more questions about FF versus DX

[Derrel]

Most people who shoot a crop-body will tell you allllll the ways it's "just as good" as an FX camera. And then once they actually BUY, OWN, and SHOOT some stuff on an FX camera, and you know, gain some actual hands-on experience, they understand exactly why Canon, and Nikon, and Sony, and Leica, all make cameras with 24x36mm sensors.

All the claims about "just as good as," "the same," and "virtually comparable," evaporate once the two cameras are used in the real world. DX and FX are two different formats, and using lenses with equivalent fields of view does NOT yield the same image characteristics. I was surprised above to see Murray spouting nonsense about this very issue. A 17-55 and a 24-70 are not the same thing, not at all. Even on their respective formats. APS-C verus FX represent two,different capture formats, in the same way that 120 rollfilm and 35mm (24x36) are different formats. APS-C and FX are "different formats", entirely.

One format (APS-C OR DX IN NIKON-LANGUAGE) is what was called "half frame 35mm", and was a total FLOP in every decade in which it was tried. The other is a small format (aka 35mm film, aka 135 size) that has been in use since the late 1920's and early 1930's, and has proven itself over decades of use. The way the 24x36mm format actually "works, in the real world" is why Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Leica all have professional cameras that use 24x36mm sensors. There's a number of reasons that the majority of real, established professionals use FF digital SLRs for their work cameras. Especially people who photograph "people" for a living.

 

[epatsellis]

Derrell,
I think we can agree to disagree. Nearly all the "real" pros I know that shoot people for a living use DX cameras, it's a non demanding application. If I were still shooting people primarily, I'd likely be using a Hassy with a CFV back, but that's primarily from familiarity and muscle memory making it totally automatic. I have and use both, the DX cameras get a pretty signficant workout, the FF ones, not so much. Once again, a lot of that is familiarity in demanding situations, the D2x and D3 are similar, but the dials are just slightly different, as well as the rear AF ON button. Enough that I have to consciously think about it when shooting.

For me, the issue is more complicated, a DX camera has more closely spaced, smaller sensels and requires significantly higher resolution lenses than the same resolution FF camera. For 99.9% of the buying public, it doesn't matter as they're buying new lenses anyway. I have over 30 years of lenses and bodies, and for me, the ability to use the same lenses I have been is paramount to me. The alternative, spending the equivalent of the GDP of a third world country to replace most of the lenses I own, just simply won't happen. And I simply prefer the feel of manually focused, well built lenses, though there are times when I actually do use AF lenses, but not nearly as much as the MF ones.

As to the OP's question, I have a similar issue, coming from LF, I just hate the fact that a 300 is a long lens on FF (or DX) instead of a normal lens on my 8x10.

 

[Onbird]

Most people who shoot a crop-body will tell you allllll the ways it's "just as good" as an FX camera. And then once they actually BUY, OWN, and SHOOT some stuff on an FX camera, and you know, gain some actual hands-on experience, they understand exactly why Canon, and Nikon, and Sony, and Leica, all make cameras with 24x36mm sensors.

All the claims about "just as good as," "the same," and "virtually comparable," evaporate once the two cameras are used in the real world. DX and FX are two different formats, and using lenses with equivalent fields of view does NOT yield the same image characteristics. I was surprised above to see Murray spouting nonsense about this very issue. A 17-55 and a 24-70 are not the same thing, not at all. Even on their respective formats. APS-C verus FX represent two,different capture formats, in the same way that 120 rollfilm and 35mm (24x36) are different formats. APS-C and FX are "different formats", entirely.

One format (APS-C OR DX IN NIKON-LANGUAGE) is what was called "half frame 35mm", and was a total FLOP in every decade in which it was tried. The other is a small format (aka 35mm film, aka 135 size) that has been in use since the late 1920's and early 1930's, and has proven itself over decades of use. The way the 24x36mm format actually "works, in the real world" is why Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Leica all have professional cameras that use 24x36mm sensors. There's a number of reasons that the majority of real, established professionals use FF digital SLRs for their work cameras. Especially people who photograph "people" for a living.

Most everyone shoots in different situations and styles, so in the digital world having a DX and FX is optimum IMHO. I currently use a D700 and have a couple of DX cameras as well. I use the D700 for most of my Wildlife Projects and it does a fantastic job, I agree with Derrel's comments hands down. There are instances we use the D300 or the D7000 as well for Wildlife but is limited when the subjects are on the move from the frame speed to the FOV

In our photography section of the club, one of the Master Photographers uses a D7000 exclusively with his old Nikkor lens for birding and general outdoor photography. His photos are very awesome and featured in our local Mags. Photo Education+ Lots of Field Experience +Decent Lens will yield much better photos. The camera matters of course but to a lesser degree. Just because you buy a top of the line camera without doing the previous pieces of the formula this along will not help you much. This applied in the days of film and more so.

Well done Derrel

 

[Murray Bloom]

I was surprised above to see Murray spouting nonsense about this very issue. A 17-55 and a 24-70 are not the same thing, not at all. Even on their respective formats. APS-C versus FX represent two,different capture formats, in the same way that 120 rollfilm and 35mm (24x36) are different formats. APS-C and FX are "different formats", entirely.

Derrel, I never said that the two lenses represented the same thing. My comments were based upon the theory that nobody wants to carry around two separate systems. That makes for a rather heavy camera bag. In making a decision to switch to a FF (FX) primary, while retaining a DX body as a backup/secondary, the trick is to determine which DX lenses to retain. My choice is to keep the 18-200, which is a great walkaround lens that can be used on either body (with FF crop mode). The other keeper is the 10.5mm fish, which I use so seldom that it makes no sense to replace it with a FF model. One thing I wonder is whether its built-in hood can be removed, thus making it a circular fisheye when used on FF.

As for the "nonsense," I agree that DX and FX are different formats which share a common aspect ratio. But so what? Each has lenses designed for its characteristics, and all are good lenses. Given the realities of cost, which doesn't appear to plague some members, you do the best you can with what you've got. I'm no longer a professional shooter, shoot entirely for myself and the occasional print sale. I think it's way too easy to get caught up in technical comparisons at the expense of the pictorial. The only thing that matters is whether the gear in your hand will capture the image in your mind's eye. Sure, if your life revolves around very low-light shooting, excessively picky clients or 60 inch prints, then shoot FF exclusively. But there's lots of great work still being done with APS-C cameras.