The Nikon D500 release

[BernardLanguillier]

APS-C is, these days, basically a consumer-grade format.

Allow me to respectfully disagree.

I believe that APS-C today is better than full frame 5 years ago in terms of image quality (D500 vs D3x for example), speed, usability,...

So there is less and less reasons why APS-C couldn't be used for the most demanding pro applications.

There are many pros who use the Fuji X system at 16 mp already, some of the lenses are second to none and superior to most FF lenses (the 56mm f1.2 comes to mind).

The only problem is the lack of sweet APS-C lenses for F mount so I sure hope that Sigma and Zeiss come to the rescue since Nikon doesn't seem to be able to get the job done.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

Allow me to respectfully disagree.

I believe that APS-C today is better than full frame 5 years ago in terms of image quality (D500 vs D3x for example), speed, usability,...

So there is less and less reasons why APS-C couldn't be used for the most demanding pro applications.

There are many pros who use the Fuji X system at 16 mp already, some of the lenses are second to none and superior to most FF lenses (the 56mm f1.2 comes to mind).

The only problem is the lack of sweet APS-C lenses for F mount so I sure hope that Sigma and Zeiss come to the rescue since Nikon doesn't seem to be able to get the job done.

Cheers,
Bernard

1. Subject isolation/narrow depth of field. You can rarely use the subject isolation possible with MF (and the fast lenses for MF are generally slow enough that FF lenses give you the same degree, if not more, of subject isolation at the same angle of view), but crop is too far in the other direction, unless you're shooting with long lenses, where anything that isn't in sharp focus is blurred to oblivion anyway. If you don't need subject isolation and narrow depth of field, you're probably shooting landscapes, architecture or something else that really benefits from the increased detail of full-frame sensors anyway.

2. Output at reasonable print sizes - 12x18, 16x24, 20x30 and similar. Common enough sizes, and you can easily tell the difference between crop and full-frame output even there.

Sure, a new 24MP crop sensor matches the D3x in resolution, and beats it at high ISO. But, when shooting at low ISO, there's still no comparison between the two, image quality wise.

[armand]

1. Subject isolation/narrow depth of field. You can rarely use the subject isolation possible with MF (and the fast lenses for MF are generally slow enough that FF lenses give you the same degree, if not more, of subject isolation at the same angle of view), but crop is too far in the other direction, unless you're shooting with long lenses, where anything that isn't in sharp focus is blurred to oblivion anyway. If you don't need subject isolation and narrow depth of field, you're probably shooting landscapes, architecture or something else that really benefits from the increased detail of full-frame sensors anyway.

2. Output at reasonable print sizes - 12x18, 16x24, 20x30 and similar. Common enough sizes, and you can easily tell the difference between crop and full-frame output even there.

Sure, a new 24MP crop sensor matches the D3x in resolution, and beats it at high ISO. But, when shooting at low ISO, there's still no comparison between the two, image quality wise.

1. If you need more DOF you'll have to use smaller apertures on full frame and the diffraction might take some of that extra detail back

2. I doubt that in blind test most will be able to pick them apart at smaller print sizes (such as 12x18). There was a test on this site long time ago and since then the gap is even narrower.

[dwswager]

In my experience, the vast majority of images shot by "professional" photographers are shot on "non-professional" cameras.  That is to say, compared to the number of images shot by professionals with D5s, D4s, D500s and D810s is dwarfed by the number of images shot by professionals with D7000, D7100s, D7200s, D610s, and D750s.  There are certain areas of photography where this is not true, but overall it is.

I was shocked when I first started selling images and doing photo jobs, that as an amateur, I had "better" equipment than most professionals doing the same type of work.  Though in some venues they might have a D610, but they have a 400mm f/2.8 mounted up. 

[BernardLanguillier]

2. Output at reasonable print sizes - 12x18, 16x24, 20x30 and similar. Common enough sizes, and you can easily tell the difference between crop and full-frame output even there.

Sure, a new 24MP crop sensor matches the D3x in resolution, and beats it at high ISO. But, when shooting at low ISO, there's still no comparison between the two, image quality wise.

Sorry but I don't believe your comment is based on facts. Both the D7200 and the D500 have more DR than the already excellent D3x at base ISO.

And yes, I owned a D3x and shot with a D7200.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

DXOMark tells the story regarding noise comparisons between the D7200 and the D3X. Normally one would expect a full-frame sensor to deliver a full stop better SNR because it gathers more light than the cropped format, from identical scenes.

However, the march of technology tends to reduce such advantages when comparing a recent cropped-format model, such as the D7200, with the older full-frame D3X.

As Bernard has mentioned, the D7200 has better DR than the D3X, by almost a full stop at base ISO. SNR at 18% is still slightly better on the D3X, by about 1.5dB, but that advantage is not as significant as the DR advantage of the D7200.

On balance and on average, the D7200 image quality should at least equal that of the D3X, noise-wise, and in circumstance where DR in single shots is important, the D7200 will be better. There will be certain situations, such as the requirement for the shallowest DoF, where the D3X will still retain an advantage with a given lens. However, there will also be other situations, such as the requirement for a wide DoF and/or fast shutter speed, where the D7200 will have a clear advantage.

For example, if I'm shooting a scene with the D7200 with 50mm lens at F8, ISO 100, and 160th, the equivalent settings on the D3X would be a 75mm lens at F11, ISO 200 and 160th.
Comparing noise on the DXO charts at these different ISO settings, the DR of the D7200 is about 1.5 EV better, (which is very significant), the SNR of the D7200 is about 1dB better, and tonal range and color sensitivity are also marginally better, which is not significant, but at least we know that the D3X has no noise advantage at all, in such circumstances.

Nevertheless, I have to admit that resolution is another issue. In circumstances where one is able to use a particular lens on the D3X at its sharpest aperture for the required DoF, one would expect the image from the D3X to be noticeably sharper and more detailed than the image from an equivalent focal length of lens of equal quality, attached to the D7200, at least in the central part of the image.

This is a result of the wider pixel spacing of the D3X which makes less demands on any given lens. Ideally, any cropped-format camera requires a higher quality lens in order to deliver resolution equal to that from a full-frame format of equal pixel count, excepting the borders of the image of course, where the cropped format will usually retain an advantage.

[shadowblade]

Sorry but I don't believe your comment is based on facts. Both the D7200 and the D500 have more DR than the already excellent D3x at base ISO.

And yes, I owned a D3x and shot with a D7200.

Cheers,
Bernard

I don't know about the D500, since it just came out.

But take a photo of something with a lot of subtle nuances of one colour - say, something with lots of slightly different shades of blue or green (e.g. a grassy field). You'll find that the D3x does a better job of picking up these nuances and give you better detail in these near-uniform areas than the D7200.

It's not in the DR - it's in the colour reproduction. I believe the D7200, and other newer crop sensors, have achieved better SNR and better high-ISO performance partly by reducing the strength of their colour filters, trading accuracy for sensitivity.

Also, the curves look pretty similar to me: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D3X,Nikon%20D500

[BernardLanguillier]

It's interesting to note that the D500 has much better DR at base ISO than the D5...

A very tempting camera for sure.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

But take a photo of something with a lot of subtle nuances of one colour - say, something with lots of slightly different shades of blue or green (e.g. a grassy field). You'll find that the D3x does a better job of picking up these nuances and give you better detail in these near-uniform areas than the D7200.

That's interesting, but also puzzling. Is this something which DXOMark does not test? I would have thought that a capacity to pick up nuances of different shades of color would come into the category of Color Sensitivity.

Attached is a capture of the DXO graph showing the Color Sensitivity for both cameras as being virtually identical.