DX vs. FF ... - DPChallenge Forums

11/22/2005 05:57:35 PM · #1

//www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/body/FF_vs_DX_sized_sensors/index.html

Thought some of you may like to read this.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

11/22/2005 07:48:29 PM · #2

bumpity bump incase anyone was interested.

ralph

Nikon Z9

11/22/2005 08:35:21 PM · #3

kinda preaching to the converted ;)

i don't mind DX frame - if the (*&)(*)!! view finder was better (
{d200 where are you ??....}

pawdrix

Nikon D700

11/22/2005 08:53:33 PM · #4

Originally posted by ralphnev:

{d200 where are you ??....}

I might buy one tomorrow. I just hope Nikon can meet my order. Adorama has a bunch of orders already and J&R has around 35 preorders. I just hope that if I pay in advance they'll have one for me the day it's released so I don't have to wait for the second batch.

I assume BH will have at least 100 on day one...first come first serve.

hokie

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

11/22/2005 08:57:53 PM · #5

Good article. It really explains the DX versus Full Frame technology.

One thing I wish companies would quit saying....that cropping is a magnification of an image. It is not.

When you "crop" an image...that is what you do..crop an image. I use the fast crop feature of the D2x to get 8 frames a second for sports and multi-exposure action. Sometimes 8 frames a second isn't fast enough!

Now, with that said, I love the fact that the D2x pumps over 12 megapixels in their DX factor sensor. I agree that having edge to edge equal light sensitivity is a great thing IF you don't fall back on lazy photo practices that encourage you not to frame your shots well and you depend on all those pixels to save you with sloppy technique.

Canon is a genius company. They know that many camera buyers have been discussing and waiting for "Full Frame". Nikon could take their sensor, increase its "acreage" or overall size to something the size of the Canon 1DS Mark II and probably reach close to 20 megapixels. But the charge would be in the $8,000 - $10,000 range and for what? For our company, I cannot have falloff on the edges and use the data. So I would have to crop out the outer edges and basically throw away the money. If we need a $10,000 plus camera we go to our digital backs and scan backs for even greater file sizes.

Remember, I work for a company that shoots all type of photography. Our work for Wyeth Pharmacuetical requires me to have a Perspective control lens to limit focus falloff under normal micro shooting conditions. Wyeth and other agencies demand that.

Our photogs in our company believe that "Full Frame" is just an industry gimic to squeeze more money out of camera buyers. Ultimately, you measure what the camera will provide in images..not in the pixel counts or the size of a sensor.

With that said, we have guys who shoot Canon and we have guys who shoot Nikon and most of that decision is based on how much experience they have with each system and their own investment in hardware. Nobody I know would by a camera based simply on a full frame sensor.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/22/2005 08:58:24 PM · #6

I'd like to, but there's about 2 grand worth of other photography stuff I want first.

KiwiChris

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/22/2005 08:58:27 PM · #7

Originally posted by ralphnev:

kinda preaching to the converted ;)

i don't mind DX frame - if the (*&)(*)!! view finder was better (
{d200 where are you ??....}

For what it's worth, the viewfinder on the d2x is great, so they can do it... I have no idea why the makers (not just Nikon) don't put higher magnification optics in the viewfinder. (For that matter, the d2x is a damn nice camera all round...)

The d2x viewfinder is nicer to use than some 35mm film ones, which are by implication full frame.

Cheers, Me.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

11/22/2005 09:00:28 PM · #8

Well said hokie...Canon is the best at marketing, there is no doubt about it.

Ask any Canon user...what's a better lens: Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D ED, or a Canon 70-200 f/4L -- chances are they'll say the Canon...why? Because it's white, and it's an L.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

11/22/2005 09:07:12 PM · #9

Yes vignetting does happen on the Canon FF cameras. This can be corrected in raw editing. But canon also makes 1.25x cameras that doesn't have the vignetting problem (man i hope they make another).

"slightly more noise or massive light falloff?"
- i've seen images from the FF cameras, and it's really not that bad most of the time.

"Everyone is used to seeing "grain" in film images, and so most would not even see the noise in the image anyway. The digital noise can also be reduced by adding extra noise reduction, if a person is really worried about it."
- wow, yeah, noise is not a huge deal in my mind, but if you start with a cleaner image, you will be more flexible. I almost never use noise reduction as it kills detail, and looks fake. Noise can always be added later in PP.

"A lens or sensor that can resolve more Lp/mm can record finer details than a sensor that resolves fewer Lp/mm."
-yes the d2x resolves 90lp/mm vs the 5Ds 61lp/mm. However, photodo never even tested lenses beyond 40lp/mm even the best. Granted the result is a combination of each the lens and the sensor.

"with less noise than some "Full-Frame" 35mm-sized sensors"
-yes it has less noise then 2 iirc, and both are at least 3 years old or more. They might want to compair it to new technology.

"Nikon is thinking of the most important things...not just what the market thinks it wants."
-how dare they suggest what the users "need". Everyone has different goals and for some FF is the best way.

"Plus, the Nikon D2x's High-Speed Crop mode gives me even greater reach when I absolutely need it as shown below."
-ERRRrrrrt! Wrong, the D2x's highs-speed crop mode doesn't work as 2x, it produces a smaller file size/resolution which you could exactly reproduce in the non-cropped mode.

"being forced to sell their best cameras for thousands more than they have to."
-supply and demand?

"My 120mm lens in the above picture, with the Nikon D2x's CMOS sensor, acts like a 180mm lens. In high-speed crop mode, it performs like a 240mm lens."
-ehh...not exactly, but we'll let that slide.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

11/22/2005 09:09:50 PM · #10

Originally posted by KiwiChris:

Originally posted by ralphnev:
kinda preaching to the converted ;)

i don't mind DX frame - if the (*&)(*)!! view finder was better (
{d200 where are you ??....}

For what it's worth, the viewfinder on the d2x is great, so they can do it... I have no idea why the makers (not just Nikon) don't put higher magnification optics in the viewfinder. (For that matter, the d2x is a damn nice camera all round...)

The d2x viewfinder is nicer to use than some 35mm film ones, which are by implication full frame.

Cheers, Me.

yes! all cameras should have big and bright viewfinders :-D

hokie

Nikon D2X

11/22/2005 09:39:40 PM · #11

I will admit that I would not mind if Nikon could get the high iso lower noise images that Canon gets at 1600 and 3200.

If I shot sports for a living..and I mean for Sports Illustrated or such...not the sports stuff we shoot for a living in the advertising world...I would probably own a Canon.

BUT!!!!!!!! (you knew this was coming..:-D )

Canon does not have an equal to the Nikon D2x..you just gotta love the genius at these two companies :-D

If I want faster than 3 frames a second I have to live with an 8 megapixel Canon 1D Mark II.Hardly a compromise considering 8 megapixel sports files for magazines and newpapers are more than enough..especially with the nice high iso action.

If I need more than 8 megapixels (which I do because I shoot some sports posters) I have to go to a $7,000 but @4 frames per second camera. Not a bad thing with all the extra pixels, low noise high iso etc.

However, when I shot Marcus Vick last week for a nice hi-rez wall mount, I shot at iso 400, 1/1000th sec under strobes. No noise, fast frames, big files and used about 90% of the frame..perfect for me.

Also, you gotta admit..it is cheaper to get wide lenses versus long lenses...and long lenses are what sport shooters want which tend to be Canon shooters!

The Madness! :-D

Message edited by author 2005-11-22 21:41:04.

ralph

Nikon Z9

11/22/2005 10:14:01 PM · #12

yes ..10.5mm is enough - and if not there is the sigma 8mm
(or the sigma 10-20 which i don't own ,, yet ;)
realisticly i shoot more macros than anything else

i was going to buy the D2X but
(even had the cash & spouse blessing .. ok not blessing but aggreement.. .. maybe toleration,,)
the D200 was anounced & that means even more toys for the same $$ ... so i'm patient & looking for metering on my bellows & will even consider a T/S lens (85mmPC ! might be begging for a while ...)

don't care about FF except for film & since it is so retro (been shooting a roll or two of B&W a week lately ) it si just a different mind set ..

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

11/22/2005 10:14:14 PM · #13

I think the future for pro shooters will be to carry two different bodies with different sized sensors. One FF and the other smaller sensor. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. The FF cams will be paired with the WA and primes (for narrow DOF) and the smaller sensors paired with tele lenses. They will also have to add a caddy to carry it all.