FX vs DX
May 13, 2019 17:57:05 #
Thanks everyone for the responses. I get it and have added this to my pea-brain storage system. At least now when I read some of the UHH postings I will have an idea of the subject matter. FWIW I will stick with my little D90 with it's DX sensor for the foreseeable future since I do not see myself joining the pro ranks any time soon.
May 13, 2019 19:16:12 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
RAW is neither a size or a format. RAW is simply u... (show quote)
As far as I know only Canon makes a true FF sensor. The Sony/Nikon FF are actually smaller than 24x36.
May 13, 2019 19:40:31 #
When I was younger I used 4 X 5 black and white and 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 film. The former in a Speed graphic, the latter in a Rolleiflex. At a point I moved to 35 mm, worked my way up to Nikon, the then top of the line in SLR. I skipped 126 and other sizes and after nearly 50 years, went digital. The weight and competitive lower price for DX equipment made it the logical choice.
May 13, 2019 19:49:51 #
IDguy wrote:
FX cameras and lenses are about twice as expensive and heavy as their DX counterparts.
There is a common misbelief that FX lenses make higher quality images on DX cameras. It isn’t true. They are bigger, heavier, more expensive, and many zoom ranges are not as appropriate for DX cameras.
There is a common misbelief that FX lenses make higher quality images on DX cameras. It isn’t true. They are bigger, heavier, more expensive, and many zoom ranges are not as appropriate for DX cameras.
Actually, it can be true. A DX camera only uses the center area of the projected image, usually the sweet spot.
May 13, 2019 19:57:45 #
`
And THAT ! is the WHOLE story ! Minus some
detail, but there's too much clueless argument
about details.
They are separate systems despite some minor
overlaps. So if one needs both, as Architect said,
one uses both. There's too much BS about how,
if you happen to start out with DX, maybe you
should get FX lenses in case you "move up" to
FX later. You'll hear it over and over, cuz parrots
tend to do that. But parrots are just pets, and
not especially competent tech advisors :-(
.
Architect1776 wrote:
Full frame and crop each have their advantages.
Big topic and I won't go into it except to say that
there are those here that have both formats to
meet the strengths of each.
Full frame and crop each have their advantages.
Big topic and I won't go into it except to say that
there are those here that have both formats to
meet the strengths of each.
And THAT ! is the WHOLE story ! Minus some
detail, but there's too much clueless argument
about details.
They are separate systems despite some minor
overlaps. So if one needs both, as Architect said,
one uses both. There's too much BS about how,
if you happen to start out with DX, maybe you
should get FX lenses in case you "move up" to
FX later. You'll hear it over and over, cuz parrots
tend to do that. But parrots are just pets, and
not especially competent tech advisors :-(
.
May 13, 2019 20:02:17 #
May 13, 2019 20:04:15 #
Architect1776 wrote:
As far as I know only Canon makes a true FF sensor. The Sony/Nikon FF are actually smaller than 24x36.
You are correct. Some Full Frame sensors used in Nikon cameras measure 35.9mm X 23.9mm while others measure 35.9mm X 24mm and others measure 36mm X 23.9mm. The difference is so small, it's not really worth mentioning. Kind of like saying gasoline is $3.00 a gallon when on the pump it says $2.99 and 9/10 for a gallon.
May 13, 2019 20:15:03 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
You are correct. Some Full Frame sensors used in Nikon cameras measure 35.9mm X 23.9mm while others measure 35.9mm X 24mm and others measure 36mm X 23.9mm. The difference is so small, it's not really worth mentioning. Kind of like saying gasoline is $3.00 a gallon when on the pump it says $2.99 and 9/10 for a gallon.
Yes it is small but there is a difference and not actually 24x36 FF but smaller.
May 14, 2019 01:17:39 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Yes it is small but there is a difference
and not actually 24x36 FF but smaller.
Yes it is small but there is a difference
and not actually 24x36 FF but smaller.
How many angels can dance on
the head of a pin ?
Please reply to 3 decimal places.
TIA :-)
Extra credit bonus quiz question:
What percentage of all recorded
images require not even slightest
cropping, nor any leveling at all ?
.
May 14, 2019 01:59:42 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Yes it is small but there is a difference and not actually 24x36 FF but smaller.
One tenth of one millimeter. Quite insignificant indeed. There are lots of lenses that have a shorter focal length than their name implies. For example, there are 300mm lenses that are actually 297mm, but we still call them 300mm lenses. The engine on my motorcycle is advertised as an 1800 but it's really 1833CC's. It's simply a case of rounding. The image sensors that are 1/10th of 1 millimeter smaller or a total of 2/10ths of 1 millimeter smaller than the standard 36mm X 24mm are still full frame sensors. Maybe the difference is of some minor significance to the pixel peepers and dyed in the wool hard core Canon aficionados who may mistakenly believe the tiny little minuscule difference in sensor size may actually make a difference when in reality it does not.
May 14, 2019 04:37:39 #
`
The actual format size of an M-Leica
film camera is 24x36mm but it varies
in its exact size according to the lens
in use. Some WAs increase the outer
dimensions of the format.
.
The actual format size of an M-Leica
film camera is 24x36mm but it varies
in its exact size according to the lens
in use. Some WAs increase the outer
dimensions of the format.
.
May 14, 2019 04:52:09 #
`
The 24x36mm "FF" dimensions derive
from the 135 film format, which varies
a bit but is ~21.5x33.5mm.
The variable is the actual aperture in
the negative carrier. The film cameras
made images of ~24x36mm so that
the image would be larger than the
aperture in the negative carrier, thus
avoiding a bright outline of clear film
base, which would acoarst result in
harmful scatter light between the film
and the lens.
Most users of 135 film cameras sent
color films to commercial processors
who either mounted the chromes into
cardboard mounts or printed 4x6 inch
borderless prints. In either case the
actual format in use was far smaller
than 24x36 ... the borderless [bleed
printed] machine prints often using
only ~20.5x31.5mm image area.
OTOH, digital "FF" uses the entire
image, which is ~23.5x35.5mm, a
definite improvement vs 135 film :-)
-----------------------------------
FWIW, the wastefulness of the 2x2"
cardboard mount for chromes was
unjustified, since there was no clear
film base surrounding the 24x26mm
on-film image area. Only negs had
clear film base outside of the image.
[Chromes had black.] Unfortunately
there was no industry standard for
locating the sprocket holes relative
to the image area.
.
Architect1776 wrote:
Yes it is small but there is a difference
and not actually 24x36 FF but smaller.
Yes it is small but there is a difference
and not actually 24x36 FF but smaller.
The 24x36mm "FF" dimensions derive
from the 135 film format, which varies
a bit but is ~21.5x33.5mm.
The variable is the actual aperture in
the negative carrier. The film cameras
made images of ~24x36mm so that
the image would be larger than the
aperture in the negative carrier, thus
avoiding a bright outline of clear film
base, which would acoarst result in
harmful scatter light between the film
and the lens.
Most users of 135 film cameras sent
color films to commercial processors
who either mounted the chromes into
cardboard mounts or printed 4x6 inch
borderless prints. In either case the
actual format in use was far smaller
than 24x36 ... the borderless [bleed
printed] machine prints often using
only ~20.5x31.5mm image area.
OTOH, digital "FF" uses the entire
image, which is ~23.5x35.5mm, a
definite improvement vs 135 film :-)
-----------------------------------
FWIW, the wastefulness of the 2x2"
cardboard mount for chromes was
unjustified, since there was no clear
film base surrounding the 24x26mm
on-film image area. Only negs had
clear film base outside of the image.
[Chromes had black.] Unfortunately
there was no industry standard for
locating the sprocket holes relative
to the image area.
.
May 14, 2019 05:24:13 #
PHRubin wrote:
Actually, it can be true. A DX camera only
uses the center area of the projected image,
usually the sweet spot.
Actually, it can be true. A DX camera only
uses the center area of the projected image,
usually the sweet spot.
Yup, that will hold true, except where the
lens designers take advantage shifting one
of their design priorities.
The need to cover a larger image area can
restrict the resolution of a lens formula. If
you allow a smaller area of coverage, then
a sharper lens can be built .... but "can be"
is not necessarily "will be" :-(
=========================
When the format size difference gets into
far greater difference than "FF vs APSC"
then the above principle will usually hold
true. IOW, nearly all m4/3 lenses will be
far sharper than nearly all large format or
medium format lenses ... but acoarst that
sharper image covers only a tiny area and
will be subjected to a very much greater
level of enlargement. It's a no-free-lunch
situation for lens design, really same as
all design and manufacturing endeavors,
compromising one parameter to improve
another according to intended application.
.
May 14, 2019 06:17:33 #
stanikon wrote:
Being fairly new to the technical side of photography, would someone please explain, in plain language, the difference between FX and DX? Explaining what they are would be a very good start.
Thanks.
Thanks.
It's a poor workman that blames his tools. You can take very good pictures with the DX format.
May 14, 2019 06:27:50 #
traderjohn wrote:
It's a poor workman that blames his tools. You can take very good pictures with the DX format.
I guess I missed that part of the thread.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.