DX vs FX Comparison

[hockeyhead019]

I'm curious if anybody has done a side by side comparison of full frame and crop sensor cameras with the same lens in regards to shooting our tanks.

I'm aware of all the technical differences and the one that intrigues me the most is the better performance at higher ISO levels that a full frame camera provides and if that can come across drastically when shooting the tank.

 

[link81]

minimal difference.
better low light performance, and slightly different DOF for the same focal length and aperture.

most important will be lens quality and camera capability. not sensor size.

 

[erk]

minimal difference.
better low light performance, and slightly different DOF for the same focal length and aperture.

most important will be lens quality and camera capability. not sensor size.

The low light performance is better than I expected. Granted, I use a Nikon D810 and a D7100. The low light performance of the D810 blows the D7100 away. Not sure about the low light performance of the D750 or other "hobbyist" level full frames. But lens quality is of the utmost importance. Save the money on the camera body and invest in good glass.

 

[hockeyhead019]

minimal difference.
better low light performance, and slightly different DOF for the same focal length and aperture.

most important will be lens quality and camera capability. not sensor size.

Sure, I was just curious if anybody has done a side by side with a popular lens (ie Tamron 90mm or Nikon 105mm)? I feel like describing the effects as "minimal" is pretty loose

 

[link81]

same lens? same vintage of camera?
you'd be hard pressed to notice a difference, aside from counting pixels.
Most tank photography is macro, so the DOF is razor thin (unless you focus stack)
i'd be willing to bet if you put a APSC image and FF image next to each other cropped to the same size, they would look identical.

 

[hockeyhead019]

same lens? same vintage of camera?
you'd be hard pressed to notice a difference, aside from counting pixels.
Most tank photography is macro, so the DOF is razor thin (unless you focus stack)
i'd be willing to bet if you put a APSC image and FF image next to each other cropped to the same size, they would look identical.

Interesting, I'd be really interested if anybody gave it a shot.

The only advantage I can think for a FF is picking up a stop or two of usable ISO to be able to speed the shutter up. But with all the same settings I'm not sure, and have always been curious, what the results would be. I'm aware that FF will have a shallower depth of field with the same aperature and the actual focal length will be different due to a crop sensors magnifcation factor. But if one were to correctly compensate for the focal distance and take the same shot in the same conditions what the results would yield.

More just a question that has always interested me. I have the tamron 90mm for glass and that's produced some great results for me. It's more of an overall question for my future glass purchases if I should focus on getting FF glass in the event I upgrade bodies, or if I can/should just stick with DX glass and save some dinero while still getting nice pieces.

 

[erk]

Interesting, I'd be really interested if anybody gave it a shot.

The only advantage I can think for a FF is picking up a stop or two of usable ISO to be able to speed the shutter up. But with all the same settings I'm not sure, and have always been curious, what the results would be. I'm aware that FF will have a shallower depth of field with the same aperature and the actual focal length will be different due to a crop sensors magnifcation factor. But if one were to correctly compensate for the focal distance and take the same shot in the same conditions what the results would yield.

More just a question that has always interested me. I have the tamron 90mm for glass and that's produced some great results for me. It's more of an overall question for my future glass purchases if I should focus on getting FF glass in the event I upgrade bodies, or if I can/should just stick with DX glass and save some dinero while still getting nice pieces.

I started DX and bought some DX lenses. Just don't. Go full FX lenses. They tend to be better quality and you can use them on both body styles. There is also the resell value to consider. DX lenses have horrible resell value. As for ISO, on the newer cameras it doesn't matter whether DX or FX. The D500 for example has amazing ISO performance and it is DX. I wouldn't worry about ISO unless you are trying to do astrophotography. I use my DX body primarily for wildlife photography as it gives a little bit more reach with the 1.4x scale factor vs 35mm.

 

[hockeyhead019]

I started DX and bought some DX lenses. Just don't. Go full FX lenses. They tend to be better quality and you can use them on both body styles. There is also the resell value to consider. DX lenses have horrible resell value. As for ISO, on the newer cameras it doesn't matter whether DX or FX. The D500 for example has amazing ISO performance and it is DX. I wouldn't worry about ISO unless you are trying to do astrophotography. I use my DX body primarily for wildlife photography as it gives a little bit more reach with the 1.4x scale factor vs 35mm.

Yeah, that's the general advice pattern. But I'll be honest, it's a little confusing at this point, with the DX cameras catching up with performance (as stated loosly in this thread) why not save some dinero and get equally well performing glass that specialized for the DX bodies? IE Nikon 17-55 f2.8 or the Sigma 17-50 f2.8?

Too many options for me to wrap my head around lol just using this thread to vent at this point as good glass is expensive and I'd hate to be buying something that I don't have a full need for if I'm going to stick with a crop sensor body.

 

[erk]

Yeah, that's the general advice pattern. But I'll be honest, it's a little confusing at this point, with the DX cameras catching up with performance (as stated loosly in this thread) why not save some dinero and get equally well performing glass that specialized for the DX bodies? IE Nikon 17-55 f2.8 or the Sigma 17-50 f2.8?

Too many options for me to wrap my head around lol just using this thread to vent at this point as good glass is expensive and I'd hate to be buying something that I don't have a full need for if I'm going to stick with a crop sensor body.

The glass is a different conversation. The FX glass is higher quality because that is what the professionals use. This doesn't mean all FX glass is good. Some is made for the entry level/amateur hobbyist level. The DX glass is made purely for the hobbyist. Therefore, not as high of quality. Don't need to be because the hobbyist doesn't carry as much clout as the professional users.

Your argument about sticking with a crop sensor camera so stick with crop sensor lenses is the same I had years ago. Then I got my hands on good FX lenses and I never went back. If photography is just a part of your overall aquarium hobby, then stick with the DX gear. For me, photography is a major hobby, specifically nature/wildlife/bird photography. So I invested in good gear. It's all about hobbies and what you want to put into them.

 

[hockeyhead019]

The glass is a different conversation. The FX glass is higher quality because that is what the professionals use. This doesn't mean all FX glass is good. Some is made for the entry level/amateur hobbyist level. The DX glass is made purely for the hobbyist. Therefore, not as high of quality. Don't need to be because the hobbyist doesn't carry as much clout as the professional users.

Your argument about sticking with a crop sensor camera so stick with crop sensor lenses is the same I had years ago. Then I got my hands on good FX lenses and I never went back. If photography is just a part of your overall aquarium hobby, then stick with the DX gear. For me, photography is a major hobby, specifically nature/wildlife/bird photography. So I invested in good gear. It's all about hobbies and what you want to put into them.

Good data point and I appreciate you sharing your experience. Photography is a growing hobby for me that got sparked by shooting the tank but has now expanded pretty decently.