DX vs FX and image quality in print

[astroNikon]

Stick with what you have and
Practice, practice, practice

If you dont know why you do or don't need a FF then you don't need one

 

[SCraig]

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.

Several years ago the difference between a Nikon FX body and DX body were significant. It was frequently easy to look at two similar images and know immediately which was shot on the DX camera and which on the FX camera. At that time, given two bodies of similar resolution, the spacing between pixelsites on the FX body allowed for less noise in the image resulting in a dramatic difference in image quality.

Those days have changed dramatically and now the differences are much more subtle. In addition you can't just make a blanket statement that FX is better than DX without stating the generation of the bodies being compared. Comparing a Nikon D1 FX body from 1999 to a Nikon D7100 DX body from 2013 is an unfair comparison. Sensor construction has changed so much over just the past few years that you are asking a question that can't be answered with a simple yes or no. As others have stated, the only viable answer is "It Depends".

Plus, as far as image quality goes, zoom factor is never irrelevant and is always important. Likewise the specific lens being used is just as important. Put a poor lens on a D800 and a top-of-the-line lens on a D90 and the D90 may well provide a better image. The quality of the light in the photograph, the subject, everything has a bearing and it can't always be boiled down to just sensor vs. sensor. Simplifying those arguments to FX vs. DX ended a few years ago.

 

[hamlet]

Stick with what you have and
Practice, practice, practice

If you dont know why you do or don't need a FF then you don't need one

There is a black and white answer to my question, with technology there always is. I just don't understand the variables well enough to ask the right questions.

 

[amolitor]

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

Actually a crop sensor pretty much DOES just crop the full frame picture. This isn't always the most productive way to think about it, but there really isn't any difference between shooting with a crop sensor, and with using the same lens on a full frame camera and cropping afterwards.

There are, of course, going to be differences in pixel density and other sensor characteristic, but that will be true between any two sensors, not just crop vs. full frame.

 

[robbins.photo]

Stick with what you have and
Practice, practice, practice

If you dont know why you do or don't need a FF then you don't need one

There is a black and white answer to my question, with technology there always is. I just don't understand the variables well enough to ask the right questions.

Hamlet, I think this may end up sounding a little harsh, and for that I do apologize in advance. But I think the point your missing here is that your question is irrelevant - at least at this stage. Your trying to take enough variables to choke a horse and boil them down into a simply yes/no, on/off equation. That's just not really going to happen. You keep discarding variables and proclaiming them to be unimportant, when truly they are the most important variables in the equation.

If your goal is to shoot great portraits, then fussing over FX/DX and ignoring things like zoom, DOF, lighting, etc is not going to accomplish that goal. Even the top of the line gear with all the bells and whistles might as well be a paperweight in the hands of someone who has no understanding how to use it properly and no experience in how to adjust it properly for various shooting situations.

The piece of equipment you need most is right between your ears, and you need to fill it with experience. You need to take the equipment you do have and use it, over an over and over again. You need to take the results and look them over, and figure out how to do it a little better next time. That's what you need to focus on - learning to use the equipment you already have to produce the best photographs you can - then when you can do that and can identify a specific weakness in your equipment that is worth spending the money to upgrade to fix, that's when you upgrade.

 

[hamlet]

That is probably my fault, i'm not conveying my ideas correctly. I'll just sound arrogant and conceded if i explain what i mean, so i'll just leave it as it is until i am more well read into this subject.

 

[480sparky]

..............The piece of equipment you need most is right between your ears................

Brilliant.

 

[astroNikon]

That is probably my fault, i'm not conveying my ideas correctly. I'll just sound arrogant and conceded if i explain what i mean, so i'll just leave it as it is until i am more well read into this subject.

Unfortunately, what everyone is saying is for you to stop reading. Limit your reading to what you are currently doing.

knowledge is NOT experience.

practice more,

figure out what you do and don't like about something (or post a C&C)

get feedback

make corrections and try again to improve your technique and experience.

Then your knowledge based on your experience will start falling in place

My knowledge is okay but I don't have enough experience where I think something is one way when it's not. But as I practice more, it makes more and more sense. Knowledge is one thing. Practice gives you experience and solidifies/corrects your knowledge.


I could *read* how to be an astronaut.
But I'm sure I would literally crash and burn if you stuck me on top of a rocket.

 

[hamlet]

I agree with that sentiment, but i already stated that this is not possible for me. I can't rent a FX body even if i wanted to.

 

[robbins.photo]

I agree with that sentiment, but i already stated that this is not possible for me. I can't rent a FX body even if i wanted to.

What I'm trying to explain to you hamlet is that you don't need to - at least not for now. An FX body might be nice to have and it may have a few advantages in certain situations, the most notable would probably be lowlight - but it really doesn't matter if your using the top of the line FX body available as opposed to and old beat up used prosumer grade DX body. The sensor isn't taking the picture, it doesn't account for the light or the angle or the composition. It doesn't adjust the ISO or set the proper DOF. It doesn't do any of those things, you do.

Better equipment can be nice to have, sure - but better equipment does not necessarily mean better photographs if you ignore the most important part of the equation. The most important part of the equation here Hamlet is you.

 

[amolitor]

I don't see any harm in research. Got nuts, hamlet. Read until you're sick of reading, and then stop.

 

[480sparky]

I don't see any harm in research. Got nuts, hamlet. Read until you're sick of reading, and then get your camera and go shoot something.

FIFY.

 

[hamlet]

Better equipment can be nice to have, sure - but better equipment does not necessarily mean better photographs if you ignore the most important part of the equation. The most important part of the equation here Hamlet is you.

I fully agree with you. But lets say you are a master canoe paddler and you hear about a new canoe that moves with even less friction through the waters than the current canoe you own. That's all were talking about here. I'm not saying that technology is a substitute for skill, because a master will always out paddle inexperienced people with better boats.

 

[hamlet]

I don't see any harm in research. Got nuts, hamlet. Read until you're sick of reading, and then stop.

I'd rather do these comparisons myself if i could. For example: i can do pinhole photography simply by using a cap with a little hole in it, which is why i haven't made a thread asking about pinhole photography.

 

[astroNikon]

Better equipment can be nice to have, sure - but better equipment does not necessarily mean better photographs if you ignore the most important part of the equation. The most important part of the equation here Hamlet is you.

I fully agree with you. But lets say you are a master canoe paddler and you hear about a new canoe that moves with even less friction through the waters than the current canoe you own. That's all were talking about here. I'm not saying that technology is a substitute for skill, because a master will always out paddle inexperienced people with better boats.

So let's see if we understand what you just said

1- a master canoe paddler hear about new technology
2 - new canoe with new surface, new water flow design, new air (above water) design, better weight distribution, is faster
3 - technology doesn't matter in relation to skill
4 - master paddler will always out paddle inexperienced paddlers with better canoes

so in camera terms
1 - a great pro photographer hears about a new camera
2 - the new camera is better, in a particular way or multiple ways
3 - technology doesn't matter in relation to skill
4 - master pro photog will always make better composed pictures than inexperienced photogs with better cameras.


or to summarize as the first 3 items are irrelevant (to use your terms)
4 - master pro photog will always make better composed, posed pictures than inexperienced photogs with better cameras.


so, in other words,

Practice makes Perfect



I'm going home now to practice more portraits with my TPF Mentor ... have a good day