Is Full Frame Really Better?

I have been wanting to upgrade my camera ever since the D3 came out. I was a little unhappy that Nikon did not up the pixels at that time. I don't really want to throw down the $$$$$ for a D3X. But I do/did think I wanted to go to full frame. Recently I read that some lenses that perform very well on the DX sensor, dont really look that sharp on full frame. The 70-200 to be specific. I figure this might be the case with a number of lenses, and edge to edge sharpness. Are Dx sensors just sharper in general, due to the fact that they use more of the center of the lense, and thus don't have the less sharp edges of the lens recording data? And is it harder to get an edge to edge sharp image with full frame? Is this issue solved with the 14-24, and 28-70 2.8 lenses that were made specifically for the new Nikon full frame lineup?
Is moving to full frame going to mean I will have to learn how to compose/focus differently then I have become used to with the DX sensor? Lots of things to think about, and I really will only be able to do this once. The camera I chosse will have to be my main camera for quite a long time, I expect.

Thanks for any info on the subject,
Chris

We're sure not ready to make the jump Chris, and we make our living with cameras. You ask some valid questions, and I'm just not willing to bite on FX till they get answered to my satisfaction. And till the price drops a bunch.

In the meantime, are you getting the results you want from DX? Will FX give you better results or let you do things you can't with DX? And as you note, will buying an FX body mean you also have to buy a bunch of new lenses?

In our pro uses, we just don't see that FX at twice the price or more of DX will bring us twice or more the income. We're not having any trouble with sales or contracts now using DX, so all a switch to FX will accomplish is to drive up our costs while being unlikely to add to our income even a little.

We're letting other folks spend the big buxx and work out the kinks. I'm betting by the time the D4X comes along the price will be down and the function will be improved.

Having taken pictures with both sensor sizes, the larger sensor does provide an image that can be enlarged to a bigger size with less image degradation from noise and excessive interpolation. Putting the obvious technical differences aside, if you shoot often in low available light - big sensor will give better results. Lenses designed for film cameras in many circumstances might provide better performance and freedom from CA. If you shoot sports, fast moving subjects, animals in natural habitats, you'll appreciate the crop factor and bump in effective focal length of a cropped sensor. Typically a cropped sensor, by virtue of its smaller pixel count, will provide a faster continuous shooting rate. If you are shooting in studio, you are likely to get cleaner, sharper images with a full sized sensor. As you can see, the issue is far from simple. Also, newer cameras will come with enhancements that allow you to take better pictures than the similarly sized counterparts they replace. Better sensor, higher pixel count, faster data transfer from sensor to memory, better in-camera processing (for jpg), better noise reduction, etc.

I'm still seeing amazing 24x36 prints from a friend's D70, a 6mp cropped sensor, that compare favorably with prints from my D200.

Hi Chris.
I have never been into the deeper technical side of cameras, I glean the simple facts and keep my fingers crossed, not a raving endorsement for my views I know but here's my take on it.
I bought the full frame D3 mainly because of its low light qualities and because I live in the UK !! I knew Nikon were bringing out an 'upgraded' D3 but I was told its aim was for a wider colour spectrum which would hardly be noticed anyway to the ordinary eye. In my opinion the D3 is tailor made for WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHERS who have to work in lousy light sometimes.
I was once the proud owner of the D2X, I wasn't proud for very long ! The noise from that camera was dreadful.
I did crop in camera with this D3 for a while but the smaller raw files are not worth it I feel so, I now treat it like a 35mm film camera, after all, 35mm film cameras were good enough for all of us for many years.

If you're not absolutely set on full frame for your new camera, I can strongly recommend the D300 for lots less money and stellar results at high ISO's. I posted a couple of photos and our comparisons with the D2X in this thread over in the general discussion threads. Our experience with really big enlargements (30x40) from the D300 is limited so far to studio shots with ideal lighting and ISO200, but they convince me that full frame just isn't required for any of our uses.

I continue to use a DX camera (D2Xs) professionally although I am not doing prints. I have been told by my stock agency that 12 MP is O.K. for now but that it would be a good idea to start saving for something in the 20+ MP range and to make the switch when I can justify the expense. For now the D2Xs when used at base ISO is still producing excellent results.

Well. I will jump in here with info on the D700 I am now using. I also have the D200. Let's forget how many Nikon film cameras I have! I am blown away by the difference between the D200 and D700. I am getting low light shots that would have been terrible with the D200. I am EXTREMELY happy I took the plunge for the D700. I think it is all round better than the D3 because of the updates in it and the cheaper price. I will not get a D3x because of the price (thanks Nikon) and the functions that were limited in the D3x (thanks again Nikon) (you can read about that other places). I am getting shots at dawn or dusk at 1600 and 6400 ISO that are actually quite good for the circumstances. Also, I have to take alot of images from a moving boat. The D700 at 1600 ISO gets me the shots. I could not do half as well with the D200 in this circumstance. I know I would not have these images with any of my other Nikons including the F5 film camera. Think real hard about the full frame D700. You do not have to go out and buy the brand new full frame lenses. Look how many "full frame" older Nikon lenses are available that will work just fine on the D700! All you need to do in some cases is tell the D700 a couple bits of info and you are off and running. And you can get these older super fine lenses cheap compared to the current crop (pun intended!!!). You just need to do a little research to know which of these lenses to buy. Save money on the lenses and get the better camera body - is my opinion. Just be sure it is great glass and not some of the dogs or the do everything zooms that do not do all things well. It used to be get the best glass and most bodies will be fine if the photographer is any good. Now we do have to deal with the two sensor sizes and some outrageous Nikon body pricing. And these digital bodies innards are now so far different from the film bodies innards. The bodies really do now make a difference. Good luck! My opinion, of course, is only as good as my images!

Troup

Hi Chris, this is totally un-technical, totally biased and most likely not addressed to details of your question and coming from a Canon-guy. I think full frame is better.period. Up to this day (and my Cam is 4 years old now) I am still impressed with the smoothness and cleaniness of the files from my 5D. Comparing same (EOS) systems, the fullframe 5D files are considerably better than the crop-files of a 20D or 30D and I also doubt that the 50D (with more Mpix) has the better image quality. For landscapes I think quality of the individual pixel is key for a great looking file or print. Speed is of no issue for a landscape-tripod shooter, so here the smaller frame-rate is not an argument - and the only one imo where a crop-sensor has an advantage. Nikon has great glass (in many cases better than canon) so I would not care too much about the corner-sharpness issues . Landscapes: usually one stops down the aperture anyway for dof and then corner softness is gone...

Go for it man...

I'm often shooting at night but have stayed with the D300. I only saw a 1.5 stop improvement from a D700 in usuable ISO. I routinely shoot at ISO 800, and often at ISO 1600. I absolutely will not compromise on lens quality. I want the modern lenses only, because of their state of art design and digital coatings. I too am waiting for prices of D700 to drop, and it certainly will. But, to get FX lenses equiv. to what I use now I'll have to spend $4,000. I'm just not sure it's worth it.

Kent in SD

Thanks everybody,
I pretty much was in the mindset of all the feedback here so far. I was asking myself if it was really necessary or not. Probably not, but I can't help but feel compelled to make the transition. I really agree with Dietrich. I have always thought the images from the 5D were about the cleanest, and nicest images of any dslr out there. I think that 12 mp's is about the sweet spot for that size sensor, and it's the size of the pixels too. That's why the D3 has such good image quality at higher iso, and overall dynamic range. I have had my eye on the D700. I think I will try and wait a little longer to see if Nikon comes out with something similar with a bump in megapixels too.

Thanks for the help,
Chris

I'm not one to give much attention to the rumor mill, but I'd be surprised if Nikon didn't unveil some major models this fall. If you are buying new gear for the long-term, I'd certainly delay a purchase for a short while. Significant resolution bumps are inevitable. If nothing else, it will make the D700 more affordable.

I've used all kinds of cameras (including the 5d and 1dsIII recently), and I couldn't be happier with my D2x, 12MP and DX. It is truly a sweet spot - considering current technology/lenses. And yes, I regularly sell my images in various forms. My experience tells me that full-frame simply is NOT worth the current cost required to make the lofty resolution worthwhile. At least beyond 12MP. If I didn't love the advantages of DX for my shooting, I'd certainly be patiently waiting for the D700 prices to drop soon.

But here's why I'm chiming in. I'll agree with others who point out the importance of lenses - and how lens choices alone can significantly impact image quality. And that too many people clamor for better bodies, while overlooking the competence of their lenses. For example, the 14-24 on my D2x blew away the image quality from anything I could pull from the 5d and any lens (even Zeiss) - at the low ISOs that I shoot anyway. Sure, that lens is generally overkill for DX - but the full-frame vs. DX issue didn't matter. You can make DX work quite well ... unless your end users regularly demand 50MB stock files and prints measured in feet. I wouldn't even consider 20+MP unless you are using the 14-24 (and similar quality lenses) for landscape work. Throw in a 24-70 and an 80-200 (great corners), and you are set for the next generation of full-frame.

I have both D300 and D700 bodies and only one DX lens.

I subjectively believe the digital noise is greatly reduced in the D700, especially in low light. Being able to shoot at significantly high ISO reduces or aids all the right things for fast moving objects or the same in low light.

Using my old primes and zooms brings back the mental aspect of photography and makes me think more often of depth of field, focus and shutter speed with all their ramifications. It make the think more of what I want to accomplish rather than just blast away--more like the ol' 35 mm days.

Our local camera shop guys, professionals themselves, think old glass is as good--or better. I don't know, and a lens can have a personality--high up or way down from averages.

I sold a nice telescope to purchase my D700. Wasn't using it and now I have more reasons to be outdoors doing and enjoying. Will probably keep the D300 unless someone offers me a good deal (any takers? grins).

So, look around at your stuff and sell what your not using and upgrade your photo tools.

Thinking out loud.

the fisch

I only know Canon and when they went to the 5D what a quality jump! I still shoot with that camera from time to time (the other night doing low light city stuff) and am amazed at the lack of noise and nice quality for those larger pixels.