Everyone happy they switched from DX to FX?

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>could we please stop using "FX" to mean full-frame? It's really not that hard to say or write "Full-frame".</em></p>

<p>No, because FX is Nikon's term for 24x36mm digital. Full frame could be any sensor size which matches the coverage of the lenses a system has. For example, all micro four thirds cameras are full frame when you use micro four thirds or four thirds lenses on them.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I think some of the comparisons between FX and DX are not fair. Comparing the new DX (D7000) to the best FX (D3 or D700), it would be hard to find much difference beyond coverage.</p>

[studio460]

<p>John said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Comparing the new DX (D7000) to the best FX (D3 or D700), it would be hard to find much difference beyond coverage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D7000 is slightly cleaner than a D90, but nowhere near as clean as a D3s. I own both, and the D3s is an order of magnitude quieter than a D7000, even at low ISOs.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Comparing the new DX (D7000) to the best FX (D3 or D700), it would be hard to find much difference beyond coverage.</em></p>

<p>This is not at all the case. I find the D7000 noisy and muted already at ISO 640 while I happily use the D3 up to ISO 3200. The D7000 has an excellent ISO 100 which I love but for subjects that require > ISO 400 I don't like it and haven't used it for that in a while. My biggest issue with the D7000 is that the autofocus is not consistent enough for many moving subject situations particularly in low light. The 70-200II seems to be a lens that works very nicely with the D7000 though, stopped down to f/4. The files at high ISO turn noisy with the slightest of exposure adjustments in post-processing. But it's an excellent macro and landscape detail camera, when used at ISO 100, on a tripod, at the optimal aperture of the lens and focused using live view the results are fabulous.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I agree with John. In controlled testing shooting RAW and post processing with DXO software, I have found the D7000 image quality to be on par with the D3 (not D3S) up to ISO 3200 and virtually the same at ISO 6400.</p>

<p><em>"...seeing the richness of a few comparisons on line and lower noise than my D300" </em>Are you shooting RAW and how do you process your images? At what ISOs do you typically shoot at? I believe all Nikon DSLR bodies deliver rich colors.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I have found little detectible difference between the D3 images and the D7000 images. I don't know about the D3S. Could you find a difference under lab conditions, or shooting a flat constant color board, probably. Can you distinguish between two RAW images of a real subject -- probably not. I'm not sure that the ISO 3200 images from my D7000 aren't a tad better -- at least I'm very pleased with the result. My D7000 is the camera I reach for much more often since I got it. Maybe it is because it is new. I like the feel in my hands (I have the battery grip). I like the buffer better, too.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Can you distinguish between two RAW images of a real subject -- probably not</em></p>

<p>I wish you would not use the pronoun "you" here since you don't know what other people can see. It is insulting.</p>

<p>The difference stems from the number of photons recorded (due to the sensor area) and no sensible post-processing will make the two equal. The raw data difference in color sensitivity is shown (after averaging of pixels so that the data reflects an equal proportion in the print) e.g. click "measurements" and "color sensitivity" in the following link:</p>

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/680|0/%28appareil2%29/438|0/%28appareil3%29/628|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Nikon</p>

<p>The graph shows that at every equal ISO the D3 (and the D3s even more) is ahead of the D7000 in the color information in the file. This is reflected in the editability of the images and the saturation that you can achieve without having the noise blown up beyond acceptable levels. Neutral gray SNR is also ahead, although by a smaller amount (click 18% SNR).</p>

<p>Since this difference mostly stems from the number of photons recorded it will never go away between formats. Post-processing can reduce noise in the images but always at a cost in detail. Now, I'll give freely that the D7000 produces sharper files at least up to ISO 400 when using medium to long lenses (while not as good in the wide angle at wide apertures) as a result of its higher pixel count, but that's just because Nikon assumes most pros don't want a lot of pixels (instead preferring the color and tonality of the 12 MP FX cameras) and amateurs do. Or maybe they just think those who really want the pixels (D3X) would pay anything for it. Curious thinking ... but anyway, it is what it is, and the D3s seems to sell very well for a camera of its price class.</p>

<p>Anyway, there are photographers who say that "you can't possibly see the difference" (most of them seem to photograph birds) but to me it's very obvious after having shot about 10000 images with the D7000 in various situations and about 140000 with 12 MP FX cameras. I like the D7000's sensor (would happily take an FX sensor with that kind of pixels, for landscape) but wouldn't want to shoot anything with it at higher than ISO 400 myself. At ISO 100 I love it, it's fantastic. At ISO 800 and above, the shadows are black and if you try to bring them up they are very noisy. I've tried to use the camera for twilight airplane takeoffs and have utterly failed; the camera can't focus in those conditions and the files look awful even when I manage a frame in focus. The only setup that has worked well for me in that situation is the D3 and 200/2. I'm actually quite happy now regarding the long lens situation as I discovered the TC-20E III works remarkably well with the 200/2 and now I can basically shoot my long lens daylit apps with that and don't need to frustrate myself with the D7000's focusing. A happy end after much frustration, and I would never have thought it would involve a teleconverter of all things.</p>

<p>But if you like the D7000, good for you! Just don't tell others what they can feel about it or see. Just like with other traits, different people have different sensory abilities.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Ilkka, just curious... what software are you using to process your RAW images?</p>

[studio460]

<p>Elliot said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In controlled testing shooting RAW and post processing with DXO software, I have found the D7000 image quality to be on par with the D3 (not D3S) up to ISO 3200 and virtually the same at ISO 6400.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Elliot, I don't mean to turn this into a DX vs. FX thread, but I would politely suggest that your test scene may not have had enough chroma in it to reveal objectionable differences. For example, the test-bed scene used in dpreview's "Comparometer," is almost completely void of saturated chroma--it's mostly neutral hues with very little shadow area. Although I don't own a D3, in my own evaluation, my D7000 is noisy even at moderate ISOs when shooting deep-colored hues (e.g., blues, reds, etc.). My non-engineer guess would indicate at minimum, a -3 dB advantage (i.e., one-stop) to the larger sensor, due merely to its increased size. Again, I don't mean to argue FX over DX, I just believe that the D7000's low-light noise performance, while very good for a DX body, tends to be often overstated.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Ralph, your technical expertise exceeds mine. I often use IR for comparisons and in their ISO 6400 images (with the crayon box), I see little difference at ISO 6400. Keep in mind that their images are not processed. In my statement, I clearly said 'post processing with DXO'. Medium and high ISO images from both the D3 and D7000 have a lot of noise in them prior to processing (unless you open them up with Nikon's software which applies NR to them). Processed images maintain a lot of detail and are pretty much noise free. The gap has certainly narrowed between DX and FX. </p>

<p>Frankly I can't understand Ilkka's comments about the noise and lack of detail in the shadows being unacceptable above ISO 400 as my experience is totally the opposite. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Elliot said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Frankly I can't understand Ilkka's comments about the noise and lack of detail in the shadows being unacceptable above ISO 400 as my experience is totally the opposite.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for your reply. I think this merely shows how subjective each of our evaluations are, to our own eyes, using our own personal standards. I know that for myself, I'm particularly averse to noise, probably because I tend to shoot primarily available-light and night exteriors.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I wish you would not use the pronoun "you" here since you don't know what other people can see. It is insulting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's equally insulting for you to imply that you can see IQ differences between full frame and crop that other (by implication "less discerning") users can't see, but you do it anyway, Ilkka.</p>

<p>I know that I've proven to<em> my</em> satisfaction that there's no meaningful IQ difference to be seen between the two sensor types, <em>assuming well converted and well processed files. </em></p>

<p>God knows, it's a topic that's been done to death on the Canon forum. Oh - and <em>well processed</em> files need lose nothing in terms of detail.</p>

<p>I'd be interested in your answer to Elliot's question too - maybe what you see is more indicative of poor conversion and pp decisions on your part, than on any inherent <em>Real World</em> superiority of FF over crop. I've seen <em>that</em> before...</p>

[albert_lee1]

<p>i went from a d300s to a d700 and i have never looked back. yes i have also noticed there is a richness in the full frame photos. i understand there are opinions in well lit shots the dx sensor and fx sensor would be very similar but honestly i think we do like to do work in challenging lighting situations whether it be shooting a wedding indoors with no flash intrusion or magic hour. i think the fx sensor just blows the dx away in terms of noise capabilities at high ISO's. although the day is getting nearer that the noise-reduction algorithms are erasing that edge. but honestly if noise-reduction algorithms are helping the dx get a leg up, that means you can also apply noise-reduction to the fx image as well. i know there is more to noise reduction than the algorithms, but that is a huge part of noise reduction.</p>