# Full frame vs. DX



## OregonT3i (Jan 31, 2013)

Hi all. I would like some clarification on the subject of full frame vs. DX. 
I understand the differences between the two, but what are the advantages of having a full frame? 
I am considering upgrading my D300 in the next year or so, and debating whether to go with a D600 or D800, or holding out for a possible new model that replaces the D300.


----------



## Lmphotos (Jan 31, 2013)

I went full frame just for better ISO performance. It does handle better there but there is no difference in image quality that I can tell from my crop


----------



## snowbear (Jan 31, 2013)

Larger sensors allow a shallower DoF.
Full frame will be wider angle for any given lens (may, or may not be an advantage).


----------



## DorkSterr (Jan 31, 2013)

The main reasons I went with a FF is Low-light performance, viewfinder is way better on FF, most of my lenses are for FF and most importantly build quality.


----------



## Mach0 (Jan 31, 2013)

I have both but the ISO performance is much better and the DOF is shallower given the same focal length, aperture, and subject framing.


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 31, 2013)

- As already mentioned - less depth of field, if you want to / need it. This wont help if you want the opposite, though.

- In general a larger sensor also translates to more light collected, and larger pixels, thus better low ISO performance. This is actually a very noticeable difference (of about a stop or two) in compareable models.

- Obviously also higher resolutions (D800 vs D5200).

- The larger your sensor, the lower the demands on your optics for the same result. For example, there are a lot of discussions about what lenses to use with the Nikon D800 and D800E. However, the cameras themselves only have 15 Megapixel resolution if used in DX mode. So the newest DX cameras D3200 and D5200 with 24 Megapixel resolutions actually have a higher per area resolution (and a smaller pixel size) than the "resolution flagship" D800. This translates into even higher demands on the optics. Fortunately, D3200 and D5200 are usually not bought by people with high demands on the pixel quality of their images, so while D800E owners are thinking about which lenses to use best, users of D3200 and D5200 users are much less critical of their lenses.

- Specifically for Nikon, the DX lens offerings are lacking, and Nikon doesnt seem to be interested in changing this any soon. For example, many people want a 24mm f/1.8 DX lens. You can of course use FX lenses as well, but they are larger and heavier and more expensive than necessary, and they have different meaning thanks to the crop factor. Thats why many people just get the 50mm f1.8 FX, which is actually an 76mm equivalent on DX, and thats it. Getting a 24mm f1.4 FX to have a 35mm equivalent on DX, for example, would be extremely expensive.

- In the long run, if sensor costs continue to drop, the full frame format aka FX will probably completely replace APS-C aka DX.


----------



## cwcaesar (Jan 31, 2013)

Very well articulated, Solarflare!

I bought my D600 for the low light performance and the added dynamic range.  The shallower DOF was an added bonus.


----------



## KmH (Jan 31, 2013)

Actually, the larger the image sensor the greater the demand on your optics.

Large image sensors often out resolve even the best, pro grade expensive lenses.

Because far fewer FF image sensors can be made on a single silicon wafer, FF will continue to cost considerably more to make than smaller image sensors.
Also, manufacturing cost reductions apply more to the smaller image sensors than they do the FF sensors, again because so may more small sensors can be made on a single silicon wafer.

FF image sensors are 2x bigger than APS-C sensors, but FF sensors cost 4x more to make.

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography


----------



## CCericola (Jan 31, 2013)

Full frame is cooler, you want to be cool right?


----------



## goodguy (Jan 31, 2013)

This is my way of looking into this, if you can afford a FF body then get it.
No matter how good your DX camera the FF will probably be better.

If you can get the D800 then you are a VERY lucky man and if not then the D600 is almost as good.
All I can do is sit here and envy you


----------



## slow231 (Jan 31, 2013)

the nice lenses fall into good ranges on a ff.  on a DX you're either dealing with somewhat awkward focal lengths, or crappy equivalent DX lenses (17-55 DX vs. 24-70 being a good enough reason alone to step to ff).


----------



## OregonT3i (Jan 31, 2013)

Great. Thank you for the responses everybody. I will be getting a nice bonus from work in a year or two, and will be looking to invest in a new body and a few nice lenses. I have been looking to possibly make the jump to full frame, but I wasn't aware of what specific advantages there were to doing that.
I am looking to get either the D600 or D800, a 70-200 2.8, a 50mm 1.4, and either the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8 as well. That should be a pretty good setup.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 31, 2013)

OregonT3i said:


> Great. Thank you for the responses everybody. I will be getting a nice bonus from work in a year or two, and will be looking to invest in a new body and a few nice lenses. I have been looking to possibly make the jump to full frame, but I wasn't aware of what specific advantages there were to doing that.
> I am looking to get either the D600 or D800, a 70-200 2.8, a 50mm 1.4, and either the 17-55 2.8 or the 28-75 2.8 as well. That should be a pretty good setup.



If it's going to be a year or two before you have the funds available for a FX body, there might be something else available from Nikon by then.  Still save your pennies, and in the meantime start loading up on good glass.


----------



## jake337 (Jan 31, 2013)

480sparky said:


> OregonT3i said:
> 
> 
> > Great. Thank you for the responses everybody. I will be getting a nice bonus from work in a year or two, and will be looking to invest in a new body and a few nice lenses. I have been looking to possibly make the jump to full frame, but I wasn't aware of what specific advantages there were to doing that.
> ...




Saving pennies and loading up on good glass, sadly, don't go hand in hand.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 31, 2013)

jake337 said:


> Saving pennies and loading up on good glass, sadly, don't go hand in hand.




True, but there ARE bargains out there. And without the pressing need to have FX lenses NOW allows one to wait for the right train to show up at the station.  Just keep your eyes peeled.... ebay, TPF, Fred Miranda, Craiglsist, local camera stores, maybe even the local photo club..... sometimes 'the' right lens will pop up for a song.  I already owned 8 lenses that were FX by the time I got my D600.


----------



## cwcaesar (Jan 31, 2013)

OregonT3i said:


> I am looking to get either the D600 or D800, a 70-200 2.8, a 50mm 1.4, and either the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8 as well. That should be a pretty good setup.



17-55 is a DX lens - the rough equivalent of the 24-70mm on af FX frame. That must be some bonus you are expecting to drop $8,000 right off the bat. I am only a little jeolous...okay, maybe a lot jeolous.

'Pretty good setup'? That should be freaking awesome!


----------



## OregonT3i (Jan 31, 2013)

Oh that's right, forgot the 17-55 was a dx lens. Well, scratch that one. Yeah, the bonus will be a large chunk of change, but it will happen in a year or two once my work site is completely dismantled. I am involved in chemical weapon demilitarization for the government, and there is a bonus for completing operations before a treaty date, which we did. 
That being said, I've got plenty of time to research and shop around.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 1, 2013)

KmH said:


> Actually, the larger the image sensor the greater the demand on your optics.
> 
> Large image sensors often out resolve even the best, pro grade expensive lenses.
> 
> ...



Don't confuse sensor size and resolution. At the same resolution a larger sensor requires less resolution from the lens to achieve the same results.  This is why large format film images from 100 years ago look so great even with the limited optics.


----------

