Print Size - FX versus DX

[robin_barnes]

I have been a film user for more years than I care to remember (a pair of FE2s and a collection of nikkor lenses - 24AF, 35AF, 50M, 85M

and 105M primes plus 36-72 and 75-150 E series zooms acquired over the years). Late last year I decided it was time to get acquainted

with digital so I bought a D40x with the 18-55 kit lens.

 

I now have to make a decision. Do I stick with the DX format and add a 16-85mm VR, probably a 70-300mm VR and at some stage a

more capable camera body or do I move to FX by getting a D700 body? The later would, initially, be the more expensive route but I would

be able to use all my old lenses and may never need to buy any more.

 

Very important considerations are picture quality and print size. With film it is easy - a bigger negative means you can produce larger

prints without quality suffering but with digital the situation would seem to be more complicated. My reading suggests that the primary

advantage of FX over DX is much better high ISO performance.

 

So my question is - assuming one uses low ISO settings (say 100 or 200) would an FX camera offer any significant advantage over a DX

camera (with a sensor with a similar number of pixels) with regard to the size of prints that could be produced?

[ellis_vener_photography]

It is more than just high ISO performance and the wider angle of view per lens captured with the larger sensor.

With the D700, if it is anything close to the performance of the D3, photos are clearer and just al around

better. part of this is the difference in sensor types (CCD vs CMOS), part of it is the larger pixel pitch (size

of the individual light gathering cells in the sensor) , part of it is the anti-aliasing filter and micro lenses

voer the individual sensor cells, part of it is the internal image processing pipeline (EXPEED as implemented in

the the D300, D3 and now the D700 and in future Nikon DSLRs. It really is the entire package. I've been printing

(with a state of the art Canon iPF6100 imagePROGRAF on high quality paper) 16 x24 inch and 20x30 inch prints from

D300 and D3 NEF images and while I'm pretty impressed with both but for these large prints the D3 images are

technically better despite both the D300 and D3 both being 12mp cameras

[John Crowe]

There is more to full frame sensors than just the math. A full frame sensor of similar MP as a crop sensor does provide more detail and smoother rendition. I do however suggest holding off on full frame for a year since Nikon's offerings are currently over priced. The pricing situation should see significant changes this year as Canon and Nikon continue to compete in this market.

[studor13]

Ellis, what does "technically better" mean?

 

If you are viewing two images - 16x24 or less - from a distance of say 5 feet, can you tell which is from which?

 

I've been torturing myself over 5D-D700, but I'm now back to the D300. Apart from a small number of images, I

actually don't do that much really wide.

 

I keep coming back to the conclusion that for this year at least, the D300 is enough camera for me, and probably for

most people. Of

course if you have an extra $1000 to drop, then there is no issue.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"So my question is - assuming one uses low ISO settings (say 100 or 200) would an FX camera offer any significant advantage over a DX camera (with a sensor with a similar number of pixels) with regard to the size of prints that could be produced?"

 

I've seen some stunning images from DX sensors at low ISO's. The current FX offerings seem to have superb high ISO performance. But that may not matter for the type of shooting many people do. I often use flash when light is low, so I won't pony up $3k for the D700. My feelings may change when the price drops a bit.

[elliot1]

Ellis, can you post some examples? My brief experience with the D3 and my extensive experience with the 5D and D300 tell me otherwise.

 

I have done numerous side-by-side tests between the 5D and the D300 and find absolutely no difference in IQ related to the full VS DX sensor which, quite frankly, shocked me.

 

I find the OP is 100% correct - the advantage of FX over DX is much better high ISO performance and that at low ISO, there is NOT any significant advantage of FX over a DX camera with regard to the size of prints that could be produced.

[John Crowe]

I have only had my Kodak SLRn and D2X for a short while. Testing full frame versus crop is the most difficult test to perform since you cannot use the same lens from one to the other. To test them properly the same image view must be created on the two different sized sensors. Unfortunately this brings the quality of each lens into the "picture". To try to minimize this the first test I did was put my 400/2.8 on the D2X and the 400/2.8 and 1.4x on the SLRn. This provided very similar views to each sensor. The D2X had the advantage of not having my scratched TC-14B attached along with it's inherent loss of quality and although the SLRn does have two more MP it is an antique. The other advantage that the SLRn has is its lack of an anti-aliasing filter which may in fact make it perform more like a 16 to 21 MP camera. I was shocked that the SLRn, under these circumstances, was sharper. The D2X at ISO 100 and the SLRn at its lowest, ISO 160, and both shot wide open. Was it significantly sharper? Maybe not, but it was sharper, even with the 1.4x!

 

 

A much more revealing test would be to put my 14/2.8 on the SLRn and a rectilinear 10mm on the D2X, but I don't have a 10mm. This is where I believe the full frame would excell even more. Superwide angle photography is why I went to the trouble of shooting medium format for awhile and why I still have a 4x5.

 

 

As time permits I do intend to test these two bodies further. I have the 14/2.8, 28/2 AIS, 50/1.4 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 200/2 AI and 400/2.8 AIS with which to do so. The closest combos I can do are: D2X/14 vs SLRn/28, D2X/28 vs SLRn/50, D2X/50 vs SLRn/135, D2X/135 vs SLRn/200, and of course D2X/400 vs SLRn/400 with 1.4x.

[robin_barnes]

My thanks to you all. Based on what you say I think I that a middle course is probably the best way forward for me i.e

replace my 18-55 kit lens with a 16-85mm VR, which should meet most of my needs, and then wait until Nikon produces

an FX camera at a more affordable price - and, hopefully, one that weighs considerably less than the D700 which is

almost twice the weight of an FE2!

 

As you will appreciate I am keen to be able to use my collection of old lenses again on a body which offers metering with

manual lenses so in the longer term I think FX will be the way to go.

 

I guess that for someone who starts photography with a digital camera, where the ISO rating can be changed at will,

good performance at high settings will be important. But for those of us who are used to coping with the limitations

imposed by low, fixed ISO, film it's much less of an issue.

[bill_keane2]

Robin, I don't know what kind of images you like to capture, but in any event. FX format WILL come way down in price -- if you can wait a few years. Having said that, it may make sense to invest in nice glass that covers FX (unless you really don't have an option). The AF versions of the 50mm and 85mm and 105mm you have are great, and they will go either way, FX or DX.

 

Consider the DX built-in motor version of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. It's great. Cheaper than the 16-85, and won't be as $ a loss if you move to FX...