CX DX FX

[KenP]

If this line of questioning is in the wrong forum, please move accordingly. To qualify…I am just starting t play with a camera(s) again after a 25 year hiatus. I never used a digital camera until now. I know almost nothing about post less what I have read online.

My question has mostly to do with choosing a format and why? Is it size of sensor, field of view, depth of field or angle of view? Where does it matter and why? Is it the final print? The ability to crop? Resolution? All of the above?

When I did play around with film, I only used 135 format. Essentially one tool in the tool box with different films to go with it. Now there seems to be many types of "tools" to choose from in camera and formats. There does not seem to be a one size fits all. Perhaps there never was though I never used medium or large format in film.

This question is just part of my own education and inquisitiveness. I am not looking for why one is "better" than the other. Just under what various circumstances you would choose to own multiple formats or choose to just use one format.

Ken

[David H. Hartman]

Ken,

If you shoot people and like to blow out the background with soft blur you'll want FX. If you are fine with manual focus I'll recommend a 105/2.5 AI or 105/2.8 AIS Mcro.

If you shoot wildlife you get more "reach" with DX. You'll also get more DoF for close-up and macro with DX.

CX, maybe a pocket camera.

If you can own both FX and DX that's great. If only one I recommend FX.

That's my 2 cents,

Dave Hartman

[pluton]

FX:  Moderately large to largest (and heaviest) cameras, widest wide angles available, highest resolution available.
DX: Somewhat smaller to much smaller cameras, limited choice of wide angle lenses, superzoom 18mm-200mm-type "do it all" lenses available for DX.
CX: Tiny cameras, very small lenses, may be discontinued soon.  Easy to carry, but image quality may suffer in low light shooting.

[Les Olson]

The image quality differences between FX and DX associated with sensor size are minor.  In particular, there is no difference between DX and FX in background blur; there are tiny differences in depth of field in some circumstances but unless your requirements are highly specialised you can get any depth of field you want with either.  The only exception is that if you do a lot of photography in very low light FX may be a better choice - but both DX and FX will allow you to get excellent pictures in far less light than you could with film.   

There are some differences in AF, notably in the fraction of the viewfinder covered by AF points, so if you use tracking AF a lot DX may be the better choice.  However, if you are comparing the digital options to film-era memories the difference between 5 AF points on the F100 and 51 on the D7200 is far bigger than the difference between the spread of 51 points on the D7200 and 51 on the D750.

Lens choice is the real issue, IMO.  If you want wide angle primes (other than fisheyes), FX is the only choice.  Even if you don't mind a zoom, DX offers limited wide-angle options and the FX options are better and/or cheaper if you want wider than 24mm equivalent.  Conversely, if you use long focal lengths a lot DX is the better choice unless your pockets are deep. 

CX is over-priced, and Nikon seems to have lost interest in it, but if rock-bottom size and weight is a very high priority, and you want good tracking AF, and you can find a good deal, it is an option to consider.   

[Lars Hansen]

If your subject headline "CX DX FX" does not rule out other brands than Nikon then as for DX (being equal to APS-C format) the Fuji-X system is a compact alternative that offers a wide choice of lenses - including some great wide angle lenses and also wide zooms.

The Fujifilm X mirrorless cameras are more compact but you then have to decide if the electronic viewfinder (and/or optical rangefinder style in X-Pro) is right for you. As for the size of the lenses they probably match Nikon DX.   

As for printing - I still (happily) print my old Nikon D40 6mp images in A4 and A3 - even cropped a bit. The 16mp images from my Fuji looks great printed in A3.   

   

[ArendV]

Your question can easily turn into a very technical discussion like in another thread here on Equivalence.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5905.0.html

So I will just offer you very practical advice.
I use camera's with all 3 sensor sizes but in your case coming from 135 film I would suggest you look at an FX camera first as lens focal length will behave the same way as you were used to in the film days.
An affordable and good option to start and try would be a secondhand Nikon D700. You could then also use old Nikkors in case you have those in your possession.

[David H. Hartman]

In particular, there is no difference between DX and FX in background blur; there are tiny differences in depth of field in some circumstances but unless your requirements are highly specialised you can get any depth of field you want with either.

I'm going to bed...

Dave Hartman

[David H. Hartman]

So I will just offer you very practical advice.
I use camera's with all 3 sensor sizes but in your case coming from 135 film I would suggest you look at an FX camera first as lens focal length will behave the same way as you were used to in the film days.
An affordable and good option to start and try would be a secondhand Nikon D700. You could then also use old Nikkors in case you have those in your possession.

This advice seems good to me.

Dave

[KenP]

I think I am beginning to understand the particular use of formats. My question has more to do with why you would choose one format over the other for a particular use or purpose. The ultimate "out of focus areas" and lower light capability would seem to favor FX.

The smaller sensor formats seem to favor "reach" and depth of field.

I suppose you can get away with any format for any use with compromises. The talent and experience here on NG  seem to do quite well with just about anything that can record an image.

Just to clarify, I am not looking for a camera or advice as to which format to buy. This was just an inquiry on subject matter I am not well acquainted with to date.

I did start to read the "equivalence" thread but it soon got beyond the scope or simplicity I was looking for.

Thank you.

[ArendV]

Ken, I think you start to see the picture on different sensor sizes.
And I now saw in another post that you already purchased V1´s, fun little camera´s I know from personal experience.

I use my Nikon 1 (now J5) mainly for portability and (candid) street photography. My DX camera is multifunctional but I use it a lot for nature photography (birds, macro's) and my FF camera (Sony A7) is mainly used with "old" MF lenses (Nikkor & Contax Zeiss) and I especially enjoy it to play with DOF.

Enjoy your discovery into digital photography !

[KenP]

Arend,

I do have a V1 and a D2h just recently purchased. Both pretty well obsolete in the digital era and much maligned for apparently not making the "expectation" grades of the time.

I suspect at some point I will acquire a more "modern" camera or perhaps even an FX variant. However, after perusing the "obsolete camera" thread and looking at the wonderful images presented, I am not sure I would "need" to…..

I have a lot to learn and if I can produce anything close to some of the work here, I will be just fine with whatever I have as a tool.

Ken

[CS]

I suspect at some point I will acquire a more "modern" camera or perhaps even an FX variant. However, after perusing the "obsolete camera" thread and looking at the wonderful images presented, I am not sure I would "need" to…..

Ken

Take care not to be mislead by images seen on the web. They are not really representative of what this equipment is capable of. Back when Nikon released the CoolPix 990, a 3.3MP camera, an image from that model was used to cover a highway billboard, and it looked great, from the proper viewing distance.

[KenP]

Hi Carl,

I am sure you are quite right. On the other hand, I am not a professional or making money with photographs. I do not know where the "upper limit" of resolution is or if it even exists. Rod Laver (tennis great) could likely beat most anyone with a broom stick. I am sure that any talented photographer can make great printable images with most any camera. I am certainly not one of them.

Ken

[David H. Hartman]

The D700 is the camera I should have bought when I bought a D300s. I'd have plenty of use for a D500. The D500 is finally the replacement for the D300s. What I wanted when I bought my D800 was a replacement for the D700 with the D4s, 16MP image sensor.

One has to work with what they have or what they can afford. I have a D800 and D300s. That's not too bad.

Dave

[Frank Fremerey]

I use a set of FX primes on a D600 FX camera, so I get 20mm the same field of view with my 20mm lens as in the film days. For Tele I use a 300mm prime. If I need more resolution from that lens I use it on my D500 offering a field of view similar to a 450mm lens in the film days.

If you use a lesser lens that does not resolve the 21 Megapixels in the crop format you do not win anything this way. But as I understand many of the current Nikkors max out at 50 Megapixels FX some even above that, so I do not really care.

I just got a 75cm x 50cm print from the lab. Taken handhold with the D500 and the current 1.8/20mm. The resolution is absolutely stunning.

PS: on the D500 the AF system is significantly better than on any earlier Nikon camera. It is the same as on the D5 but with an 85% coverage of the frame. Highly recommended camera!!!