Some of the most frequently asked questions from our readers are around DX and FX format sensors. What is DX and FX? What are their differences? Which one is better and why? If you have similar questions and want to get a clear understanding about these formats and their differences, along with seeing actual image samples from both, this article is for you.
Before diving into sensor formats, it is first important to understand what a sensor is and what it does in a Digital SLR camera. It is easier to understand how sensors work by comparing them with the human eye. The lens in front of the camera essentially functions as the cornea of your eyes, gathering ambient light and passing it to the iris. The iris then expands or shrinks, controlling the amount of light that enters the retina, which functions almost exactly like a camera sensor. The retina is light-sensitive, meaning it can adjust its sensitivity based on the available light. If there is too much light, it decreases its sensitivity, while automatically increasing the sensitivity in a dim environment, so that you could see in both extremely bright and extremely dark conditions. Remember what happens when you come out of a dark place to a very bright, sunny environment and vice-versa? Either your eyes will hurt and everything will seem too bright, or you will have a hard time seeing at all – due to sensitivity of the eyes that have not yet adjusted for the new environment. The sensitivity of your eyes is just like the sensitivity of the sensor, also known as “ISO” in photography. But sensitivity comes at a price – high sensitivity levels ultimately decrease image quality, similar to when you have a hard time seeing in a very dark environment. This degradation of image quality is first visible as “grain” or “noise” in the pictures, followed by loss of detail, sharpness and color in extreme levels of sensitivity. When I say “extreme”, I mean extreme to the digital camera, not human eye. Even with all of the latest advancements in sensor technology, cameras are not even close to seeing the range of light the human eye can see in various environments.
Captured with Nikon D700 FX Camera
The sensor is the most important component of a digital camera, because it is directly responsible for capturing an optical image and converting it to an electric signal, which later gets optimized and converted to a digital image by other camera electronics. Just like your computer screen, sensors contain millions of pixels, except they are there to collect light, not display it. When you see a digital camera with 12 megapixels, it literally means that the camera sensor contains 12 million tiny pixels for the sole purpose of gathering light. Think of those pixels as buckets that attract light particles – the larger the bucket, the more light particles it can store in a given amount of time. These buckets are known as “photosites” and their size plays a huge role in sensor sensitivity and ability to accurately gather light in various lighting conditions. Bigger buckets are always better than smaller ones, because more light particles can be stored in those, without getting over-filled. The information about light particles is then passed on to the camera processor, which assembles a digital image starting from the first pixel all the way to the last. And all of this happens in a matter of milliseconds!
While larger pixels (or bigger buckets) work best for sensors, they are also extremely expensive to manufacture. To keep the costs low and product accessible to a broader customer range, many camera manufacturers produce smaller sensors. Obviously, as the size of the sensors decrease, so do the number of pixels. To combat this problem, manufacturers have been cramming more and more pixels into tiny sensors while simultaneously increasing the efficiency and throughput of each pixel. Unfortunately, this resulted in a “megapixel race” among the manufacturers and we are seeing more and more pixels in the modern sensors, despite the fact that the size of the sensors has pretty much remained the same.
1) What is DX?
When Nikon entered the digital world of SLR photography, their first Nikon D1 DSLR had a smaller sensor to make it more accessible to professionals (it sold for $5,850 when it was announced). It was about 2/3 of the size of the 35mm film and it only had 2.66 megapixels. The camera quickly gained popularity and more updates of the same DSLR followed – some with more resolution and others with more speed. Nikon eventually dubbed the smaller sensor “DX”, which is approximately 24x16mm in size and is still being widely used in all entry-level (Nikon D3000/D5000), semi-professional (Nikon D90) and even professional (Nikon D300s) cameras. Obviously, the number of megapixels went up significantly with the latest DX sensors having 12.3 effective megapixels (4,288 x 2,848 resolution), which means the pixel size has also equally decreased, resulting in higher pixel density. Nikon has been able to do so because of new advancements in sensor technology, better noise-reduction algorithms and more processing power.
Historically, all digital sensor formats have been measured and compared against 35mm film. In the case of DX format, due to the sensor being smaller than 36x24mm (size of 35mm film), the subjects appeared slightly more magnified when compared to film. This was normal for the DX format, because smaller sensor meant that a smaller area of the lens towards the center was to be used and everything else discarded. However, photographers kept on comparing this difference in field of view or angle of view to the traditional film and new terms such as “crop factor” and “equivalent focal length” were born. Why did this happen? Because a photographer with a DX digital camera using a 50mm lens appeared to have the same view as a film photographer with a 75mm lens and nobody wanted to accept this change as “normal”, again, relative to film.
Nikon DX sensors, for example, have a crop factor of 1.5x. What this means, is that relative to 35mm film, the image will appear enlarged by approximately 50%. So shooting with a 24-70mm lens is “equivalent” of shooting with a 36-105mm lens on a film body. This is where things got messy and people started getting confused about focal lengths and sensor sizes. How can you say that a lens is longer in focal length with a DX sensor, if the physical property of the lens has not changed? A 24-70mm lens is a 24-70mm lens no matter which camera body it is on and no sensor can change that. The whole “equivalent to mm” verbiage can be too confusing, because it is equivalent only relative to 35mm film. At the same time, how do you explain that a 200mm lens on a DX sensor has an equivalent field of view of a 300mm lens on film? That’s why it has been quite common among photographers to compare this new field of view problem with film.
2) What is FX?
In August of 2007, Nikon released the long awaited full-frame Nikon D3 FX camera with 12.1 megapixels. It was the first Nikon DSLR to have a 35mm equivalent digital sensor that measured approximately 36x24mm in size with a 4256×2832 resolution. Nikon realized that cramming more pixels into a tiny DX sensor was not helping in low-light situations and the only way to increase the sensitivity of the sensor was to increase the pixel size. The 36x24mm full-frame sensor is more than twice larger in size than a 24x16mm DX sensor. By keeping the number of megapixels low relative to the size of the sensor, Nikon increased the pixel size by 2.4 times, thus having much larger photosites to store light particles. What this meant, was that the sensor could have higher sensitivity levels and see a much larger range of light from blacks to whites, known as “dynamic range“.
With the full-frame FX sensor, the terms “crop factor” and “equivalent focal length” are no longer valid, because an FX sensor is the same size as film. This means that if you took a film camera and a full-frame digital camera, mounted 24-70mm lenses on them and took pictures of the same subject, both would produce a similar view, not a magnified one like with DX sensors.
Let’s now move on to advantages and disadvantages of both DX and FX sensors.
3) Advantages and disadvantages of DX format
Let’s start with DX. What are the advantages and disadvantages of DX formats?
Advantages of DX format
- Cost – obvious advantage, because the sensor is much cheaper to manufacture.
- Lens sharpness and vignetting – since DX sensors use the center of the lens and discard the corners, many professional lenses will perform extremely well on DX, because the center of the lens is always optimized for sharpness than the corners. Vignetting is also typically much less pronounced on DX bodies than on FX, again due to corners not being used. For example, the older version of the Nikon 70-200mm VR II lens performed beautifully on DX bodies and quite poorly on FX bodies, which is why Nikon had to update it with a better version for full-frame cameras.
- Low-cost lenses – since the corners are cut off for the DX format anyway, manufacturers started offering smaller and more compact lenses for DX sensors that cost much less than regular lenses for film and full-frame sensors.
- Reach – this part is a little controversial, again due to comparison in the field of view between DX and FX sensors, but due to the size of the sensor and its crop factor, DX sensors generally provide a better reach than full-frame sensors. Some people say “well, you could simply crop an image from a full-frame sensor and have the same result as what DX provides”, which is not true, mainly due to megapixels and pixel size. If a DX sensor is 12 megapixels, cropping an equivalent field of view from a 12 megapixel full-frame sensor would give you much smaller resolution (approximately 5-6 megapixels). However, it is a different story if you have over 25 megapixels on a full-frame sensor – cropping 12 megapixels out would yield a similar result as DX, if the size of the pixel is the same. There are a few other things to consider like depth of field, but generally, it will be the same.
- Size and weight – cameras with DX sensors are generally smaller and lighter than cameras with FX sensors, because full-frame sensors are currently only being used on high-end professional cameras that are bigger and heavier.
Nikon FX and DX - Field of View Differences
Disadvantages of DX format
- Noise in high ISO levels – the biggest disadvantage of DX, as I pointed out above, is the small size of pixels, which results in noisy pictures and much less sharpness and detail in higher sensitivity levels. See image samples below for comparison.
- Smaller dynamic range – compared to FX, DX cameras have a smaller dynamic range, largely due to pixel size and density.
- Problems with wide-angle lenses – due to a difference in the field of view, wide-angle lenses are not so wide on a DX body anymore. A 14mm ultra wide-angle lens is more like a 21mm lens when compared to a full-frame camera, which means that you can fit a lot less in your frame. This is generally not a problem in environments where you can move back and still fit more, but presents a problem when working very close to a subject in tight space environments.
- DX lens incompatibility with FX – if you have DX lenses and one day decide to switch over to FX, you will have to purchase non-DX lenses to utilize the full resolution of a full-frame camera. DX lenses do work on FX sensors, but only at half the resolution.
- Lens diffraction – DX sensors cause more lens diffraction when small apertures above f/8-f/11 are used.
- Smaller viewfinder size – due to a smaller mirror and pentaprism/pentamirror used on DX cameras, the viewfinder on DX is smaller and not as bright when compared to FX.
Mirror size differences between D300 and D700:
Nikon D300 vs D700
4) Advantages and disadvantages of FX format
Now how does FX compare to DX?
Advantages of FX format
- Scalability – due to the large size of the sensor, FX format allows two different configurations: one with lots of resolution (Nikon D3x) and one with better sensitivity and speed (Nikon D3s) for different needs. For example, landscape and fashion photographers need large print sizes and would therefore want more resolution, while wildlife and sports photographers need the speed and low amounts of noise in dim environments.
- Higher sensitivity and lower noise – as I have pointed out above, pixel size plays a significant role in sensitivity levels of the camera, along with controlling noise levels at high ISOs. For example, Nikon D700 (FX) has a similar number of pixels as Nikon D90/D300s (DX) and yet the pixels on the D700 are much bigger in size than on D90/D300s. So, if you were to compare ISO 800 on these cameras, the Nikon D700 image would look much cleaner compared to Nikon D90/D300s.
- Large dynamic range – again, bigger pixel size allows collecting more light particles, which results in larger dynamic range when compared to DX.
- No field of view issue – with FX, forget about such things as “crop factor” and “equivalent focal length” – you get a similar field of view as if you were shooting film.
- Lens compatibility – FX lenses are backwards compatible with DX lenses, meaning that they will work perfectly on DX bodies as well.
- Lens diffraction – compared to DX, lens diffraction is typical to 35mm film and starts to affect image sharpness at smaller apertures above f/11-f/16.
- Larger and brighter viewfinder – large sensor means large mirror and pentaprism, which means a large and brighter viewfinder. Focusing with a large viewfinder is much easier, because you see more details.
- Wide is truly wide – an ultra wide-angle lens such as Nikon 16-35mm f/4 is not really that wide on a DX body, because of the crop factor. This problem goes away on FX and you get the true 16mm field of view as you would if you were using 35mm film.
Disadvantages of FX format
- High cost – large FX sensors are expensive to manufacture than DX sensors. Nikon’s FX sensor is a flagship product and the company only uses it in professional-grade DSLR cameras such as Nikon D700/D3s/D3x.
- Lens sharpness and vignetting – because FX utilizes a much larger area than DX on the lens, corner performance on lenses might become an issue, although Nikon has been updating their lens line and releasing new lenses that deliver outstanding corner performance for FX sensors. For example, the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G and Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G lenses were both introduced specifically for FX needs.
- Size and weight – larger internal components, rugged body and professional electronics all add up to the weight, making FX cameras the heaviest in Nikon’s line of DSLRs. With the release of the D700 DSLR that has a similar size and dimensions to D300s, Nikon has diminished the gap between top of the line DX camera and FX, however, the difference is still quite large when compared to entry-level DSLRs such as Nikon D3000/D5000.
5) DX and FX – high ISO image samples
Now let’s move on to the good stuff – a real image comparison between DX and FX sensors in high sensitivity (ISO) levels. In this example, I used a Nikon D300, D700 and D3s cameras and tested each at ISO 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400. Images from the Nikon D3 would look identical to the ones from D700, which is why it was not included in the test. Here is the sample are that I used for the test:
I cropped the lower center portion of the image from each image. I used the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D lens @ 35mm for this test with the default camera settings and shot in RAW. In order to get the same field of view on the Nikon D300 camera (due to 1.5x crop factor), I had to change the focal length to approximately 23mm on the lens. The below images are 100% crops and they are NOT resized in any way, so the sharpness and noise levels are somewhat accurate. Each image is tagged with the camera and ISO information and I highly recommend clicking on the images to be able to compare them through our image viewer. EXIF data is also preserved for those who want to see the camera settings. High ISO noise reduction was set to “Normal” in all cameras. No sharpening was applied to any of the images. I did not bother comparing ISO lower than 800, because this is a high ISO test. One thing to note though, is that Nikon D300 has a little more noise between ISO 200 and 800 compared to Nikon D700/D3s.
ISO 800 (Left top: Nikon D300, Right top: Nikon D700, Left bottom: Nikon D3s):
The difference between DX and FX is already pronounced at ISO 800. The image from the Nikon D300 DX sensor looks looks noisy and we are beginning to lose a little bit of sharpness. Nikon D700 and D3s look almost identical with no visible noise.
ISO 1600:
At ISO 1600, the Nikon D300 is extremely noisy and there is clear evidence of loss of sharpness and detail in the image. Nikon D700 starts having a little bit of noise in the shadows and Nikon D3s is still very clean.
ISO 3200:
The situation at ISO 3200 changes dramatically. Nikon D300 looks pretty bad, while Nikon D700 is still retaining sharpness, but has some noise in the shadows. Nikon D3s is shining again with the least amount of noise in the picture.
ISO 6400:
At ISO 6400, the image from Nikon D300 is unusable. Nikon D700 has a considerable amount of noise and starting to lose some sharpness, while D3s has a touch of noise but retained all sharpness and details.
As you can see, the difference between DX and FX is substantial. If we measure the above in full stops, the difference between DX and the most current FX sensor is around 3 stops. Take a look at these two images for comparison:
The image on the left is Nikon D300 at ISO 800 and the image on the right is Nikon D3s at ISO 6400! When I look closely, the image from the Nikon D3s actually looks sharper than the image from D300, which means that there is even more than 3 stops of difference between the two. In addition, despite the fact that I used the same color profile, white balance and saturation levels on both images, the image from the D3s has better colors.
6) Conclusion
As I have explained in this article and demonstrated with the above image samples, the difference between DX and FX sensors is quite clear when it comes to overall image quality. The first generation Nikon FX sensors from D700 and D3 are about 1.5 stops better than DX counterparts, while the second generation D3s FX camera is over 3 stops better than DX. The size of the sensor and pixels within the sensor is extremely important and FX shows that it is a far more capable sensor than DX when it comes to noise, dynamic range and other factors.
The big question that everybody asks at one point or another, is if FX is so much better than DX, will DX be eventually phased out and completely replaced by FX? My answer is probably not for now, definitely not until the cost of FX goes down significantly. Nikon will probably continue producing and selling DX lenses for a number of years.
I hope my article will help you to clearly understand the difference between the two formats and remove all confusion around DX and FX sensors. Please let me know if you have any questions in the comments section below.
About Nasim Mansurov
Hi Nasim,
Really a great post. I am now much clear about the difference between Fx & Dx. Thanks again for this post.
I really doubt that anybody out there will ever have the ability to look at a photo that went through processing (printed or screen) and say: “Ah, this was shot with a camery that has a FX sensor built in.”
It is not so easy, but it all depends on the print size (I don’t mean pixels) and if you push the cameras to their limits. If you use at base ISO I agree with you, just try ISO 6400 or 12800 on DX and tell me if you can note the diference between DX and FX. Personally I don’t justify such high ISO but for some people it makes the difference. Processing helps, making the DX better, but processing both FX is best.
Thanks great post, :)
Thank you for the thorough explanations! Great info.
Finnly some one explained it in a proper human being language the differences betwen FX and DX, thank you very much for this.
Thanks for the information. You have talked about FX lens on DX body.
How about DX lens on FX body does it go well equally. eg Nikon D800 body with 18-300 mm NiKon DX lens. Is there any major disadvantage compared to 28-300 mm Nikon FX lens.
Great post. Very detailed and explains everything very concisely. Thank you for putting in the time.
This was a very helpful post. Thank you for detailing everything for us. More power to you.
Thank you for the information. Very helpful.
Very informative. The picture comparison really helped understanding the difference. Thank you !
Excellent article and very clear and useful explanation.
Thank you!
Great post. Really helped me in taking a decision for Fx Vs Dx format camera.
Dear Nasim,
Thank you so much for your very useful article.
This one was the best as the others.
I think that your origin is back to Azerbaijan, if yes, I’m from Tabriz/IRAN and i will be glad if i can speak to you in Azeri.
With best Regards.
Ata.
Great article thanks.
This helps me understand the differences and maybe guide me on my 1st DSLR.
My 1st thought was the Nikon D7000 but may consider the D600 now!
Cheers
Thanks for the great article
Nasim, I have a new Nikon Dx camera D5100. I have taken hundreds of photographs but No any photograph has equals the quality of Fx camera images. My images are of low contrast & sharpness. I want to become a professional photographer in the nature & wildlife field. So how much is necessary to buy a Full frame camera like Nikon D800 ?
it more of depends on the Lens quality and post processing …
I had a d5100 for 2 years, prior to getting my new d600. I won several photo-contests with that camera, and took several pictures that ended up on magazine covers.
Honestly, good pictures come from the photographer and not camera.
Work on your post production editing, and your composition… the d5100 will take care of its end of the deal. It really is a great great camera for its price.
Perhaps it is the lense you are using and not the camera. You can try (borrow or rent) a better quality lense and see what difference it will have on the image quality (contrast, colors, overall sharpness, etc.)
Thank you for this easy-to-understand explanation.This is exactly what I need to understand… the very basic difference between the two. Thank you once again.
Thanks for writing so many informative articles. I believe you have an error in the DX vs. FX article. You commented that the Nikon 70-200mm VRII had to updated to work better with FX. As I understand it was the VRI that worked well on DX but not on FX.
Sorry I read the comment again. My error – statement is correct.
Thank you for the info about DX and FX.
I’m planning to purchase Nikon D600 but thinking around to find single lens that suitable for shooting scenic, people, night view, and some object zooming focus.
Any lens recommend for this kind of shoot?
If I just use this AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR II DX does it enough?
Does DX lens can fix into FX DLSR body?
Hope someone can help.
Having used AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR is a kind of one stop for all (plz don’t flame me.. :) ). I have used it for around 3 yrs and its a good lens to start with. Now i ‘am going for Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D as i need to take more portraits..
Yup, DX lens should fit well with FX body..
Quote from Nikon site..
“On an FX-format camera with a DX lens mounted, the camera will automatically engage its built-in DX crop mode, thus recording an image only from the center section of the sensor.”
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g588ouey/the-dx-and-fx-formats.html
Thank you for the explanation.
Does AF-S 18-200mm FX lens available in the market? Should I go for FX or DX lens, since the picture captured from FX lens are very impressive me. Or any recommend FX lens suitable for all-in-one shot.
Great post. I have learned so much from this. Thank you very much..
Hello,
Great review.
However, something fundamental is missing, the depth of field. If you take the same picture (same composition, same aperture) with a DX and FX the depth of field will be different, shorter on FX. For the same compo you can blur the background more easily with a FX than a DX, with a DX than a point and shoot or a cell phone …. this is not a feature of the cameras but optically fundamental.
Excellent information
Very clear and useful explanation about DX and FX sensors.
Thank you
Hi!
Excellent post, but I have one question..
I’ve just started with photography and got Nikon d3100 (don’t ask me – my finances were short)
And since I’ve got 18-105mm dx lenses in a kit I’ve got a question..
I’m intending to buy some short “normal” lenses like 35mm or 50mm for indoor photography. I also possess sb-910 and am looking forward to get better equipment when I’ll be able to. But could you just tell me what the difference is if I use FX 50mm 1.8f lens on a d3100 versus DX 35mm 1.8f lens.. since they all cost about 200€ and I’m not convinced in any yet. I know I’ll buy a fx camera but it might still take a year or two, maybe more.. so therefor I do not know which to choose
Thank you for your information. I learn a lot everyday and Photographylife helps me pretty much with it!
@waki
HI,
adding my 2 cents
both are wonderful lenses as they can stop down to 1.8. well 35mm will be more wider than 50mm and can take more wider area than 50mm. however 50mm can take portraits well from a distant (it is 75mm full frame equivalent) and produce beatiful bokeh backgrounds.
so it depends on your requirements. using your 18-105mm kit lenses at 35mm and 50mm, see that you exactly require and buy accordingly.
@MJohn
Thank you for your reply. But I think you didn’t understand the question exactly.. so let me put it like this,
I have a DX body and now I’m wondering what are the pluses and the minuses of using FX lenses on it..
@waki
The only minus of using FX lenses is the price (FX more expensive) and the size (FX lenses usually bigger).
That it. After it will depend on the quality of the lens (FX lens usually better).
For your case between the 35mm-DX and 50mm-Dx they both coast about the same price and size the same. So @MJohn is right compare 35 and 50 mm shoots and see what is the best for you.
@waki
and my 2 cents… :)
- Regarding the IQ you can find reviews on the net for both lenses
- Regarding the usability both will work on FX camera (if you plan to go with one in the future), however with the DX lens the FX will work in “crop” mode, not using the whole sensor
- Last but not least is the fact the lenses are “usually” less sharper in the corners. That being said, using FX lense on a DX camera you are going to use more the central zone of the optics, so you could expect better IQ, while with DX lense you are using the optics from border to border. Again, this is in theory, it all depends on the quolity of the lenses you are comparing.
Hope, that answers your question :)
Fantastic help. Thank you!!!
This article really helped me.. Thanks a lot.. :)
One question here.
Let say D5200, 24.1 megapixels on APS-C or DX format CMOS sensor. The size of pixel is quite small and it might has noise in high ISO, if I lower image quality say 14 megapixels, is it can improve the noise in high ISO?
In other word, 24.1 megapixels on DX format sensor (image quality set to 14 megapixels) compare with 14 megapixels on DX format sensor (image quality set to 14 megapixels). Is it the noise level same for both sensor in same high ISO?
I still don’t get the ISO performance thing. Bigger pixels means more light gathered and better low light performance…that I understand. But full frame sensors have more pixels. I haven’t tried a full frame camera yet, so I am not saying they are not a lot better in low light, I am just saying that I don’t understand why….. Look at this fairly realistic example:
full frame sensor (24mp) 36×24 = frame size 864mm
cropped sensor (12mp) 24×16 = frame size 364mm
…so the pixel size for the full frame is:
864 / 24 = 36 (lets just forget the millions to make it easier)
…and for the cropped frame
364 / 12 = 32
So in this case is it right to assume that the full frame camera gathers just a bit more light (12.5% more)? That means that a camera costing often 5 or 6 times as much as a DX will give me just an eighth of a stop better performance.
So either the difference is barely noticable or my maths is wrong.
@jimmy72
Hi,
This article has been written in a time (March 2010) when no or few FX (or DX) format had more than a ten of millions pixels existed. D800, D4, D600 wasn’t here yet so it refers to D3 and D700 (and equivalent for other brand than Nikon), compared to D90, D300 etc ….
You are right now the pixel density of FX reach the pixel density of some (old) DX but the detector improved and the low light performances improved for a fixed pixel size.
But you must compare same generation of FX and DX, for instance D600 and the new D3200 24m and 22m of pixels respectively, you will see that pixels in D600 or D800 are larger than in D3200.
If you compare D800 and D7000, the pixel density is the same but you compare a new camera to a already 2 years old camera.
I see what you’re saying, Sylvain. Thanks for the response.
great great article! tks so much for explaining it so simply… the best. i am choosing a camera and your site is so helpfull – congrats!!! tks again for this one!. bjs =)
Hi Nasim,
Thank you for the awesome article.
I’m a software professional but very very interested in photography. I did my majors in photography but did not pursue it since i needed some money to start with. It’s my inner desire (always been) to do good photography basically landscape (nature lover!) and portrait. Recently i purchased a D7000 but i’m very confused (money factor!) and want to switch to FX (love the image quality). Please advise if i should go with this huge investment.
Happy clicking!
- Prejeeth
Hi Nasim
Thank you for this excellent article. You know your stuff and know how to explain it. I’m an aspiring landscape photographer and am currently using a D300s. I’ve never been totally happy with the dynamic range; in bright conditions it’s still short of the mark – even with filters, this article has now explained why. I’m seriously considering upgrading to a D700, which should give me a big dynamic range advantage.
Many thanks
Mal
Hello Nasim! thank you for all you posts!! they all are extremely useful to me!
I have Nakon D7000 and 50mm 1.8D lense. I am looking to buy a compatible with full frame camera, zoom lense for general and wedding photography, what do you think about 16-35mm f4G ED VR? I would love a sharp lense, i like very much the 24-70 mm you recommended in your Weddinh Photography lense post, but it is to expensive right now.
Thank you very much again!
Hi Nasim
Thanks for your lucid and wonderfully informative articles. Thanks to you I started out my wildlife photography with a Nikon 70-300 VR lens and then again on your advice just bought a 300mm F4 lens with 1.4TC since I found that I could not get close enough and losing clarity on the 70-300 when cropping.
I plan to give my D5100 with 70-300 to my son to use.. I now need a body to go with my 300mm F4 with 1.4 TC. I have shortlisted D7000 and D800. Any advice which way to go? Money wise I can afford a D800 though it will be a bit of a stretch..
Thanks
Peter, Mumbai, India
Thank you for perfect explenation, very usefull.
Regards,
Michal, Slovakia
Thank you for this clear explanation and waiting for the price of FX cameras to become within the reach of the amateur consumer.
Try this Nikon D600 with Nikon 24-85mm 3.5 AFS VR for $1999.98 http://www.adorama.com/INKD600K1KE.html
This is a very useful article and as said let us wait till the FX format cameras become less expensive so that they can be within the reach of the amateur photographer.
I want to get a 24mp camera to use for bird photography. I expect some extensive cropping for far away birds. Which would you recommend, the d600 FX with higher quality sensor or the d3200 with a built in 1.5 zoom factor. Would the FX format offset the crop factor.
Great article, by the way, thanks
Hey Nasim,
I really enjoy reading this article. I would like your thought about my confused situation .
I currently own Pentax.. I love the camera but as Pentax does not have any Service Centre in my country I am unwilling to investi in pentax Gear and Lenses. So i am moving to Nikon.
I my budjet is around $2000 -$2300 USD. So i was planning D7k + good lens , but recently NIkon announce D600 FX body with great discount around 2k body and lens , no all of sudden a FX body with 24-85 and a fast 50 mm lens (without crop factor ) falls in my budjet. This is causing lot of confusion.
I enjoy photography, It is my hobby not carrier and i will invest in more lenses in next years but right now I am not able to decide Nikon D600 vs D7k. I do know the benefits of FX and DX and their cons too, but unable to decide anything as both are in my budjet.
Thank you in advance.
Please pardon my TYPOS and spellings.. :(
very informative post for like me
thanks
dr v k dhawan
Thank you very much for the exclusive explanation.
Thanks for this great article. I really enjoyed reading it and got so much informationto learn from.
Great article. Helped me to make my decision.
Thank you for the post. This really helped a lot.
I have been looking to upgrade my nikon D80 into a newer camera and now I am pretty much pondering between D800 and D600. I take pictures in a variety of settings (sports, landscape, inside events, portraits etc.). The only difference I see in D800 and D600 is the megapixels, the exterior and the price.
With a FX image sensor what difference does it make if you have 36.3 or 24.3 megapixels? Some say that the D800 shoots grainier pictures at higher ISO than D600 due to its higher megapixels, is this true?
Many websites where they do camera testing are showing that the D600 has slightly lower noise at high ISO than the D800, but it’s not noticeable to the eye so you really wouldn’t be able to say it is “grainier” on the D800. On the other hand, the D800 has a tiny bit better image quality and a little better dynamic range (its ability to distinguish differences between whites, blacks and all the greys in between), but again it’s not noticeable and only shows up in extensive testing. Statistically negligible is what you would call the quality differences between the two.
The difference between the 24 MP and 36 MP pictures they take is that the 36 MP picture has more data to work with and would stand up to enlargements better if you are printing them, or arguably stand up better to cropping.
The big difference between the two is the camera quality. The D600 is not a professional quality camera.
The D600 has a smaller autofocus area which only has 39 focus points of which 9 are the cross-type (the fancier focus points that work better). Compare that to the D800 which has a wider autofocus area which has 51 focus points of which 15 are the smarter cross-type. This makes the D800 a better autofocus camera if you are taking pictures of moving things, but if you take pictures of mostly still objects you might not see the difference.
The D800 has a better resolution screen on the back which is reinforced to keep it from breaking, pro level weather sealing, a tougher pro body, 20% less delay when you click the shutter, twice the maximum shutter speed, a larger viewfinder, pro controls and menu items, and more.
The question when deciding on a purchase between the two is do you need that extra pro stuff. If you don’t need it, you can get virtually the same quality pictures from the D600 for probably 700 bucks less. Some people who have bought the D600 are pining that they wished they had the pro features. Some are OK with it. In many way, the new D7100 looks like a better camera to me than the D600. My choice now might be between the D7100 with much faster frames per second but a smaller DX sensor, or the D800 with the FX sensor but which might not keep up with me at 4 fps.
Actually the difference between a D600 and D800 at high (>3200) ISO is pretty marked when viewed at 100%. I’m tossing up between the 2 and after renting both for a day to compare I’d call the D600 to be about 1.5 stops better in terms of noise (again when viewed at 100%).
I regularly print up to 1m diagonal, and for my tastes I’d rate the D600 as passable at 12800 ISO, and the D800 not usable at 6400 ISO (I think about 5000 would be its limit), though the D800 has slightly more resolution at this print size. Of course we all have different tastes/tolerances when it comes to noise so your mileage may vary…
If you only print 8x10s or view on screen/online a lot of noise is masked by downsampling, but then again there’s little reason for spending the extra $$$ for 36mp if that’s all you are going to do with it.
I haven’t bought either yet as my next photography trip isn’t until Jan, but if I had to buy now it would be the D600 and spend the change on glass.
Most helpful post I read today. Comes from someone who doesn’t compare numbers on a spec sheet but the ink jetted pixels on papers. Thank you very much.
Calimagne
This is by far one of the most helpful post on the web I have come across. Thank you for taking the time to really explain everything so detailed!
Well 3 years later after you published this nice text come D600 and its probably means FX will leave us sooner than we was thinking…
l mean DX ofcourse :)
Well, there are still big diference between DX and FX lens prices, so i think DX will last at least tree more years. In fact, they just released the D7100. So, for starters and no pro, DX is still a better choice (unless you have a lot of money).
This is a great post. My daughter is minor-ing in Photography at college and has informed me that she needs a camera that better than the D40 she shoots now. I was thought I was doing good getting the D40. The lens is detachable, that means the camera is practically professional, right?
Anywho…I have some answers now…but A LOT more questions….
Great post. Thank you!
In her case I recommend the D7000 or D7100. Great cameras and she still can use all the lenses she have been using until now. IMHO.
Sweet. I guess I’ll sell a kidney and get her one…
Thanks for the response!
Very informative…….cleared my doubt in regards fx dx but increased ma trouble over finalising below zoom lens selection
55-300mm vr (dx) and 70-300mm vr (fx)
as per bove discussion fx senors have wider view compared to dx sensoe and usinge the above fx lens on my dx camera will function fully
So this mean the max. reach of 50-300 mm will be greater (say 350) compared to 70-300mm lens (f x)
And dx lens at 55mm will peform as of 70 mm
Is it so? As fx one has faster autofocus compared to above mention dx and I don’t wan to sacrifice reach,would it be good to bet more 200$ for this……which one i should choose…..please help
We don’t all need the high ISO advantage of FX (1-2 stops) – so I think this article is quite narrow and rather misleading when it comes to generalisations about IQ. If you compare IQ at base ISO and up to 400, you will see no meaningful difference between DX (APS) and FX. Even small chip compacts in good light at base ISO can produce comparable 12x 16 prints. Everyone’s obsessing over high ISO but at low ISO it’s all pixel peeping nonsense, just learn to get the best out of what you can afford. If you want a real step up in IQ you really need to go to large format filmcameras.
Actually in past i was using NikonF 7o0 & Nikon F80 but lator on digital camera took up the market then I stopped purchasing SLR but tried to get sony compact camera with carl-Zeiss lenses ,gave me wonderfull result.Now I am intrested to go for SLR FX series.which one will be better ?I read FX600 of Nikon is good & professional camera but today I read from column that it is a non professional camera.How to judge ? Am a ameature photographer.
is it possible to use a full frame sensor on a DX body?
Great explanation of difficult subject. Kudos!
With 13 NIKON lenses from 15 to 400 (AI & AF) for the 35mm analog NIKON cameras, I want to buy a digital camera that suits them best. I don’t know know the possibilities of the FX Nikon cameras but I don’t want to get a DX and the loss in angle of my wide angle lenses is not the only issue I have with the DX sensors. I don’t want to schlepp around more glass than I can use. With a projected picture circle of 44mm in diameter of my old lenses I don’t want to project a picture on a DX sensor that requires a picture circle of only 29mm in diameter. I understand that the picture quality is best in the center so from the quality stand point it would be okay to use FX lenses on a DX camera. Scientifically I know enough about my lenses but not yet enough about the cameras. I understand that using old AI lenses on a D4 will not allow me to use the full potential of the features the camera body offers and so I don’t want to waste money on features I won’t be able to use. I just want to make the best pictures with the lenses I already have. I also own. Hasselblad 500C with Carl Zeiss lenses (60, 80, and 100mm and a shift converter). Too bad the Swedes do not offer a digital film magazine for it.
I always thought Canon and Nikon came up with the FX camera bodies to make AI lens owners happy.
Some good informations, but also many missleading information and interpretation. Too many to comment. Just one example: saying that bigger pixels makes for low light performance and DR, which was demonstrated to be wrong by DxO and sensorgen for years. And now all those misslead readers want to trow away their cameras because they get bad photos, with no contrast and color and sharpness etc.
STOP ! Your D3100 or D5100 can take amazing photos, even with the kit lenses. If you’re photos suck, that’s you. If you don’t get the same crappy photos with FX, I’ll pay for it myself.
The difference between those formats are visible only when shooting in extreme condition, or when you stare at every single pixel from 2 inches away. They don’t make good or bad photos. An because the differences are not that big, photographer’s skill can make a bigger difference.
Go to flickr, pick the latest DX camera, look at the pictures.
Go to flickr, pick the latest FX camera, look at the pictures.
Do you see a difference ? Show them to your friends or family, but don’t tell them which is DX and which FX. Can they thell what gallery is made with what camera ?
Geez, stop spending money for NOTHING.
Now if you are a pro, or you have a ton of money and a ton of passion go ahead buy FX, or better still, I recommend a Hasselblad H4D system.
Thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it.
A couple of comments on what you wrote. Dynamic range will vary between FX and DX at pixel level. DxOMark downsamples their images to 6 MP for all of their tests, including dynamic range. This obviously diminishes the difference between DX and FX. The results would be different if you cropped low-res FX like D4 and high-res DX like D7100 and compared pixel-level performance. At pixel level, pixel size matters. But I agree with DxOMark’s methodology – nobody looks at pixel size anymore. You would never compare a small print to a large print: prints are comparable at the same size. Hence, the dynamic range advantage of FX kind of fades away indeed (keep in mind that the article was written 3 years ago).
As for your D3100 / D5100 comment, of course it is true – any modern camera is capable of making amazing pictures. Heck, even iPhone images can look great nowadays. Remember, it is always about the person behind the camera!
At the same time, you are mixing in the small image phenomenon here. When you present a small JPEG to a person, I doubt they will see any difference between FX and DX. If you do it right, they won’t even see the difference between FX and a cell phone camera. Does it mean that the cell phone is as good as an FX camera? Of course not! Print the photos from both at their full resolution at 150-300 dpi, hang them on the wall and you will see which one looks better. There is a reason why top landscape and fashion photographers shoot with medium format cameras. Even FX does not cut it when you need to hang a huge print on a wall (although D800/D800E surely did diminish that difference). So this is not about the sensor size or camera type – you get what works for you. As you said in your last sentence, if you have the money and passion, there is nothing wrong with even getting a MF camera…
Yes, you are right. First, sorry I did not knew the article wa so old.
What made me wrote the comment was when I read some of the comments from people saying ,,Oh, right, that’s why my photos were so bad, lacking contrast and clarity, I should buy an FX camera,,
A little story. When my won was born, I had a Olympus E-620. At first it was OK since he wasn’t moving much. Having in-body stabilizer and a Panaleica f/1.4 I was able to get away with shooting at ISO 800 and 1/30. When my son started moving, I needed 1/125 at least, but the E-620 couldn’t really cope with more than ISO 1250. Went to a store, bought a 5 bulbs pendant for every room (I only have 2 :)) and voila, I was shooting at 1/125 ISO 320. A lot cheaper Than buying a new camera and shoot at ISO 3200. On Nikon I was amazed what the 18-55mm can produce when I learned how to used it to its strenghts, after at first I thought it sucked.
That said, I am a gearhead, went trough many cameras, and FX comming soon :) Just wanted to let people know that their cameras are usually capable of great pictures, if they put just a little bit of effort. If your photos with a D3100 and 18-55mm suck, your full frame photos will suck too. That doesn’t mean ff is not better, but I see soooooo many poor photos comming fro the D800e, and that’s a pitty.