threads. They have several f/2.5 lenses. I used to shoot with a Pentax 67II and that system had just one (and I didn't own it). I eventually switched to a Pentax 645NII and that system's fastest lens was f/2.8. I shot a lot of low light stuff with both those cameras, FWIW. Still do with the 645NII. The negative is so big that even though there's noise (grain) it's not too objectionable. I tend to imagine that the same would hold true with the S2. It's nearly 40 megapixels. Scale the image down to 20 and I tend to imagine that the noise will pretty much be in line with the noise from a 20-megapixel DSLR. Eddie Spaghetti of the Supersuckers at ISO 1600 from my old Pentax 67II:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/r_jackson/2144189107/
Osiris30
Senior Member
nothing to see here.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum