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

Not if you are shooting jpeg, which by definition has a dynamic range of about 8 stops. Many of the newest cameras offer as much as 14 stops when you record 14 bit raw files. In an average image, at or near base ISO, you are not likely to see a difference, other than some detail missing on a DX 20 or 24 mp image that can be recorded with an FX 36 or 45 mp camera.

When you go to low light/high ISO, you are really going to see a difference, with the larger sensors totally wiping out the smaller ones, especially after you normalize the image sizes - if you are comparing a 20 mp DX image to a 45 mp FX image, to be fair, you'll need to downsample the 45 mp image to 20. In the process of downsampling the image will clean up and the noise will be averaged, yielding excellent high ISO performance from a high MP FX camera.

lonewolf456

Dislike snide remarks as opposed to a simple honest answer. Leave the snide at home when responding PLEASE.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

NO.

DannyKaye Loc: Sheffield now but soon moving to Blanzay

Define "not as good" I could believe, for example, that the 10 year old Fx had less noise than the new Dx. I know people who still use D700s and 5D mk 1s because they are so good to use and produce clean images.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

My experience on this, yes the FX sensor in general does better controlling noise than DX sensors. I have no experience with modern cameras to discuss them.
I must be getting blind because I do not see much difference with similar sensors regarding the number of pixels between a DX and a FX file.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

My understanding is that an FX sensor has relatively larger sensory pixels than a DX sensor with the same number of megapixels and so responds better in low light. Others may dispute that but it seems plausible to me.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

The simple answer to the OP's original question was "Yes"; especially since the question addressed shadows and light areas-as pointed out by Bill. Then Gene, as usual gave an intelligent, informative response.
My only irrelevant point was that comparing old FX cameras to new DX cameras was probably not responsive to the original question.
I still use a 700 and would not give it up.
Pitter patter.

Hbuk66 Loc: Oswego, NY

What if I shoot my FF D700 in crop mode? Does the camera use the full sensor and downsize that electronically, or actually electronically downsize the sensor?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

What influences greatly the details in shadow and light area's is the image processing engine of a camera. The Nikon D500 and D850 and D5 all share the SAME processing EXCEED 5 image processing engine. Since they are the same processing engine I would believe the results would be similar.
However, the D850 and the D5 have a larger sensor. Larger sensor does not always translate into finer shadow and highlight detail. A lot depends on proper exposure and weather are not your shooting in raw. (a lot can be done in post processing to clean the shadow and highlight areas) Interesting, the D5 has a smaller meg count than the D500, 20.8 compared to the D500 of 20.9. Most believe that with a larger sensor comes more detail in the shadow and highlight areas (but a lot depends on the knowledge of the photographer in recognizing the scene and properly exposing for it.
Then there is EFFECTIVE MEGS. With a smaller sensor comes greater reach with a cropped sensor camera on a telephoto lens when shooting a subject at a distance. Lets take a D5 and a D500 both with the 200-500 zoom at 20 yards with a great blue egret in flight. The resulting image of the heron will be much larger using the d500 than the D5. Now, you can crop the image with the full frame D5 but the D500 will have more effective megapixels in the bird than with the D5 (resulting in more detail in the bird). Now, will this image taken with the D500 have more shadow of highlight detail than the D5. I'm not sure, again, I think shadow and highlight detail has a lot to do with technique, experience of the photographer, shooting in raw and post processing.

StuartTankenbaum

Thank you all for the information!

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Yes. But the difference won't be significant for most people and most photos.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, but....



That's right... the photographer themselves may be the only person who ever sees the difference.

The size and resolution most images are used out in the real world, it's very difficult to tell any difference between an image made with either format. With a modern 24MP DX cameras, you'd have to make prints around 16x24" or larger before you'd start to see FX superiority. Very few images are ever actually displayed anywhere near that size.

The photographer themselves might actually be the only person who sees the difference. Fresh out of their camera, many folks tend to look at their images hugely magnified on their computer monitors. Displaying a 24MP image "at 100%" on a computer monitor is like making a five foot wide (60" x 40") print and then viewing it from 18 to 20 inches away. Ridiculous and unrealistic when jusging the image for many factors such as fine detail, sharpness and focus accuracy, image noise, etc.

By the time the image is reduced to a more common and realistic print size such as 8x10" or 11x14" or even 13x19".... and is viewed from a normal distance... any differences between DX and FX will largely disappear. A modern 20 to 24MP DX camera even exceeds the resolution of a 4K television screen, if that's how the image is displayed. Certainly images from a DX camera are way more than enough for the low resolution and small size of images that are displayed and shared on the Internet.

Also, computer monitors really aren't that great displaying the full dynamic range of images. All monitors clip some of the darkest and some of the lightest areas in an image. Prints done on smooth, matte paper with a photo quality printer will nearly always show more detail at both extremes of the range. So judging an image's quality based only upon what's seen on a computer monitor... and ridiculously enlarged as well... is pretty misleading.... not the full image in some respects and overly critical in others.

For most peoples' actual uses, a modern DX format camera makes more sense and is fully capable of meeting all their needs and then some. The way they use the images made with the camera, a lot of FX buyers actually just spent a lot more money to carry around bigger, heavier cameras that in the end actually don't improve their images in any way. They'd actually have been better served buying DX and spending more on the lenses they use upon the camera.

In other words, switching from a DX to an FX camera will not make anyone a "better" photographer. In many cases, it will just make their wallet lighter and their camera bag heavier. If anything, going from DX to FX might make matter worse... make image flaws and short-comings more obvious than they were when using a camera.

This is not to say that FX/full frame doesn't serve some purposes and have some advantages. It does.

For example, indirectly there's a bit more control over Depth of Field with FX. Stronger shallow DoF effects with large apertures are enhanced by having to either use longer focal lengths or get closer to subject when using FX. And, deeper DoF with smaller apertures may be possible since to make any given size print, an FX image is less magnified and the effects of diffraction will be reduced to some extent. The difference is about one stop each extreme.... both a stop's worth of stronger background blur with large apertures and roughly one additional stop of usable small aperture.

An FX camera also may offer higher usable ISO, before image noise becomes a problem. it depends, though, upon the resolution of the cameras being compared. If both the cameras have the same resolution... say 24MP... the FX camera's sensor will be far less crowded and will use larger individual pixel sites, both of which make for less heat and cross-talk, and as a result less image noise and higher usable ISOs than a similar resolution DX camera. The fact that the FX image is less magnified to make any given size print also contributes to this capability.

But there are other trade-offs. For example, the larger format cameras typically have a slower flash sync, due to their larger shutters. The FX camera may be louder during operation, too. And, a DX camera can use both DX and FX lenses equally well, giving users a wide selection to choose among. For all practical purposes, the FX camera requires FX lenses. As a result there's a bit less selection of lenses for an FX camera. FX-capable lenses also tend to be bigger, heavier and more expensive.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

No, it does not.

It only uses a smaller area of the sensor, which HUGELY reduces image resolution.

The D700 is a 12MP camera... in FX mode with FX lenses. With a DX lens on the camera or switched to DX mode, it is little more than a 5MP camera.

So DX format, 21MP D7500/D500 or 24MP D7200 offer more than 4X the resolution to almost 5X the resolution, that your D700 does when it's cropped to DX mode.

There's no difference between using the FX camera's DX mode or very heavily cropping an FX image down to DX dimensions later in your computer. So to see for yourself, simply take any of your FX images, then crop and "throw away" about 57% of them.... and see what remains.

Newer, much higher resolution FX cameras such as the almost 46MP D850 can tolerate the heavy DX crop better... producing close to a 20MP image (not very much less thas a D7500/D500 DX camera captures).

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

To be fair, the OP may be looking at the used market. For someone new to photography, these questions are valid. Never know, your example may actually be what they're looking at on the used market.

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

No. The camera does a simple crop. Unless you are already cropping you have an advantage shooting full frame and downsampling which is making the image smaller with interpolation. I think this is what you are referring to when you ask about downsizing.