From http://www.naturalart.ca/images/test_shots/D7000vsD3s_ISONoise_Comparison.jpg
Nothing beats real world usage.
Last edited:
For those who like to argue ....
- Thread starter luckyorange
- Start date
From http://www.naturalart.ca/images/test_shots/D7000vsD3s_ISONoise_Comparison.jpg
Nothing beats real world usage.
Actually, if u r not convince the advantage of fx over dx urself. Then nobody can convince u. I hav both the d7000 n d800, 1 stop iso advantage? Lol.
I was in the exact same situation as you were when you were in Vietnam for the fire walking ceremony (that jump shot), in super dark condition. What you have mentioned in this thread was actually re-enacted real life to me when I was doing those dark shots.
You appreciate the usefulness of the camera when you are in that kind of situation. I don't know how I would have fared with DX camera, but the ability of the FX camera to snap into focus instantly is something really really useful, and having low noise level is another key
I guess if you say something often enough, the masses believe it. Like FX camera somehow has superior AF vs DX. Imagine someone not happy with the AF module on the D7000 and decides to buy the D600 to improve the AF performance ...
dun sabo people leh. If people buy the D600 for the "superior" FX AF performance how? After spending $2.7k and then realising that the AF performance is just like the $1k+ DX D7000...
errr... so what if you have both D7000 and D800? is that supposed to convince people that it is more than one stop difference?
and I hope you did not assume I am a DX user...
lenslust said:
That is not always true.
Assuming that DX equipment is cheaper than FX equipment, and that a DX photographer uses DX equipment exclusively, everything will depend on your ability to generate revenue. And we all know that your assumptions aren't always tenable.
Your statement may be true, but it is clear to me that your assumptions are too simplistic.
Last edited:
D3s and D7000 is not using the same sensor tech. You might as well compare D3s vs D90 to prove your point. It is more obvious that way.
But if you look at DXOMark results for D3x vs D7000, the difference is never higher than 2 stops. With the D800 and D7000, the difference is much closer to one stop for both SNR and DR.
Also the problem with relying on such "test pics" is that a lot really depends on how the pics are taken, etc. It is REALLY HARD to do an objective comparison of sensor performance. I have tried taking AB shots personally of my FX and DX cams but the difference is hard to tell apart, mainly because you have to measure both Signal and Noise. I would rather leave it to people like DXOMark and based my conclusions on that.
Last edited:
dniwkh said:
To be fair, the D3s is a FX sensor. And the discussion here is the advantage of FX over DX.
I think I have explained the prowess of the D3s and the D4 sensor earlier and it seems that everyone has concluded that these sensors are high ISO monsters.
From my personal use of the D7000, it starts to falter past 3200, both in terms of noise performance and dynamic range. I mean, ISO 3200 is an insanely sensitive, but it seems that FX sensors (from first gen D3, D700 sensors, to the current D600 / D800 sensors) do hold a significant advantage, that, in my opinion, is well over 1 stop. You pay more to get more.
?? Fair?? As I said, then why not compare D90 with the D3s? The discussion is about FX over DX, aka sensor size, not sensor technology.
dniwkh said:
And the sensor size of the Nikon D3s is dissimilar to the D700, D600 and D800? I think the pixel pitch differs, but the physical size of the entire sensor is pretty much the same, no? Of course, I am not an engineer, so I wouldn't dare to enter a discussion on the detailed electronics. Am I mistaken in any way?
?? actually I can tell you are not an engineer
ok let me explain more simply. The object of discussion here is FX vs DX, aka sensor size. To do any comparisons, we should choose two cameras as identical as possible with the exception of sensor size. This is because we can safely conclude any observable difference in performance in due to FX vs DX, sensor size.
If you choose two cameras that are very different, then what is the point? Example, D3s vs D90. All you have proven is that the sensor technology in D3s is better than D90. Does that help your arguement in proving that FX is better than DX?
dniwkh said:?? actually I can tell you are not an engineer
ok let me explain more simply. The object of discussion here is FX vs DX, aka sensor size. To do any comparisons, we should choose two cameras as identical as possible with the exception of sensor size. This is because we can safely conclude any observable difference in performance in due to FX vs DX, sensor size.
If you choose two cameras that are very different, then what is the point? Example, D3s vs D90. All you have proven is that the sensor technology in D3s is better than D90. Does that help your arguement in proving that FX is better than DX?
Haha. Ok!
Side topic: Interesting that my words and expression here can reveal the fact that I am not an engineer. Not that i aspire or am pretending to be one, but just curious, how did you know?
Naturally, it's based on the ability to generate income, given all work factors equal, wouldn't a D80 have a faster ROI as opposed to a D4?
Simple yet true, isn't it?
lenslust said:
If you can convince your clients to pay the same or greater % profit as the D4 photographer. Which is rare, as there are many instances where clients still equate equipment with level of competency and standard of results. Don't get me wrong - I am not confusing skill with equipment level. I am dealing with client perception (which may be incorrect), but may inadvertently affect your bargaining power.
There are also several FX or universal equipment that a DX photographer will have to use. Common examples are Te trinity f/2.8, Nikon speed lights, SD memory cards and all other photographic accessories that a DX user will not enjoy a cost advantage over a FX user.
Once again, you aren't completely wrong. But there are many factors to consider, and these factors, once considered, significantly dilute the potency of your statement.
Eh, no, my view was made on the basis the customer tells me what they want, I deliver. What equipment I use, is at my discretion. I get your point and know what you mean, but my simple remark was based on all things equal, using FX lenses, on DX/FX and deliver the same results thus a DX would have faster ROI.
Not trying to be right here, but I think you might have misunderstood where I'm coming from with my remark on ROI. So, just clearing the air.
Even talking memory cards, two blardy XQD 32GB costs me S$600 shipping in from US. SD cards from best bargain on a DX gets the job done, in a fraction of the cost.
Last edited:
Haha. True! If you can isolate equipment from the client, and product the results as desired, that is certainly ideal!
Similar threads
