Hello, how are you? I have a question that bothered me for months, and I hope you could help me figure the answer out. You say that magnification ratios are unchanged when using DX format cameras. So if I set my macro lens focus at 1:1 magnification and manage to focus on an object (let's say it measures 1cmX1cm) with a full frame camera, will it be identical on a DX format camera? The object would be in focus at the same focusing distance (at 1:1 magnification) and have the same size? Thanks :)
That's correct. The final image from FX will be identical to the final image from DX but with 1.5X more space surrounding the subject (DX's version is cropped). That's about it. :)
You (guys?) simply rock! Your answers really make my day :) But would you shoot macro on a DX format camera (since you can't stop the aperture as much as you would for fear of lens diffraction)? And I am curious as to how you can measure things on a photo. My guess is that in the old days they would use macro lenses focused at 1:1, 1:2 etc. magnification and measure the subject of interest on the film with a ruler. Can you do that in Photoshop (hopefully more easily)?
Actually, we wouldn't worry about what camera format is being used for macro work because you can always step back a little for increased depth of field at medium apertures (i.e. F/8-F/11) then do tight cropping in post process. If you already have a DX camera, stick to it and work around the limits. The subject's dimensions will be the same on the camera's sensor at 1:1 magnification. We never really measured anything in Photoshop, so, we can't answer that, sorry.
Not a problem; I will do my research regarding forensic photography (perhaps there is a "gold standard" regarding the equipment necasary for medical documentation) and regarding photograph measurement (I think it's termed "quantitative analysis") and report back with my findings, if you're interested. Again, I wanna thank you for you time and patience. Have a good day :)
If forensics of any kind is what you're interested in, there's a good bet your class will teach you about the photography aspect of the department. Our guess is this: they measure the real subject's dimensions then scale the photograph to fit the given measurements, no special photography tricks. So, you're welcome and have fun! :)
Yes and no. If you compare FX camera, D700, to a 15 years old DX camera, D1H, then, yes, D700 is the winner, however. If you compare D700 to current and future DX cameras, they're somehow comparable. The video did mention that technology will continue to improve, which means DX will start to catch up, eventually. Ah, also, noise depends entirely on your post processing skills, printing skills, paper media type, media size, and viewing distance. Never compare noise at 100% magnification.
Slide film outdoes digital in real dynamic range (no HDRing or levels push in post process). Depth of field is the same, just different recording size (like discussed in this video). M7 is a 35mm SLR, not a medium format like the S2. Still incomparable. It's more logical to compare a Leica M7 with 50mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux-M against a Nikon F3HP with 50mm ƒ/1.4 AIS using the same slide film. We're done arguing with you.
How disappointing. No, it's not the S2 that delivers the quality, it's the S2's lenses. In this case, you can't compare a S2 against a M7 when it comes to quality; it's always the lenses.
Yes, DX format crops off the dark and distorting corners, but only if you're shooting with much more expensive FX glass in the first place. It's an expensive way to correct something that you can usually fix in post anyway.
Amazing! I've been wanting to know the difference for quite some time, thanks! One question though, with so many cons on the FX/Film, is it really worth it? As you said it's expensive and a really hard to maintain. And as far as the video goes there's just a lot of restraints for FX/film, so like, why does Nikon make them then?
Worth it? We don't know, that is your opinion, so perhaps renting a FX format digital SLR out for a week or two to see how you like it?
Actually, that is a really good question about why Nikon make FX format digital SLR camera bodies. We honestly do not know but our best estimate is that Nikon wants to "digitalize" the film days by adopting the 35mm size of 36mm x 24mm instead of small DX format sensors. We could be wrong.
@Lilkiwiguy87 - Awesome video and thank you for presenting this info. I am very new to digital and am confused regarding the resolution of DX vs FX at identical MP ratings. Is pixel pitch the same in both? If so, doesn't that by default reduce the resolution of FX cameras? I must be missing something as DX seems at least as good and perhaps better(?) if the resolution is reduced due to spreading the same size pixels over a larger area. What am I missing? Plz be kind I am new to this..thx
We're not engineers, so, we can't give you a detailed explanation on this pixel nonsense. Resolution comes from the lenses, always, not your camera. If using a cheap and crappy lens, it'll reduce the resolution, but not so with a high quality commercial grade lens. Resolution also depends on your post processing skills, enlargement printing skills, and proper viewing distance. What we're saying here is that all cameras have similar resolution when using proper lenses.
@Lilkiwiguy87 ..Thank you for the quick reply and forgive me for asking about 'nonsense'. If pixel density isn't of any relevance whatsoever why are manufacturers continuing to increase them?
That seems to suggest that a 1MP camera would produce an image of equal quality to a 10MP camera since pixels makes no difference given equal quality lenses.
It was just a question from someone admittedly very new to digital cameras....sorry to bother you and thanks again for the info presented.
Manufacturers are still increasing the MP count due to a marketing demand for a small deal of commercial photographers who make billboard and/or poster prints. Unfortunately, also for a great deal of people who never made a print bigger than 8x10 before in their lifetime.
If comparing two super tiny prints from 1MP and 10MP cameras, you'll get the same results. However, there will be a big difference if they're enlarged unless you're viewing from a really far distance.
I dont agree with Bokeh rendition being the same between FX and DX ... I remember when I used my Mamiya 645 with a normal lens and my Mamiya RZ 67 with also a normal lens, and separation within the planes was much more noticeable in the larger film size camera.
So the larger the sensor of film size, background and foreground separation is much more evident. I am pretty sure this is the case with DX and FX, Bokeh rendition is much more pleasant with FX cameras.
Yes, we know the bokeh looks different between both formats. But, again, DX format (or DX Crop Mode) "crops" off a big piece of the out of focus surroundings, which explains the "tight" feel. FX format picks up the entire picture, which makes the bokeh more pleasant.
Hello, how are you? I have a question that bothered me for months, and I hope you could help me figure the answer out. You say that magnification ratios are unchanged when using DX format cameras. So if I set my macro lens focus at 1:1 magnification and manage to focus on an object (let's say it measures 1cmX1cm) with a full frame camera, will it be identical on a DX format camera? The object would be in focus at the same focusing distance (at 1:1 magnification) and have the same size? Thanks :)
theallmikey 1 week ago
That's correct. The final image from FX will be identical to the final image from DX but with 1.5X more space surrounding the subject (DX's version is cropped). That's about it. :)
Lilkiwiguy87 1 week ago
@Lilkiwiguy87
You (guys?) simply rock! Your answers really make my day :) But would you shoot macro on a DX format camera (since you can't stop the aperture as much as you would for fear of lens diffraction)? And I am curious as to how you can measure things on a photo. My guess is that in the old days they would use macro lenses focused at 1:1, 1:2 etc. magnification and measure the subject of interest on the film with a ruler. Can you do that in Photoshop (hopefully more easily)?
theallmikey 1 week ago
Actually, we wouldn't worry about what camera format is being used for macro work because you can always step back a little for increased depth of field at medium apertures (i.e. F/8-F/11) then do tight cropping in post process. If you already have a DX camera, stick to it and work around the limits. The subject's dimensions will be the same on the camera's sensor at 1:1 magnification. We never really measured anything in Photoshop, so, we can't answer that, sorry.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 week ago
@Lilkiwiguy87
Not a problem; I will do my research regarding forensic photography (perhaps there is a "gold standard" regarding the equipment necasary for medical documentation) and regarding photograph measurement (I think it's termed "quantitative analysis") and report back with my findings, if you're interested. Again, I wanna thank you for you time and patience. Have a good day :)
theallmikey 1 week ago
If forensics of any kind is what you're interested in, there's a good bet your class will teach you about the photography aspect of the department. Our guess is this: they measure the real subject's dimensions then scale the photograph to fit the given measurements, no special photography tricks. So, you're welcome and have fun! :)
Lilkiwiguy87 1 week ago
I read that Full-Frame has less noise than Cropped sensor, and I think you did not mention that in the video .. am I right ?! :\
tamim4ever 1 week ago
Yes and no. If you compare FX camera, D700, to a 15 years old DX camera, D1H, then, yes, D700 is the winner, however. If you compare D700 to current and future DX cameras, they're somehow comparable. The video did mention that technology will continue to improve, which means DX will start to catch up, eventually. Ah, also, noise depends entirely on your post processing skills, printing skills, paper media type, media size, and viewing distance. Never compare noise at 100% magnification.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 week ago
@Lilkiwiguy87 okay, good to know that thank you very much .. :)
tamim4ever 1 week ago
this video awsome.. really help ppl like me who want to learn bout fx and dx format.. such a great joob.. welldone
sayangku8283 1 month ago
thanks alot...very helpful...cheers
Tengaimango 1 month ago
This a fantastic video. Explanation perfectly said. Learned so much , great job on this excellent video.
migazl 3 months ago
Thank you keep I keep Learning
CRUZPHOTOS 5 months ago
Slide film outdoes digital in real dynamic range (no HDRing or levels push in post process). Depth of field is the same, just different recording size (like discussed in this video). M7 is a 35mm SLR, not a medium format like the S2. Still incomparable. It's more logical to compare a Leica M7 with 50mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux-M against a Nikon F3HP with 50mm ƒ/1.4 AIS using the same slide film. We're done arguing with you.
Lilkiwiguy87 5 months ago
How disappointing. No, it's not the S2 that delivers the quality, it's the S2's lenses. In this case, you can't compare a S2 against a M7 when it comes to quality; it's always the lenses.
Lilkiwiguy87 5 months ago
Nope, we're perfectly happy with Leica M7 that everybody calls it "outdated".
Lilkiwiguy87 5 months ago
Don't know, we don't have the Leica S2.
Lilkiwiguy87 5 months ago
you killed my FX dream. I would go for FX lenses with DX body then. Anyway, 5 stars video.
avucaldz 1 year ago
Yes, DX format crops off the dark and distorting corners, but only if you're shooting with much more expensive FX glass in the first place. It's an expensive way to correct something that you can usually fix in post anyway.
SLRist 1 year ago
Sorry to disappoint you, even 14-24mm and 24-70mm have distortion.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
Wow, lots of good information. That Lens Sharpness Chart was good, thanks! You know how to teach Lilkiwiguy87!
FinlandApollo 1 year ago
Hah, thanks. :)
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
Amazing! I've been wanting to know the difference for quite some time, thanks! One question though, with so many cons on the FX/Film, is it really worth it? As you said it's expensive and a really hard to maintain. And as far as the video goes there's just a lot of restraints for FX/film, so like, why does Nikon make them then?
unknownchronicles 1 year ago
Worth it? We don't know, that is your opinion, so perhaps renting a FX format digital SLR out for a week or two to see how you like it?
Actually, that is a really good question about why Nikon make FX format digital SLR camera bodies. We honestly do not know but our best estimate is that Nikon wants to "digitalize" the film days by adopting the 35mm size of 36mm x 24mm instead of small DX format sensors. We could be wrong.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
@Lilkiwiguy87 - Awesome video and thank you for presenting this info. I am very new to digital and am confused regarding the resolution of DX vs FX at identical MP ratings. Is pixel pitch the same in both? If so, doesn't that by default reduce the resolution of FX cameras? I must be missing something as DX seems at least as good and perhaps better(?) if the resolution is reduced due to spreading the same size pixels over a larger area. What am I missing? Plz be kind I am new to this..thx
Akileze 6 months ago
We're not engineers, so, we can't give you a detailed explanation on this pixel nonsense. Resolution comes from the lenses, always, not your camera. If using a cheap and crappy lens, it'll reduce the resolution, but not so with a high quality commercial grade lens. Resolution also depends on your post processing skills, enlargement printing skills, and proper viewing distance. What we're saying here is that all cameras have similar resolution when using proper lenses.
Lilkiwiguy87 6 months ago
@Lilkiwiguy87 ..Thank you for the quick reply and forgive me for asking about 'nonsense'. If pixel density isn't of any relevance whatsoever why are manufacturers continuing to increase them?
That seems to suggest that a 1MP camera would produce an image of equal quality to a 10MP camera since pixels makes no difference given equal quality lenses.
It was just a question from someone admittedly very new to digital cameras....sorry to bother you and thanks again for the info presented.
Akileze 6 months ago
Manufacturers are still increasing the MP count due to a marketing demand for a small deal of commercial photographers who make billboard and/or poster prints. Unfortunately, also for a great deal of people who never made a print bigger than 8x10 before in their lifetime.
If comparing two super tiny prints from 1MP and 10MP cameras, you'll get the same results. However, there will be a big difference if they're enlarged unless you're viewing from a really far distance.
Lilkiwiguy87 6 months ago
excellent teacher
anohch 1 year ago
HAHA thx for the video i can feel alitto safe buying FX lens =P
VxXsamuraiXxV 1 year ago
Osom!
Vixelo 1 year ago
I dont agree with Bokeh rendition being the same between FX and DX ... I remember when I used my Mamiya 645 with a normal lens and my Mamiya RZ 67 with also a normal lens, and separation within the planes was much more noticeable in the larger film size camera.
So the larger the sensor of film size, background and foreground separation is much more evident. I am pretty sure this is the case with DX and FX, Bokeh rendition is much more pleasant with FX cameras.
estudio100rafa 1 year ago
Yes, we know the bokeh looks different between both formats. But, again, DX format (or DX Crop Mode) "crops" off a big piece of the out of focus surroundings, which explains the "tight" feel. FX format picks up the entire picture, which makes the bokeh more pleasant.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago