Thom Hogan Full Frame Vs Dslr Again

(commentary)

At least among the serious enthusiast market, there seems to be this growing groundswell of "I'll be shooting full frame some 24-hour interval." This chorus grows with each new rumor or announcement of a full frame camera.

At this betoken, Nikon has v full frame cameras (D4, D3x, D800, D600, Df). An admittedly terrible lineup if you ask me, as information technology pretty much dictates that yous demand to stay with the same body equally a backup as a pro due to the various accessory bug involved*. Meanwhile, Sony has four (RX1, A99, A7, and A7r). Also a terrible lineup, as you're non going to upgrade from 1 of those to another easily, except perhaps the A7 to A7r, but then why didn't you lot buy the A7r in the starting time identify? Canon has four: 6D, 1Dc, 1Dx, and 5DIII; some other slightly strange lineup with a 4K video camera slipping in there.

*Notation that "lineup" is not "production." LIneup refers to the options a user has to cull from, and while Nikon's FX lineup has lots of options, they experience extremely asunder from one another now, with no real connection between the products. Compare D800, D4, D3x to the old D700, D3s, D3x line. Today: no connectedness; previously: solid connections. So, the "products" tin be splendid, but the lineup they create tin be weak. That's my signal.

If you wait around, you lot'll find rumors of Fujifilm, Pentax, and even Olympus eventually having a total frame option or two.

One has to ask: what'south the large deal about full frame? Why are all the makers taking scatter shots at the full frame marketplace and why are all the enthusiasts and then fast to endorse this strategy? A carper might say: because they're hoping you'll bite into a more than expensive treat. If your unit sales are dropping xv% but you tin go xx% of your summit end DX buyers to purchase a much more expensive photographic camera, your actual sales numbers might exist okay.

As a reminder, the most expensive function in a DSLR is the sensor. While full frame sensors have come down in toll, every time they practice, a crop sensor should come up down in cost by as much as a cistron of eight. I've written before nearly sensor costs. Back at the start of total frame, it was pretty clear that a 36x24mm sensor was topping Usa$500. Last time I looked (effectually the time of the D600 intro), the best judge I could become out of my semiconductor friends was US$350. Today, I think the number may have stretched downwards to US$300. So big sensor prices have been coming down.

However, they don't come down equally fast every bit some of the Web fora are suggesting they will. Moreover, even if you lot can go a perfect yield (no defects on the wafer, no defects in building the circuitry on the wafer, no defects in cut the wafer into fries and casing them), the full frame price will probably never drop below 3x that of an APS/DX sensor. Why? Because full frame uses more silicon and it wastes more of the wafer, and the time on the fabricator is longer and more than complex.

So producing a full frame camera with the same body and components as a crop sensor one (e.g. D610 versus D7100) will always event in the crop sensor product being less expensive.

Why the heck are the camera makers trying to become you to buy more expensive cameras? As I noted earlier, information technology's because unit sales are going down. To keep their overall sales and profit numbers upwards, they need to get yous to buy upscale from where you were.

"That's okay," you say, "because full frame is better." Technically, yep that's truthful in some measurements, but are you sure it's actually better in applied application for you? There are ii "bars" in image quality, I think, the toe and the shoulder:

Below the toe at point A we have cameras that a serious shooter probably wouldn't consider considering they don't meet the "adept enough" factor. At the other end of the quality bend we have cameras that extend across point B, which is the point where "difficult to tell a difference" comes into play.

I would argue that for nearly people, full frame as opposed to crop goes across betoken B. For case, which one of these ISO 3200 shots is 24mp DX and which 24mp FX?

Okay, I'm cheating a chip because you lot're looking at a reduced shot in this Web folio, simply I tin tell yous that looking at these pieces of 24mp images total size on my big monitor, I prefer the i on the left always and so slightly. It has more visible racket, only it's very small and granular and not at all obtrusive. The image on the correct has slightly clumpier racket, still minor and unobtrusive, simply merely enough dissimilar that I like it less.

Then which was which? The left paw photo is a D7100, the right-hand photo a D600. Basically the aforementioned camera, but ane with DX (D7100) and 1 with FX (D600) sensors.

It's even possible that my liking the D7100 better here is considering I accept a actually good sample of the D7100 and a actually bad sample of the D600. In other words, as you lot go to signal B shoulder on the epitome quality curve, even sample variation may exist enough to tip the nod to one product over another.

But await a minute, you're saying, doesn't FX accept a one-stop reward over DX? Maybe, but tin can you actually see a ane stop advantage? That'south a question you should actually inquire. For example, DxOmark ranks the D610 and D7100 this way:

• D610: 25.1 bits color depth, 14.iv EV dynamic range, 2925 ISO
• D7100: 24.two $.25 color depth, 13.vii EV dynamic range, 1256 ISO

I'd contend that 99% of you reading this can't see the differences in color depth, 95%+ can't see the differences in dynamic range, and the only fashion most of you volition see the departure in ISO handling is if we button to an extreme (I'grand guess we'd accept to get out to ISO 6400 before most of y'all would clearly come across a difference after my post processing).

At present, there is a difference in DOF capability. All else equal over again, y'all can get a 1-finish shallower depth of field out of the FX sensor for the same shot if you've got the correct lenses (more likely on FX than DX, unfortunately). Most of you lot could see that difference, I suspect. Just how many of y'all actually demand or use information technology? ;~)

Let's say for a moment that nosotros want to take the exact same shot (the basketball game example, to a higher place). I mean exact. Aforementioned DOF. Allow's run into:

• FX — f/4, 1/g, ISO 6400
• DX — f/2.viii, ane/1000, ISO 3200

This is where things get tricky. Really tricky. The infinitesimal I desire more than DOF in sure situations, the DX starts to equalize very speedily with the FX camera. That's because to keep the exposure the same for the basketball shot I accept to up the ISO on the FX photographic camera considering I besides accept to use a smaller physical aperture. The amount of low-cal available isn't unlike, afterward all.

Technically, the FX photographic camera is going to be meliorate just some small margin. It tests better in the deep pixel quality tests, it can shoot into calorie-free about a terminate lower in calorie-free than the DX camera, and if you have a fast enough aperture you can isolate the focus airplane more dramatically than DX. Only if you're going for the same exact shot with both cameras, sometimes the FX and DX cameras are literally most the same! You boosted the aperture and ISO on the FX photographic camera to match the depth of field on the DX photographic camera while keeping the ball even so frozen.

Plus, if yous're coming from any torso more than virtually three or 4 years old, a new DX camera is going to be significantly better than where you were, too, so don't judge DX on what you've been using. It's really easy to see that in comparing D300 versus D7100 images, for example. Sensors came a long style between 2007 and 2013. More and better pixels, with gains pretty much across the board. In fact:

• D7100: 24.2 $.25 color depth, 13.vii EV dynamic range, 1256 ISO
• D300s: 22.5 $.25 color depth, 12.2 EV dynamic range, 767 ISO

Plus y'all accept double the pixels now ;~).

Hither'due south the thing: for most people, Point A on their quality bar ("skillful enough") is probably depression enough that we now have smartphones that pass information technology. And so nosotros have a lot of cameras crowding Point B on their quality bar. I would guess that if you let me do the shooting and processing, a whole slew of cameras would look like they're performing at or near your "difficult to tell the difference" marking. Certainly all the Sony NEX models, all the Fujifilm mirrorless models, the Canon EOS M, the forgotten Pentax Grand-01, most all the ingather sensor DSLRs, and, of class, the FX DSLRs are going to be crowding point B or exist beyond it. The well-nigh contempo m4/3 mirrorless bodies (E-P5, E-M1, GX-seven) would all be bunched upwards there, likewise.

To me, this is an exciting time in photography. The Olympus OM-D E-M1, for instance, is above my "quality needs" bar (which is lower than my "difficult to tell the difference" bar, but not past a lot). It's likewise small-scale, lite, versatile, and a joy to take on long hikes compared to my D4, which too happens to exist 16mp. If I demand 36mp in the backcountry, I'll just stitch a couple of shots together ;~).

So nosotros're almost to circle around to where I started: do y'all really demand a full frame camera? My answer would exist "probably not." The photographic camera makers want you lot to purchase ane probably because their gross production margins are about the same no affair which DSLR you buy, and then they want you to buy the nearly expensive 1 you can afford. Somewhere along the manner, people got it into their heads that full frame was then much meliorate than anything else, that any fourth dimension a company mentions that they're coming out with another full frame camera, especially an "affordable" 1, the entire Internet gushes with lust over the newcomer.

If you call back all my "want" versus "need" articles over the years, basically what'due south happening right now is that camera makers are preying on your "wants" and not your "needs." Put another mode, if everyone wasn't so lusting over full frame bodies Nikon would have had to accept come out with the crop sensor D400 and some more DX lenses by now ;~).

Don't go me wrong. I shoot right now mostly with FX and m4/3. For my critical piece of work, I desire the very all-time I tin can squeak out of pixels, and with a truly portable, versatile body, that means FX. I've had offers from a couple of companies to explore Medium Format, but that pushes me upwards into cameras not quite suited to all the things I demand to do photographically. Thus, FX is what I chose for my professional work and what I pick up when I need absolute maximum quality.

Simply if were a more casual shooter having to choice one system that was more than good enough and hard to tell the differences on, m4/iii through APS/DX would probably be where I was at. As it is, for days when I'grand putting on the miles I've picked m4/3 every bit my format to keep size and weight down. So please don't phone call me a hypocrite for using FX for pro work: I'm living what I preach for some of my work, and I suspect that as time goes on and more cameras become up to Point B or farther on my image quality chart, my accented need for FX will go away.

Equally I've written many times in the past 14 years (mostly in the past v): Canon, Nikon, and Sony would make this a heck of a lot easier on yous folk trying to make up one's mind betwixt crop sensor and total frame if they'd just fill up out their lens lineups and take that part out of the equation. After all, if yous need a 24mm equivalent tilt-shift lens, you take zero choices except for full frame. That's one of the reasons why I was then early to applaud Olympus and Panasonic with m4/3: more and then than forany other format other than full frame, they've delivered the lenses. If the EM-1 steals some Nikon DX customers, Nikon only has themselves to blame. Good thing Nikon has that line of five very different FX cameras then ;~).

sealyofest1969.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/news-archives/nikon-2013-news/october-2013-nikon-news/the-full-frame-debate.html

Share this post