Beginner Dx to Fx?

snerkler said:
Out of curiosity then, which of these has more 3D quality? I’ve always said the same about FF having more 3D quality but I took these the other day and am genuinely surprised how similar they are. I’ve been really working on honing my PP skills to get the best out of my Olympus and am really happy with what I can achieve. Granted it’s harder work with m4/3 to get them to look ‘right’, but it’s made me realise just how important PP is and learning how best to process each format.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-2-owners-thread.395080/page-325#post-8256939
Click to expand...
Your enthusiasm has encouraged me to get my lab coat back on for pp:D
 
Stu Meech said:
For what it's worth the D750 is still a mighty fine camera and probably the best value FX Nikon camera - quite possibly the best value full frame dSLR camera by any manufacturer. It hasn't really aged in 4 years and I can't see it doing so anytime soon either. The money saved from not getting a D850 or whatnot could be spent on some good glass to replace your DX only lenses.
Click to expand...
Propably in AF terms it has aged
 
Cagey75 said:
Either way, the Olympus holds up extremely well, as nobody could be certain if they had gun to head. I remember when I switched from FX to Fuji X and fearing a dramatic drop in IQ, I didn't find this to be the case whatsoever. Only in low light [apart from obvious file size differences] did it really show. And that was older gen Fuji, same era as your Em1
Click to expand...


Free lobworms with every sensor!
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Free lobworms with every sensor!
Click to expand...

I didn't notice this much in my 2yr with the XT1, but I wasn't shooting much landscape/foliage, once it was pointed out though, it's hard un-see. I really hope that has been sorted.
 
Stu Meech said:
For what it's worth the D750 is still a mighty fine camera and probably the best value FX Nikon camera - quite possibly the best value full frame dSLR camera by any manufacturer. It hasn't really aged in 4 years and I can't see it doing so anytime soon either. The money saved from not getting a D850 or whatnot could be spent on some good glass to replace your DX only lenses.
Click to expand...

I did look at a D750 earlier and did like it but it’s just I read about D850 and was wondering whether to upgrade to dx or fx and in either top endish of both or another.
Why I picked tip end was to maybe have them bit more future proof as in if I get at least 10 years out of them I’m happy.
Either way at present I’m just getting opinions before I decide and go try a few cameras to see which handles best.
Money I’m not to bothered as I can save up having no other vices (except what the wife ties me up in lol) easy enough to do [emoji14]
 
Last edited:
lionofjudah said:
I did look at a D750 earlier and did like it but it’s just I read about D850 and was wondering whether to upgrade to dx or fx and in either top endish of both or another.
Why I picked tip end was to maybe have them bit more future proof as in if I get at least 10 years out of them I’m happy.
Either way at present I’m just getting opinions before I decide and go try a few cameras to see which handles best.
Money I’m not to bothered as I can save up having no other vices easy enough to do [emoji14]
Click to expand...
The D850 is enough camera to last anyone a lifetime tbh. However, GAS gets the better of us and as much as I love the D850 I am keeping a close eye on the FF mirrorless cameras. Why you might ask if I have the D850? Well the reason is travel, the D850 is just too big and bulky for me when out sightseeing and I have an EM1 for such times. A FF mirrorless camera combined with something like the new 24-70mm f4 would not be much bigger and heavier than my EM1 and 12-40mm f2.8 and so would make a good travel camera. If it then has the performance of the D850 in terms of AF, frame rate and buffer it would mean I could just run one system for everything. None are there yet, but it's just a matter of time.

The reason I mention all this is that if you want to future proof for the next ten years and you're not specifically tied into a system then it may be worth waiting and keeping an eye on mirrorless?
 
lionofjudah said:
I did look at a D750 earlier and did like it but it’s just I read about D850 and was wondering whether to upgrade to dx or fx and in either top endish of both or another.
Why I picked tip end was to maybe have them bit more future proof as in if I get at least 10 years out of them I’m happy.
Either way at present I’m just getting opinions before I decide and go try a few cameras to see which handles best.
Money I’m not to bothered as I can save up having no other vices (except what the wife ties me up in lol) easy enough to do [emoji14]
Click to expand...
Fair enough, to be honest I don't think in 10 years time you'd notice much difference between a 750 and 850 but in the short term the 750 is half the price which can then buy a fair amount of glass. But I am horrendously biased being a happy 750 owner!
 
snerkler said:
Out of curiosity then, which of these has more 3D quality? I’ve always said the same about FF having more 3D quality but I took these the other day and am genuinely surprised how similar they are. I’ve been really working on honing my PP skills to get the best out of my Olympus and am really happy with what I can achieve. Granted it’s harder work with m4/3 to get them to look ‘right’, but it’s made me realise just how important PP is and learning how best to process each format.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-2-owners-thread.395080/page-325#post-8256939
Click to expand...

Let me look on a computer with a decent screen in a couple of weeks & I'll try to say, but for me, my first reaction was the top was the D850 and the bottom the M43.

*edit* having now looked on Flickr at full size, the top image looks to have better preservation of detail and colour, and a sense of depth I don't get with the lower image. If that one is NOT the D850 then you need to sell your skills as an image-processing wizard.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Let me look on a computer with a decent screen in a couple of weeks & I'll try to say, but for me, my first reaction was the top was the D850 and the bottom the M43.

*edit* having now looked on Flickr at full size, the top image looks to have better preservation of detail and colour, and a sense of depth I don't get with the lower image. If that one is NOT the D850 then you need to sell your skills as an image-processing wizard.
Click to expand...
Assuming that different computers/web browsers aren't showing major differences to what I see I would say that your eyes are clearly better than mine. On the originals I don't see any extra depth :oops: :$
 
snerkler said:
Assuming that different computers/web browsers aren't showing major differences to what I see I would say that your eyes are clearly better than mine. On the originals I don't see any extra depth :oops: :$
Click to expand...


I've taken a look on a big screen and I reckon the difference is due to lens distortion...

Aside from the slight distortion difference the bottom one has more saturation in the greens so I would guess that is the m43 one as Oly do tend to have strong greens.

But still, it's splitting hairs and this is the reason I sold all of my FF kit.
 
Nawty said:
I've taken a look on a big screen and I reckon the difference is due to lens distortion...

Aside from the slight distortion difference the bottom one has more saturation in the greens so I would guess that is the m43 one as Oly do tend to have strong greens.

But still, it's splitting hairs and this is the reason I sold all of my FF kit.
Click to expand...
The greens might be my fault, I tweaked them :oops: :$
 
snerkler said:
The D850 is enough camera to last anyone a lifetime tbh. However, GAS gets the better of us and as much as I love the D850 I am keeping a close eye on the FF mirrorless cameras. Why you might ask if I have the D850? Well the reason is travel, the D850 is just too big and bulky for me when out sightseeing and I have an EM1 for such times. A FF mirrorless camera combined with something like the new 24-70mm f4 would not be much bigger and heavier than my EM1 and 12-40mm f2.8 and so would make a good travel camera. If it then has the performance of the D850 in terms of AF, frame rate and buffer it would mean I could just run one system for everything. None are there yet, but it's just a matter of time.

The reason I mention all this is that if you want to future proof for the next ten years and you're not specifically tied into a system then it may be worth waiting and keeping an eye on mirrorless?
Click to expand...

How much lighter would a mirror less be? Would I need fx lenses with that or would dx work? Image quality difference?
 
lionofjudah said:
How much lighter would a mirror less be? Would I need fx lenses with that or would dx work? Image quality difference?
Click to expand...


It depends, but the bulk of a FF kit is mainly down to the lenses, which need to be big for a number of reasons.

Technically mirrorless lenses can be smaller as they don't have to account for the extra space needed to flip the mirror up (you will see a lot of people refer to flange distance), however from what I've seen (except maybe the new Canon FF mirrorless) the lenses are still huge compared to m43. This is why I can never see myself going FF mirrorless.
 
lionofjudah said:
How much lighter would a mirror less be? Would I need fx lenses with that or would dx work? Image quality difference?
Click to expand...
This will depend, full frame lenses are full frame lenses and like for like will weigh roughly the same. However, for the mirrorless system Nikon have brought out a 24-70mm f4 which is far lighter than the 24-70mm f2.8 and so for me would make a much better travel lens. Nikon don’t do a 24-70mm f4 for DSLR, only the 24-120mm f4 which is heavier. You need to look at which lenses you want and take it from there.

As far as IQ goes I would expect the Z7 to be on par with the D850 but until it’s released we won’t know for sure. Initial reports are saying that the new Z mount lenses are sharper across the frame though as a result of the new mount.
 
lionofjudah said:
I’ve got a Nikon D90 at present and am looking to upgrade. I’m thinking of either sticking with a Dx maybe the Nikon D500 or going down the Fx route of maybe the D850.
Apart from costs any other advice?
Some of my current lenses will work with Fx so not a big issue and some I can upgrade in the future no rush.
Main photography interest is landscapes and travel.
Click to expand...

Apart from costs and DX or FX lenses...

DX models will be find for the majority of the general photos (from landscape to action) if you only want prints up to A4 (or A3 with DX model having higher than 10MP) or upload to websites. FX models is really more suited for if you're planning on images far larger than A3, movie posters, full magazine spreads, or even billboard posters. Also DX is fine for general prints while FX is suitable for very detailed prints. Just think of it the same way as 110 format and 35mm format films for general every day prints vs 6x6 format filims for magazines and posters vs large format cameras for fine still life images.
 
So would mirrorless offering be FX OR DX? And how would lens compatibility work with these?
I mean could I use my Dx lenses on these or not?
 
lionofjudah said:
So would mirrorless offering be FX OR DX? And how would lens compatibility work with these?
I mean could I use my Dx lenses on these or not?
Click to expand...
Nikon have just released a Nikon FF mirrorless but I would never recommend using DX glass on FF, whether mirrorless or FF.
 
Honestly, having swung between different formats, FF isn't the be all, end all for the average shooter. They are usually better at higher ISO if that's what you shoot at a lot, and you get better 'bokeh' easier. But for wildlife, landscape, sports, street ... no massive improvement.
 
Major Eazy said:
Apart from costs and DX or FX lenses...

DX models will be find for the majority of the general photos (from landscape to action) if you only want prints up to A4 (or A3 with DX model having higher than 10MP) or upload to websites. FX models is really more suited for if you're planning on images far larger than A3, movie posters, full magazine spreads, or even billboard posters. Also DX is fine for general prints while FX is suitable for very detailed prints. Just think of it the same way as 110 format and 35mm format films for general every day prints vs 6x6 format filims for magazines and posters vs large format cameras for fine still life images.
Click to expand...
That would be higher MP count FF cameras, not the 24mp D750 etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soeren said:
That would be higher MP count FF cameras, not the 24mp D750 etc.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, depends on viewing distance. Billboard posters have been printed using cameras with less than 24mp at the start of the digital world. I've also got A3 prints from my 16mp m4/3 camera and I can't tell a difference from my 24mp FF prints.
 
snerkler said:
Not necessarily, depends on viewing distance. Billboard posters have been printed using cameras with less than 24mp at the start of the digital world. I've also got A3 prints from my 16mp m4/3 camera and I can't tell a difference from my 24mp FF prints.
Click to expand...
Yes but what I was aiming at was the FF vs apsc in relation to print size. A 24mp FF file won't print bigger than a 24mp apsc file.
 
soeren said:
Yes but what I was aiming at was the FF vs apsc in relation to print size. A 24mp FF file won't print bigger than a 24mp apsc file.
Click to expand...
I think you were closer with your original analogy (DX=110, FF=35mm). Pixel size would be better associated as being akin to the size of the crystals in a negative (IMO). It has little to do with the resolution of the recorded scene and how large you can print. But if enlarged enough and viewed close enough their shape can become apparent and overwhelm the image.

Unless the image is very poor, there is almost always more recorded resolution than is actually required... The COC standard requires less than 2MP for any size print/display.
 
sk66 said:
I think you were closer with your original analogy (DX=110, FF=35mm). Pixel size would be better associated as being akin to the size of the crystals in a negative (IMO). It has little to do with the resolution of the recorded scene and how large you can print. But if enlarged enough and viewed close enough their shape can become apparent and overwhelm the image.

Unless the image is very poor, there is almost always more recorded resolution than is actually required... The COC standard requires less than 2MP for any size print/display.
Click to expand...
Already there you lost me.
 
soeren said:
Yes but what I was aiming at was the FF vs apsc in relation to print size. A 24mp FF file won't print bigger than a 24mp apsc file.
Click to expand...
Ahh I see. Well you can of course print any file size to any print size depending on how much quality you’re happy to lose, but assuming all things are equal a FF 24mp image printed to A1 would look better than an aps-c 24mp printed to A1 as the aps-c file has to be enlarged more to get to the same print size.
 
snerkler said:
Ahh I see. Well you can of course print any file size to any print size depending on how much quality you’re happy to lose, but assuming all things are equal a FF 24mp image printed to A1 would look better than an aps-c 24mp printed to A1 as the aps-c file has to be enlarged more to get to the same print size.
Click to expand...
Isnt 24mp 24mp No matter the frames size? I would think its the number youre printing from in digital not the size
 
soeren said:
Yes but what I was aiming at was the FF vs apsc in relation to print size. A 24mp FF file won't print bigger than a 24mp apsc file.
Click to expand...

You meant the other way round? Nikon's DX format, Canon's EF format, and the likes, they're all referred as APS-C, which is bit smaller than a Full Frame (FF).

Both a 24MP APS-C and a 24MP FF can print as big as they can get, even a billboard sized poster.

But image quality for APS-C will drop off by the time it gets to around A1 print size, it will start to show telltale signs of pixels on paper, while a FF may get away with still having good quality. When FF reaches something like A0 size, it will be FF's turn to start having telltale signs of pixels.

There is no maximum paper size, it is usually the limit of image quality that is the reason why people think of it as maximum paper size. That's where those stuff about "a 8MP can't print bigger than a 12MP" or "a APS-C can't print bigger than a FF" comes into play.

Therefore there's no such thing as 24MP FF "won't print bigger than" a 24MP APS-C. It's more like both can print the same size, but an APS-C can't get any more better quality than a FF.
 
soeren said:
Isnt 24mp 24mp No matter the frames size? I would think its the number youre printing from in digital not the size
Click to expand...
Yes 24mp is 24mp but my understanding is that the smaller the sensor the more it has to be enlarged to fit a specific viewing size/print size. The more you enlarge an image the more you will lose quality. For example make an A1 print from a 12mp D700 image and it will look better than a 12mp image from an iphone. Ok not the best example as you have to take lenses into consideration, but you get my drift.

@sk66 can explain these things better than me tbh.
 
snerkler said:
Ahh I see. Well you can of course print any file size to any print size depending on how much quality you’re happy to lose, but assuming all things are equal a FF 24mp image printed to A1 would look better than an aps-c 24mp printed to A1 as the aps-c file has to be enlarged more to get to the same print size.
Click to expand...

If both cameras were using the same kind of film, and the APS-C crop sensor a crop down in all respects from the 24MP of the FF, which would make it a 10.2MP sensor, then this would trivially true. But it's a crop down in physical size plus an uprating of the MP resolution to the same 24MP as the FF. With a theoretically perfect lens that would deliver exactly the same image quality. But of course the lens is not perfect. If the lens is sufficiently imperfect that being asked to provide the higher resolution of the 24MP crop sensor is a bit too much for it, then the crop sensor will deliver an inferior image. But on the other hand many rather good lenses which are not overall quite up the crop sensor pixel size are in fact quite a bit better in the central area than they are at the edges. And the good central bit is just that bit which the crop sensor selects out of the FF image circle. So for a certain range of good lens quality on landscape photographs where edge to edge detail resolution matters as much as central the crop sensor camera will actually deliver better image than the FF camera. Etc..

You're quite right to claim that all other things being equal the crop sensor will deliver inferior image quality. The problem is that in the practical and imperfect world of photography other things are rarely equal.

{Michael Caine} Not many people know that. {/Michael Caine}
 
Ste_S said:
Guy shoots similar photos with Canon 5D Mk IV and Olympus OM-D E-M1 MkII, gets them printed at 1 meter along the widest edge by a professional printer, no real noticeable differences in image quality.
Click to expand...

I've gone through this at home, 20D v 5D v Panasonic MFT, and apart no one I roped in knowing what I was talking about all it proved was what an expensive process home printing is.

I wonder how much that guys printers cost.
 
soeren said:
Isnt 24mp 24mp No matter the frames size? I would think its the number youre printing from in digital not the size
Click to expand...
Pixel resolution of the sensor is nearly irrelevant. It's not until it is printed so large, and viewed so close that the individual square pixel become visually apparent that it becomes relevant (like the light sensitive crystals of a film negative).

What matters is the actual recorded resolution which is typically much less than the sensor resolution. And how much it is going to be enlarged physically... a larger sensor/negative obviously needs less enlargement.

Edit: pixel dimensions of an image is only relevant to image size when it is displayed on something that also uses pixels.
I.e. how large is a 4000x6000px image when it is projected by light onto light sensitive photographic paper?
 
Last edited:
So what it comes down to is the lenses ability to resolve enough to let the sensor deliver its best. What I/you see then is the lens being better suited for the larger pixels in the fullframe sensor and not being anmeldelser to suite outresolve the smaller ones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which is maybe where DXO’s testings become a useful starting point to see how certain combos resolve? Or maybe not?
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Which is maybe where DXO’s testings become a useful starting point to see how certain combos resolve? Or maybe not?
Click to expand...
Yep, it's one of very few ways we can get and idea. I used this when I upgraded from the D750 to D850 to decide whether to keep the 24-120mm f4 or swap to the 24-70mm f2.8 (my decision wasn't solely based on this result, but it was part of it). Now unfortunately DXO haven't tested any lenses with the D850 yet (not sure why, it's been out long enough yet) so I had to use the D810.

Anyway on the D750 the resolution that the 24-120mm can resolve is 14mpix, and with the D810 it only increases to 15mpix (a hike of approx 8% in resolution). With the 24-70mm the results are 17mpix on the D750 and 21 on the D810 (a hike of 25% resolution) which suggested to me that at 15mpix you're probably reaching the limits of what the 24-120mm can resolve, whereas the 24-70mm makes a more significant jump and may possibly even resolve more with the D850.
 
sk66 said:
Pixel resolution of the sensor is nearly irrelevant. It's not until it is printed so large, and viewed so close that the individual square pixel become visually apparent that it becomes relevant (like the light sensitive crystals of a film negative).

What matters is the actual recorded resolution which is typically much less than the sensor resolution. And how much it is going to be enlarged physically... a larger sensor/negative obviously needs less enlargement.

Edit: pixel dimensions of an image is only relevant to image size when it is displayed on something that also uses pixels.
I.e. how large is a 4000x6000px image when it is projected by light onto light sensitive photographic paper?
Click to expand...
But youre not enlarging a digital file physically like a negative where you talk e.g. 3x or 8x enlargements from LF or 35mm negatives. youre printing a file of a certain size dependin go the MP count, not? What I see matters is whether the lenses are capable of resolving to the pixelsize whether it is a 24mp apsc or 35mm or a 50mp 35mm sensor.
Im stupid I dont get it (n)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top