Reading mode: Light Dark

Better for low light: FF+f4 or DX+f2.8?

Go to last post
On DxOMark, it appears that the D810 and D610 (no data on the D750 yet, but I'll assume it uses the same sensor) has about a 1.3 stop ISO advantage over the D7100. So it'll be pretty close comparing a f/2.8 zoom on the D7100 vs. f/4 zoom on FF purely based on noise performance at high ISO.

For this reason I kind of feel that despite the ISO advantage of larger sensors, if you're concerned about size/weight and will be using f/4 or smaller zooms, it's kind of a wash to 'upgrade' to FF unless you need the big megapixel count of the D810 for printing large.
 
camelguy said:
I've been thinking about going from a D7100 to either a D750 or D810 - for me, the thing that's always held me back from FF has been the size/weight factor. If I go full-frame, I will likely want to pick up a 70-200 lens. Of course the f4 version is substantially smaller / lighter than the f2.8, and it gets rave reviews. Right now, my main long-ish lens is a 180mm f2.8, so I wonder: which would have the low light advantage in terms of image quality/noise if i want to reach shutter speeds that will stop motion (so VR is irrelevant) - A D7100 shot at f2.8 at ISO 4000 or 5000, or a D750/810 with an f4 lens attached? If I can shoot at high enough ISOs with full-frame to overcome the difference in light-gathering between the f2.8 and f4 lenses, it would really give me something to think about.
Click to expand...
The key to maintain the same IQ in terms of noise and DR with a smaller sensor is to use fast lens. Since the FF sensor has about a 1-1.5 stop advantage, if you get a f4 vs for the FF, you would more or less get the same result with a f2.8 lens on DX. The cost and size of the lens will also be comparable. The problem with the 70-200 lens however is that no one is making a 50-150/135 f2.8 DX only lens. Sigma had a nice and compact 50-150/2.8 and replaced it with a newer version that has OS. That lens, now discontinued, is almost the same size as a FF lens. Hope in the future they can revise that design.
 
Last edited:
camelguy said:
I've been thinking about going from a D7100 to either a D750 or D810 - for me, the thing that's always held me back from FF has been the size/weight factor. If I go full-frame, I will likely want to pick up a 70-200 lens. Of course the f4 version is substantially smaller / lighter than the f2.8, and it gets rave reviews. Right now, my main long-ish lens is a 180mm f2.8, so I wonder: which would have the low light advantage in terms of image quality/noise if i want to reach shutter speeds that will stop motion (so VR is irrelevant) - A D7100 shot at f2.8 at ISO 4000 or 5000, or a D750/810 with an f4 lens attached? If I can shoot at high enough ISOs with full-frame to overcome the difference in light-gathering between the f2.8 and f4 lenses, it would really give me something to think about.

Any ideas?

thanks!
Click to expand...
FF cameras used to be heavy back in the D700/D3 days.... not anymore! Now we have the Df and D750 (among many others) that are the same size and weight of the D7100.

On to your question.... I would choose a fast lens first, because not only you get more light in, a fast aperture also affects the "look" of the picture. Also when I used a D7100, I was convinced that DX has finally caught up to FX in low light ISO. I would rate it about even with the D700 in this regard.
 
camelguy said:
I've been thinking about going from a D7100 to either a D750 or D810 - for me, the thing that's always held me back from FF has been the size/weight factor. If I go full-frame, I will likely want to pick up a 70-200 lens. Of course the f4 version is substantially smaller / lighter than the f2.8, and it gets rave reviews. Right now, my main long-ish lens is a 180mm f2.8, so I wonder: which would have the low light advantage in terms of image quality/noise if i want to reach shutter speeds that will stop motion (so VR is irrelevant) - A D7100 shot at f2.8 at ISO 4000 or 5000, or a D750/810 with an f4 lens attached? If I can shoot at high enough ISOs with full-frame to overcome the difference in light-gathering between the f2.8 and f4 lenses, it would really give me something to think about.

Any ideas?

thanks!
Click to expand...
The 180/2.8 will work on an FX camera, too. It's a superb lens!.
 
xtm said:
camelguy said:
I've been thinking about going from a D7100 to either a D750 or D810 - for me, the thing that's always held me back from FF has been the size/weight factor. If I go full-frame, I will likely want to pick up a 70-200 lens. Of course the f4 version is substantially smaller / lighter than the f2.8, and it gets rave reviews. Right now, my main long-ish lens is a 180mm f2.8, so I wonder: which would have the low light advantage in terms of image quality/noise if i want to reach shutter speeds that will stop motion (so VR is irrelevant) - A D7100 shot at f2.8 at ISO 4000 or 5000, or a D750/810 with an f4 lens attached? If I can shoot at high enough ISOs with full-frame to overcome the difference in light-gathering between the f2.8 and f4 lenses, it would really give me something to think about.

Any ideas?

thanks!
Click to expand...
FF cameras used to be heavy back in the D700/D3 days.... not anymore! Now we have the Df and D750 (among many others) that are the same size and weight of the D7100.

On to your question.... I would choose a fast lens first, because not only you get more light in, a fast aperture also affects the "look" of the picture. Also when I used a D7100, I was convinced that DX has finally caught up to FX in low light ISO. I would rate it about even with the D700 in this regard.
Click to expand...
I have the D700 and D7100 and use them both. The D700 is a lot better at high ISO. Noise starts to make its presence at 800 ISO on the D7100 where there is little difference between 800 and 200 ISO with the D700. By 3200 the D700 is wayyyy cleaner. I use the D7100 happily to 1600 ISO and 3200 with the D700. I think part of it is down to base ISO perhaps. As the D7100 base ISO is set at 100 while the D700 is set at 200.

:)
 
camelguy said:
I've been thinking about going from a D7100 to either a D750 or D810 - for me, the thing that's always held me back from FF has been the size/weight factor. If I go full-frame, I will likely want to pick up a 70-200 lens. Of course the f4 version is substantially smaller / lighter than the f2.8, and it gets rave reviews. Right now, my main long-ish lens is a 180mm f2.8, so I wonder: which would have the low light advantage in terms of image quality/noise if i want to reach shutter speeds that will stop motion (so VR is irrelevant) - A D7100 shot at f2.8 at ISO 4000 or 5000, or a D750/810 with an f4 lens attached? If I can shoot at high enough ISOs with full-frame to overcome the difference in light-gathering between the f2.8 and f4 lenses, it would really give me something to think about.

Any ideas?

thanks!
Click to expand...
They will be similar for DOF and noise but the 70-200 f/4 on FF may be sharper. The 70-200 f/4 on FX is significantly better than than the 180 f/2.8 on DX but that difference may be obscured by noise at some point.
 
xtm said:
camelguy said:
I've been thinking about going from a D7100 to either a D750 or D810 - for me, the thing that's always held me back from FF has been the size/weight factor. If I go full-frame, I will likely want to pick up a 70-200 lens. Of course the f4 version is substantially smaller / lighter than the f2.8, and it gets rave reviews. Right now, my main long-ish lens is a 180mm f2.8, so I wonder: which would have the low light advantage in terms of image quality/noise if i want to reach shutter speeds that will stop motion (so VR is irrelevant) - A D7100 shot at f2.8 at ISO 4000 or 5000, or a D750/810 with an f4 lens attached? If I can shoot at high enough ISOs with full-frame to overcome the difference in light-gathering between the f2.8 and f4 lenses, it would really give me something to think about.

Any ideas?

thanks!
Click to expand...
FF cameras used to be heavy back in the D700/D3 days.... not anymore! Now we have the Df and D750 (among many others) that are the same size and weight of the D7100.

On to your question.... I would choose a fast lens first, because not only you get more light in, a fast aperture also affects the "look" of the picture. Also when I used a D7100, I was convinced that DX has finally caught up to FX in low light ISO. I would rate it about even with the D700 in this regard.
Click to expand...
The d7100 isn't as good as the d700 for low light ISO but that's not even the correct comparison now as all of the current FF cameras best the d700.
 
How about for depth of field?

Which has the shallower depth of field: APS-C + 70-200 f2.8 or FF + 70-200 f4?

Thx

Raz
 
raztec said:
How about for depth of field?

Which has the shallower depth of field: APS-C + 70-200 f2.8 or FF + 70-200 f4?

Thx

Raz
Click to expand...
APSC has shallower Dof 2.8 vs. FF @ F4
 
FrithjofA said:
FrithjofA said:
DX on F2.8 is equivalent to FX on F4.2, so if we are just being simplistic, FX on F4.0 is better than DX on F2.8.
Click to expand...
Its kind of interesting, that people continue to perpetuate the myth of different DOF comparing FF and DX sensors (see a detail disproof) http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/32516151.

DOF has nothing to with the sensor, but only with the used lens, the aperture and the viewing distance. The sensor is only relevant once blow ups of 60x90 cm will be printed. Otherwise the limiting factor remains the resolution of our eyes and/or the print media.
Click to expand...
some guy beat me to it 5 years ago

Loading…

www.dpreview.com



3763080907_e726f06956_o.jpg




3763080537_9987043783_o.jpg
 
FrithjofA said:
FrithjofA said:
DX on F2.8 is equivalent to FX on F4.2, so if we are just being simplistic, FX on F4.0 is better than DX on F2.8.
Click to expand...
Its kind of interesting, that people continue to perpetuate the myth of different DOF comparing FF and DX sensors (see a detail disproof) http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/32516151.

DOF has nothing to with the sensor, but only with the used lens, the aperture and the viewing distance.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the "detailed disproof" was carried out by a guy who didnt understand the premises of the "different DOF comparing FF and DX sensors" in the first place.

Let me straighten it out for you.
  • comparison must be carried out with lenses of the same FOV
  • comparison must be carried out from the same distance
Now if you own any camera with a zoom lens, you can do this test yourself in exactly 2 minutes.

With your d200 and 70-200, do this:
  1. put a beer bottle or a wine bottle on your dining table.
  2. stand 2 meters from it, set your lens to 200mm/2.8, take a shot.
  3. stand at the same place, set your lens to 130mm/2.8, take a shot again.
  4. crop the second image to match the framing of the first image.
  5. resize both images to fit your screen.
  6. compare, and get back to us how your DOF remained the same.
Now imagine the first image was taken with 5D2 and 300mm/4.2, and the second image was taken with a d70 and 200mm/4.2. You'd get the picture.
FrithjofA said:
The sensor is only relevant once blow ups of 60x90 cm will be printed. Otherwise the limiting factor remains the resolution of our eyes and/or the print media.
Click to expand...
This is like the guy with a 1970s 1.3 litre engine car claims that larger engine is completely pointless since most of the time you will be driving at less than 100kph.

He makes everyone else laugh but he does not get the joke.
 
You know, I see folks talk about 35mm FF just one stop better than APS-C for low light noise.

Sorry, ALL examples I have seen, 35nmm FF has a HUGE advantage for low light / high ISO noise.

Maybe I am wrong, but it is what I see in example after example of real world images.

Personally, I am saving for a suitable camera to use in low light sports (to accompany my d300, when light level drops) and it will be either D810 or D750.
 
One lens that is almost given away, yet works very well on FX - I've used it on a D800E an D810 - is the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. I use it for landscapes, so the apertures are not a problem. And unlike the two f/2.8 hulks I have, it has VR (IS). In the DxO tests it is just as sharp except in the edges, and I find this to be not a problem. If people really want to pixel peek the far edges then go ahead. They aren't bad, just not as sharp. And in my experience the bulk of the image is just as sharp. It also tests as having more CA, but I've tried to make it appear and it is well controlled in my copy. I suspect there is probably more copy-to-copy variation in this inexpensive lens. And it probably has more distortion, which is not a factor for my purposes. It also has more range than the 2.8's. And it is much lighter and smaller. I would say when I use the 2.8 near-similar lens it is just out of snobbery. But again, you would probably be best to try out a copy if you can before paying for it. I think I got lucky.
 
At F4, ISO will be 10000 to keep shutter speed the same. D750 will be better than D7100. Less noise.
 
Laslo Varadi said:
At F4, ISO will be 10000 to keep shutter speed the same. D750 will be better than D7100. Less noise.
Click to expand...
So the ISO will be about 5000 on the D7100 closing the noise gap.
 
I'm gonna tell you there is a big difference in shooting f2.8 vs f4 when shooting in dark locations and you need that extra light!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Olympus 300m f4 Compared to the OM Systems MC14+50-200 f2.8 Photographing Deer.
Replies
19
Views
2K
Bobapingu
B
sushi_icecream
Cheap Nikon D7100 or Z50?
Replies
11
Views
4K
Ruedon
R
T
DX or FF dillema
Replies
8
Views
14
Nikita_64
N
G
Buying Advice: Upgrade from Nikon D700 to D810 or D850?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
GeorgeMac
G
Skyevale
2nd hand 'walkabout' and 'wide angle' lens for D750
2
Replies
21
Views
898
monte12345
M

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top