| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum |
| Bedivere wrote: | | BPJ - in your opinion, what's so much better about FX vs. DX?
Yes, I know that FX sensors usually do better in low light due to larger pixel sizes (but this isn't always true), and that the viewfinders are usually bigger/brighter, but other than that I'm not sure what the big advantage is? I've managed to take some pretty nice pictures with my DX cameras. Would they really have been better if it was FX? |
B, its difficult to nail it down in a technical way. There is a reason FF sensors are so much more money. They're more expensive to produce and at least I think produce a superior image. Its so nice to get everything you can out of each lens you plug into your camera. Like I said, Ill never go back..
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
kawi_200
Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Posts: 236 | TRs | Pics
Location: Everett, WA |
|
kawi_200
Member
|
 Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:19 pm |
|
|
I feel like there are 3 main reasons people go FF/FX.
1. Wider field of view from the same lens. A 24mm lens on a FF is pretty darn wide, but 24mm on crop is not that wide. I went FF because I am mainly a landscape shooter and I want as much in the frame as possible and still have the high quality out of the higher end lenses.
2. Shallower depth of field. Portrait photographers often use FF because of the shallower DOF in the images, making them "pop" just a little bit more. You will end up with a finer blurred background shooting the same settings between FX and DX. From what I've heard on a DX you mulitply the f/stop by the crop amount, 24mm f/1.4 on FF equals 38.4mm f/2.2 on DX.
3. Fatter pixels mean better high ISO noise. Technology now has made this a somewhat moot point, but it still stands to some degree.
My opinion has always been, if you want a wider lens buy the DX lens that works for you. If you want UWA and weather sealing.... go FF.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mike
Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Posts: 6397 | TRs | Pics
Location: SJIsl |
|
mike
Member
|
Mon Dec 08, 2014 7:23 pm |
|
|
| kawi_200 wrote: | | 1. Wider field of view from the same lens. |
?? You could just as easily award longer reach points to the crop sensors. A non issue. Apples and oranges. If you want wide just buy the appropriate lens for your camera.
No one argues about the benefits of FF but the gap is narrowing fast. I think that we have already reached the point where I ain't gonna be packin' FF weight more than 500 yds from the car As Ed Weston says.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gil
Member
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 4062 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Gil
Member
|
Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:00 pm |
|
|
I think y'all should just carry this.
 Gear 2
Friends help the miles go easier.
Klahini
Friends help the miles go easier.
Klahini
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:09 pm |
|
|
| kawi_200 wrote: | | My opinion has always been, if you want a wider lens buy the DX lens that works for you. If you want UWA and weather sealing.... go FF. |
I'm having a hard time understanding this.
In your point #1 above you talk about the wider field of view offered by the FX format, and in the quoted sentence you're talking about buying a DX lens. Not sure what you're getting at.
A Tamron 11-16 would give me the same field of view as a 16-24 on FX. You don't get much wider without going fisheye.
As for the weather sealing - My D7000 is fully weather sealed. I believe the Canon 7Dii is also.
One thing that is an advantage for the DX cameras is better performance from the same lens vs. FX. If I'm using a lens that's FX compatible on my DX camera, I'll actually get better performance from that lens. Since the DX sensor is only "seeing" the center of the lens you don't have the same issues with distortion, light falloff, and chromatic aberration and almost any lens is sharpest in the center. Probably why the Nikon 70-300 works so well on my D7000.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6308 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:30 am |
|
|
I envy you guys with the heavy FF and DX gear - still young. Look at all the exercise you are getting.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
monorail
Member
Joined: 06 May 2012
Posts: 267 | TRs | Pics
|
|
monorail
Member
|
Tue Dec 09, 2014 1:25 pm |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pef
Member
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
Location: Redmond WA |
|
Pef
Member
|
Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:32 pm |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:12 pm |
|
|
Hell, you can get a phone with a 40mp sensor. I'm sure it has great dynamic range and low light performance.... 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7727 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:07 am |
|
|
| Bedivere wrote: | | See, I'm willing to live with the compromises of the DX format to get some of the advantages. The important ones to me are a smaller, lighter body and longer reach with the same lens. |
If getting more reach out of your lenses is what's most important to you, stay with cropped sensors. Cameras are compromises, like everything else, there's no perfect but there's the best set of trade-offs for any particular style, and nobody knows what that is better than you. I've seen great photos you've been posting for years, so you definitely have the skill and knowledge to make the right call. 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7727 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:17 am |
|
|
| Bedivere wrote: | | One thing that is an advantage for the DX cameras is better performance from the same lens vs. FX. If I'm using a lens that's FX compatible on my DX camera, I'll actually get better performance from that lens. Since the DX sensor is only "seeing" the center of the lens you don't have the same issues with distortion, light falloff, and chromatic aberration and almost any lens is sharpest in the center. |
Not really; on the other hand, putting a similar number of pixels into a much smaller space makes them a lot smaller. Which means they're sampling a much smaller part of the lens image. So they're a lot better at recording all flaws in the lens. You can wind up with a chip that has better resolution than the lens, which is a waste of big files (storage space, buffer depth, etc).
Also this obviously depends a lot on which lens you're talking about. And what style of photography, if you're doing wildlife or portraits the corners will almost always be out of focus anyway.
The only way to be sure is to compare output from two bodies you like with the same lenses. A friend of mine told me "One good test is better than a thousand expert opinions."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:26 am |
|
|
| Cyclopath wrote: | | Not really; on the other hand, putting a similar number of pixels into a much smaller space makes them a lot smaller. Which means they're sampling a much smaller part of the lens image. So they're a lot better at recording all flaws in the lens. You can wind up with a chip that has better resolution than the lens, which is a waste of big files (storage space, buffer depth, etc).
Also this obviously depends a lot on which lens you're talking about. |
First, thank you for the kind words, much appreciated.
Second, I see what you're getting at, but with most lenses it isn't a practical concern. Since most lenses are sharpest in the center, they have plenty of resolving power to deal with the effectively higher resolution of the sensor. I'm sure there are some lenses where this could be an issue, but I'm not aware of any on my personal wish list that are (Nikon 80-400, Nikon 300 f4, Nikon 28mm f1.8, Tamron 11-16 f2.8) and the two lenses in my collection at the moment sure seem to work well (70-300 and 16-85). In any case, every lens test I've ever seen shows lower distortion, light falloff, and CA with the lens in question on a DX body vs. FX.
Just rambling here, but it's interesting how Chromatic Aberrations are pretty much a non-issue now. Even if a lens is prone to them (and most of the newest lenses are VERY good in this area), either the camera automatically corrects for it or Lightroom does, so you never have to worry about them anyway.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7727 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:24 pm |
|
|
You should rent a couple of bodies that interest you and try them with your lenses. Maybe splurge and rent a couple lenses you might like, too, I'm thinking lenses you would add if you went one route or the other.
When I was shopping for a tele lens (in 2002 or 2003) I rented the one at the top of my list for a weekend. When I bought one (300 mm f/4 IS) I felt like I had made a much better, more informed decision because of it. The rental fee was worth the knowledge I gained.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kawi_200
Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Posts: 236 | TRs | Pics
Location: Everett, WA |
|
kawi_200
Member
|
Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:58 pm |
|
|
Sorry, I mean that, they make DX lenses that are as wide as lenses made for FX. (10-22mm vs 16-35mm) but if you want a lens with weather sealing, you have to go FX because, at least for Canon, they don't make any DX weather sealed lenses. There are crop cameras that are weather sealed, but only the EF lenses designed for full frame are sealed. The widest you could get for usage in the rain or dust would be the 14mm (~22mm on crop) If you want wider than a 22mm equivalent field of view you will have to get a full frame.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7727 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:27 am |
|
|
What do you folks use for starry night sky landscapes?
I'm thinking about having a wider lens for that. 24 mm is perfect for the landscape part but doesn't capture that much sky.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
