DX vs. FX (re: D500 Nikon)

Don't worry, I'm not going to stir up (hopefully) the very old debate about DX apparent focal length advantages/disadvantages thing. My question is more about the image "quality" of the latest DX camera, D500. In a previous thread below (What system could I change to?) Bick-shouldered Kite comments that his D500 macro files don't match FX files in their "impact". IMPACT, if your photos don't have that....then what do you have? Impact is what it's all about imho. I have used the D200, then D300s cameras....but when I went to the full frame D700 and then D4 I personally found a quantum improvement in the "impact" of my photos. I am referring to the totality of the look of the images; sharpness, color, tonality, or whatever I'm looking at, just night and day better on FX. I had written off DX based on these personal experiences. After all the glowing reviews of the D500 I have come across I have been reconsidering my staunch preference for FX. On paper the D500 appears to be the camera wildlife photographers in the Nikon ecosystem should buy. I guess I should indicate that I am a telephoto user primarily, shooting birds and mammals primarily. 

So my question to you, for those who may own or have used the D500 does it REALLY level the field in terms of DX vs FX with regards to image quality, that intangible "je nes se qua" part we might call "impact"? Doesn't matter how fast the thing autofocuses or how many frames per second I can capture if it all lacks impact. I get it that the D500 costs a fraction of the full frame D5, for this discussion lets pretend cost isn't an issue. 

First on the impact statement...
If you take a photo with a D5 (20mp FX) at say 75mm and the same photo from the same spot as seen in the viewfinder on a D500 (20mp DX) that means you will be taking that photo with a 50mm lens.  Since you are taking the second photo with a wider lens you will have to open up the aperture one stop more on the 50mm/DX combo to achieve equivalently shallow DOF.  Alternately you could stop down the Fx shot one stop more to achieve equivalently deep DOF to the DX.  As long as the ISO is kept low and the dynamic range of the scene doesn't exceed either sensor, there will be no "visual impact" difference on the final print - the two images will be visually identical.  But the thing is most people don't do it that way, they are just shooting with a single camera and then they like images from FX better, perhaps due to the better noise performance at higher ISO or maybe the shallower DOF than they are used to seeing for the same aperture  or maybe because their wide angle lenses are true wide angles letting them have more foreground impact, or due to the better inherent dynamic range of a FX sensor of the same megapixel count as a DX.  But if you truly make the two photos the same in the frame and account for the DOF difference by shooting at a different aperture at an ISO where there is no visible noise then there is no difference.  Another thing that could cause the FX files to appear to have more impact is if a higher megapixel full frame camera is used then you will see more detail...  You mention D300 vs D700 if the two are shot to keep things identical as outlined above, the differences are purely in noise which is a non factor at ISO 200 or below and in dynamic range - but the D700 had significantly better dynamic range than the D300 allowing you to get great results in more situations.

Now as far as leveling the playing field, the D500 is a very good still camera but it will be noisier at higher ISO and it is just 20mp where you can get 36 or even 42 mp cameras that will accept your Nikkor lenses.  So there isn't equivalency on the resolution front to what is available in FX.  Also there isn't any noise equivalency to what is available in FX nor is there dynamic range equivalency.  So no it isn't equivalent and the playing field is not level.  You can however now get equivalent AF performance with a D500 and some would argue better because a larger percentage of the viewfinder is covered with AF points.  So in the end, FX cameras generally are more capable due to lower noise, not restricting your wide angles, and better dynamic range but in many cases if you carefully control the outcome you can make two shots look completely identical as long as the shot fits within the parameters of what both cameras are capable of.

I had a D500 for a couple of weeks and while the focus, fps and image quality have improved over the D300S, it's still a DX camera. It's fast and responsive but the files to my eye are not as good as files from my FX cameras which only makes sense. Perhaps it was just the camera I tried out but the metering seemed off and low light seemed to yield dark files. Maybe eventually the DX offerings will be better than my D4 but not yet.

Thank you E.J., your explanation is concise and cogent. Thank you for you opinion as well Woodswalker, D4 still has better files. I want to purchase a D500, but I may wait for Q1 2017 to see what the rumoured D810 replacement looks like.

Pixel density also comes into play with lower levels of density being perceived as sharper and more acute when inspecting an image. The norm now is 24 mpix in DX (Nikon excepted with its older 20mpix sensor) which is denser than everything except the 5Dsr.

No one ever talks about the actual sensor used in the camera or the processor used to produce the data to create the image. Surely they together have a big impact on the 'look' of the image beyond the technical/physical attributes of how you frame the image.

The look of the images from the D5300 compared to the D750 is for me something in the background underlying the actual image. The best word I could use was 'roughness to the image'. It is often hard to articulate such subtle impressions.

Kim wrote:No one ever talks about the actual sensor used in the camera or the processor used to produce the data to create the image. Surely they together have a big impact on the 'look' of the image beyond the technical/physical attributes of how you frame the image.

The look of the images from the D5300 compared to the D750 is for me something in the background underlying the actual image. The best word I could use was 'roughness to the image'. It is often hard to articulate such subtle impressions.

Tonal gradation?

Personally, if money is no object, I would use a medium format (or larger) camera to shoot macro.

Whew!  I saw my NSN name mentioned and I said..."Boy am I gonna catch h-ll now"    But you all seem to be seeing something different there too.  

Honestly, I have accepted the D500 as the body whose sole purpose is for long wildlife work; i.e to add 50% "reach".  And its fast too.  

At this point, I can see myself doing all closeup work next spring/summer with FX.  It will make the old D610 of great value to me.  Maybe I will change my mind.  I don't know.  The dragonflies and relatives are going to be emerging again next June (I think...up here) and I really want to document it this time.  

But DChan makes a good point:  Can you imagine how exciting a big old fat bullfrog would look like in a huge print, shot from a medium format body at low ISO?  Wow!  


Thanks folks.

To me, macro work like dragonflies, butterflies, etc. is generally no different than bird photography; i.e. nice perch, pose, BG, flight, etc. etc. I have shot both macro and birds with D200, D300, D700, D3, D800, D7100 & D7200. I have never seen any differences in the images between FX and DX, at least nothing that would suggest I choose one over the other. For subjects like Dragonflies, I always try to use the DX crop for the extra working distance and more blurred background. Unless I need an FX for specific reasons, like landscapes. people, sports, etc. I pretty much always use my DX for macro and wildlife. I see no reason to do it any other way.

My thoughts pretty much parallel Tim's. My Nikon digital camera history started with a D 200, then D300, D 300s, D 700, D800e, D810 and D500. I shoot macro with the appropriate lens and ext tube needed depending how close I need to get or not to get to the subject and how to control the background to make it appear as pleasing as possible given the subject being photographed. 

I have never noticed any difference in the image solely because of DX vs FX body. The difference in appearance of the subject is more usually a function of the focal length of the lens used. For example, a macro shot of a rose taken with a short macro lens like a 50-55mm will usually look different than if the same rose was taken with a 105mm or a 200mm macro lens. All three of my macro lenses are for FX bodies but I have used them on DX bodies for the same reasons  Tim has stated. I use my 300mm lens with an extension tube a lot as a macro lens for dragon flies and other similar subjects where you cannot get close, or do not want to get too close to them. 

Joe

Apparently there are no differences between sensors then, they all give the exact same results and look. All those people claiming the butter smooth look of Canon images must be in la la land.

In the thread I started, referenced above, I made no direct comparison to DX V FX and clearly stated I was shooting orchids, native orchids with flowers about 2 inches above the ground, not large butterflies and dragon flies on pretty perches.

The camera I was shooting macro with is an entry level Nikon but it does have a fully articulated screen which is the only way I can shoot close to the ground using LiveView. I could not use a 200mm lens. I did ask for information on other cameras with a 90-105 macro lens.

As for using a medium/large format camera to shoot macro, I no longer have the physical abilities required given I am 73, female, riddled with arthritis and have 2 wrists with metal plates as I fell off a cliff late last year.

I am pretty much over this thread given the tone and direction it has taken.

Kim wrote: I am pretty much over this thread given the tone and direction it has taken.

I don't get it, what is wrong with the tone and direction of the thread.  The OP asked about the differences between DX and FX and that's pretty much what is being discussed.

Kim wrote:Apparently there are no differences between sensors then, they all give the exact same results and look. All those people claiming the butter smooth look of Canon images must be in la la land.

In the thread I started, referenced above, I made no direct comparison to DX V FX and clearly stated I was shooting orchids, native orchids with flowers about 2 inches above the ground, not large butterflies and dragon flies on pretty perches.

The camera I was shooting macro with is an entry level Nikon but it does have a fully articulated screen which is the only way I can shoot close to the ground using LiveView. I could not use a 200mm lens. I did ask for information on other cameras with a 90-105 macro lens.

As for using a medium/large format camera to shoot macro, I no longer have the physical abilities required given I am 73, female, riddled with arthritis and have 2 wrists with metal plates as I fell off a cliff late last year.

For macro work, I think a smaller format has an advantage over a bigger format due to the apparent increase in DOF as you go smaller. You do lose dynamic range but, again with macro, that is relatively easy to control compared to other types of nature photography. If I shot mostly macro, I'd choose the smallest format camera that had the lenses I needed. That would probably mean Nikon 1 (CX) over m4/3 over DX over FX over medium format.

One cannot answer this question without taking into account the lens used and the subject distance.

It is debatable what really constitutes an apple-to-apple comparison but, In order to achieve the same FOV of a 1.5X crop camera with a 400mm lens you need to use a 600mm lens on the Full Frame shooting from the same distance. If both lenses are F/4, it means the physical aperture of the 600mm lens is twice as large as the 400mm lens. The Full Frame sensor will thus sample twice as many photons as the crop sensor from the same scene. This means SNR will increase by 3dB if the read noise is equal between the both sensors. This in turn means significantly higher perceived image quality, especially in low light.  Its shallower DOF will also help isolate the subject and take out the harshness of a typical BG. 

However things change in other conditions of shooting, for example if you use the same lens on both cameras and shoot a far subject from the same distance, then choose to crop the Full Frame image to match the 1.5X FOV of the crop sensor, both images will exactly have the same number of photons integrated in them. Then it really depends on the read noise, the sensor with lower read noise will win once you also equalize the pixel dimensions in post. 

Usually sensors with smaller pixels have higher read noise as the circuits are more cramped and there is more interference between signals but this highly depends on the sensor architecture and technology. 

So overall the answer is : it depends...

Of course, the highest image quality possible is achieved with the largest sensor and the longest fastest lens for birds, but those combinations are heavier and more expensive. 


these two short articles explain this basic concept in more depth


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

I may be late to the party but I just picked up a D500 and love it! After selling my Canon 5d MkIII and L glass (need to change my screen name) and going to the dark side I fell in love with the D750. After getting my gear stolen I ended up comparing a D810 to a D500 hands on and read a ton of reviews and watched a ton of review videos. I've been making 13.x19 prints of 75% crops and getting no noise or image degradation. The camera and sensor is simply amazing. Shoots like a rocket and I couldn't be happier. I'm shooting mostly with a 300 f/4 PF and loving it. Did I mention I love this camera!

As canon shooter I'm jealous of the new D500. I got to see one in action last week and it has some very useful features the 7D doesn't have. I hope Canon is paying attention. I miss not having a crop sensor with a reasonably clean files that holds its autofocus.