Get Your FREE copy of Top 10 Tips for All Beginning Photographers ...plus Lightroom Develop Presets & Wedding Photography Checklist!


Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Is FX sensor size really neccesary?

Is FX sensor size really neccesary? 3 years 2 months ago #4980

  • Brent Ross
  • Brent Ross's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 253
  • Thank you received: 33
Coming from videography, I'm used to using the Super 35 sensor size like that found in the C300, FS700 etc. The Super 35 sensor size is like 25mm x 14mm ish. That size is equivalent to Nikon DX format. I can see in real-estate, you'd want more of the frame to encompass the entire room of a house. But aside from those applications, is there really a need to own an FX body?

Of course the larger sensor size usually means more megapixels and slightly larger photo-sites and thus better low light, but not by much on the newest generation of dslrs.

watcha think? I have a friend content with m4/3
Last Edit: 3 years 2 months ago by Brent Ross.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Is FX sensor size really neccesary? 3 years 2 months ago #4984

  • Jose Cruz
  • Jose Cruz's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 94
  • Thank you received: 4
I don't think its neccasary,depends on what you're shooting.I do think eventally one would want to switch over to fx.You can get great images from both.Depends more on the photographer.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Pickup your Photography Tshirt today

Is FX sensor size really neccesary? 3 years 2 months ago #4985

  • Brent Ross
  • Brent Ross's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 253
  • Thank you received: 33
FX definitely has a different feel to it, much like going from fx to medium format would probably feel. I don't think FX should be thought of as an upgrade. It sort of bums me out that there is no pro level DX camera. Olympus and panasonic take their m4/3 systems way more seriously than nikon takes their DX.

Definitely agree its the photographer that makes the difference.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Is FX sensor size really neccesary? 3 years 2 months ago #4999

  • Jose Cruz
  • Jose Cruz's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 94
  • Thank you received: 4
I thought the d300s was considered pro level dx?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Is FX sensor size really neccesary? 3 years 2 months ago #5002

  • Brent Ross
  • Brent Ross's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 253
  • Thank you received: 33
Out of date released in 2009. Nice autofocus system though. Canon has the same problem where they update the 60D/70D and their 7D collects dust. Oh well. I'm impressed with the D7100 anywho. For video I'm loving the live hdmi out but hating the lack of live view histogram.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Is FX sensor size really neccesary? 3 years 2 months ago #5003

  • Bill
  • Bill's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 194
  • Thank you received: 25
The advantage of a full frame sensor come into play with sensitivity. Full frame cameras typical can capture a greater dynamic range then the crop sensor cameras.

Excerpt from "Mastering Digital SLR Photography" by David Busch

"Dynamic Range and Sensitivity
One way to do this is to give the photosites a larger surface area, which increases the volume of the bucket and allows collecting more photons. In fact, the jumbo photosites in larger dSLR sensors (so-called full-frame models) allow greater sensitivity (higher ISO settings), reduced noise, and an expanded dynamic range. In the past few years, a metric called pixel density has provided an easy way to compare the size/density of pixels in cameras, even those with different absolute resolutions. For example, two cameras from one vendor share the same 12 megapixel resolution. One has the typical APS-C sensor size (more on that later) measuring about 24mm × 16mm, and with 3.3 megapixels packed into each square centimeter of sensor area.

The other camera is a full-frame model with a 24 × 36mm sensor, and with more room in its larger sensor to fit in 12 megapixels worth of photosites, it has a pixel density of only 1.4 megapixels per square centimeter. Clearly, the camera with the larger sensor has larger pixels that are more sensitive to light, and which can provide better image quality, particularly at higher ISO settings.

Pixel density allows you to compare non-similar sensor sizes and resolutions, too. The same vendor offers a 24 megapixel camera with a 24 × 36mm sensor. It must squeeze 2.8 megapixels into each square centimeter. So, as you might guess, this camera’s pixels are smaller than those of its 12 megapixel stablemate (and therefore not as sensitive to light). Its resolution is higher, but high ISO performance is not as good. Indeed, the 24 megapixel camera’s 2.8 MP/cm2 pixel density and light-gathering power is more similar to that of the 12 megapixel APS-C model with 3.3 MP/cm2 pixel density."

-Bill
Last Edit: 3 years 2 months ago by Bill.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Is FX sensor size really neccesary? 3 years 2 months ago #5012

  • Brent Ross
  • Brent Ross's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 253
  • Thank you received: 33
This is super interesting, but the d7100 is 24 mp and the d800 is 36. I haven't done the calculation but their pixel density must be roughly similar.

Also I've been fudging around with the d600, and can appreciate the differences. But the differences arnt large enough for me to spend the extra money, I'd rather spend money on glass

I am curious whey video cameras have never moved past s35. Probably for the same reason they are stuck with 24 fps while the gaming world can experience 120 fps and love it.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Powered by Kunena Forum
256 Eagleview Blvd PMB 104
Exton, PA 19341