-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How significant is going FX from a DX?
- Thread starter Jaschong
- Start date
Primarily because all current DSLR mounts are sized around an FX sensor, and that means that except for certain specific use cases there hasn't been much advantage in APSC DSLR lens sizes. The DX DSLR does present an nice compromise for telephoto reach where a sufficiently dense sensor can be used, and where there is enough light, but much of the rest of the time you don't save much bulk with APSC constant speed lenses and/or pro zoom equivalents. Most of the time, a slower speed FX lens will perform better than an equivalent DX lens for no real size penalty - each mounted to their own respective platform. Consider the cost and size of an 18-35, 24-85VR and 70-200 f/4 on FX and what the DX equivalents weigh and cost... The lenses at least are not much larger.
At 864mm^2 an FX sensor is always recording 2.37x more light than a 365mm^2 DX sensor - about 1.2 stops difference.
The pity is that we don't yet have a D5500 sized FX body to take good advantage of the already quite compact FX DSLR lenses that exist.
At 864mm^2 an FX sensor is always recording 2.37x more light than a 365mm^2 DX sensor - about 1.2 stops difference.
The pity is that we don't yet have a D5500 sized FX body to take good advantage of the already quite compact FX DSLR lenses that exist.
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
That type of 3D look is dependent on DOF and composition. The photos you claimed to show a difference in 3D look were exactly the same in those regards. Here's a photo with a 3D look that resulted not from sensor size but from composition. Your claim is that different sensors can produce a 3D look from the same composition and lens.
--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography.
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
Easy mr webexpert....the google will show how wrong you are. Of course, I was only a wedding photographer for nearly 25 years....what could I know compared to you now that you've upgraded to FF...LOL
I chose my words and examples carefully. But in an effort to learn from you, since you are offering up your credentials, please give me some info & examples of how to achieve the same sharpness, thin dof, with similar subject composition as the Sig 35 art shot at f1.4 on FX. Or the 85mm f1.2 or f1.4 shots on FX. What lenses do you use on DX to achieve this?
The major advantage I've found with FF is better IQ at high ISO over APS-C and a 20mm lens gives me a 20mm field of view as opposed to 30mm. The D750 (I have a D600 which gives essentially the same IQ) is a great camera, but at ISO below 800 I doubt you'd see much of an IQ difference between it and the 7200. The D810 on the other hand is another story.
tbcass
Forum Pro
One way to do it is to get close to your subject while making sure the background is far away.
I wanted to give a small follow-up to my post to illustrate the point:
Here's a combination that gives you options to shoot everything from wide angle, to low light, to telephoto, for costs and weights comparable to DX options where they exist.
Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5G - 385g - $750
Nikon 50mm f/1.8G - 185g - $200
Nikon 70-200 f/4G - 845g - $1400
Total $ = $2350
Total weight = 1415g
How about the DX options?
Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 - 410g - $400 *there really isn't any significantly smaller/cheaper DX option. It should be noted that the Tamron is noticeably wider than an FX 18mm FOV (it's about equivalent to 15.5mm). You save some money, but no weight, and you'll have to live with any 3rd party issues should they arise.
Nikon 35mm f/1.8DX - 200g - $200 - no real difference either in weight or cost
The 70-200 option gets trickier to compare. No one currently offers an "equivalent field of view" range for DX though you can still get Tamron and Sigma lenses that cover that range in DX equivalents at f/2.8 - for basically the same size as Nikon's f/4. Your best bet is probably to just get an FX lens and get use to the "crop factor" - treating it like a 100-300. So lets call that the same. You can get significantly smaller and cheaper with one of the kit telephoto zooms, or even a 70-300mm 4.5-5.6G if you'd like a significant amount of reach instead.
It's really up to you, I think there are good options either way and just picked these as relatively easy options. It demonstrates, however, that you can keep an FX kit both light and cheap, and still have lenses that are the equal or better of any comparable DX option.
A D6xx/D750/Df is about as light as you can get on the body side of the equation at the moment, but if Nikon ever put an FX sensor into a D5500 sized platform, that would significantly change the marketplace for "compact" full frame, virtually overnight.
Hey everyone,
Thanks for the comments and discussion, seems like a never-ending debate, there's just pros and cons.
I checked DXO mark on a specific lens I have which scored quite differently on my D5200 and D750. Of course I don't just take DxOmark's word without doubt.
So my question in addition to this discussion is, for my nikon 85mm 1.8g lens, will the IQ better on a D750 than a D5200 at maybe 100 ISO? I only know shallower DOF is for sure.
Thanks for the comments and discussion, seems like a never-ending debate, there's just pros and cons.
I checked DXO mark on a specific lens I have which scored quite differently on my D5200 and D750. Of course I don't just take DxOmark's word without doubt.
So my question in addition to this discussion is, for my nikon 85mm 1.8g lens, will the IQ better on a D750 than a D5200 at maybe 100 ISO? I only know shallower DOF is for sure.
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
Quality will be better at all ISOs. Download the Imaging Resource raws at any ISO and see the difference for yourself using your own software.
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
After making prints from various cameras between 8x10 and 32x48, I have yet to find anyone seeing a difference between FFand DX of the same MP count at base iso
Last edited:
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
I neve changd anything....therfore there is no "which is it?" The same look be created with either. (edited by moderator)
Last edited by a moderator:
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
As it is the highest resolution display media, you should
Nope. none on prints out to 32x38.....nothin.
Are personal jabs supposed to solidify your position? In reality, they simply make you appear ignorant
I've posted samples here, and reviewed prints with other local photographers. Your response means nothing.
Not just me...other people in these forums, and,other working pros. Maybe it is webexperts like yourself with their shiny 4k monitors that are fine with a point and shoot.
really? What is the rez per inch on a 60" display. Then we'll compare to my prints. If you like low rez...you got it with 4k
Last edited:
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
Who are the four FX shooters (besides Dave's thumb) who can't see a difference between FX and DX and why are they hanging out in this forum or shooting full frame?
I've read some of the responses, and this is my opinion:
I just got a D750 (literally like 2 days ago) moving up from a Canon 70D because I had a faulty AF unit, so this is my first full frame digital body (though I have an FM2 for my personal project) And to be quite honest:
1. Aside from having less noise at high ISO, I can't say images actually look better on a full frame when shooting events. If you're shooting something artsy with a lot of bokeh, yes, but otherwise I honestly can't see any appreciable difference for events at low ISO.
2. For events, you'll actually want a deeper depth of field as it's more forgiving. When I was still using Canon, I used my Sigma 17-50 f2.8 at f4 or f5.6 unless I'm shooting close-ups so that faces would be relatively sharp in group shots. If you're shooting wide angle a lot, I say keep the D5200 and Tokina 11-16, it's a much cheaper option than getting something equivalent on full frame, and you have a lot less to worry about when it comes to border sharpness.
3. Full frame may be what a lot of people want to get, but now that I'm actually using one, I can see vignetting and distortion straight in the viewfinder a lot more obviously than on APS-C. In short, lens weaknesses are much more apparent in full frame than on crop. I kind of like vignetting in my shots, but admittedly they can be a pain for group photos.
4. Is it worth the money? Depends. I bought the D750 because it was in the long run cheaper to switch to a Nikon full frame than APS-C coming from Canon. I didn't want to risk the kinds of issues I had with my Canon (they refused to replace my 70D, and claimed the wonky AF was because I was using a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 lens and told me to get a Canon 17-55 f2.8 instead). If I got a Nikon DX unit, I'd have to get the 17-55 f2.8, which has no VR and is twice as expensive as the Sigma. so it just made more sense to get a full frame and use the accompanying kit lens instead.
Getting Nikon full frame can actually save you money in the long run if you don't mind buying used or older lenses. There are good legacy lenses like their AF-D lenses, as well as the 28-70 f2.8 and 80-200 f.28 that can be found at a very reasonable price, often even cheaper than new DX equivalent lens. I'm already using my 50mm f1.2 AIS to supplement the kit.
Last edited:
iwanhandoyo
New member
1. Big clear viewfinder.
2. Compatibility with Nikkor D lenses.
3. Better color rendition.
--
keep shooting, keep learning
2. Compatibility with Nikkor D lenses.
3. Better color rendition.
--
keep shooting, keep learning
fishy wishy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,358
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 6,647
You are right insofar as if you think of how a camera goes from typically 100 to 6400 iso, that becomes working with 1/64th the light. Since DX from FX is almost 1/2 the light, the difference is not going to be much in comparison to changing the iso, and few panic when they have to use iso 200. No, I wouldn't worry about it. But then again, it is plain to see how quicker a DX image falls apart up the iso scale. The fact is the Nikon SLR system is designed originally for FX lenses and even if they manufacture lenses that only cover the DX circle, the size of the mount stays the same, so a DX camera is bigger than it really needs to be. I wouldn't want a 645 that only shot 35mm film for some reason.
Personally, I much prefer being able to use the full image circle of FX lenses on FX sensors and get wideangles much more easily, and and FX camera is only a few millimetres bigger in dimensions than DX.
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing! Do keep me updated with your experience as you use it longer.
1&2.Bokeh is a bit of my obsession, i would keep my D5200 together with it for events. I'm thinking of using a d750 with my 85mm 1.8g combo for headshot portraits.
3. To what extend would that be? I guess I'll have my old camera for the group shots.
4. Very true, but how does it stack against the new lenses like Sigma 50mm 1.4 art lens? I guess i'm a bit ambitious only wanting the best i could possibly get.
1 Sure, I'll be using it tomorrow to properly shake it down snapping some stage performances. So far I've only been testing it out in conditions that don't reflect well enough what I shoot professionally.
3. The vignetting and distortion at 24mm on the kit lens is immediately visible. You can obviously see that the corners are significantly darker than the center. And corner sharpness falls less gradually than on APS-C as well, so at 100% you can really see a big jump between center and corner sharpness when shooting wide open with most zoom lenses. This is especially so with legacy lenses. (continued below). I have the Sony 16-50mm kit lens which most people consider its corner sharpness to be abysmal wide open, but even so it doesn't look as obviously soft as when I slap on a legacy lens on the D750.
4. The Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art is in a league of its own. It beats every 50mm out there in terms of pure sharpness. However, I must say I really enjoy using the legacy Nikon lenses. My 35mm f2.8 Nikkor AIS is pretty sharp in the center, but the corners are hilariously soft. Yet, I find a certain charm and character in it that's absent from my digital lenses, because they seem so flawless in comparison.
I've been using my 50mm f1.2 on my Sony a6000 for about 3 months now as a portrait lens prior to getting the D750. As amazing as it is there, slapping it on the D750 really feels like the lens is finally where it belongs. It has amazing character: portraits just come out beautiful, and you'll always know where your subject is due to the tiny depth of field at f1.2.
I like being able to finally use my Nikon manual lenses on the D750 than actually shooting events on it! The optical viewfinder is dimmer than my FM2, there's no split prism, and it's harder to get critical focus than on my Sony. But it's still a fun experience.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum