DX vs FX: except for cost is there any advantage of DX over FX...

Carl A Loc: Homosassa FL

except for cost is there any advantage of DX over FX

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Carl A wrote:

except for cost is there any advantage of DX over FX

You might be the first one to ask that question - or maybe not. :D

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/dx-vs-fx-its-not-debate-its-choice

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Carl A wrote:

except for cost is there any advantage of DX over FX

No. FX over DX, yes.
--Bob

CO

When shooting from the same spot and using lenses that result in the same field of view you get the same perspective from both but more depth of field from the crop sensor camera.

Photographer Neil van Niekirk did an excellent article about the topic here:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-cameras-comparison-depth-of-field/

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

To make this simple I am going to say that lenses designed for full frame cameras reproduce accurately their focal lengths. APS or cropped sensors introduced a "digital factor" that in the case of Nikon is x 1.5. In other words a 24mm lens acts as a 24 mm lens in FX bodies while the same 24mm lens gives a field of view of a 36mm lens if used with a DX body.
Teles are the opposite since the increase in focal length is a godsend for action and wildlife photography with cropped sensors.
Noise is far better controlled with full frame than it is with a cropped sensor.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Carl A wrote:

except for cost is there any advantage of DX over FX

Size and weight. Most of the time the DX lenses are slower and not constructed as well - their target market is the consumer, not the pro. There are some pro quality lenses, but they are not cheap and at F8 the results are hard to tell apart from the plastic consumer lenses.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

unless you have a higher level of expertise, and high demands, it won't make that much difference.

Clarkster Loc: Germansville, PA

FX has greater sensitivity in low light situations. My
reason for switching from the DX format.

dabbe Loc: Mountain Home, Arkansas

Can someone please confirm my assumption? If you take identical RAW photographs, same focal length, with the same FX lens on a 24 mpi DX and a 24 mpi FX camera, and crop the result from the FX camera in Lightroom to replicate the crop on the DX.......the resolution of both photos will be the same. Right or wrong?

Clarkster Loc: Germansville, PA

The resolution may be the same but the size of the pixels of the FX sensor will be larger. That I believe accounts of the increased light sensitivity of the FX format.

dabbe Loc: Mountain Home, Arkansas

Gene51 wrote:

Size and weight. Most of the time the DX lenses are slower and not constructed as well - their target market is the consumer, not the pro. There are some pro quality lenses, but they are not cheap and at F8 the results are hard to tell apart from the plastic consumer lenses.

Gene, you seem to be pretty sharp. Can you weigh-in on my post/assumption, down the page from yours?

skiman Loc: Ventura, CA

Carl A wrote:

except for cost is there any advantage of DX over FX

A few other differences. Weight, DX lenses and bodies are lighter and thus easier to carry around all day. Also, DX bodies usually shoot more fps since the sensor is smaller and have less resolution to capture. On the other hand that bigger sensor of the FX buys you extra resolution as well as better dynamic range. There are always two sides to a story.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

dabbe wrote:

Can someone please confirm my assumption? If you take identical RAW photographs, same focal length, with the same FX lens on a 24 mpi DX and a 24 mpi FX camera, and crop the result from the FX camera in Lightroom to replicate the crop on the DX.......the resolution of both photos will be the same. Right or wrong?

A qualified wrong - The DX will have a pixel count advantage and therfore a resolution advantage - probably not perceptible until larger print sizes.

Frank47 Loc: West coast Florida

Clarkster wrote:

FX has greater sensitivity in low light situations. My
reason for switching from the DX format.

Exactly why I made the transition as well. :thumbup:

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

CO wrote:

When shooting from the same spot and using lenses that result in the same field of view you get the same perspective from both but more depth of field from the crop sensor camera.

Photographer Neil van Niekirk did an excellent article about the topic here:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-cameras-comparison-depth-of-field/

I have read both of the blogs referenced in this thread about DX vs. FX. One item that seems to be missing other than the reference to the weight of camera bodies is weight of lenses. Am I correct in assuming (in Nikon Systems) that DX lenses carry their own focusing motors in the lens and that FX lenses rely on a focusing motor in the camera body? Following this logic, FX lenses with the same aperture range and focal length should be lighter in an FX lens due to the absence of a focusing motor in the lens. Sorry if this is a dumb question. Life seemed simpler in my old 35mm world.