FX vs DX

But you still didn't answer what you need that your gear isn't doing for you...

Ummm, how about High ISO, DOF control, better focusing ability, more focus points, more external controls, better view finder, faster fps, etc, etc, etc.

Going to a full frame body isn't just about sensor size. It's a completely different class of camera.

Well, for starters, you're not the OP so I'm not sure why you answered. I know the difference between FX and DX, but thanks for clarifying. I want to know what is they are looking for in FX that they aren't getting from their DX camera, to make sure that they aren't just after that magical full frame sensor that makes all your pictures pro looking. It's quite possible that they could achieve everything they want to do with their current equipment, or upgrades in lenses, knowledge and skills.

And secondly, like Overread said, the majority of the things you mentioned have nothing to do with sensor size. The auto-focus, focus points, and fps of the crop sensor 7D will blow the full frame 5D out of the water. The high iso, fps, AF, fps, HD video, and build quality of the crop sensor 1DmkIV will blow the D700 out of the water. The dynamic range of my cropped senor Pentax K-5 will beat every other camera ever made, including FF and medium format; and the weathersealing and build quality are as "pro" as any other body on the market.

You're right, full frame isn't just about sensor size, it's about people who are unsatisfied with their images thinking that buying a "pro" camera with a big sensor will make them great photographers. There's are plenty of good reasons to use FX over DX, which is why I asked the OP what they were looking for that they weren't getting. But the truth is, most people who feel like they need to upgrade either have some money burning a hole in their pocket, or would rather try and upgrade their way to better photos rather than become a better photographer.

*flame suit on*

Cheers!
 
No flame coming from me. I disagree with a lot of what you said, but you are right about one thing. As I was reading the thread, I had it in my mind to respond to tirediron, but yours was similar and it was the one I quoted.

In any case, the OP never said he wanted a bigger sensor for portrait photography. You read that into it when he said he was thinking about moving to a full frame.

I was merely pointing out that there are a lot more differences between an FX camera and a DX camera than just the sensor size. Those differences can make the difference between getting a shot and missing the shot with the type of photography the OP has said they are interested in.

By the way, I don't know much about the 1DmkIV, and I don't know that it blows the D700 out of the water, but for twice the price, it should.

Perhaps instead of FX vs DX, we should just say "Canons' that cost more than 5k/Nikons that cost more than 2k" vs everything else so that we aren't comparing a $5400 1dmkIV and a D5000. They may both have a crop factor, but they aren't even in the same ballpark.
 
It's true. Sensor size is becoming less of a price range thing, and more of just a different option. It's moving more and more away from the fact that full frame is "better" and "more pro" than aps-c. The 5DmkII and the 7D are the perfect example of this. Yes the mkII is more expensive, but I know plenty of pro shooters that either bought a 7D to supplement their mkII on an even level, not as a inferior back up or B camera., and I even know people that sold their mkII and got a 7D instead. I spent the whole last weekend shooting video with a 5D/7D setup, and in the working world, there's very little different in which one is more pro than the other. They both have pluses and minuses, and I would reach for one to do one thing, and the other to do another thing. I think this trend will continue, as people begin to realize that sensor size is just one of many possible variables in cameras, and not just a big pissing contest. There are many pro shooters who use DX only, not because they can't afford FX, but because of a careful evaluation of what they need and what fits into what they do the best.
 
Many people who have gone to full-frame d-slrs are people with vast amounts of experience in photography in the PRE-digital SLR era, and who have experience with more than one film format, like medium format rollfilm cameras, and perhaps with view camera experience. Smaller-than-full-frame, meaning smaller than 24x36mm capture, has had several tries to "make it". Half-frame 35mm was tried, and found wanting. So was the 110 format.

What 24x36 capture does is make the established lenses function as they were originally designed to. 24 is wide. 28 is wide. 35mm coners apprx. one foot across for every foot of distance from the subject. 50mm is almost distortion-free, and "normal". 85mm is a fast, short tele, that CAN BE USED INDOORS IN NORMAL HOMES AND OFFICES. For those who are unaware, on a 1.6x camera, lik a Canon 7D, a 6 FOOT TALL PERSON needs to be around 34 feet away from the camera, in order to fit into a roughly 8.4 foot tall "area" seen by an 85mm lens on 1.6x. With a FF camera, the SAME area can be captured from only 20 feet distant using the same 85mm lens. This is a very,very,very big distinction in performance, and in how close you actually can be and still use normal lenses, like 24-70 or 85 or 100 or 135, or 50mm for that matter.

It's a big deal, not only because an 85mm becomes almost useless indoors, but because at 34 feet, the camera-to-subject DISTANCE is so long, that depth of field, even at wide apertures, is quite deep. Depth of field increases most-rapidly with increasing distance from camera to subject; when the capture size becomes smaller, depth of field is also increased, at each lens angle of view!!! It is a double-whammy, to usea smaller sensor AND to be forced to shoot from much farther away if what you want is DOF control options. Until you understand that from ACTUAL, real-world experience that you yourself have, you have basically absolutely NO IDEA of why an 85/105/135/180 tele lens set was the standard, or why a 24/35/50 set is so,so valuable. On APS-C aka DX, the 85mm lens and the 105mm lens are basically USELESS for anything except tight head shots when indoors.

The return of the FULL lens angle of view to each and every focal length is why the Nikon D3 and D3s are selling so well to top photographers in all the various fields: crop-sensor cameras were just a stop-gap measure, and returning to the FULL field of view makes the wide-angles much wider, and makes the already existing normal and telephoto lenses much,much more easy to use indoors, in all types of conditions, without the need to back up a mile...

This is what newcomers who have never shot 35mm film, or full-frame digital seem to fail to understand...the underlying technical ramifications of shooting onto a 24x36 sensor, versus diminished-sized sensor that's more than 2 x less in area.

I do not se many people who want to crop-down their big plasma TV sets, or who want to put cardboard blinders on the sides of their windshields, so they can use "only the center part" of the image area...
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top