olyflyer
Forum Pro
Depending on which lenses you have and how well fit you are, weight and size might be an issue as well.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Upgrade to FX?
- Thread starter Jujurwc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d610 nikon d7000
olyflyer
Forum Pro
That's not a disadvantage. I mean, if you don't want narrow DOF you can ALWAYS get more DOF by stopping down the lens. I never understood how people can claim narrow DOF as a disadvantage. Don't they have apertures in their lenses or don't they know how to use it?
olyflyer
Forum Pro
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Only if you stand on the same spot and use equivalent focal length with the SAME aperture. Not if you are also using equivalent aperture.
ONLY if you keep the same aperture, which is wrong. If you look for equivalence you have to look out for which parameters are affected. Focal length is one, aperture is the the other.
Yes. The aperture is as important as the focal length, not only if you are using the same lens to frame identical shots, but also if you are using equivalent lenses and standing on the same spot for the image.
Last edited:
Since buying my first FX (D700 when it was introduced) I’ve used DX only as backup. FX cameras just feel so much better. I don’t know if I take any better pictures with FX –cameras, but I enjoy them much more. They are bigger and fit my hand better. They are heavier and thus not as shaky. And most importantly they perform better in low light and have much nicer viewfinder.
Eat cheaper, avoid expensive travels, get rid of your car and you’ll have plenty on money for proper FX setup.
Eat cheaper, avoid expensive travels, get rid of your car and you’ll have plenty on money for proper FX setup.
Simon Garrett
Veteran Member
Perhaps because there isn't enough light to stop down more?
blue_cheese wrote:
As for the 'reach' argument, I'd encourage people to largely forget that and concentrate on the pixel density. The new 24MP DX sensors, naturally, outresolve a DX crop from a 36MP FX sensor. When a 54MP FX sensor is released, however, the 24MP DX sensor will have lost all of its advantages, because it no longer sports a higher pixel density.
And that is because of this...
You're too hung up on calculations, so much so that you overlook the practical implications. It is simply not useful, nor intuitive, nor rational to compare focal lengths between differently sized sensors.
The framing, quite simply, overwhelmes any minute differences in DOF in terms of impact on the final photograph. The framing is the dog, DOF is the tail.
As for the 'reach' argument, I'd encourage people to largely forget that and concentrate on the pixel density. The new 24MP DX sensors, naturally, outresolve a DX crop from a 36MP FX sensor. When a 54MP FX sensor is released, however, the 24MP DX sensor will have lost all of its advantages, because it no longer sports a higher pixel density.
Not generalisable. I don't think you're evil, per se.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
That becomes a problem only if you can not adjust any other parameter any more. How often does that happen in real life? For me: NEVER and for most people also never.
Narrow DOF is a possibility not a disadvantage, because YOU can control it and YOU decide if you want it or not in a certain situation. When you don't want it you can always get rid of it, unless you want miles deep DOF, in which case you must use a P&S or a cell phone.
Last edited:
Simon Garrett
Veteran Member
Hmm... That particular (Rand) comment leads to some particularly nasty evils. It invites the intellectually shallow and lazy idea that anyone that doesn't agree with me must be wrong, as I can demonstrate at least one contrary view that is wrong, and we can reject any middle ground (why, exactly?). "You're either with me or against me.""There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."
Not generalisable. I don't think you're evil, per se.
Simon Garrett
Veteran Member
That's odd, as it happens to me quite a lot! There often isn't as much light as I'd like, so in order to stop down to get sufficient depth of field either I need too long a shutter speed, or I need to increase ISO more than I would choose to do. A tripod isn't necessarily a solution for out-door macro (as things blow in the wind) and flash isn't alwasy appropriate. In some circumstances I can use focus stacking, but again only if the subject chooses to keep still for me.
PS - are you sure "and for most people also never"? I didn't think I was quite so unusual.
--
Simon
For some instances, her comment works to imply that both the right and wrong answers are at least honest, while a contrived compromise could be seen as harmful and, at the least, dishonest to both parties. But generally I very much disagree with her original sentiment - provided that I understand it, which I might not.Hmm... That particular (Rand) comment leads to some particularly nasty evils. It invites the intellectually shallow and lazy idea that anyone that doesn't agree with me must be wrong, as I can demonstrate at least one contrary view that is wrong, and we can reject any middle ground (why, exactly?). "You're either with me or against me."Not generalisable. I don't think you're evil, per se.
If we look at the implications of this view in regard to these forum conversations, for example, or any other similar debates in everyday life, it works poorly. I would rather suggest a mindset that we all have our agendas and positions that we try to defend and impose on others, and that it is our responsibility to acknowledge that inherent stance and let our arguments do the talking.
At some point taking part in the discussions here it was getting extremely difficult to understand and endure people who simply forgot both - they didn't recognise the background they were coming from and they lacked the energy and time to construct reasonable arguments. Personally, when I learnt to look at the issue this way, I was able to enjoy this communication again and, hopefully, contribute more positively.
Depth of field will be the same but the framing will be different. To achieve the same framing/composition you will need to change either the focal length or the distance and when you've done that you will have one stop less depth of field with FX compared to DX.
If you changed the distance you changed the perspective and the depth of field
If you changed the focal length you reduced the depth of field.
If you then alter the aperture to compensate for the reduction in depth of field you need to be aware of when diffraction starts to limit sharpness.
Diffraction is primarily a function of the lens, but higher resolution sensors are affected by smaller amounts of diffraction so to get the very best from your system you should understand that diffraction becomes the limiting factor at a large aperture on a higher resolution sensor.
On a D800 for example you will loose sharpness to diffraction starting at f5.6.
So coming back to depth of field - Your lenses sweet spot is likely f5.6 to f11, but you start to loose the benefit of increased DOF to diffraction as you stop down in this range of apertures.
What to do ? You have to find the best compromise. Using a lower resolution camera defeats the object by the very fact that it is lower resolution. Find the best compromise between depth of field and diffraction. Use the sharpest lens you have at your disposal at the required focal length. Find the best compromise between depth of field and diffraction (and the lenses sweet spot) to set your aperture. This requires intimate knowledge of your lenses characteristics and capabilities. Use movements (PCE lens) to gain DOF in preference to stopping down to far. Your sharpest lens at 24mm isn't your PCE ? Again compromise. Use whichever yields the best result. perfection is unattainable.
Regards
John
Last edited:
olyflyer
Forum Pro
In macro photography DOF depends primarily on just two factors: aperture value and magnification. In other words, there is no difference between DX or FX in this respect. Of course, if you are not interested in magnification factor just want to frame similar images, then the DX will produce more DOF at the same aperture, but as I said, you can always stop down the FX lens and get equal DOF. Because of the better ISO performance of the FX you will not notice any extra ISO noise.
I don't know what you are using for macro, if you at all use FX. Personally I have used the Oly 4/3 system, DX, CX and FX and the best macro images are out of the D800, with details I could only dream about when I used those other cameras. Yes, light can be challenging, but light is always challenging in macro, regardless of system, and since the D800 has the best high ISO performance, compensating for the ISO loss is really not an issue.
Yes, I am positive. Look at pictures people take and you will realize that there is almost always an option of changing the aperture. Especially with modern cameras that is no longer an issue. Raising the ISO 1.5x to get EXACTLY the same exposure, or raising the ISO a bit, lowering the shutter speed the rest, using a flash, or a tripod is possible for the great majority, but of course, if I want to, I can also create a situation (at least in my head) where larger formats can have a disadvantage, but I have to work on it quite a bit.
Larger cameras have better ISO performance and are less prone to diffraction, so raising the ISO will NOT increase ISO noise and stopping down the lens will NOT cause diffraction. It is a common misunderstanding to bring up narrow DOF as a disadvantage, like if there was no solution to increase it. It is also common to mention macro as an example, but in reality, that's also just an "Internet" fact far from reality.
As far as I am concerned, FX has two disadvantages compared with smaller systems. Price and weight/size. Weight is only an issue if two different types of bodies or lenses are compared, like the D5k and the D800, one is light plastic the other is heavy metal, and if different lenses are compared which are not equivalent. For instance the 16-85 compared with the 24-120, which is faster, especially in terms of DOF, and is constant aperture. If there was an FX lens which would be equivalent with the 16-85 even in terms of aperture then it would be just as light as the 16-85. This is of course, mostly noticeable with longer lenses, in normal range it might not be as obvious, but I think even if you look at the normal lenses it is obvious. Look at the 35/1.8G DX and compare with the 50/1.8G FX. The 50/1.8 is just as small but is capable of producing images with narrower DOF, so it isn't really equivalent. Now, imagine if the 50 would be equivalent in terms of aperture then it should be f/2.8. That lens could basically be a very small thing.
Simon Garrett
Veteran Member
I agree.
None of that alters the fact that at times I simply don't have the option to stop down as much as I need for the depth of field I want. I run out of light. I can't have a longer exposure and I can't increase ISO enough without image quality issues.
We'll just have to disagree on this one - I don't believe I'm unique.
RicAllan
Leading Member
olyflyer
Forum Pro
That's not really true, for several reasons.
Small sensor cameras will be diffraction limited at larger aperture (smaller f-number) than large sensor cameras, not the other way round.
Diffraction has nothing to do with resolution, it has to do with pixel density. Resolution is more than just pixel density. Cameras with higher pixel density are more diffraction sensitive than those with lower pixel density, that's why you can not use f/11 on a small sensor P&S, but are safe to do it on an FX. It means that the D7100 is worse than the D800 because it has more pixels on the same area, the D7000 is on the other hand the SAME as the D800 since both of those have the same pixel density. So, DX has no inherent advantage compared to FX regarding diffraction, unless you go to lower pixel density, like the 12MP D300s, in which case you lose resolution.
That's just not true. Diffraction is NOT a fixed f-number, you are contradicting even yourself, different lenses have different optimal values, f/5.6 is just a kind of "rule of thumb", and indicator of about where most of the lenses perform best. F/5.6 was ALWAYS a sort of guide, ever since I started taking images back in the 1970's.
Diffraction affects EVERY camera, no matter if it is called FX or DX. The D800 has the same pixel density as the D7000, so as I explained above, both cameras have the same "diffraction limit", but because in one case you have 16MP, in the other you have 36MP, my D800 image will ALWAYS show more detail than your D7000 image, assuming identical image framing and identical image sizes, even if I have to stop down 1.5x to compensate for the DOF loss. With the D7100 things are turning around, since it has a much denser sensor than the D800, so diffraction will take it's toll BEFORE on the D7100 compared with the D800.
Now, in reality, diffraction is not an issue, it is just a forum subject to discuss. I don't think there are many people who are affected by it as a problem. Diffraction is greatly exaggerated. Some people believe it is like a wall and when they hit that wall their images will fall apart. I think most people neither care about, nor are capable of seeing diffraction unless they see the EXIF in an image.
CFynn
Veteran Member
In the 60s and 70s when many people were moving from medium format to 35mm cameras one of the big advantages touted for 35mm was more DOF, not less. If some people saw that as an advantage then, why shouldn't it be today?
If you are using fast prime lenses on APS-C you can get DOF that should be plenty narrow enough. If you are using zoom lenses that don't go wider than f/2.8 or f/4 I can understand why you sometimes might want the narrower DOF that FX provides.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
So you mean in such situation it is better to leave the best camera at home? I must say, I don't understand this. I literally have problems to find situations where I can not take an image with the D800 and wish for a camera with smaller sensor. Macro is definitely not one of those situations, landscape is also not, portrait... no, Art? Definitely not. So I don't know.
I don't know where would it be a problem to raise the ISO that little. FX has better high ISO performance than DX, so if you compare identically framed images of the same size the FX image will still look equal or better than the lower ISO DX image, so really, I have problems with buying that argument.
No, of course you are not unique, there are many people who believe that DX, or other small sensor cameras, have some inherent advantage over FX in terms of IQ. My experience, based on several formats is that this is false, but of course, we don't have to agree.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
I suppose you don't understand what I am saying, so try reading the underlined once again. I am NOT saying narrower DOF is ALWAYS better in EVERY image. I am saying that learn how to use the aperture to CONTROL the depth of field. That's the main reason for the aperture dial or ring. If you can have narrow DOF you can also have deeper DOF, which is why the ability to have narrow DOF can never be a disadvantage. It is simply allowing you to have more control over over your images, which in my opinion is an advantage, not a disadvantage. I am not saying that you must always use large apertures and that narrow DOF is best for every image.
Also, another thing you forgot is that in the old days, films were slow, demanding large aperture and slow shutter speeds, so of course, aperture was used to increase the shutter speed to reduce camera or subject motion. Those days are gone, now you can use the aperture to CONTROL the DOF and can use the ISO to increase the shutter speed if necessary.
How much is "plenty". DX has a 1.5x crop factor, producing proportionally more DOF, and that's a measurable fact, but how much is plenty?
Well, that's up to me, isn't it? I use fast primes and not so fast zooms on FX. If I want narrower DOF with the same aperture, I can have it. If I want the same DOF I can also have it. Narrower DOF from FX is a possibility, not a limitation or a must. It is there to be used or not, depending on the situation.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum