BFS Loc: Queen City, MO

I am fairly new to photography, less than a year. I hear that full frame cameras give a sharper and more clear photo than crop cameras, because of more pixels.

My questions are. If you shoot a photo both with full frame and a crop camera (since the D500 is said to be the D5 in full frame cameras lets use those two cameras) with the same lens and crop the full frame photo to DX size is there a difference in photo quality?

Is there still more pixels and a sharper photo with full frame?

Also my Nikon D5300 has a photo size of 4000X6000. If you crop a full frame photo to that same size is the full frame photo the same cropping? Would this give you the same photo with full as crop?

My chance of ever selling a large photo is, small or next to none, so crop cameras give the print photos I need for myself. I am thinking of upgrading to a better camera sometime in the future but thinking lenses for now. I don't want to by DX lens if I should move to FX for a camera upgrade later.

What I now have is the Nikon D5300 with a Tamron 18-270 lens which is on my camera most of the time with a DX 35 mm in my bag. I would like to move into wildlife/birds and thinking of buying a Nikon 200-500 lens, a FX lens I know. I am also thinking of trying the Nikon 16-80 DX lens for my walk around lens. Hoping to get a little better photo than the Tamron gives. What are your thoughts on that change?

I know a lot of question in one post but would like and hope you all can give me some great answers.

Thank you in advance.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The Nikon D5 produces a 5568x3712 image (20.7MP). The Nikon D500 produces a 5568x3712 image (20.7MP). Hmmmm...

They both produce exactly the same size image, so you do not crop one to get anything to be the same size as the other.

However... to get the same scene to fit into exactly the same sized image, the focal length of the lens used has to be 1.5x longer on the D5 than the D500. If you stand in one spot, which is necessary if you want the perspective to be the same for both images, and shoot a scene using a 100mm lens on the D500, you have to use a 150mm lens on the D5 to get the same image.

There are other things that change. The two cameras have the same number of pixels, but the D5 has larger pixels spread over a larger sensor area. In the example above the resolving power of the two will be identical, but there will be more noise in the D500 image (because of the smaller size of each sensor location). Typically that is not a problem though. For example, you get exactly the same noise in at D500 at ISO 2452 as a D5 does at ISO 6982. Hence if you use a D500 and stay below ISO 1200 there really is no difference because all the noise is buried below the black level! Fine for landscapes, not so good for shooting sports where ISO 12800 might be necessary.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Both the Nikkor 16-80mm and the Nikkor 200-500mm are excellent lenses. Something to consider is the zoom range of each of these lenses. The 200-500mm is a 2.5X range, the 60-80mm is a 5X range, and the 18-270mm is a 15X range. Simple fact of life is that the higher the range the more design compromises and the lower the quality of the lens. Nikon only labels two 5X zooms (the 80-400mm and the 24-120mm) as "pro" quality lenses, and there are none with that label and a higher zoom range. Without even looking up the specifications we can automatically write the 18-270mm zoom off as being a lower quality lens that the other two.

Just keep in mind that millions of people are very satisfied with their consumer quality high zoom range lenses...

BFS Loc: Queen City, MO

Thank you Apaflo for replying to my questions. You have cleared up some of the thinking I was have troubles with. Thanks again

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

WOW! What a clear explanation. I had never heard the concept explained this way. THANK YOU!
BTW - I have the 80-400 and love it. Now I know why!

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

To answer your question on cropping an FX camera to DX size vs using a dedicated DX body (with a higher pixel density), check out this link:

http://backcountrygallery.com/cropping-full-frame-vs-shooting-a-crop-camera/

I tested your question with the D5 and D500 :)

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Steve not a valid inference in as few commercial fashion and/or beauty genera photographers would ever think of cropping after the shot... They crop in the viewfinder... And this has been cast in stone for decades...

As for crop bodies getting you more reach? Well what good is reach if the price you pay is considerably less DOF isolation?
Nope look at the sidelines in any major sporting event... crop sensor bodies are virtually absent for the compelling reason that they lose the major advantage of DOF isolation that their long fast lens provides... I have NEVER seen an AF 400 f/2.8 Nikkor on a crop body... and I've been in the thick of it for a long time... And those sports photographers are always shooting wide open...

However you'll make all the hobbyist feel empowered with your flawed analysis... Uncropped full frame walks past cropped sensors when the tenured photographer knows full well that image quality demands minimizing post capture cropping... They position to take full advantage of their tool... enough said...

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

Did you even watch the video at the link or read the actual question the OP asked???? I love it when people flame me when they can't be bothered to comprehend what's going on first.

First, I was answering the OP's question which was, "If you shoot a photo both with full frame and a crop camera (since the D500 is said to be the D5 in full frame cameras lets use those two cameras) with the same lens and crop the full frame photo to DX size is there a difference in photo quality? "

This was EXACTLY what the video covered.

Note the question WAS NOT if uncropped FX was better than DX - of course uncropped FX is better. I never said otherwise. In the video I even mention that I ALWAYS shoot FX when I can and only switch to DX when I can't get within FX range. Which, you know, happens with wildlife sometimes.

Also, DOF isolation is exactly the same if an FX and DX body are shooting the same focal length from the same location. DX only shows more DOF when you use less focal length or more distance to get the same crop as an FX camera. So, if you were to take a photo on an FX camera that needed cropped to DX size, you'd have the same DOF as you would if you had shot the scene with a DX camera. Think about it - if you crop a D5 to DX Size, does the background magically get sharper? Of course not.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Thank you for a clear explanation. Right now I have a D7200 with some long lenses. Thought about getting a D750 a while back and decided against it. Looks like I made the right decision for my needs. I'll wait until I can afford the D810 or its replacement. Wildlife photographers do NOT have the luxury of telling our subjects where to pose and for how long.

BFS Loc: Queen City, MO

Thank you Steve that pretty much answer my question on the cropping of FX to DX size to get the same length in focal length of a lens for long shots on birds and animals.

If I am understanding you right in close up shot were you are going to use the whole frame as shot in camera the FX bets the DX. Like landscapes and portraits.

But for getting the most from a lens in far off shots for wildlife the DX wins. Have I got that right or am I off somewhere?

If thats right then all I have to do is make the choice of just what I want to shoot the most and get the best photos I can for that type of shooting. But then cost also comes into play as going FX cost a whole lot more.

I think I am seeing a move up when it happens, from my D5300, being in the DX line either to a 7*** or even up to the D500. Because I like shooting wildlife and the cost of going FX is most likely out of my range for the pocketbook.

I am going to ask another question here that maybe you could help on since it seem you shoot a lot of birds/wildlife on lenses. I have rented a Nikon 200-500 and thinking about buying one. But another way I've though about is going with the Nikon 300 f/4 prime with 1.4 TC. The prime with TC cost more, but for someone taking photos only for self and posting on web would be the best buy?

Thanks you again.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

Yup, that's pretty much it. A simple guideline is this:

If you can fill the frame with FX most of the time, always go FX. It really is better, although as you point out, it can get far more expensive when you start looking at long glass.

However, if you think you'll be cropping to DX size all or most the time, then DX (like the D500) is a better choice (assuming the DX camera is higher pixel density of course). I've used those rules for years now and it works out great. Oh, and don't get me wrong, FX is better but DX works fine too. I just sold five images to a company for their annual report (very picky company too) and all were shot with DX bodies. :)

All that said, if you're not doing too much action, a D810 might be a thought. It's high pixel density allows for some cropping (16MP @ DX), but it allows you to use FX when you can. Plus, if you put it into one of the crop modes, it increases the frame rate from 5 FPS to 6. Not huge, but hey, we'll take it, right?

As for lenses, both are great. I have a review / comparison of the 300 PF and 200-500 you might enjoy here:

http://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-200-500-vs-300pf-review-and-comparison/

For most people, I think the 200-500 ends up being a better choice if it's their only big lens. However, I encourage you to check out the video and decide for yourself (I'm a bit partial to the 300 PF, but I have other big glass to go with it).

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

So many factors these days...but to be honest, with the latest cameras released, it's hard to go wrong with any of them (m4/3, APS-C, FF). The question you have to ask yourself is how deep are your pockets when it comes to spending money on this wonderful hobby, as well as how much time do you want to spend. If they are endless, then try/buy/rent multiple systems until you find that balance of price/size/weight/quality that suits your needs. Heck, my lil' EM1ii (20mpx) can produce 80mpx RAW (8132 x 6099) files when shooting on High Rez mode. That's FF territory for a sensor that is half that size...and if exposed properly goes toe to toe with them. My theory has always been that if you not a pro, chances are you don't really need FF...you're better off spending the money on quality glass.

BFS Loc: Queen City, MO

Question Steve. If I was to buy a D810 and I put in Crop modes does that give me the same DX crop photo as a true DX camera with the same lens on both?

Also I find I am cropping most of my shots taken with the rented 200-500 lens even with the D5300 camera. So wouldn't the FX photo cropped down below normal DX size have even more loss of quality than the DX photo cropped drop from it's normal photo size?

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Thanks, Steve. Although I am not the OP, I appreciate your well done, easy to understand videos. It was your BBF presentation that got me to try that. I have not turned back.

BFS Loc: Queen City, MO

That's pretty much where I see myself head to. I'm thinking quality glass will give me more than a better camera. I'm not real sure that as long as I am getting shot I like with the camera I have do I really did to move up to a even better DX camera? Just spend the money on glass and go shot more photo and became a better photograph taker. I am seeing the man has a lot to do with the quality of photo produced from the tools in his hands.

Here is some of what I am now doing photos with birds and landscape/waterscape. Both of these photos were taken with the D5300 & Tamron 18-270 lens.

(Download)


(Download)