Are DX lenses and sensors good enough to take on FX cameras?

[iGas]

Last night my buddy brother (a retired engineer) told me that DX sensors and specially DX lenses has improved so much that present Nikon DX sensors and lens are superior than the 2008 Canon design full frame sensor and lenses.

I'm now have second thought that I should return my new 5D mkii, as well as the 24-105mm f4L IS and 100mm f2.8L IS macro (purchased them new 8 days ago, ), to buy the Nikon D7000 & DX lenses (it is lighter to boot).

Anyone have a second opinion?

 

[RobDickinson]

In terms of print and noise the D7000 is about equal to the canon 5d.

But the canon 5d is ancient and from a time when things were changing rapidly.

D7000 is about 50% quantum efficient, an FX sensor has 2.5 times the area, so crop sensors will never catch fx ones if the tech remains as it is and they use equivalent tech.

But for most people a good crop sensor is more than enough to shoot up to ISO 3200 or 6400 and make good prints.

FX cameras still have a few advantages but you need to know what they are and exploit them or its a waste.

 

[PhoenixEnigma]

Depends what you're doing. That 16MP Sony sensor (it's in quite a few DSLRs now, not just the D7000) is pretty remarkable, and it can mostly keep up with the 5D mkII - at low ISO and 100% crops, you can notice the resolution deficient, but as ISO climbs it gets closer. You can check out the widget here to get an idea (add the 5D Mk II and D7000 for a good set of comparisons).


In my eye, at least, they're near enough that other factors are worth considering - does the size and weight difference matter? Is the extra depth of field an advantage or disadvantage to you? Will the crop factor work to your advantage?

Also, for that matter, do you prefer the ergonomics of the Canon? Or does a Nikon (or Pentax, or Sony) seem better laid out to you? That's probably the largest real-world difference.

 

[RobDickinson]

Hmm I see the 5d2 at least a stop better than the d7000 there (comparing 5d2 ISo 3200 to 7000 ISO 1600, 5d2 is better, but d7000 is better at 800), pentax k5 has obvious NR happening before the raw output.

 

[PhoenixEnigma]

Hmm I see the 5d2 at least a stop better than the d7000 there (comparing 5d2 ISo 3200 to 7000 ISO 1600, 5d2 is better, but d7000 is better at 800), pentax k5 has obvious NR happening before the raw output.

I'd put it closer to half a stop. Comparing the two, the 5D Mk II seems to still hold a slight edge when it comes to fine, bright details (like the feathers), but the D7000 at 1600 is doing noticeably better than the 5D Mk II at 3200 in the shadows (the thread spools) - the Canon is a little sharper, but there's about the same amount of detail and the Nikon clearly has lower noise. Take the Nikon to 3200, though, and it clearly has more chroma noise. It's not quite on par, but it's less than a stop behind.

 

[iGas]

Thanks for the link, IMHO the 5D mkii slightly better than the D7000 but not at 2X greater as reflected by the price. However, after looking over Nikkor DX lens lineup, it seems as if Nikon DX user suffer the same caveat as Canon EF-S user, is the lack of fixed aperture lens with VR/IS, unless the user step up to FX bodies.

 

[finbarqs]

in my humble opinion, it doesn't matter what you shoot with. It just depends what you are shooting, and what tools you're comfortable shooting with. On DPReview, it seems the original 5D holds a slight edge to all of them when it comes to sharpness, while the 1ds MK2 holds an even higher sharper image. Original 5D also does better in JPEG than any of the newer one does.

I've shot canon, and i've shot nikon. ( Had a D300, and now a 5D2) I'll say, i can't depend on the 5D worth crap when it comes to AF. Approximately 50% of my shots are OOF, and that's using the joystick to select my AF point with minimal movement when clicking the shutter.

On my Nikon D300, I can focus recompose all day, nailing the Eyeball in focus 90% of the time!

 

[iGas]

I'm keeping the 5D2. I have always has been a fan of Canon USM motor (since the early 90s film cameras), and now that they have added IS (not sure how good Nikkor VR is). So far I'm enjoying the 100mm L IS macro lens. I also found that focus tend to lock into the wrong thing and needed a couple of refocus to get what I wanted on the 5D mkii. However change focus point to just the center spot (old school) and preposition still work.

Next weekend my buddy and I will swap cameras on our outing. He have the D7000.

I'm also contemplating at getting the 17-40mm L, Tokina/Sigma 16-28mm, or Samyang 14mm.

 

[finbarqs]

i have the 17-40L...

I'll say, i've taken my 24-70 f/2.8L to horse shoe bend out in AZ, and the 17-40L. One time, I shot with the 24-70, and wanted something wider. So the 17-40L came into play. WOW, what a difference I saw... the 17-40 looked a lot softer than my 24-70 @ the same aperture! Oh well... I'm probably gonna hold out for the 15mm MF zeiss for my landscape work..