BFS Loc: Queen City, MO

With the Nikon D750 and the Nikon D7200 we have a 24.3 MP FX sensor and a 24.2 MP DX sensor. Taking a landscape photo with a 24mm lens on the FX vs photo taken with a 16mm lens on the DX you have taken basically the same cropping size photo. So now my question.

Will you be able to see a difference in quality of the two photo on your screen and in normal size prints? Or does the difference only start to show once you get to the larger size prints?

Moving up to the D810 you get a large sensor so the quality should be better. So...

I guess the main question is, is there a difference in a 24 MP Fx sensor over a 24 MP DX sensor and the photo you get?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

usually, but not as much as it used to be.

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

There should be no discernible difference given those parameters. All things being equal otherwise, the only difference should be the FX sensor will perform better in low light situations.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

According to magazine articles, the size of the sensor is the greater limiting factor--a high-MP on small sensor is still second place to the larger sensor (even with smaller MP). However, both do quality 8x10 and 11x14 prints with ease, and 16x20 with care--you might never know the difference in the pictures. Skill is also a big factor--enlargement suffers from poor exposure, movement, too much cropping. I suspect many people do better with larger cameras because they take more time with their shots. Many people travel with a lighter camera and bring out the big guns only when they feel they need it.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

OH, NO, NOT ANOTHER FX/DX QUESTION!
That said, to level the field you would need to be closer with the full frame sensor to get the same image with 24 MP image in both. The difference in image quality would because the FX image has larger pixel sites and is slightly sharper, which would be noticed only by extreme pixel peepers.

Note to self: Why do I have 2 full frame bodies? Ooh ooh! I remember, it's because I am an extreme pixel peeper!

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

A DX sensor has a diagonal of 28.3mm (on average) and the FX sensor is 43.2mm. In your example with the 24 and 16 mm lenses, the field of view will be similar, as is the pixel count. However, to get to an 8x12 print size, you'd have to magnify the FX image 8.5 times to get to an 8x12 print size, but the DX image would have to be magnified over 13 times. That 50% increase in magnification will result in the loss of quality when the two images are viewed at the same viewing distance. The image quality loss is not insignificant - you will see lens aberrations, focus errors, unintended camera movement, and noise/pixelation more easily with the DX image, if everything else is the same or equivalent.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"the main question is, is there a difference in a 24 MP Fx sensor over a 24 MP DX sensor and the photo you get?" BFS for the same field of view i.e. the subject appears the same through the viewfinder you would have to move back by approximately a factor of 1.5 on the APS-C sensor... Or inversely if shooting from the same location the view you see will be "tighter" on the crop body... For this reason many are of the illusion that their crop body allows a full frame lens (FX) to become a longer focal length on a DX body.... but in reality the DX sensor is only "cropping" the central half of the image circle... Few if any lenses are up to the demands of a 24mp sensor without inducing degradation in the form of acuity loss for the aforementioned scenario... and prosumer FX lenses simply fail to preform at their optimum. when on a DX body.

BFS the larger issue here is not acuity in my humble estimation... it is in fact want of subject isolation which results from apparent DOF when using a DX sensor... This is HUGE if you are intent on using bokeh and blur to isolate a subject from background distractions... I absolutely avoid using DX for location portraiture or sporting events... even wedding events suffer here... Please don't be swayed by hobbyist who fail to recognize the merit/worth of image aesthetics in a blind pursuit of acuity... It simply isn't justified in so many situations... There are so many other metrics that play into the image equation that if ignored will not allow the full aesthetic potential of one's visual statement.

But wait, those with a serious agenda for reach a.k.a. BIF shooters will likely not appreciate the subtle nuances of aesthetics since they oft shoot against the blank canvas of a clear blue sky... So every individuals needs can/do vary...

Bottom Line? For my commercial needs it is the weight/mass advantage of DX that I find compelling... NOT reach and especial not price since a FX D610 is nearly half the price of Nikon's latest DX flagship and the D610's image sensor stands head and shoulders above it in IQ...

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D500-versus-Nikon-D750-versus-Nikon-D610___1061_975_915

I chose the D610 over the D500 or D750 based on not only on image quality but especially worth/value...
And I shoot league soccer with the D610 where it works flawlessly for AF tracking and it's 6 fps is way more than adequate...
Best yet I now use it as a backup in the studio for commercial work where IQ is critical to meet and/or exceed client expectations...

But BFS hobbyist are so easily swayed by vendor hype thus likely precious few on UHH may see the logic here...
That said if you have to pay for your kit from behind the lens in a highly competitive market then cost verses worth/value becomes a rather compelling factor...

btw, another compelling issue for avoiding DX is want of Pro grade Nikon DX glass, it is oft acknowledged that Nikon's marketing is intent on using DX as an entrance into the FX format... The assumption here is once a DX user is ready emerge into shooting commercially they will opt to purchase a full frame kit. To date Nikon as only offered one Pro grade DX lens, that being the AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G ED IF DX optic at a rather pricey $1.5K. Thus sadly DX users are force to pay the cost/weight penalty of using FX Pro Glass on their APS-C bodies

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

Final thoughts? "difference in quality" needs to be understood from the requirements of the shooter... Here dynamic range and subject isolation sadly seem to be vastly under appreciated by those who don't shoot commercially... And to date I have found commercial shooters to be seriously underrepresented on UHH... If you are submitting to an editor or providing deliverables to a client then aesthetics becomes more than a critical factor... it is everything... I assist many commercial shooters in my market, and virtually all of them use full frame bodies... Darwinian selection is brutal... enough said

Hope this helps or is at least food for thought
I wish you well on your journey BFS

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In total agreement.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

But in real life, not so much. I use aps-c sensors by choice, for many reasons. I regularly crop at least somewhat, then print 16x24 or 20x30 and occasionally 30 x 40 with great results. Yes, if a viewer brings a magnifying glass he can see a difference, but if he does that he will be missing the photograph's impact as art.

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

Oh, don't get me wrong - I have sold a number of 40x60 prints made from 6.1 mp images taken with a D70S DX camera - and no one ever complained about lack of quality and sharpness. I but having shot both and for a couple of years, side by side( D300 and D700, both 12 mp), it is easy for me to see the difference - and the winner is FX every time - in real life, that is.

I recently tried a D500, as a large number of my winter images are of birds and birds in flight - yes, the camera was a dream to use - fast, great AF, excellent image quality, etc. But the pictures I took later that day, using the same lens but on my 4 yr old D800 were that much better that I my GAS immediately subsided.

I am still thinking along the lines of a Sony A6500, just because it is small, light, quiet, and Zeiss has some great lenses for it. It would be my travel and possibly backpacking camera. But I am not expecting it to be the same as my D800s.

BFS Loc: Queen City, MO

Thank you to all for your comments and suggestions. They give me things to think about on what to do. I now have a Nikon D5300 and am looking to move on to a better lens. So I need to decide if I want to buy DX lens or buy FX now so if I do want to move up to the full frame camera I already have lenses for the camera.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

You asked about D7200 versus D750 IQ and some people started talking about other cameras. I have the D750 and D7100, which has a sensor that gives almost identical IQ at low ISO to the one in the D7200. Here's the bottom line. In good light, shooting at or near base ISO 100 - 200, the IQ you will see from these two cameras is practically indistinguishable. You would be very hard pressed to see the more subtle advantages of the larger sensor in the D750, such as better dynamic range and less noise. I have many 20-30 inch prints on the wall taken with each of these cameras. There's no consistent difference. As far as resolution of very fine details, however the D7200 will have the edge. If you shoot a subject with lots of detail, or a test chart, crop in PP to 100% or greater, you will see the difference. That's right, the crop sensor shows more detail. They each have the same number of pixels, but the D750 has an anti aliasing filter that very slightly blurs the image.

However, since the D7200 has higher pixel density, more pixels per square inch, shooting with it is more sensitive to slight camera motions. So your technique needs to be better.

I shoot birds in flight a lot and I rarely use the D750 for that (only in poor light) because the subtle advantages of the larger sensor don't come close to compensating for the 1.5x reach advantage of the crop sensor. (A small target shot with the same lens on each camera puts only 40% as many pixels on target with the D750.) With higher Mp cameras like the D8xx series the story could be different as there the camera puts about 2/3 as many pixels on target and the larger sensor advantage might compensate for that. Some people say so, but I have no way to check.

These days I'm using my D7100 a lot more than my D750. If you want my advice, unless you have a strong ambition to become a professional, think long and hard before making the leap to full frame. Do you shoot a lot of portraits, where subject isolation is important? Do you shoot low light action? Or a lot of hand held static shots at "blue hour." If the answer to these is all "no," you don't need full frame, certainly not 24 Mp full frame.