DX vs FX and image quality in print

[hamlet]

So when talking about portrait pictures, i was told that it is better not to crop and physicly stand closser to the subject of interest to keep as much of the detail as possible. Does the same concept apply to DX vs FX sensors? When you take the exact same image with both sensors, will FX cameras give you more detailed prints in your physical photos?

 

[robbins.photo]

So when talking about portrait pictures, i was told that it is better not to crop and physicly stand closser to the subject of interest to keep as much of the detail as possible. Does the same concept apply to DX vs FX sensors? When you take the exact same image with both sensors, will FX cameras give you more detailed prints in your physical photos?

Depends entirely on the effect your looking for I guess. Detail isn't always the best thing in portraits - some is good, but sometimes too much can be too much. Also keep in mind sometimes standing back and zooming in will give you better bokeh depending on other settings, and that can be a really nice effect for some portraits.

 

[hamlet]

The conditions of the picture in question are exactly the same. The only variable that change is the sensor.

 

[KmH]

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

DX and FX are Nikon terms not used by other camera makers.

Canon's crop sensor cameras are often known as EF-S and Canon full frame as EF.

As mentioned, and like so many questions, the answer is 'it depends'.

 

[robbins.photo]

The conditions of the picture in question are exactly the same. The only variable that change is the sensor.

Well you made the statement:

I was told that it is better not to crop and physicly stand closser to the subject of interest to keep as much of the detail as possible.

Not sure who told you that or why, but I would not say it is a correct statement in all situations. There are a lot of other considerations. Also the statement that "all that changes is the sensor" is not just false, it's very false. There are differences between the cameras that one must also consider, not just the sensor, that will have as much effect on the final results as the sensor itself.

This might help illustrate what I mean a little better:



Even though I could have gotten very close in for this shot, I didn't - I moved back and zoomed in so that I could achieve more of a bokeh effect for the background. I wanted to emphasize the subject and de-emphasize the background. Hopefully that explains what I mean a little better than the original attempt.

 

[hamlet]

I'm sorry for my broken English, i am probably not explaining myself properly. Thank you for trying. I like the picture.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm sorry for my broken English, i am probably not explaining myself properly. Thank you for trying. I like the picture.

No problem. Thing I've noticed is that you tend to get fixated on "one way to do something" - but really in photography there are generally several ways to accomplish things rather than just one. Now in general better equipment will allow you to do some things a little easier, and it sometimes makes the difference between getting a usable shot and not getting a usable shot, but if you have the right experience that will usually help you a lot more than the equipment will. So if you'll take a piece of friendly advice, I think your kind of hung up on the wrong thing here. If you have a DSLR already get out and start using it. Put yourself in a lot of different shooting situations and learn how best to deal with them.

Reading about it on the internet is fine, but really there is no substitute for actual, real world experience. Just my two cents worth of course, take it for what it's worth.

The photo above, FYI, was taken with a D5100 and a Nikon 70-300 mm 4.5-5.6. Hardly top of the line equipment by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[hamlet]

I have no way of renting gear. I would have done the comparison myself between the dx and fx if i could. This is probably the only other than actually buying an FX to find out.

 

[astroNikon]

Also don't mix up a crop sensor and cropping an image

And research how a lens projects the image onto a fullframe vs a smaller (or crop) sensor

 

[robbins.photo]

I have no way of renting gear. I would have done the comparison myself between the dx and fx if i could. This is probably the only other than actually buying an FX to find out.

Well if you already have DX gear and it's doing the job you need it to do, stick with it. No need to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. If your DX gear isn't giving you the results you want, that would be the time to start looking at FX gear, assuming the FX will give you the advantages you need to get the job done. As for me the D5100 does what I need it to do, and while eventually I'd like to perhaps upgrade to something like a 7000 or 7100, that will most likely be a while yet. For now the D5100 does the job I need it to do, and in the end that's all that really matters.

 

[raventepes]

Hamlet

Perhaps this article might help. There's a lot of good information in it.

The Full Frame Debate | byThom | Thom Hogan

 

[Josh66]

So when talking about portrait pictures, i was told that it is better not to crop and physicly stand closser to the subject of interest to keep as much of the detail as possible. Does the same concept apply to DX vs FX sensors? When you take the exact same image with both sensors, will FX cameras give you more detailed prints in your physical photos?

You were told that by whom?

Not sure that I agree.

Often, it is better to physically stand farther away, and use a longer lens.

Getting closer will exaggerate any distortion the lens may have.

 

[hamlet]

Hamlet

Perhaps this article might help. There's a lot of good information in it.

The Full Frame Debate | byThom | Thom Hogan

Thank you.

 

[hamlet]

So when talking about portrait pictures, i was told that it is better not to crop and physicly stand closser to the subject of interest to keep as much of the detail as possible. Does the same concept apply to DX vs FX sensors? When you take the exact same image with both sensors, will FX cameras give you more detailed prints in your physical photos?

You were told that by whom?

Not sure that I agree.

Often, it is better to physically stand farther away, and use a longer lens.

Getting closer will exaggerate any distortion the lens may have.

The zoom factor is irrelevant. The only thing that is up for discussion is the amount of information that is packed into two identical looking images taken by an dx and fx camera, the answer so far seems to be inconclusive.

 

[btraven]

So when talking about portrait pictures,

What kind of portraits? Formal studio shots? Informal stuff for friends? Indoors, outdoors, day or night? Posed or casual? Do you want to emphasize the background or de-emphasize it? What do you want to do with them: mat and frame prints or post them on social media?

Too many variables, no one right answer.

The whole full-frame vs. crop sensor thing reminds me of the period in the sixties when 35mm SLRs were becoming real popular and there was a big deal about it being an amateur format, that REAL photographers shot medium format--Mamiya, Bronica, Hasselblad, like that. And yeah, I know that 35mm was popular before that but the 35mm market exploded in the late 60s with SLRs, before that it was pretty much dedicated hobbyists using twin-lens reflexes (Rolleiflex, I think it was) and rangefinders like Leica... not that there's anything wrong with that.

No wait, there was something wrong with that if you were a kid back then... something very wrong.

All those dedicated hobbyists took thousands of pictures of everything damn thing they saw whenever they went anywhere. Then they had slides made and your parents would drag you over to Uncle Bubby's house and you'd have to sit through the most excruciatingly boring three hours you can imagine. To this day the very sight of Kodak Carousel slide projector causes my privates to shrivel like a spider on a hot skillet.