FX vs DX in mirrorless

Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
146
I think that's Z6 is. The main reason the Z50 is lighter is it is lacking in an in-camera VR compared with Z6. Yes the Z50 is a bit tinier than Z6 but basically the same. Sharing the same large Z-mount does not allow the body to be any smaller even in DX.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
463
Location
Puget Sound
Real Name
Ken
I agree. Z50 style body with FX sensor and no more than $1000 and Nikon would be selling tons of cameras, I feel.
I do wonder in time if the Z6 will fall to that slot (or near it) if they release another body to replace it (like Sony often does). And that might also put some pressure on the Z50 as well.

--Ken
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
146
I meant the Z6 is a camera which has the Z50 body with FX sensor. Yes Nikon did remove in-camera VR, so just remove VR from the Z6 ....
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
478
Location
MN, USA
I meant the Z6 is a camera which has the Z50 body with FX sensor. Yes Nikon did remove in-camera VR, so just remove VR from the Z6 ....
I have both. This isn’t true. They are substantially different bodies, different ergonomics, slightly different functionalities and feature sets. No one holding or using one would mistake it for the other.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
540
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Chris
I would not say that FX produces sharper images than a DX format... I don’t agree with that at all. The FX format originally was designed around the concept of more demanding functions, such as adverse weather, challenging light, and the need to crop / compose easier. It was tailored for the more professional crowd. But sharpness was never noticeably better....
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
146
When we talk about sharpness and/or resolution aspect about the camera, that is, the difference between FX and DX, the difference between 20MP and 40MP, and so on, I think the best and most intuitive way is to think of how large a print you can make. For instance, the 20MP DX can make a max of 2-foot print, but 20MP FX can push it to 3 feet (I am just making an example). The ability to crop, by the way, is exactly the same thing as making a larger print, therefore requiring a better resolution.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
540
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Chris
When we talk about sharpness and/or resolution aspect about the camera, that is, the difference between FX and DX, the difference between 20MP and 40MP, and so on, I think the best and most intuitive way is to think of how large a print you can make. For instance, the 20MP DX can make a max of 2-foot print, but 20MP FX can push it to 3 feet (I am just making an example). The ability to crop, by the way, is exactly the same thing as making a larger print, therefore requiring a better resolution.
Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing. They are related in some regards but that’s it.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
1,856
Location
vancouver, canada
Gotta chime in on the sharpness thing....

The Z6 has an AA filter while the Z50 does not.

so the Z50 is sharper.... (ish)

The z6 has larger pixels so has less quantum noise.

The D500 and D850 both don't have AA filters and the pixel pitch is almost identical so both are very sharp...

Cheers,
alexis and Georgie Beagle

" use the same lens and only the pixel peepers will notice..... In regard to the D500 vs D850 mom clips wings with the D500" - Georgie Beagle
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
5,460
Location
Chicago "burbs"
When we talk about sharpness and/or resolution aspect about the camera, that is, the difference between FX and DX, the difference between 20MP and 40MP, and so on, I think the best and most intuitive way is to think of how large a print you can make. For instance, the 20MP DX can make a max of 2-foot print, but 20MP FX can push it to 3 feet (I am just making an example). The ability to crop, by the way, is exactly the same thing as making a larger print, therefore requiring a better resolution.
So you're saying the ability to make a larger print and the ability to take larger crops with FX makes FX sharper? What if you compare a 24mp FX sensor with a 24mp DX sensor. Sharpness is a function of optics, not sensor size.
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
146
I realize that sharpness is not the same thing as resolution. You can have a lens with a very high resolution but weak contrast, then you get a fuzzy, not-so-sharp picture. Both are important. That's why MTF shows both high spacial frequency and low spacial frequency. In the case of Nikon MTF chart, the former is usually 30 lines per mm, and the latter 10 lines per mm. These are indicative of the resolution and contrast of the lens, respectively. Other manufacturers may use a different spacial frequency to obtain their modulation transfer function (MTF) for resolution. But anyway, aren't we, at the end of the day, all chasing for a larger print which are still crystal-clear and sharp when we are buying a camera with a bigger and bigger MP and larger sensor size? If you never make a print larger than 3x5, does it matter what camera you use? The other day I saw a two-page spread color photo in the L.A.Times travel section - taken by iPhone. Looked darn good.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
146
I am just trying to understand in my mind what the difference is between DX and FX - what the benefit of FX is. I am using the Z7 and I love it. I used the Z50 and it was fantastic with a 16-50mm which weighs almost nothing. As for sharpness, the Z50 is just as good. But both sharpness and resolution are about the area of focus in the frame. The FX certainly gives a more attractive bokeh. If your photo is almost pan-focused, the DX (and DX lenses) is a wise choice that weighs much less.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom