For those who like to argue ....
- Thread starter luckyorange
- Start date
Shot at F2.8 at around 24mm at ISO 6400, 1/100s. Would love to see your DX do a shot like that that is usable. And it is hella dark. The picture already looks a lot brighter than the actual light conditions. Plus, to maintain that shutter speed, I shot 0.7 stops underexposed, only to pull it back up in post.
And the people in the shot are running jumping all over the place. you can capture it with a prime?.... right... You own a 16mm F1.8 or F1.4?
It is so dark that aperture is maxed out, and any lower in shutter speed you will get tons of motion blur. I am very sure none of the DX cams can acquire focus too, even my D700 cannot acquire focus a lot more than 50% of the time. And if you use a longer focal length and step back, you will have no shot, because you will be blocked by the crowds.
Like I said, would love to see you try it. Talk is easy bud.
Last edited:
3rd party UWAs pricing are not that far away from DX UWAs as well. Like the Sigma 12-24, Tokina 17-35, Tokina 16-24/2.8. Sigma 70-200 OS is also quite impressive. And the 1.8G FX primes are excellent and friendly to the wallet as well.
Agree 100%. I would to add that although we do not use ISOs like 6400 or 12800 often, it's very important that often used "high" ISOs such as 1600 are good enough for keepers. So obviously having higher uber ISOs means your mid-range ISOs become more sensible.
actually it is around one stop difference for SNR between FX and DX. And this is MATHS so you cannot argue about this.
So FX ISO6400 = DX ISO3200 roughly.
The reason why I think you can go that with DX is because
1) the pic DOF is very high so your aperture is not that big
2) the pic does not look extremely wide to me
Actually you might not need DX. I think 4/3rds OMD with a 12mm f2.0 and ISO 3200 will probably come very close.
For focusing, I don't see why FX can focus better than DX. Is this true? I thought it has nothing to do with sensor size. If anything, I think DX has an adv because you can use a bigger aperture for the same DOF.
Or I can just shoot using my 14-24mm at 16mm f2.8 at DX mode ISO6400. I can get exactly the same pic but instead of 36meg pixel pic, I get a 16meg pixel pic. SNR degrades by one stop but I would still think it is useable.
Last edited:
Hmm...:bsmilie: ok... whatever floats your boat.
Why not post some of your pic let us see?
ok...
My idea of something that really needs FX is shot at 35mm f1.4. Below are shot at f1.4. I think the DOF makes the pics better as it makes the subject stands out and yet keeps the background recognizable. I am not sure if the subject isolation is good enough at f2.0 (which is the best you can do on DX)
Actually the best example would be a FF 24mm f1.4 but I don't have that lens.
agreed, but the adv for FX vs DX is just one stop.
You will gain more in terms of DR if you upgrade an older DX cam like D90 to D5100. I think the DR improvement between generations of sensors is more drastic than DX to FX.
Of course, if you want every last stop, then FX is the way to go. If you need that One stop of ISO, then you need FX.
dniwkh said:
At base ISO, modern DX sensors, such as the D7000 and the D3200 are excellent. If anything, they come really close to the FX sensors. For the sake of discussion, I am not considering the D3s and the D4, which are high ISO monsters that can retain significant dynamic range. (interestingly, the D4, at base ISO, has a narrower dynamic range than the D600 and D800)
But the dynamic range decreases faster than the FX peers as ISO increases. This is from my personal experience using various DX and FX cameras from Nikon as well as data from review sites such as DXO Mark.
Older generation DX sensors obviously suffers from a performance deficit. I still own a Nikon D70, and dynamic range of my trusty old camera... Is well, not exactly up to what the cheapest dSLRs today can do.
And in a sense, that is what FX is all about - getting every last bit that can be obtained, at a premium.
In my opinion, DX and other cropped formats are all about compromises - cheaper and lighter products that runs close to their FX cousins.
Of course, FX isn't all uncompromising either - there is always medium format and large format.
Sorry. I think the noise performance for this camera I am using is around 2.5 stops better than the best DX out there now. It is NOT just one stop.
Last edited:
I just told you the aperture is F2.8 at 24mm ISO6400 at shutter speed 1/100s. show me a DX picture shot at the same settings and exposure pushed up 1 stop in PP... and can still get the same picture or even a usable one?
Of course my particular FX cam can focus a lot better than any DX cam. It even focuses a lot better than my D700.. this particular cam can focus in -3EV conditions or at aperture F8. Can any DX cam do that?
Do understand what you are talking about, and not quote SNR... have you actually used a FX extensively? I have used DX cams m43 extensively. I know the differences and limits very well. I even shot DX cams at higher than usual ISO.. 3200 and 5000.
Last edited:
Ultimately, when we want to discuss the benefits of DX vs FX, we have to assume all other variables remain the same. Meaning, sensor technology is the same, ie you compare D7000 with D800, not D90 with D800, not D4 and D7000. You compare cams with similar AF modules, meaning D7000 with D600, not D7000 with D800.
I am not sure what FF DSLR you are using that can focus to -3eV but that is not what we are discussing. The focusing capability is dependent on the AF module in the DSLR so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. If you do comparison like this, this will get nowhere.
Actually there are many discussions on FX vs DX online and a lot of misinformation out there. The real benefits of FX vs DX is below.
1) FX has ONE stop adv over DX in terms of DR, SNR. So if you shoot at one stop lower for DX, you get the same DR and SNR. To put it simply in layman terms, the FX sensor is around 2x larger than the DX sensor in terms of area. Thus it is around 1stop better.
2) At ISO100 however it is different. Theoretically, FX should have significantly better SNR and DR on the virtue of more pixels. So if you want to print BIG, FX is the way to go as their maximum IQ at ISO100 is better than DX.
3) the DOF for FX is usually better as you have to find a lens that is one stop brighter for DX to achieve the same DOF and for some focal lengths like 24mm it is not possible.
The above is on the assumption that everything else is the same and the only difference is sensor size. It is useless to keep saying I have shoot DX and FX but who knows what DX camera are you using. Is you DX camera using the same sensor tech as your FX cam?
Of course there are other more impt factors like WEIGHT and SIZE for FX. That is the reason why I am thinking of moving to NEX or 4/3rd.
PS: I have D700 (for some years) and D800 now. I had the D5100, K-01. Although I am a FX user for some years now, I don't am not going to blow up the benefits of FX vs DX.....
Last edited:
dniwkh said:
It is relevant because fx cams are often higher spec'ed than dx cams.
Yes sensor alone is independent of af module. But in real life, they are spec'ed different. You cannot buy a dx cam with type af or metering module from the D3s or d4. So in real life, it is related.
1 stop SNR difference is only at low to mid ISO. Once you hit 1600 and above it pulls apart very quickly. At 6400 it is around 2.5 stops difference. and m43 type difference is even much greater. Not sure where you read the info but you might want to check out the actual charts. It is NOT a linear difference.
Most of the people already know long time already. This is his third incarnation I think.
daredevil123 said:
Hahaha yes definitely one of many.. I remember vaguely that there were 2 replacements.
Haven't been following CS as much these days so I guess I'm behind the curve!
Actually it is not that many, just one more than u.
so you probably missed my latest travel pics
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/portraits-poses/1161574-family-portraits.html
Some self advertising...
Last edited:
the chart I am reading is from DXOMark D7000 vs D800 because it is the best example as the two sensors has identical pixel pitch, indicating similar designs. Even if you compare D7000 with D3s/D4 which is optimized for high iso, the difference is around 1.5 stops at ISO 6400. It is pretty linear according to DXOMark.
There's nothing wrong with my current D80. It's just that I'm going to give it to my brother who wants to learn photography
Although using it for taking photo of my kids n travel, I'm not using it on casual purposes only, otherwise I will just get point n shoot camera.
That's why I ask what's the benefit of full frame. As I'm basically now not tied to any dx or fx, canon or nikon. It's a complete restart.
And as they're growing now, I have more time to explore n enhance my skill again.
I will only get the body n one lens, then slowly build the lens as required n have the money
apologies for hijacking your thread.
Anyway your usage pattern is very similar to mine. you can see my pics below. Most of them are shot in FX cam. But looking over my keepers, I have come to realise that all of them can be done on DX with the exception of those wide angle shots with thin DOF. Super high ISO? I almost never need it as if the light is really that bad, it is hard to get a keeper. I have tried to shoot at night quite a few times on my travel but sadly never succeeded with a keeper... :embrass:
although your shooting pattern may be different from mine.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/portraits-poses/1161574-family-portraits.html
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/portraits-poses/1115364-family-hokkaido.html
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/portraits-poses/1001124-family-europe.html
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/portraits-poses/754986-family-nz.html
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/portraits-poses/845881-family-japan-2011-jan.html
Similar threads
