There's a common misconception - one needs BOTH a DX Body AND an FX Body ... why? (Page 10): That is exactly why I wanted an explanation of "more efficient".

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Fotoartist wrote:

Doesn't a FF lens perform better toward its center? Then, used on a crop sensor it would perform as a whole, better. Seems logical.

That is exactly why I wanted an explanation of "more efficient".

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Chris T wrote:

Big move, there, Waegwan ...

Interesting one, though ... the 50D was - at its time - the ultimate APS-C sensor dig cam ... a professional tool - in every sense of the word ...

The 6D, on the other hand ... although, I do understand, as it's the most affordable Canon FF ... is nowhere near the professional capacity of the 50D ...

Yup, I went from full feature to full frame :-) for the wsy I use my camera I'm glad I did.

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

Chris T wrote:

I'll accept, lenses intended for FX bodies are prohibitively more expensive than ones designed for DX bodies, but after 70mm - that argument becomes moot, anyway! In other words - lenses in the Tele-Zoom category (100-400, 150-600, 200-500, etc. etc. etc.) are for BOTH formats! ... So, where's the delineation?

Before the D850, a lot of people bought the D500 in addition to the D810, because while the D810 was better for landscape photography, the higher frame rate and 1.5 crop factor made the D500 a better option for sports and wildlife.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Fotoartist wrote:

Doesn't a FF lens perform better toward its center? Then, used on a crop sensor it would perform as a whole, better. Seems logical.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Chris T wrote:

Big move, there, Waegwan ...

Interesting one, though ... the 50D was - at its time - the ultimate APS-C sensor dig cam ... a professional tool - in every sense of the word ...

The 6D, on the other hand ... although, I do understand, as it's the most affordable Canon FF ... is nowhere near the professional capacity of the 50D ...

This statement is not entirely correct.
It all depends on what you want to use it for (and I have known guys who have owned both).

For sports/action stuff - the 50D
Yes the 50D has more MP however its high ISO noise performance was worse then the 40D. It's burst shooting rate was about the same as the 40D

With the 6D it is all about the IQ - and the 'scapers and some of the others love it.
I have not owned either body

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

RichardTaylor wrote:

This statement is not entirely correct.
It all depends on what you want to use it for (and I have known guys who have owned both).

For sports/action stuff - the 50D
Yes the 50D has more MP however its high ISO noise performance was worse then the 40D. It's burst shooting rate was about the same as the 40D

With the 6D it is all about the IQ - and the 'scapers and some of the others love it.
I have not owned either body

The key phrase in that statement, Richard ... was "at its time" ... in other words - back then - it was THE CANON APS-C DSLR to have and own ....

But that was back in 2008 ....

We are now - a whole decade later ... had you not noticed?

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Chris T wrote:

The key phrase in that statement, Richard ... was "at its time" ... in other words - back then - it was THE CANON APS-C DSLR to have and own ....

But that was back in 2008 ....

We are now - a whole decade later ... had you not noticed?

Your post.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-484559-1.html

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

RichardTaylor wrote:

Your post.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-484559-1.html

What about it, Richard?

Shutterbug57

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

Yes, you can crop away a lot of pixels of a FF shot if you crop it a lot. The flip side is that to make a large print you have to increase the size of the crop sensor shot a whole lot more than a FF shot...

Best,
Todd Ferguson

Todd - if you use the same lens and stand in the same place to take the same shot with an FX & DX body, and lets assume similar pixel density per mm2, how would the FX have an advantage when blowing up the shot? Probably the easiest way to visualize this is with a D850 shooting the same thing in FF & crop modes. Assuming the shot does not overflow the DX sensor, how does FX have an advantage?

BigBill85

The O.P. has me totally confused. What does the need for both types of camera bodies have to do with fx vs dx lenses? Those of us who have both dx and fx cameras understand the advantages of the crop sensor camera in certain situations, such as sports. As far as lenses, I've never bothered with dx lenses. I can use all of my fx lenses on both cameras. Oops....I do have one dx lens, a wide angle lens.

Shutterbug57

DaveyDitzer wrote:

I have both DX and FF bodies and plan to keep both. I began with DX and have two good lenses. I went to FF and now am building a set of lenses. The DX kit is lighter and better for carrying and travel. Also, the smaller FOV is helpful for long range shots. It also uses the central portion of FF lenses yielding better IQ. The FF kit will be capable of better IQ overall and will handle greater enlargements if desired ... BTW selling off DX equipment to buy all FF makes little economic sense.

We are pretty much on the same page here.

DaveyDitzer wrote:

Further, my FF body can handle older D and AI-s lenses giving me more options for buying lenses. Not all the factors but some of the more important ones to me. Hope this helps.

I am not sure why you can’t use your older glass on DX bodies. I have D lenses that I bought for my N90s that work fine on my D70s, D200 & D500. They also still work fine on my N90s.

Shutterbug57

BigBill85 wrote:

The O.P. has me totally confused. What does the need for both types of camera bodies have to do with fx vs dx lenses? Those of us who have both dx and fx cameras understand the advantages of the crop sensor camera in certain situations, such as sports. As far as lenses, I've never bothered with dx lenses. I can use all of my fx lenses on both cameras. Oops....I do have one dx lens, a wide angle lens.

Same here. “FX” was the only game in town when I switched to Nikon and bought a N90s. I also now have a D70s (grandkid training camera with an old Tamron 28-75/2.8 lens), D200 (backup/second camera) and D500. I shoot mostly sports, wildlife and nature. The only DX lens I have is the 12-24/4.0 as it was the best wide option for DX when I bought it several years ago. All the glass I bought for the N90s still works on the DX bodies.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Like Diane Feinstein I am a little under the weather so I might not be in my right mind. However, you have a few assumptions here that are not typical to comparing a crop sensor to a FF sensor. First most brands don't shoot both crop and FF, Nikon being the exception that I am aware of that does. Second most crop and FF cameras are probably going to have different photosite density per unit of area as well as different size photosites. Your example of the D850 in two modes with the same distance to subject and same lens would be an interesting experiment and perhaps someone with that camera will shoot such an experiment for us. I shot a similar test with a Canon FF and crop sensor a few weeks ago and posted on here. But that was not totaly related to enlargement questions.

The first issue I see with your D850 example is that the FOV is going to be larger in FX mode than it will be in the DX mode. So, do you propose we crop the FX image to DX size and then enlarge? Or do we move the DX camera back so it can capture the same image and FOV as the FX... In my mind we need to start with the same image to fairly compare making or printing a large image that includes the same exact scene. If we crop the FX to DX size we are throwing away a lot of data. That is going to hurt when we want to print large. If we move the DX to get the same starting image then you are also reducing the number of photosites that are collecting the image overall...bigger image/scene over the same DX sensor.

My statement is based on the fact that the FX / FF image has to be enlarged by a smaller amount to get the big print than the DX / Crop sensor. Assuming of course that we are not talking about using any additional or interpolated pixels but only those that are part of the original capture. Fortunately for us most cameras today can make prints as large as the average person prints with great results regardless of FF or crop sensor. To me it is a bit of comparing apples and oranges as the crop is the biggest factor vs the FF image size.

I have seen very nice 20x30 prints made 15 years ago with cameras that shot less than 4mp. Apple did a series of large prints that were taken with the iPhone 6. Of course it also depends on the tools used and the viewing distance. Crop cameras have certain advantages and FF other advantages depending on the subject, conditions and desired results. But even with 50mp FF cameras people still shoot panoramas.

Shutterbug57 wrote:

Todd - if you use the same lens and stand in the same place to take the same shot with an FX & DX body, and lets assume similar pixel density per mm2, how would the FX have an advantage when blowing up the shot? Probably the easiest way to visualize this is with a D850 shooting the same thing in FF & crop modes. Assuming the shot does not overflow the DX sensor, how does FX have an advantage?

Shutterbug57

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

Like Diane Feinstein I am a little under the weather so I might not be in my right mind. However, you have a few assumptions here that are not typical to comparing a crop sensor to a FF sensor. First most brands don't shoot both crop and FF, Nikon being the exception that I am aware of that does. Second most crop and FF cameras are probably going to have different photosite density per unit of area as well as different size photosites. Your example of the D850 in two modes with the same distance to subject and same lens would be an interesting experiment and perhaps someone with that camera will shoot such an experiment for us. I shot a similar test with a Canon FF and crop sensor a few weeks ago and posted on here. But that was not totaly related to enlargement questions.

The first issue I see with your D850 example is that the FOV is going to be larger in FX mode than it will be in the DX mode. So, do you propose we crop the FX image to DX size and then enlarge? Or do we move the DX camera back so it can capture the same image and FOV as the FX... In my mind we need to start with the same image to fairly compare making or printing a large image that includes the same exact scene. If we crop the FX to DX size we are throwing away a lot of data. That is going to hurt when we want to print large. If we move the DX to get the same starting image then you are also reducing the number of photosites that are collecting the image overall...bigger image/scene over the same DX sensor.

My statement is based on the fact that the FX / FF image has to be enlarged by a smaller amount to get the big print than the DX / Crop sensor. Assuming of course that we are not talking about using any additional or interpolated pixels but only those that are part of the original capture. Fortunately for us most cameras today can make prints as large as the average person prints with great results regardless of FF or crop sensor. To me it is a bit of comparing apples and oranges as the crop is the biggest factor vs the FF image size.

I have seen very nice 20x30 prints made 15 years ago with cameras that shot less than 4mp. Apple did a series of large prints that were taken with the iPhone 6. Of course it also depends on the tools used and the viewing distance. Crop cameras have certain advantages and FF other advantages depending on the subject, conditions and desired results. But even with 50mp FF cameras people still shoot panoramas.

Like Diane Feinstein I am a little under the weath... (show quote)

Well, we have 2 options. Either:

1. we move until the image fills both sensors (FX & DX) equally or
2. We shoot from a static position and the image projected onto the sensor is the same absolute size in FX and DX.

Which we choose will depend on circumstances. If you at present on the edge of the Grand Canyon trying to capture something in the canyon, stepping a few steps closer might be a bad idea. If you are in the studio, you should be able to fill either sensor.

If you can fill both sensors, you are right, the FX will blow up better (assuming the same generation where FX>DX in MP). If you are shooting BIF or sports and your shooting position is defined, I am not sure there will be much difference (assuming the same lens is used).