Is my understanding of full frame correct?

Started 1 month ago | Questions thread
Peter v.d Werf Contributing Member • Posts: 743
Re: Is my understanding of full frame correct?

jpg4878 wrote:


I'd say no for 2 reasons: but that requires some additional info as you skip some variables, so I'll give it a yes in the end;-)

1) DX vs FX:
The thing is that fullframes sensors are said to be better in low light because with the same amount of pixels (so 24MP on DX vs 24MP on FX), the size each pixel will be bigger on an FX sensor.
And roughly said, the bigger the pixels, the better is can collect (quality) of light rays.
Also, the technical generation of a sensor also plays a role. When you compare the high iso/low light quality of an Z6 to and D80 DX sensor will be huge (speaking from experience), but comparing a Z6 to a more recent D500 sensor, the difference will be much, much smaller.
You compare and F4 FX lens situation to an F2.8 DX lens. This on itself has nothing to do with a a camera (read: the internal sensor) being better in low light.
A bigger aperture lets in more light, meaning that will all other variables being equal, this will enable you to use a lower ISO value, thus yielding better image quality. 
But on the other hand, and F4 vs 2.8 also would require a stop slower shutter speed, so depending on your subject that can actually be a bad thing lead to worse images in case it results in a blurred subject.
But...just going with your line of reasoning: In case of a still subject and purely looking at the image quality do to the high ISO quality and not knowing your DX camera, then I'd give it a carfefulll yes that those using for instance ISO3200 on FX could show the same quality as ISO6400 on DX (when reading between the lines that is would you mean I think)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow