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

I agree. There is more to this that makes the comparison less than optimal - the shooting distances. In an effort to get to a similar image size, the D500 with the shorter lens was shot at around 22 ft and the D800 at over 30 ft. That would make up for most of the difference in magnification. Both images were cropped similarly in terms of percentage of original size, to around 30%. And lastly, though I think the 28-300 is a dreadful lens on FF, it suits the D500 very well. But I don't believe the loss of fine detail is due to the sharpness of the lens, but rather it is lost in the noise. What I probably should do is to make a comparison with both cameras, using the 600mm lens and either adjusting the zoom to 400mm for the D500, or moving 50% further away from the subject, but I believe that moving would impact the capture of fine detail in any case. I wouldn't be doing this for my benefit, I already know the outcome, but it could be helpful to the non-believers that continue to insist that there isn't much of a difference between DX and FX.

I don't buy into the opinion that a smaller sensor camera gives you more "reach." Ideally, I would love to have a Mamiya Leaf 80mp with a Takumar 1000mm F8 SMC (equivalent to a 684mm lens on full frame), but then I wouldn't be able to shoot hand held - the lens weighs over 12 lbs. And the frame rate of .7 FPS, manual focus only, and ISO range of 35-800 are a deal breaker for me. If I went to the 50mp, things get a little better with an ISO range of 100-6400, and a blazingly fast 1.2 FPS, but still it wouldn't be ideal for shooting in the field. Medium format is ostensibly a studio application, though you might be able to take the 50mp outside for landscape and architectural.

Rogers

There is no doubt the full frame format is better. I'm thinking though that high end cameras will continue to be more affordable, so why not take the emotion out of the decision, buy the cheapest camera that suits your needs for a few years, and meanwhile your upward choices become easier.

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

lamontcranston

The D800 blows the D500 away on my monitor. No contest. Thanks for posting the comparison photos. Your point is made.

SS319

1. The sensor on a full frame is 60% larger. Because of the fact that there is a fixed, finite distance between pixels, for the same number of pixels, the pixels are closer to 70-75% larger. This translates into a higher signal to noise ratio which in turn allows the user to use a higher ISO without loss of image. The higher S/N also allows the system to better define colors and shades to render a photograph more accurate.

2. The body on a full frame is larger. Many Photographers like the feel of the larger camera. The heavier body with the same lens changes the balance point.

3. Because the body on a full frame is larger, there is more room for technology - things like dual processors and dual storage that render the camera faster between pictures; There is more difference in sports photography between 7f/s and 14f/s than there is between 1/4000 s/f and 1/8000 s/f

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I still like my svelte FF Pentax Super Program; I purchased an APS-C K-30 with its humongous grip only because it was low-priced. For some of us, a larger heavier body is not a positive selling point, but I'm glad for those of you who do appreciate that.

With a camera like the Super Program, we learned to use left hand to cradle long lenses, so "balance point" was not a consideration.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Given a FF camera or an APS-C (DX) camera of the same megapixel count, it is NOT the same as cropping the FF. The area covered by the APS-C gets all the sensor pixels, but not on the FF.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

The comparison would be much simpler if the same lens at the same focal length were used on each camera at the same distance from the subject. That relieves the need to figure out the math! And it is more of a "real world" comparison. Then the DX image would not have to be cropped, just the FX image so that both photos are the same composition.


Performing the demonstration as I suggested ought to show that no matter which type of camera is used, a 300mm lens will produce a 300mm capture of the subject. The DX camera essentially "crops" the image in camera, while the FX camera takes the same image of the subject while including the periphery that was not taken by the DX camera. This is why I refer to the effect as being an "apparent" increase because it is not real.

I suspect that the "believers" are swayed by the fact that the reduced angle of view makes them feel like they are getting more reach. Truly the main benefit to using an FX lens on a DX camera is that the subject can cover more of the sensor than when using a DX lens. This does increase the number of pixels in the resulting image, which can improve the clarity with not having to crop as much.

I am still not sure how much cropping would need to be done on the FX photo, but from what I have been learning about the sensor difference, I believe that even with cropping the FX image would still be better!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

No, I am swayed by the fact that in the typical situation, 36MP FF and 24MP APS-C, the FF ends up with just 16MP while the APS-C is still at 24MP. More pixels will almost always be better than fewer pixels.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

I agree. That is why people are influenced by the smaller angle of view for the same lens on the DX camera into believing they are actually getting more reach. But the image taken with the same lens by the FX camera is still going to be the same image, just including information peripheral to the main subject. It may LOOK smaller when you compare the images as they come out of the camera, but further examination will show that the subject was still captured by the same focal length!

Specifying the same megapixel count for each camera is unrealistic because even if the mp count matches, the FF sensor is larger than the DX sensor which is another factor that affects image quality.

splitwindow Loc: Grapevine TX

I thought I was giving you my real world experience using a FX vs DX camera. I don't know all the technical reasons like many on this forum, I just know what my eyes tell me. I know care why the FX cameras take better pictures the the DX cameras, I just know they do. Reminds me of when I was checking out for my first airline captain's position, during the oral examination the chief pilot asked me what kind of engines were on the MD88. I wanted to say that I didn't know and didn't care if they were rubber band powered just as long as when I pushed the throttles up they made thrust so my MD88 would fly. What difference did it make what engines were on the MD88, but it was somehow important to this check airman. He wouldn't sign off on my oral until I told him what engines were on the MD88. Real important information, NOT ! Same with the FX vs DX issue, there are lots of reasons and I don't want to waste my brain cells learning why, I don't care. That's for the people that design the cameras to worry about. I'm just happy having a camera that does what I want it to do.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

No worries.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I would agree with everything you wrote except that FF cameras take "BETTER" photos. It is not exactly correct. Better "TECHNICALLY" but not artistically. I much rather look at a great photo that has a bit of noise in it than waste my time on a snapshot that was taken with a FF or medium format camera.

This same false belief may account for so many snapshot shooters walking around with heavy gear.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Not too many members want to hear what you just said. Even if you are 100% correct.

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

And it gets the noise if the pixels are smaller.