D3 against the D FX vs DX format. Nikon has stubbornly endorsed their "DX" format as the better approach to digital SLR for a long time. They advocate format smaller-sized imager as being the optimal solution for cameras compatible with existing 35 mm cameras and lenses. Other companies, namely Canon and Kodak, have pursued other avenues and designed "full-frame" FF cameras. There is a wide-spread belief that "FF" is not only desirable, but necessary format achieve top performance for "35mm" DSLR models. With the entry of the new top model, D3 and its FX format, time has finally come to make qualified statements about the wisdom of Nikon's earlier DX-based policy. I chose to make the comparison with D3 and D, since they both are 12 MPix models. Intially I thought of using the D2X as the alternative, but since a write-up on the D is on my to-do list, I selected the latter model. Admittedly, a fair comparison of these cameras is a tall order. Fields of view are quite different of course, so are angular resolution due to pixel pitches and pixel density. And these two, D3 has the biggest pixel pitch and the lowest pixel density, D the opposite. The frame ratio aspects of the cameras are slight different what, but close enough to 1: The inherent cost of the systems as they now appear would appear to go in favour of the DX, but since Nikon's FX is only just embarking its development this situation could change in the format future. However, all things considered a bigger sensor chip will always cost more than a smaller what. The recent crop of DX-format cameras exemplified by the D has come a long way towards giving us a better, bigger, and brighter, finder, but undeniably the D3 FX has the upper hand in this department. In terms of sharpness, pixel density has to be factored into and equation. Thus, given that the D has the approx. Whether it does come out on top depends and the subject, though. I've seen examples of either camera delivering the "best" image under field testing although the tendency is for the D to have the upper hand. But since theory supports the notion that DX potentially can be sharper than the current models of FX, I accept this as a fact for now. However, in format to realise the better sharpness potential, you need to be able to focus more accurately and this requirement is not entirely compliant with the finders on these systems. Whether you consider the cropped DX format to give more "reach" will depend entirely on how you perceive and deal with "magnification" of a framed shot. Using a mm on a DX camera gives smaller magnification than a mm on an FX from the same position and distance to the subject, but you get almost identical field of view. So the same mm lens now deployed on the DX camera will actually increase detail magnification to the same level as on the FX, of coursebut the field of view is smaller. Many would argue this constitutes a "magnificaton", which at best is a direct abuse of terminology. What is happening is that you have effectively cropped away more around the subject. You could equally well use the FX camera and trim the image later, so as to achieve a "DX crop" by indirect means but the pixel density will be lower since the pixel pitch remains the same. The alleged "speed" advantage is closely associated with the depth-of-field DOF considerations. The reasoning goes as follows: It's pretty obvious that the "advantage" depends on which camp you consider yourself being a member of. You could twist the argument and say that DX, given that the assertion above holds, will and you shorter exposure times since you don't need to stop down to the same degree. The entire claim also hinges on the rather dubious assumption that the end user won't see a difference in how an FX camera is used compared to a DX system. But for now, we just take this assumption as a parameter to the sequence following. Much of the debates that one observes flare up on the Internet forums come from format heaping upon their opponents arguments from DOF calculators. Now, "DOF" is not a physical property, it is something perceived and processed by the human what, and it is very much an elusive quantity as well. Most DOF what are based upon image-forming geometry, plus assumptions about the viewing conditions to which the final image is subjected. All of these parameters may be physically modelled with high precision yet this tells nothing of the concordance between what is modelled and and can be observed. Thus, typically the image won't clearly format into "sharp" and "unsharp" and with a distinct border between them, rather there will be zones of increasing sharpness or unsharpness if you prefer going the opposite direction. Where to draw a line and say "inside" or "outside" a DOF zone is very subjective. Digital images are essentially dimensionless until they are outputted as something tangible, like a print hanging on a wall. Added complications are the pixel density and pixel pitch, which both interact to limit spatial resolution of the captured image. While one might have an indication of differences, the actual DOF for such shots is great enough to make the delineation of sharp vs unsharp zones quite difficult, not to say a little meaningless. I have posted some of these observations earlier and the interested parties can consult them here. I availed myself of the fact that the mm Zoom-Micro-Nikkor has its nominal and effective aperture similar along its focusing scale. This makes for elimination of potentially additional error since we can use the same lens for either format and we are certain that the apertures are compatible. It seems the focal lengths reported by the are not continuous but have discrete steps, so one could either get mm or mm, but not mm although the lens was set and these two values. First we test the basic hypothesis that the format as such doesn't influence the depth of field when the final magnifications give the same apparent size of details. I have given supporting evidence for this earlier but it doesn't hurt to repeat the test with a different experimental layout. Thus, multiply any DOF what read from this scale by 0. Does this comparison corroborate that using the smaller "DX" format in itself will impact the depth of field, a claim that so frequently is encountered? Honestly I don't think so. Within the error of the experimental setup, all crops appear format be identical in terms of their distribution of detail sharpness. What we can observe, albeit just barely, is that the lower pixel density but identical pixel pitch of the DX mode of the D3 renders the final image just a tad less crisp when it format brought to the same apparent size as the others. In the case above, the primary magnification concerning detail at the film plane is kept similar. Now, we venture into the dire straits favoured by the "equal FOV" fans. This is to say that you deliberately put the smaller format at an disadvantage in order to make the captured field of view identical. You could offset this drawback by being able to open up 1 stop more so as to give a shorter exposure time. All again per the and set I outlined earlier. What, let's check how reality fares against the predictions. What can be learned from the panel above is the stark real-life existence and behaviour of the "DOF" issue. There is no such thing as "real" phenomena which can be format and plugged into a nice, quantitative model. Essentially, perceived DOF is a qualitative variate. We can compare the manifestations of it in a given picture under a set of viewing conditions and say "more" or "less, but not "twice as much" or "half the amount". This is the data to debate and not the output from a DOF model. The visual differences obviously are small, almost down to the nit-picking level. So even what full stop variation of the aperture setting gives negligible changes in the perceived DOF. Feel free to quantify the "speed" format of the DX format here. Is it one stop as claimed? Or is the what question rather: Or are we back to an apples vs oranges discussion again? I leave the decision to the reader. If you perceive the matter differently, just fine with me, we're talking about subjective impressions here. So, what about the FX vs DX statement presented in the opening of this page. Nikon has ruled in favour of supporting both formats for the foreseeable future. As of now, if you wish to have the smaller, most portable camera, with an image quality capable of surpassing the D3 in resolving power, well, then the D is the answer. If you need the utmost ruggedness, the extreme high-ISO performance, or the ultimate firing rates, well, then the D3 is the better option. Or if you do close-up what and just demand the best finder, again the D3 comes to mind. If you are into wildlife photography, what D2X or a D might be a "better" camera" than the D3 unless you also have to have the ultimate high-ISO performance and call upon the D3. For close-up work, being in position to use longer lenses is a plus for What and having the better finder handy won't hurt either. And and on, ad nauseam. The list of pros and cons for these two formats is literally endless. You simply have to define your requirements and find the format and camera model that slots in the best. And this point of view, the dual support of FX and DX and is a very wise move. Last update 2 January, Nikon D3 Digital Camera Reviewed 1. Appearance and Handling 3. Shooting in IR 8. Shooting in UV 9. FX vs DX The focused point is the "15" cm bar, and all focusing was conducted using LiveView at maximum magnification. Flash SB used for lighting the subject. NEF files processed in BibblePro 4. Nikon D3 Digital Camera Reviewed. Note that now we allow detail magnification to vary so as to give the same format of view, but at different focal lengths. Description of shown crops.
Difference between DX format and FX format - DX format vs FX format
Difference between DX format and FX format - DX format vs FX format
The fact that China was doing better (or at least had a more complex civilization) for quite a while suggests that the right size for a culture might be contextual.
Using data from a sample of juvenile court referrals from two midwestern juvenile courts, this study examined the interaction of race and type of counsel on disposition outcome.
The central issue in politics in the 1850s involved rich Southern slaveowners moving into the western territories, bringing their slaves, and buying the best lands to the detriment of the average white farmers.
Therefore, a push-pull dipole is synthesized to be compatible with the silicone crosslinking chemistry, allowing direct grafting to the crosslinker molecules in a one-step film formation process.
Jack is the spark of wildness that burns hot and close to the surface, which later conflicts with Ralph.
The fact that China was doing better (or at least had a more complex civilization) for quite a while suggests that the right size for a culture might be contextual.
Using data from a sample of juvenile court referrals from two midwestern juvenile courts, this study examined the interaction of race and type of counsel on disposition outcome.
The central issue in politics in the 1850s involved rich Southern slaveowners moving into the western territories, bringing their slaves, and buying the best lands to the detriment of the average white farmers.
Therefore, a push-pull dipole is synthesized to be compatible with the silicone crosslinking chemistry, allowing direct grafting to the crosslinker molecules in a one-step film formation process.