Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

Coolest cat i don't personally know

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

Well in reality there around close to double the cost , But if you compare a new dx to a older full frame then there more
Equal , but that's only the start of the expense , you figure the cost of what you need to get the maxim out of your shinny new what ever , from computer , lenses , printer ,the full Monty will be at least four to five times as much , don't get me wrong any one can go out and pay $3000 or $4000 for a camera and a $1200 zoom and a few camera cards
And snap away but they will never get the full magic out of there camera unless they feed it the right Menu in accessories . But they will never know the difference of what it could be . It's like every thing in life there's the hidden expense that most don't figure in ,

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

For those looking at it in an inexpensive way:

Purchase a crop frame dslr, and purchase only full frame lenses for it. Then when you raise up enough cash, you can purchase a compatible mfg full frame dslr camera and use the same lenses on it. That way you'll get the benefit of a totally new range/view and you only spent half the price on lenses.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Yes it does! Best camera for sports I've ever used. It almost seems it has it's own mind for the job!

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

Are you sure you haven't mixed DX and FX up? Surely you meant to ask: why would anyone buy an FX camera - especially when the D500 and the Canon equivalent, the 7D mark II, have been available for ages?

blackest Loc: Ireland

Somebody earlier made an interesting point about crop factor and focal length and this might interest the birders especially.
Lets take a 400mm lens which has a crop factor of 1.5x ok.

so a full frame sensor is 36mm by 24mm and a crop sensor is 24 mm by 16mm lets say for easier math each pixel is 1mm by 1mm
so 36 x 24 = 864 pixels total 24 x 16 = 384

So lets say we have a bird that is 8mm wide by 6mm high on the sensor, with our 2 camera's thats 48 pixels occupied by bird so we can also say the other pixels are not bird 836 pixels of not bird on the full frame and 336 pixels of not bird on the crop sensor.

So we are only interested in pixels with bird in them so we crop down so the bird fills the frame. It is at this point the 2 images are identical.

Ok you throw away more unwanted pixels with the full frame than the crop sensor but the results are the same. The only magnification difference wasn't at the sensor but at the view finder!

Now my k5 is a 16 Mpix crop sensor with area of 384 square mm so 16million / 384 = 41,666 pixels per square mm So multiply that by 864 and that makes a full frame camera with 36 Mpix

So my K5 has the same resolution as a K1 or a Nikon D800! The Full frame sensor has more freedom to crop so if you nailed the bird with the centre focal point you can crop so the bird is at one of the thirds positions for example, you have so much background you can recompose in post.

What the camera see's at the sensor is the same be it dx or fx, what the photographer see's at the view finder is different but does it matter if you are using auto focus?

Manual Focus you could have a magnifying optical view finder (or with a camera with an EVF a certain amount of zoom). But then again just about every dslr gives you focus confirmation anyway.

It's probably true that most people using a crop sensor will have 24 Mpix or more but is that an advantage?
Only if your printing at a size where individual pixels are becoming noticeable maybe viewing at 100% on a low resolution screen, 100% on a retina screen is still going to look pretty good because the pixels are so small.

There is also the noise factor of smaller pixel sites which could degrade your image, that is you are not recording greater detail but greater noise.

So small subject in the frame advantage full frame due to greater cropping freedom
large subject in frame advantage full frame due to less magnification being used in the final image.
sports probably advantage dx since you have less data to shift you can hit a faster frame rate and get more shots in the buffer.

Really the big IQ killer is magnification as you are magnifying defects in the optical system. So maybe you need better quality lenses for dx...

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Fx owners seem to defend the sensor size with extreme passion and some of the posts are getting quite lengthy.

What you actually get are some of the more expensive feature of upper end camera bodies in a crop camera for an affordable cost savings. Its all about money, what your willing to spend and marketing. The car world is identical. What you get could be a faster processor or partial features that are best for specific tasks.

If you have the money and can afford a FF do that and if you can't or won't you should shop for features that can get you close to your goal. Please stop trying to justify your cost saving ideology by down playing the advantages of FF top end gear. Cell phones have a place just as point and shoot or lesser featured dlsr's that cost less.

God bless the person who can get it done for less money...

BebuLamar

Photography for most of us is not a job!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

And that makes a B I G difference! Happy New Year!

pahtspix

33% more reach for wildlife and sports, and if you already have DX lenses, that's also a plus..I bought the Nikon D500, and have it coupled to a Tamron 150-600mm G2, and I love it..Sharp wide open (f6.3) at 600mm ( effective FL of 900 mm!!)!! I couldn'
t be happier!!

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

This is why a FF image is sharper than a crop body image for the same framing of the same object: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/70493/why-is-ff-sharper-than-crop-body-for-the-same-framing-of-the-same-object

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

Simple- crop factor; birds in flight, much better on a DX. I use both- for all animal work, birds in flight, aircraft, etc; simple DX. If I am doing porttraits, landscape, water, seascape FX. No problem !

blackest Loc: Ireland

That isn't true thou is it? What ever you capture is at the same physical size on the sensor, your just capturing less background. You get a speed advantage because you are recording less than half the area that an FX camera would with the same lens. What you do have is a higher magnification viewfinder in the dx over the fx but that doesn't matter anyway because you are relying on the camera body to get the best focus it can at your chosen focus point. The d500 has 20.9Mpix covering 384 square mm If it was an FX sensor it would be around 47 Mpix covering 864 square mm.

The canon EOS5DS has slightly greater resolution with around 50 Mpix. A max frame rate of 5 FPS half that of of the D500.

The Tamron 150-600mm is a full frame lens
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Cameras/N/0/Ntt/TA1506005G2* Available in f mount or ef mount for $1399

So which is the better camera the Nikon D500 or the Canon Eos5ds?

appealnow Loc: Dallas, Texas

I am older, travel and have arthritis in one shoulder. DX is lighter body, lighter lenses. My Nikon D5300 with the Nikon 18-300 mm, 3.5-6.3 is pretty light and I can carry it all day. That was the critical thing I told the guy at the camera store; I wanted something relatively light.

Plus, I think there is a lot of disparagement of the DX cameras. I was viewing pics I took in China on my 50 inch plasma TV. I was astounded how sharp they were and very frankly I couldn't see anything wrong with the images. Since I am not a professional and don't do that critical work, the DX is fine. I really wasn't factoring in cost, but if the advances in digital continue, it would seem like replacing one's camera every 5-8 years might be in order.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I have printed 8 1/2 x 11 photos, that I've got from footage I shot with movie cameras (and that was in the 70's) and they were nice and crisp/sharp)!!