Is DX dying?

[wdfifteen]

I had a discussion with a fellow photographer about the future of digital cameras and he says he's about to unload his Nikon DX stuff because its all going to be FX in the future. This caught my attention, because I've got a D300 and lenses I like, but I often shoot in situations that produce a lot of random luminance noise and I've struggled for years trying to get away from that. The larger FX sensors can supposedly be used at high ISO/short exposure and produce less of this noise. PPOT photographers, what say you? Would you jump to FX now and phase out your DX equipment?

[nostatic]

Size matters, but it depends on what you shoot, how you shoot, and what you're doing with the files. These days I have two full frame cameras (Sony A7 and Canon 6D) and a 1" sensor compact (RX100ii). I need good low light capabilities and full frame typically helps with that. In fact, I may ditch both the A7 and 6D and get a Sony A7S. Lower resolution but crazy good low-light. As in usable iso 400,000+

If you shoot birds/wildlife, there is a good argument for crop sensor. Your lenses get an equivalent longer reach and typically you're shooting from a distance. Also, crop sensor can be smaller and lighter, but the Sonys prove that full-frame can be pretty damn compact.

The reality is that your glass is really what matters. If you have *really* good Nikon lenses that are DX only (not sure there are any that qualify), then staying DX is fine. APS-C isn't going away soon. But if your lenses are just so-so, then you can consider going FX. For me I have gotten rid of most of the Canon stuff and just have a 16-35L for shooting interiors (mostly my wife uses it for her sculpture). Sony is where I'm staying for now as I have one lens that is as good as anything I've ever shot (the Zeiss 55/1.8), and also two other good ones (Zeiss 35/2.8 and 24-70/4). I don't have anything with long reach as I don't need it at the moment. I used to have a Canon 70-200/4L that was crazy good but I decided I wanted to go smaller and lighter with Sony.

Lots of choices, and the only thing that is really getting phased out are small sensor compacts - cell phones have killed them. Large sensor compacts still have a place (Sony RX100iii, Panny LX100, etc), and for now both APS-C and FF cameras seem viable.

[GH85Carrera]

Here at work we use a Nikon D3. It is several years old but we bought it new.

We shoot everything in RAW + Jpg mode. ISO 1000 and 1/4000th shutter speed. It is always oblique angle aerial photography.

The point to that is the full size sensor is amazing. Virtually zero noise or no noise. On occasion we have evening or night shoots of a football stadium. We crank the ISO up to 6,400 and the noise is very minimal to none. We make great 20x24 prints from those.



This is a small proof of one of the images done with very little image processing. The final version looks even better than this.

Full size sensors are the way to go.

[nostatic]

While I didn't end up keeping it, the Sony RX1R gave me spectacular results. Full frame sensor in a small body with fixed 35/2 lens. Amazing tech and frankly I think that Sony is spanking both Canon and Nikon in some respects. Which you might expect since they are the ones making the sensors for many manufacturers, and they have Zeiss partnering for the glass.

[Scott Douglas]

Do to budgetary constraints (retired on a fixed income now) I went with this setup to use all my old lenses and current ones on.

While I would have preferred going full frame with an A7, the NEX 7 has worked out well so far.
This picture was shot with my D7000 using a Micro Nikkor 55mm 3.5, ambient lighting at ISO 2000, f8, 1/4 second.
I haven't shot a full frame camera, other than my film cameras so can't say whether I'd be happier with a ff digital or not. So far I'm sticking with the DX stuff.

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by nostatic

The reality is that your glass is really what matters. If you have *really* good Nikon lenses that are DX only (not sure there are any that qualify), then staying DX is fine. APS-C isn't going away soon. But if your lenses are just so-so, then you can consider going FX. For me I have gotten rid of most of the Canon stuff and just have a 16-35L for shooting interiors (mostly my wife uses it for her sculpture). Sony is where I'm staying for now as I have one lens that is as good as anything I've ever shot (the Zeiss 55/1.8), and also two other good ones (Zeiss 35/2.8 and 24-70/4). I don't have anything with long reach as I don't need it at the moment. I used to have a Canon 70-200/4L that was crazy good but I decided I wanted to go smaller and lighter with Sony.

This. Folks don't seem to understand that the lens selection matters. A couple of my buddies here at work are into photograhy, and they are into all their zoomy-zoom=zoom lenses. Sure, they are versatile, but they have a lot of compromise, especially at the near and far limits of the zoom, where most folks go. My go-to lens for my Nikon D3200 is an AF-S 50mm f1.8 prime lens. My friends are amazed at the sharpness of my pictures, even in low-light, despite using the lowest of the 'low end' DX chassis Nikon makes.

Specs: Nikon D3200 (DX body) / 50mm lens, f16, 5 sec shot (tripod), ISO 200. Not the best pic, but I am satisfied with the sharpness of the shot:


For a hack/amateur photographer like me, there really is no need to go with an FX chassis - I'd rather spend the coin on more prime lenses.

-Z

[Scott Douglas]

I agree with Z-man, it's the lens that tells all.
Try a night shot with a full moon sometime. Lots of fun.
D7000, 18-200 at 18mm, ISO 125, f6.3, 30 sec.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

Full size sensors are the way to go.

That's what I'm hearing. I like the clean shadows in that picture.

My issue is taking a photo like this while standing on an 8 foot stepladder on a windy day. I have use a fast shutter and high ISO:



It results in luminance noise in the color, as you can see in this detail. Photoshop will take out the noise, but in the process it fuzzes up the picture, as you can see in the picture above. I'm hearing a camera with full size sensors will reduce this considerably.

[island911]

From a physics perspective I see no advantage to FF.

Sure, film may have had a sweet spot at 35mm, for that chemistry. And while many pricy FF digi-cameras are going to supply great sensors, I expect that the FF size is more about tugging at buyers retro emotions than it is for technical issues.

[GH85Carrera]

Some of it comes down to how tight they can cram the pixels into a small area. The ability to have a full size sensor allows for each pixel to have more data capture because each pixel is bigger. Megapixels alone do not make the sensor good. The pixel density on a full size sensor is not nearly as high as the small sensors. The large sensors just have more area to do the same work.

I have a Canon Proshot Pro1 that is 12 or so years old. It does great at ISO 100 in RAW mode. If I go to ISO 400 the noise makes the picture un-usable. It has a tinly little sensor and is technology from the turn of the century.

[Scott Douglas]

Ken Rockwell's analysis found here:

Nikon D7000, D300, D3 (D700) and Canon 5D Mark II High ISO Comparison

was helpful in my understanding of the 'why' to some of all this.

[nostatic]

Often you want to do exactly the opposite of what KR says

[PetrolBlueSC]

I just jumped from a crop sensor (Canon XSi) to full frame (Canon 6D). Wow. Some of the improvement was from moving from an older camera to a newer one, but not all. The low light shots I can get now are amazing. But I am shooting indoor sports also, see below. I never could have captured this image on my old camera. With a new crop sensor (Canon 70D, my second choice), I probably would captured a very similar image, but would not also have the amazing low light performance. My personal belief is that the market will move toward full frame on DSLRs as the cost of producing the FF sensor comes down. The crop sensors were just a stop-gap measure to lower the cost. Other than shooting wildlife, there really isn't a great reason to have all your lenses shoot at a different focal length than displayed.

[Scott Douglas]

So you're saying his analysis of why the D300 sucks compared to the D7000 is all wet?

[island911]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

..The large sensors just have more area to do the same work. .

But they sit further back. That is, the light hitting a larger sensor, further back, ends up with the same lux.

The only advantage that I can see would be born out of manufacturing limitations of pushing sensor elements in close together. IOW, the space between sensor elements potentially becomes large as pixels become super tiny.

But, if that is an issue, certainly FF would be soon bettered by FFx2, then FFx4 ... that sickness can get out of hand. FWIW, I had an engineering design gig for a film photographer - a 16x20 inch negative film holder and camera.

Considering the impressive performance out of some tiny sensors, even on cell phones shooting HD video, I think that chasing larger sensors is a fools errand, as the size of the sensor is not driving the quality of the sensor.

[winders]

Originally Posted by Scott Douglas

Ken Rockwell's analysis found here:

Nikon D7000, D300, D3 (D700) and Canon 5D Mark II High ISO Comparison

was helpful in my understanding of the 'why' to some of all this.

Rockwell is an idiot that doesn't touch half the equipment he claims to and only wants you to buy stuff through his site. No serious photographer listens to anything he has to say. Well, they don't give any credence anyway.

This site is much more accurate and useful:

Cambridge in Colour - Photography Tutorials & Learning Community

[winders]

Originally Posted by island911

But they sit further back. That is, the light hitting a larger sensor, further back, ends up with the same lux.

The flange to focal plane (sensor) distance of Nikon FX and DX cameras is the same: 46.5mm.

There are many technical advantages that full frame sensors have over crop sensors. The two most critical are better low light performance and better dynamic range.

[island911]

Sure, if you are cropping a lens image...

thing that I was talking to was the larger sensor pixel vs just using more pixels.

[winders]

A Nail in the DX Coffin? | byThom | Thom Hogan

[winders]

Originally Posted by island911

Sure, if you are cropping a lens image...

thing that I was talking to was the larger sensor pixel vs just using more pixels.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please elaborate.