DX vs FX and image quality in print

[hamlet]

No! You don't! That is what people have been trying to tell you. There is an untold number of people shooting with DX cameras who have no urge whatsoever to get an FX camera. I'm one of them. I'm perfectly content shooting a DX camera and have no desire at all to downgrade to an FX camera. There is an untold number of people shooting with point-and-shoot cameras that don't even know FX cameras exist, and most of them are perfectly happy with what they have. Use what you have. LEARN to use what you have and you'll realize how minor the difference really are.

I just don't know how i can realize it without a proper comparison?


I cant reply to you good folks who are only trying to help me out without sounding arrogant. I don't mean to be.

 

[SCraig]

I just don't know how i can realize it without a proper comparison?

Look at ANY properly-exposed digital image. ANY of them. LOOK at it. STARE at it. Now tell me whether it was shot with a full-frame sensor or a crop-sensor. The comparison is in the fact that the majority of the time you CAN'T tell me with any degree of accuracy what it was shot with unless you first look at the EXIF data.

 

[hamlet]

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you SCraig, that could just be the way to solve this dilemma.

 

[Mach0]

Look at ANY properly-exposed digital image. ANY of them. LOOK at it. STARE at it. Now tell me whether it was shot with a full-frame sensor or a crop-sensor. The comparison is in the fact that the majority of the time you CAN'T tell me with any degree of accuracy what it was shot with unless you first look at the EXIF data.

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you SCraig, that could just be the way to solve this dilemma.

Without Exif data it will be hard to tell. What I can say that to frame the subject the same way you would on crop sensors vs full frame, with the same lens, you would need to be further back so it increases your depth of field and changes the out of focus area. But you would need exif data to see what settings were etc. I shoot both but I'm not at a computer to show you. As long as your glass is good, you can make large prints.

 

[hamlet]

If i find two raw examples i'll have them developed in 20x30cm, that will give me the answer i'm looking for.

 

[480sparky]

If i find two raw examples i'll have them developed in 20x30cm, that will give me the answer i'm looking for.

Just look at the pixel dimensions. :er:

 

[hamlet]

This is too important for just that. I'll order a magnifying glass as well, i cannot find my old one.

 

[amolitor]

A magnifying glass will reveal almost nothing of the inherent differences in full frame versus crop.

The important differences will generally turn up at fairly large apertures, with relatively shallow depth of field. The important differences are subtle variations in the total feeling of the frame, at more open apertures. It's basically depth of field, but the rendering of DoF across the frame, and how it affects how the frame "feels" is the main thing that separates larger formats from smaller.

 

[Derrel]

Amolitor's comments point out one of the biggest differences between FX and DX shots of social situations and closer-distance, urban/suburban environmental shots. DX shooters get the advantage of a little bit deeper depth of field at normal, everyday apertures, like f/5.6 and f/8. Using a DX Nikon to shoot walkabout photos, as well as social situations and family photos, snapshots, close-ups of interesting objects and plants and things like that...all of those types of shots benefit from at least one full f/stop's worth of deeper depth of field, and at LONGER distances, when shot using a DX sensor camera, the advantage might be a bit greater. Depth of field is easily quantified by on-line calculators, but the human brain's interpretation of out-of-focus, and the degree of out of focusness is much harder to describe. Numbers on their own do not provide the entire answer when it comes to depth of field, and what s considered out of fous,and what is considered to be acceptable enough to be noted and "seen". The main difference on smaller formats is that the depth of field reaches hyperfocal depth of field much more readily (SOONER, at shorter distances) with the smaller-sensor cameras than with an FX camera and lens combos.

See, depth of field is determined by several things, but one of the main influencers of depth of field is DISTANCE. With an FX Nikon and an 85mm lens, you can shoot a picture of a standing man and woman from 20 feet distant; with a DX Nikon, you need to move back to about 33 feet with the same 85mm lens. Now, the DISTANCE makes a big difference in depth of field. The smaller capture format also makes a difference. And because of the distance ranges involved here, 20 feet versus 33 feet, the way the background literally "looks" or "appears" or "is rendered" by the lens, is visually different.

This required distance issue, 20 feet versus 33 feet, means that an FX and a DX Nikon cause the photographer to use prime lenses, and zoom lenses, in very different ways. I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other, but there are very real differences, both in aesthetics, and in working procedures, in a good percentage of shooting situations. One of the huge advantages of using an even-smaller camera format like 4/3 sensor for "social photography" is the deep depth of field that the smaller sensor and its shorter lens lengths gives. The rise of high-quality 4/3 sensor cameras has enabled street shooters to get deeper DOF, and smaller lenses, and to be able to literally "pull deeper depth of field" to make pictures that, for example, would NOT be possible to make using something like a 120 rollfilm camera.

 

[robbins.photo]

No! You don't! That is what people have been trying to tell you. There is an untold number of people shooting with DX cameras who have no urge whatsoever to get an FX camera. I'm one of them. I'm perfectly content shooting a DX camera and have no desire at all to downgrade to an FX camera. There is an untold number of people shooting with point-and-shoot cameras that don't even know FX cameras exist, and most of them are perfectly happy with what they have. Use what you have. LEARN to use what you have and you'll realize how minor the difference really are.

I just don't know how i can realize it without a proper comparison?


I cant reply to you good folks who are only trying to help me out without sounding arrogant. I don't mean to be.

Hamlet, if you don't have the experience in these various shooting situations, you cannot make a "proper" comparison. That's what I've been trying to explain. At the moment you're just learning how to walk, and you want to talk about the advanced theory of aerodynamics as it applies to supersonic flight. Learn to walk first, then learn to run, then learn to fly - and after you've been flying for a while then this conversation might be worth having at that stage. At this stage it will be fruitless. You can't evaluate what sort of equipment you need until you start getting some experience with the stuff you have now. Otherwise there is nothing to compare.

 

[kundalini]

Here ya go hamlet.....

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum/212708-so-you-wanna-see-difference-between-full-frame-cropped-sensors.html

 

[hamlet]

Good man.

 

[AceCo55]

Anyone else getting that uncomfortable feeling of "photoguy" - version 2?

 

[enzodm]

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.

as already told, this is fundamentally not true. In such a closeup portrait, you will have large noses full of detailed pores.

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?

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

If you take the exact same image, in addition to the sensor there will be unavoidably at least another variable that changes: subject distance or focal length. No way to have the same picture changing the sensor alone. Said that, if you could use exactly the same quality lens with same kind of distortion on both (unlikely), since the full frame sensor has more pixels (another variable), yes: you could have more details. However, it is not obvious too that they translate in some extras visible on a print, unless very large. Throw this into the amount of other variables explained by others, and... you understand why is not so important.

 

[Estevam]

From kundalini's post it is possible to see that with the same settings and the same lens, to get the same portrait (face the same size in the picture, i.e., walking back with DX) there is a large difference in the compression of plans from DX to FX. In the photos comparing both sensors with 35mm lens, the plant behind the monkey appears to be much closer on DX than FX. In the case of a portrait, there will be a change in the porportion of the nose, ears, and the face itself. The perspective will be different because of the difference in the shooting distance.
But if You change the lens, it is possible to have the same proportion on DX and FX, as we see in the comparison of 35mm on DX and 50mm on FX, the plant looks the same size and distance.
Also the depth of field will change, taking kundalini's post example's settings: the 35mm lens will provide 3.5" of depth of field from a 28" distance at f:5.6 on DX, and only 1.6" on FX (my calculations). So more of the face will be on focus on DX with the same settings and lens.