# DX vs FX and image quality in print



## hamlet (Nov 16, 2013)

So when talking about portrait pictures, i was told that it is better not to crop and physicly stand closser to the subject of interest to keep as much of the detail as possible. Does the same concept apply to DX vs FX sensors? When you take the exact same image with both sensors, will FX cameras give you more detailed prints in your physical photos?


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> So when talking about portrait pictures, i was told that it is better not to crop and physicly stand closser to the subject of interest to keep as much of the detail as possible. Does the same concept apply to DX vs FX sensors? When you take the exact same image with both sensors, will FX cameras give you more detailed prints in your physical photos?



Depends entirely on the effect your looking for I guess.  Detail isn't always the best thing in portraits - some is good, but sometimes too much can be too much.  Also keep in mind sometimes standing back and zooming in will give you better bokeh depending on other settings, and that can be a really nice effect for some portraits.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 16, 2013)

The conditions of the picture in question are exactly the same. The only variable that change is the sensor.


----------



## KmH (Nov 16, 2013)

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

DX and FX are Nikon terms not used by other camera makers. 

Canon's crop sensor cameras are often known as EF-S and Canon full frame as EF.

As mentioned, and like so many questions, the answer is 'it depends'.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> The conditions of the picture in question are exactly the same. The only variable that change is the sensor.




Well you made the statement:



> I was told that it is better not to crop and physicly stand closser to the subject of interest to keep as much of the detail as possible.




Not sure who told you that or why, but I would not say it is a correct statement in all situations.  There are a lot of other considerations.  Also the statement that "all that changes is the sensor" is not just false, it's very false.  There are differences between the cameras that one must also consider, not just the sensor, that will have as much effect on the final results as the sensor itself.  

This might help illustrate what I mean a little better:





Even though I could have gotten very close in for this shot, I didn't - I moved back and zoomed in so that I could achieve more of a bokeh effect for the background.  I wanted to emphasize the subject and de-emphasize the background.  Hopefully that explains what I mean a little better than the original attempt.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 16, 2013)

I'm sorry for my broken English, i am probably not explaining myself properly. Thank you for trying. I like the picture.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I'm sorry for my broken English, i am probably not explaining myself properly. Thank you for trying. I like the picture.



No problem.  Thing I've noticed is that you tend to get fixated on "one way to do something" - but really in photography there are generally several ways to accomplish things rather than just one.  Now in general better equipment will allow you to do some things a little easier, and it sometimes makes the difference between getting a usable shot and not getting a usable shot, but if you have the right experience that will usually help you a lot more than the equipment will.   So if you'll take a piece of friendly advice, I think your kind of hung up on the wrong thing here.   If you have a DSLR already get out and start using it.  Put yourself in a lot of different shooting situations and learn how best to deal with them.  

Reading about it on the internet is fine, but really there is no substitute for actual, real world experience.  Just my two cents worth of course, take it for what it's worth.

The photo above, FYI, was taken with a D5100 and a Nikon 70-300 mm 4.5-5.6.  Hardly top of the line equipment by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 16, 2013)

I have no way of renting gear. I would have done the comparison myself between the dx and fx if i could. This is probably the only other than actually buying an FX to find out.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 16, 2013)

Also don't mix up a crop sensor and cropping an image

And research how a lens projects the image onto a fullframe vs a smaller (or crop) sensor


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I have no way of renting gear. I would have done the comparison myself between the dx and fx if i could. This is probably the only other than actually buying an FX to find out.



Well if you already have DX gear and it's doing the job you need it to do, stick with it.  No need to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.  If your DX gear isn't giving you the results you want, that would be the time to start looking at FX gear, assuming the FX will give you the advantages you need to get the job done.  As for me the D5100 does what I need it to do, and while eventually I'd like to perhaps upgrade to something like a 7000 or 7100, that will most likely be a while yet.  For now the D5100 does the job I need it to do, and in the end that's all that really matters.


----------



## raventepes (Nov 16, 2013)

Hamlet

Perhaps this article might help. There's a lot of good information in it. 

The Full Frame Debate | byThom | Thom Hogan


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> So when talking about portrait pictures, i was told that it is better not to crop and physicly stand closser to the subject of interest to keep as much of the detail as possible. Does the same concept apply to DX vs FX sensors? When you take the exact same image with both sensors, will FX cameras give you more detailed prints in your physical photos?


You were told that by whom?

Not sure that I agree.

Often, it is better to physically stand farther away, and use a longer lens.

Getting closer will exaggerate any distortion the lens may have.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 16, 2013)

raventepes said:


> Hamlet
> 
> Perhaps this article might help. There's a lot of good information in it.
> 
> The Full Frame Debate | byThom | Thom Hogan



Thank you.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 16, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > So when talking about portrait pictures, i was told that it is better not to crop and physicly stand closser to the subject of interest to keep as much of the detail as possible. Does the same concept apply to DX vs FX sensors? When you take the exact same image with both sensors, will FX cameras give you more detailed prints in your physical photos?
> ...



The zoom factor is irrelevant. The only thing that is up for discussion is the amount of information that is packed into two identical looking images taken by an dx and fx camera, the answer so far seems to be inconclusive.


----------



## btraven (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> So when talking about portrait pictures,



What kind of portraits? Formal studio shots? Informal stuff for friends? Indoors, outdoors, day or night? Posed or casual? Do you want to emphasize the background or de-emphasize it? What do you want to do with them: mat and frame prints or post them on social media? 

Too many variables, no one right answer.

The whole full-frame vs. crop sensor thing reminds me of the period in the sixties when 35mm SLRs were becoming real popular and there was a big deal about it being an amateur format, that REAL photographers shot medium format--Mamiya, Bronica, Hasselblad, like that. And yeah, I know that 35mm was popular before that but the 35mm market exploded in the late 60s with SLRs, before that it was pretty much dedicated hobbyists using twin-lens reflexes (Rolleiflex, I think it was) and rangefinders like Leica...   not that there's anything wrong with that. 

No wait, there was something wrong with that if you were a kid back then...  something very wrong. 

All those dedicated hobbyists took thousands of pictures of everything damn thing they saw whenever they went anywhere. Then they had slides made and your parents would drag you over to Uncle Bubby's house and you'd have to sit through the most excruciatingly boring three hours you can imagine. To this day the very sight of Kodak Carousel slide projector causes my privates to shrivel like a spider on a hot skillet.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 17, 2013)

Stick with what you have and
Practice, practice, practice

If you dont know why you do or don't need a FF then you don't need one


----------



## SCraig (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> The zoom factor is irrelevant. The only thing that is up for discussion is the amount of information that is packed into two identical looking images taken by an dx and fx camera, the answer so far seems to be inconclusive.



Several years ago the difference between a Nikon FX body and DX body were significant.  It was frequently easy to look at two similar images and know immediately which was shot on the DX camera and which on the FX camera.  At that time, given two bodies of similar resolution, the spacing between pixelsites on the FX body allowed for less noise in the image resulting in a dramatic difference in image quality.

Those days have changed dramatically and now the differences are much more subtle.  In addition you can't just make a blanket statement that FX is better than DX without stating the generation of the bodies being compared.  Comparing a Nikon D1 FX body from 1999 to a Nikon D7100 DX body from 2013 is an unfair comparison.  Sensor construction has changed so much over just the past few years that you are asking a question that can't be answered with a simple yes or no.  As others have stated, the only viable answer is "It Depends".

Plus, as far as image quality goes, zoom factor is never irrelevant and is always important.  Likewise the specific lens being used is just as important.  Put a poor lens on a D800 and a top-of-the-line lens on a D90 and the D90 may well provide a better image.  The quality of the light in the photograph, the subject, everything has a bearing and it can't always be boiled down to just sensor vs. sensor.  Simplifying those arguments to FX vs. DX ended a few years ago.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> Stick with what you have and
> Practice, practice, practice
> 
> If you dont know why you do or don't need a FF then you don't need one



There is a black and white answer to my question, with technology there always is. I just don't understand the variables well enough to ask the right questions.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 17, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> Also don't mix up a crop sensor and cropping an image
> 
> And research how a lens projects the image onto a fullframe vs a smaller (or crop) sensor



Actually a crop sensor pretty much DOES just crop the full frame picture. This isn't always the most productive way to think about it, but there really isn't any difference between shooting with a crop sensor, and with using the same lens on a full frame camera and cropping afterwards.

There are, of course, going to be differences in pixel density and other sensor characteristic, but that will be true between any two sensors, not just crop vs. full frame.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Stick with what you have and
> ...



Hamlet, I think this may end up sounding a little harsh, and for that I do apologize in advance.  But I think the point your missing here is that your question is irrelevant - at least at this stage.  Your trying to take enough variables to choke a horse and boil them down into a simply yes/no, on/off equation.   That's just not really going to happen.  You keep discarding variables and proclaiming them to be unimportant, when truly they are the most important variables in the equation.

If your goal is to shoot great portraits, then fussing over FX/DX and ignoring things like zoom, DOF, lighting, etc is not going to accomplish that goal.  Even the top of the line gear with all the bells and whistles might as well be a paperweight in the hands of someone who has no understanding how to use it properly and no experience in how to adjust it properly for various shooting situations.

The piece of equipment you need most is right between your ears, and you need to fill it with experience.  You need to take the equipment you do have and use it, over an over and over again.  You need to take the results and look them over, and figure out how to do it a little better next time.  That's what you need to focus on - learning to use the equipment you already have to produce the best photographs you can - then when you can do that and can identify a specific weakness in your equipment that is worth spending the money to upgrade to fix, that's when you upgrade.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

That is probably my fault, i'm not conveying my ideas correctly. I'll just sound arrogant and conceded if i explain what i mean, so i'll just leave it as it is until i am more well read into this subject.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 17, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> ..............The piece of equipment you need most is right between your ears................



Brilliant.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> That is probably my fault, i'm not conveying my ideas correctly. I'll just sound arrogant and conceded if i explain what i mean, so i'll just leave it as it is until i am more well read into this subject.



Unfortunately, what everyone is saying is for you to stop reading.  Limit your reading to what you are currently doing.

knowledge is NOT experience.

practice more,

figure out what you do and don't like about something (or post a C&C)

get feedback

make corrections and try again to improve your technique and experience.

Then your knowledge based on your experience will start falling in place

My knowledge is okay but I don't have enough experience where I think something is one way when it's not.  But as I practice more, it makes more and more sense.    Knowledge is one thing.  Practice gives you experience and solidifies/corrects your knowledge.


I could *read* how to be an astronaut.
But I'm sure I would literally crash and burn if you stuck me on top of a rocket.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

I agree with that sentiment, but i already stated that this is not possible for me. I can't rent a FX body even if i wanted to.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I agree with that sentiment, but i already stated that this is not possible for me. I can't rent a FX body even if i wanted to.



What I'm trying to explain to you hamlet is that you don't need to - at least not for now.  An FX body might be nice to have and it may have a few advantages in certain situations, the most notable would probably be lowlight - but it really doesn't matter if your using the top of the line FX body available as opposed to and old beat up used prosumer grade DX body.  The sensor isn't taking the picture, it doesn't account for the light or the angle or the composition.  It doesn't adjust the ISO or set the proper DOF.  It doesn't do any of those things, you do.

Better equipment can be nice to have, sure - but better equipment does not necessarily mean better photographs if you ignore the most important part of the equation.  The most important part of the equation here Hamlet is you.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 17, 2013)

I don't see any harm in research. Got nuts, hamlet. Read until you're sick of reading, and then stop.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 17, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I don't see any harm in research. Got nuts, hamlet. Read until you're sick of reading, and then get your camera and go shoot something.



FIFY.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Better equipment can be nice to have, sure - but better equipment does not necessarily mean better photographs if you ignore the most important part of the equation.  The most important part of the equation here Hamlet is you.



I fully agree with you. But lets say you are a master canoe paddler and you hear about a new canoe that moves with even less friction through the waters than the current canoe you own. That's all were talking about here. I'm not saying that technology is a substitute for skill, because a master will always out paddle inexperienced people with better boats.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I don't see any harm in research. Got nuts, hamlet. Read until you're sick of reading, and then stop.



I'd rather do these comparisons myself if i could. For example: i can do pinhole photography simply by using a cap with a little hole in it, which is why i haven't made a thread asking about pinhole photography.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Better equipment can be nice to have, sure - but better equipment does not necessarily mean better photographs if you ignore the most important part of the equation.  The most important part of the equation here Hamlet is you.
> ...



So let's see if we understand what you just said

1- a master canoe paddler hear about new technology
2 - new canoe with new surface, new water flow design, new air (above water) design, better weight distribution, is faster
3 - technology doesn't matter in relation to skill
4 - master paddler will always out paddle inexperienced paddlers with better canoes

so in camera terms
1 - a great pro photographer hears about a new camera
2 - the new camera is better, in a particular way or multiple ways
3 - technology doesn't matter in relation to skill
4 - master pro photog will always make better composed pictures than inexperienced photogs with better cameras.


or to summarize as the first 3 items are irrelevant (to use your terms)
4 - master pro photog will always make better composed, posed pictures than inexperienced photogs with better cameras.


so, in other words,

Practice makes Perfect



I'm going home now to practice more portraits with my TPF Mentor ... have a good day


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Better equipment can be nice to have, sure - but better equipment does not necessarily mean better photographs if you ignore the most important part of the equation.  The most important part of the equation here Hamlet is you.
> ...



Hamlet, you'll have to forgive me here - but when you start saying things like you should always move closer to your subject for a portrait, it pretty much indicates you are no master photographer.  Not that I would lay claim to that title either, mind you - but I think my point here is you're so hung up on the trees you can't see the forest.

I highly recommend you spend a lot more time working with the gear you already have and a lot less time focused on the minutia.  I think you would be much better served investing your time in taking portraits yourself, as opposed to all the time you spend "researching" how portraits are taken.  In the end there simply is no substitute for experience.

To use your analogy - the master canoe paddler didn't get to be a master by sitting on the shore and reading book after book on the theory of paddling canoes.  He got his skill by actually getting out on the water and finding what works for him - all I'm suggesting is that you do the same.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

@astro

I gave that example to show that the infusion of experience or skill is irrelevant to this topic, because i already understand the ground rules. However, the camera and the photographer are still independent entities. And Right now we aren't talking about the man behind the viewfinder.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> @astro
> 
> I gave that example to show that the infusion of experience or skill is irrelevant to this topic, because i already understand the ground rules. However, the camera and the photographer are still independent entities. And Right now we aren't talking about the man behind the viewfinder.



Then it is SIMPLE

Buy the most expensive and latest and greatest camera out there.  And buy ALL the current lenses available as they each offer something different.

Nikon this past several months actually had a sale on that.
This 'Complete Set' of Nikon DSLR Gear Will Only Set You Back $82,700


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> @astro
> 
> I gave that example to show that the infusion of experience or skill is irrelevant to this topic, because i already understand the ground rules. However, the camera and the photographer are still independent entities. And Right now we aren't talking about the man behind the viewfinder.



Hamlet, until the man behind the viewfinder understands that he is and always will be the most important part of the equation, no amount of equipment in the world will make on iota of difference.  FX, DX, full frame, cropped sensor - none of that will mean squat.  I will wish you well in your future endeavors, as this has pretty much become pointless.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Hamlet, you'll have to forgive me here - but when you start saying things like you should always move closer to your subject for a portrait, it pretty much indicates you are no master photographer.



I didn't give you the right context to understand this in. I was simply referring to getting it right in my shot so i don't have to crop, whether this gives me more distortion or not or if it has a nice bokeh are not relevant.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 17, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> ... as this has pretty much become pointless.


Such as most of his other threads
unfortunately

no one mention Medium Format either ..  ;P


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I didn't give you the right context to understand this in. I was simply referring to getting it right in my shot so i don't have to crop, whether this gives me more distortion or not or if it has a nice bokeh are not relevant.



So a pretty girl with a nose the size of Manhattan is acceptable as long as the bokeh looks great?


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > @astro
> ...



I am coming to the same conclusion, but that is my fault entirely i'm not able to make you see things objectively.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 17, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't give you the right context to understand this in. I was simply referring to getting it right in my shot so i don't have to crop, whether this gives me more distortion or not or if it has a nice bokeh are not relevant.
> ...


I thought he meant he wanted to properly get the person the "right size" in the photo irrelevant of everything else.
Which just means .. move up or back to get the photo that you desire .... as the rest of the composition is irrelevant.
ie, a passport photo


----------



## amolitor (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet's just trying to fill up on technical details. Nothing particularly wrong with that. Ultimately the individual details are not likely to be particularly relevant, but having a nice thorough background of facts and figures and discussion is helpful for some people. Just knowing a bunch of random stuff can help you synthesize a complete picture and figure out which details you need, which details are relevant to you.

Expecting someone to only ask questions based on whatever you perceive as their current "level" is silly. Insisting that they do is obnoxious.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't give you the right context to understand this in. I was simply referring to getting it right in my shot so i don't have to crop, whether this gives me more distortion or not or if it has a nice bokeh are not relevant.
> ...



For the sake of this thought experiment it is. But who are you to knock surréalisme?


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> For the sake of this thought experiment it is. But who are you to knock surréalisme?



Surrealism is one thing, and if that's the effect you're after _from the start_, that's fine.  But if said pretty girl is paying me for a head shot so she can use it to advance her modeling career, I'm gonna make sure her nose doesn't look like it's the size of Manhattan, bokeh be damned. However, one should have the skill to create a basic model's head shot that is free of distortion *and *great bokeh.

Accepting 'surrealism' in post because I lack the skill to produce what I'm being commissioned to create, and proclaiming it 'artistic', is simply a definition of failure.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > For the sake of this thought experiment it is. But who are you to knock surréalisme?
> ...



I'm glad you aren't close minded, But that is a whole other can of worms i don't want to get into right now.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

I don't disagree with most of what has been said by many, but i need a FX body in order to go forth and actuate! Or someone who has done extensive study in their inherent differences. That is what it boils down to.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I don't disagree with most of what has been said by many, *but i need a FX body in order to go forth and actuate!* Or someone who has done extensive study in their inherent differences. That is what it boils down to.



No!  You don't!  That is what people have been trying to tell you.  There is an untold number of people shooting with DX cameras who have no urge whatsoever to get an FX camera.  I'm one of them.  I'm perfectly content shooting a DX camera and have no desire at all to downgrade to an FX camera.  There is an untold number of people shooting with point-and-shoot cameras that don't even know FX cameras exist, and most of them are perfectly happy with what they have.  Use what you have.  LEARN to use what you have and you'll realize how minor the difference really are.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

SCraig said:


> No!  You don't!  That is what people have been trying to tell you.  There is an untold number of people shooting with DX cameras who have no urge whatsoever to get an FX camera.  I'm one of them.  I'm perfectly content shooting a DX camera and have no desire at all to downgrade to an FX camera.  There is an untold number of people shooting with point-and-shoot cameras that don't even know FX cameras exist, and most of them are perfectly happy with what they have.  Use what you have.  LEARN to use what you have and you'll *realize how minor the difference really are*.



I just don't know how i can _realize _it without a proper comparison?


I cant reply to you good folks who are only trying to help me out without sounding arrogant. I don't mean to be.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I just don't know how i can _realize _it without a proper comparison?


Look at ANY properly-exposed digital image.  ANY of them.  LOOK at it.  STARE at it.  Now tell me whether it was shot with a full-frame sensor or a crop-sensor.  The comparison is in the fact that the majority of the time you CAN'T tell me with any degree of accuracy what it was shot with unless you first look at the EXIF data.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you SCraig, that could just be the way to solve this dilemma.


----------



## Mach0 (Nov 17, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Look at ANY properly-exposed digital image.  ANY of them.  LOOK at it.  STARE at it.  Now tell me whether it was shot with a full-frame sensor or a crop-sensor.  The comparison is in the fact that the majority of the time you CAN'T tell me with any degree of accuracy what it was shot with unless you first look at the EXIF data.





hamlet said:


> That makes a lot of sense. Thank you SCraig, that could just be the way to solve this dilemma.




Without Exif data it will be hard to tell. What I can say that to frame the subject the same way you would on crop sensors vs full frame, with the same lens, you would need to be further back so it increases your depth of field and changes the out of focus area. But you would need exif data to see what settings were etc. I shoot both but I'm not at a computer to show you. As long as your glass is good, you can make large prints.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

If i find two raw examples i'll have them developed in 20x30cm, that will give me the answer i'm looking for.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> If i find two raw examples i'll have them developed in 20x30cm, that will give me the answer i'm looking for.



Just look at the pixel dimensions.  :er:


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

This is too important for just that. I'll order a magnifying glass as well, i cannot find my old one.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 17, 2013)

A magnifying glass will reveal almost nothing of the inherent differences in full frame versus crop.

The important differences will generally turn up at fairly large apertures, with relatively shallow depth of field. The important differences are subtle variations in the total feeling of the frame, at more open apertures. It's basically depth of field, but the rendering of DoF across the frame, and how it affects how the frame "feels" is the main thing that separates larger formats from smaller.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 17, 2013)

Amolitor's comments point out one of the biggest differences between FX and DX shots of social situations and closer-distance, urban/suburban environmental shots. DX shooters get the advantage of a little bit deeper depth of field at normal, everyday apertures, like f/5.6 and f/8. Using a DX Nikon to shoot walkabout photos, as well as social situations and family photos, snapshots, close-ups of interesting objects and plants and things like that...all of those types of shots benefit from at least one full f/stop's worth of deeper depth of field, and at LONGER distances, when shot using a DX sensor camera, the advantage might be a bit greater. Depth of field is easily quantified by on-line calculators, but the human brain's interpretation of out-of-focus, and the *degree of out of focusness *is much harder to describe. Numbers on their own do not provide the entire answer when it comes to depth of field, and what s considered out of fous,and what is considered to be acceptable enough to be noted and "seen"*.  *The main difference on smaller formats is that the depth of field reaches hyperfocal depth of field much more readily (SOONER, at shorter distances) with the smaller-sensor cameras than with an FX camera and lens combos.

See, depth of field is determined by several things, but one of the main influencers of depth of field is DISTANCE. With an FX Nikon and an 85mm lens, you can shoot a picture of a standing man and woman from 20 feet distant; with a DX Nikon, you need to move back to about 33 feet with the same 85mm lens. Now, the DISTANCE makes a big difference in depth of field. The smaller capture format also makes a difference. And because of the distance ranges involved here, 20 feet versus 33 feet, the way the background literally "looks" or "appears" or "is rendered" by the lens, is visually different.

This required distance issue, 20 feet versus 33 feet, means that an FX and a DX Nikon cause the photographer to use prime lenses, and zoom lenses, in very different ways. I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other, but there are very real differences, both in aesthetics, and in working procedures, in a good percentage of shooting situations. One of the huge advantages of using an even-smaller camera format like 4/3 sensor for "social photography" is the deep depth of field that the smaller sensor and its shorter lens lengths gives. The rise of high-quality 4/3 sensor cameras has enabled street shooters to get deeper DOF, and smaller lenses, and to be able to literally "pull deeper depth of field" to make pictures that, for example, would NOT be possible to make using something like a 120 rollfilm camera.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > No!  You don't!  That is what people have been trying to tell you.  There is an untold number of people shooting with DX cameras who have no urge whatsoever to get an FX camera.  I'm one of them.  I'm perfectly content shooting a DX camera and have no desire at all to downgrade to an FX camera.  There is an untold number of people shooting with point-and-shoot cameras that don't even know FX cameras exist, and most of them are perfectly happy with what they have.  Use what you have.  LEARN to use what you have and you'll *realize how minor the difference really are*.
> ...




Hamlet, if you don't have the experience in these various shooting situations, you cannot make a "proper" comparison.  That's what I've been trying to explain.  At the moment you're just learning how to walk, and you want to talk about the advanced theory of aerodynamics as it applies to supersonic flight.  Learn to walk first, then learn to run, then learn to fly - and after you've been flying for a while then this conversation might be worth having at that stage.  At this stage it will be fruitless.  You can't evaluate what sort of equipment you need until you start getting some experience with the stuff you have now.  Otherwise there is nothing to compare.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 17, 2013)

Here ya go hamlet.....

*http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum/212708-so-you-wanna-see-difference-between-full-frame-cropped-sensors.html*


----------



## hamlet (Nov 17, 2013)

Good man.


----------



## AceCo55 (Nov 18, 2013)

Anyone else getting that uncomfortable feeling of "photoguy" - version 2?


----------



## enzodm (Nov 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> So when talking about portrait pictures, i was told that it is better not to crop and physicly stand closser to the subject of interest to keep as much of the detail as possible.


as already told, this is fundamentally not true. In such a closeup portrait, you will have large noses full of detailed pores.



hamlet said:


> Does the same concept apply to DX vs FX sensors? When you take the exact same image with both sensors, will FX cameras give you more detailed prints in your physical photos?





hamlet said:


> The conditions of the picture in question are exactly the same. The only variable that change is the sensor.



If you take the exact same image, in addition to the sensor there will be *unavoidably* at least another variable that changes: subject distance *or* focal length. No way to have the same picture changing the sensor alone. Said that, if you could use exactly the same quality lens with same kind of distortion on both (unlikely), since the full frame sensor has more pixels (another variable), yes: you could have more details. However, it is not obvious too that they translate in some extras visible on a print, unless very large. Throw this into the amount of other variables explained by others, and... you understand why is not so important.


----------



## Estevam (Nov 20, 2013)

From kundalini's post it is possible to see that with the same settings and the same lens, to get the same portrait (face the same size in the picture, i.e., walking back with DX) there is a large difference in the compression of plans from DX to FX. In the photos comparing both sensors with 35mm lens, the plant behind the monkey appears to be much closer on DX than FX. In the case of a portrait, there will be a change in the porportion of the nose, ears, and the face itself. The perspective will be different because of the difference in the shooting distance. 
But if You change the lens, it is possible to have the same proportion on DX and FX, as we see in the comparison of 35mm on DX and 50mm on FX, the plant looks the same size and distance.
Also the depth of field will change, taking kundalini's post example's settings: the 35mm lens will provide 3.5" of depth of field from a 28" distance at f:5.6 on DX, and only 1.6" on FX (my calculations). So more of the face will be on focus on DX with the same settings and lens.


----------

