Menu
What's new
Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!

Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.

Question......

F

fmurphy

Member
for the great minds here in the photograph forum. I'm in the market for a newer camera but having a real hard time deciding between DX and full frame. I shoot mostly aviation photos (hard to tell by all my plane photos) about 80% of the time and stuff most people would be interested in 20% of the time. The $64 million dollar question (only about $1.50 in U.S money) Is the quality of full frame good enough to crop in post processing to meet the same quality you get with the 1.5 crop factor of DX zoom or telephoto ? I'm not sure if I worded this right but I really do know what the question was.... I think....
 
I'm anxious to find out also.
 
I have never owned a full frame DSLR, too expensive so I searched the Internet trying to get an answer for you, sorry but this is the best that I could do. Kelley (Texas) :)

http://www.slrlounge.com/school/cropped-sensor-vs-full-frame-sensor-tips-in-2/
 
I think this question opens a whole can of worms. I've had this discussion on other forums too in the past and have done a lot of reading on the subject. I've had both types and actually still do...a full frame and a 1.5. There are articles on the internet that conflict with each other and say opposite things. The thing to keep in mind is that crop factor should be thought of as crop only, and not a telephoto 'reach' advantage because even though a shot through the same lens on a full frame and crop frame looks different, they're different because you get less of a field of view in your cropped camera, BUT then your monitor or electronics digitally enlarge the shot to fill the screen. A telephoto lens say of 10x will always magnify a shot 10x no matter what. After that, digital magic happens, not optical. There are advantages and disadvantages to both types though. Dx is usually cheaper and maybe a smaller camera too. Fx is better though, in less noise and better background softness. I find that when I try to digitally magnify my shots just a little, with the fx I have now I can magnify it more than my dx and still get a very clear and detailed photo. It's all rather confusing and if you do research you find that even the 'experts' seem to give you different answers. Here is an exerpt from the conclusion of a discussion I found on the internet that I believe to be true.

 
Kelley, it's funny but that's one of the articles I read that seems to contradict other articles and I think makes people thing wrong about crop factors. Here is a section from the article you posted and the one I saw, which is misleading I think..... :

"Crop Sensor Advantages – On the other side, while a crop sensor DSLR doesn’t provide the same level of image quality as a full frame DSLR, it does offers major advantages when it comes to cost. It can also be very effective for telephoto photography for the extra reach gained from the crop sensor multiplier. For example, this can be very useful when shooting sports, wildlife, and other types of photojournalism. Just imagine that on a Canon crop frame body such as a Canon 7D; your Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is effectively a 112-320mm lens!"

See, it's NOT really making your 70-200 lens a 112-320 lens......The 70-200 will always be that no matter what....it's only being digitally 'stretched' later on automatically. I used to have astronomy as a hobby and from that I know that a telescope, like a telephoto, is a certain power or focal length optically no matter what the light falls on from the eyepiece. This is a pretty confusing subject though I think. If someone isn't familiar with giving their photo a slight digital magnification after the fact, then the dx sensor may be for them, since it does it 'automatically'.
 
With modern technology, non full frame cameras have narrowed the gap between the two camera types. I have found that folks favoring full frame cameras are quick to point out the advantages of using full frame cameras and quick to point out the disadvantages of using a crop sensor camera. On the same token I have seen the same with folks using the crop sensor camera. This also brings up the subject of where does the bridge camera fit into the schemes of things? This debate often brings up more questions than answers, much like the age old debate of which is better, a Ford or Chevrolet Pickup Truck. Kelley (Texas) :)
 
I did a quick test with a 55mm lens on a dx , fx, to show comparisons out of the camera. Then I digitally enlarged the smaller fx shot to about the same size as the dx. To me it shows more detail which is important to me. White balance is a bit off in both. I just think it's fun to actually test out the different theories with our own equipment. These discussions can sometimes get a bit emotional but you know, my philosophy is to shoot and have fun and get the most out of what you have and can afford. I never want to take the fun out of photography, that's the main thing!




 
Why not use your feet to get closer or farther from the subject for a true test of detail between the FX and DX. I would think that "altering" the picture digitally would possibly not be a fair comparison, that it would be better to compose the two pictures in the viewfinder to be the same size? Just curious? Kelley (Texas) :)
 
Yes but what I was trying to show was how the size differs from the same exact distance. Your test would also be interesting...will try it but have errands to run right now, thanks for the idea.
 
I did the test but now what I'm thinking is it still isn't fair because I think both my cameras would have to be the same megapixel. Like if they were fx and dx but both 12mp that would be a good comparison, but my nex7 is 24mp and my 7r is 36mp and even though many say mp doesn't count, I find that I do get much more detail in my latest camera. So I guess I'm not really comparing oranges with oranges here. Check out the photos....This time I used my 35mm lens on both and moved in closer with the fx camera to equal the size of the dx image. You can see how I thought my nex7 was so terrific before, but comparing the second image with my latest camera it not as good as the nex7. I think with the clearer shot it allows me to in the future digitally enlarge it and it will still be clear.


 
that the more you learn, the more you discover that you don't know. :rofl: Time to get some chores done around here. Kelley (Texas) :)
 
Dave is correct in saying that this topic could open a can of worms......it's a difficult subject to tackle.
The other thing to consider is the lens and it's aperture.You can have the best sensor on earth in your camera but it needs to be used with the right lens for the chosen subject to get the most from it.Optical zoom is far more important than anything the camera does digitally so a high quality fast telephoto lens is really what you need for those great quality close up aircraft photos.Unfortunately,such lenses can be extremely expensive but if you want the ultimate quality they are a must.
I use a bridge camera that has a sensor that is the same size as those found in a compact camera but the photos it takes can be stunning under the right conditions.This is because the glass in the lens is Leica glass,the aperture is a constant 2.8 throughout the whole zoom range,even at the 600mm top end, which allows a great deal of light to hit the sensor even if I have filled the whole frame with the subject with maximum zoom.
So whether you go for full frame or cropped sensor,it is important to compose your subject as much as you can optically for the ultimate quality,which can mean a bit of an investment in a high quality lens to suit your requirements.I mostly take wildlife shots of birds(you take mechanical birds) and I can say this.......i have taken bird shots at 600 mm f2.8 with my bridge camera (and its small sensor) that will produce better photos than my pentax k5 slr will with any lens that I can afford to put on the front of it.This is the problem,the cost of the lenses.......to beat the quality i'm getting with my bridge camera with the k5,i would need to spend a very large amount on a lens which I am not prepared to do.
My advice would be to perhaps look at the used market for a camera body (from a reputable dealer with a warranty) and invest a good chunk of your money on the lens,because a very high quality lens will ensure you get the best from either type of sensor.....it really is that important if quality is what you are after.
 
I posted this last night and came home from work tonight and got EXACTLY what I was looking for. This gang is AWESOME!!! Thanks Dave for your experimentation and visually making it work. I just knew if I asked a question here that the gears would start rolling and the group would come together and find that answer. I really think the FX is a better camera and puts out exceptional photos, but for my aviation stuff I think the DX would be a better fit due to the cost of getting the lenses to really do what I would like. If it were for general photography I wouldn't hesitate on the FX, but for shooting stuff that is far away and moving, the cost of a good lens to get the full effect would be more than my public servant $$$ would allow. To be more clear on the gear I use for my little hobby of plane chasing, I am currently using a Nikon D300 12.3mp and a Nikon 70-300 VR zoom. I would think the cost of the lens would mean it was a pretty good lens. (HA I got fooled) But anyway, I really appreciate everyones input and effort on this discussion...........
think I'm about to order a D7100. Hopefully I don't get buyers remorse.
I'll sure own up to it if I do and post update whether it's thumbs up or thumbs down.
Thanks again EVERYONE
Frank m

One of our HEROES passing by taking a picture of me taking a picture of him taking a picture of me.....
 
Cool....I'm glad you got some input anyway. Another thing I thought of that may have been mentioned but I missed is that the bridge camera has the lens built in and not replaceable, which actually is great in one way....that it was designed for that camera and sensor specifically so I imagine they're 'tuned in' to the system as in Nauti Neil's where he mentioned the 2.8 constant throughout the range which is fantastic. Hope to see some posts when you get whatever you get.
 
Yes,good luck with your choice,you are already producing some excellent quality shots so it will be very interesting to see what you produce with your new gear.Keep those aircraft photos coming.......it adds an interesting subject to compliment the wide range of subjects that are taken by everybody on the forum.
 
I've never really worked with or known anyone that has a bridge camera. I'm going to do some research on those. I those of you that use them on here have excellent results and was curious about the bridge camera. Guess I'm motivated enough now to dive into it. This next week I'm going to try and take both old and new camera out to do some comparison shot of aircraft (if I get the right situation and there is something at airport doing touch and go's)shoot the aircraft with a different camera each pass with the same lens. Thanks again for the great information and encouragement. This is the best group of windmill.
Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top