Doing the Math (Page 5): That will demonstrate the difference if ypu do it right.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Brucej67 wrote:

... I will mount my D610 with the Nikon 16-35mm f4 G lens using 18mm on that lens and take the same photo, then I will set the 16-35mm lens on the D610 to 27mm and take another photo. ...

That will demonstrate the difference if ypu do it right.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Brucej67 wrote:

I am not saying the same lens, two different lense... (show quote)

You also need to mount your D7200 with the Nikon 16-35mm f4 G lens using 18mm on that lens and take the same photo

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Why, we know that will yield a crop factor of X1.5 whatever focal range I put it on and would not prove a thing.

rehess wrote:

You also need to mount your D7200 with the Nikon 16-35mm f4 G lens using 18mm on that lens and take the same photo

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Brucej67 wrote:

Why, we know that will yield a crop factor of X1.5 whatever focal range I put it on and would not prove a thing.

It will show that two 18mm lenses give the same image even though one is a "DX" {built for APS-C sensor} and one an "FX" {built for FF sensor}

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Brucej67 wrote:

Why, we know that will yield a crop factor of X1.5 whatever focal range I put it on and would not prove a thing.

Yes, the point is that on a Full Frame sensor an 18mm lens will produce a very different image than a 27mm lens will produce.

It is merely incidental that the image made using the 27mm lens will be very nearly identical (for angle of view) to an image made using the 18mm lens on a DX sensor.

I am somewhat astounded that there is any question about what the results will be. The physics involved is very clear and not at all controversial.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Brucej67 wrote:

I am not saying the same lens, two different lense... (show quote)

Besides being rude to post pictures in another's thread without even the decency to ask, the only thing your pictures will prove is what you have been repeatedly told. It's pretty elementary mathematics.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Brucej67 wrote:

Why, we know that will yield a crop factor of X1.5 whatever focal range I put it on and would not prove a thing.

The one time I can agree with Apaflo. I can’t believe that you didn’t know this. Hopefully you will not waste your time doing any type of test trying to disprove the rest of the world.

Here is an extremely easy example. I’m sure you know that m4/3 is 2x .

That is why the m4/3 version of 24-70 2.8 & 70-200 2.8 zoom lenses are: 12-35 2.8 & 35-100 2.8 to provide the same angle of view of those 2 popular zooms.

blackest Loc: Ireland

tdekany wrote:

The one time I can agree with Apaflo. I can’t believe that you didn’t know this. Hopefully you will not waste your time doing any type of test trying to disprove the rest of the world.

Here is an extremely easy example. I’m sure you know that m4/3 is 2x .

That is why the m4/3 version of 24-70 2.8 & 70-200 2.8 zoom lenses are: 12-35 2.8 & 35-100 2.8 to provide the same angle of view of those 2 popular zooms.

It's a fair test and should confirm what we believe to be true. Deserves its own thread as it should be a definitive answer.
At 8 feet from the target horizontal fov should be 16 feet for the full frame and around 10ft 8 for the crop sensor with Nikon.
Although whats seen through the view finder may not agree if it has less than 100% coverage, the photos should match up.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Excuse me, it is not rude, if I have been giving wrong advice this will prove it and until then I am not convinced I am wrong, however if I end up being wrong I will apologize to the OP and everyone else including you. Posting photos or web links to prove a point that is pertinent to the thread is not rude unless you hijack the thread, it is done here all the time. As I stated it is only to prove a point and if the OP objects then that is a different matter.

Leitz wrote:

Besides being rude to post pictures in another's thread without even the decency to ask, the only thing your pictures will prove is what you have been repeatedly told. It's pretty elementary mathematics.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Brucej67 wrote:

Excuse me, it is not rude, if I have been giving wrong advice this will prove it and until then I am not convinced I am wrong, however if I end up being wrong I will apologize to the OP and everyone else including you. Posting photos or web links to prove a point that is pertinent to the thread is not rude unless you hijack the thread, it is done here all the time. As I stated it is only to prove a point and if the OP objects then that is a different matter.

I should think you would want to ask first, out of common courtesy. But consider this - The main difference between a DX and FX lens is the size of the image circle, the FX being about 1.5X larger. An FX sensor is about 1.5X larger than a DX sensor, so is it not obvious that it will capture about 1.5X more subject area, when both cameras are the same distance from the subject, and each with the same focal length lens?

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

Actually, your capture's EXIF is at 18mm WHEN MULTIPLIED BY 1.5 EQUALS 24mm, PERIOD. I like this view, but all that aerial haze was killing it, so after downloading it I opened it in DxO Optics Pro 11 Elite and made one quick adjustment of 80 with Clear View. So, which do you prefer?

(Download)

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

First let me apologize to the OP for bad advice then to the group for being argumentative, I have been doing photography for 53 years and there is probably a lot I don't know and this was one of them, I was trying to be helpful but empirical evidence proves me wrong and I post this as my test results which proves everyone else right. Though I still don't understand why I do believe what everyone is saying.

Leitz wrote:

I should think you would want to ask first, out of common courtesy. But consider this - The main difference between a DX and FX lens is the size of the image circle, the FX being about 1.5X larger. An FX sensor is about 1.5X larger than a DX sensor, so is it not obvious that it will capture about 1.5X more subject area, when both cameras are the same distance from the subject, and each with the same focal length lens?

D7200 18mm Sigma 18-35mm
D7200 18mm Sigma 18-35mm...

(Download)

D7200 18mm Nikon 16-35mm
D7200 18mm Nikon 16-35mm...

(Download)

D610 18mm Nikon 16-35mm
D610 18mm Nikon 16-35mm...

(Download)

D610 27mm Nikon 16-35mm
D610 27mm Nikon 16-35mm...

(Download)

BebuLamar

Bruce,
If you allow me to read between the lines of what you've been posting I think your confusion stem from the fact that you think an 18mm designed for FX mounted on an FX camera would give the same field of view as an 18mm designed for DX and mounted on a DX camera. I guess you thought that the crop factor only comes into play when mounting an FX lens on a DX camera.

Angmo

Then move on to medium format. My 6x6 Rolleiflex 80mm lens is similar to a 50-55mm lens in 35mm. Because the size of MF cameras are so much larger than 35mm.

DX, FX, MF... full format never is. It’s relative. Same math applies up and down the line.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Yes this was my assumption and I now stand corrected (with egg on my face), I was wrong and not only admit it, but have learned something myself. This is one more bag of tricks that separates the crop frame camera and their respective lenses from the full frame camera and their respective lenses. Now when talking with new members in my camera club and they ask about the difference between a crop frame camera and a full frame camera with their respective lenses I can add this information, and tell them to go look it up if they ask why.

BebuLamar wrote:

Bruce,
If you allow me to read between the lines of what you've been posting I think your confusion stem from the fact that you think an 18mm designed for FX mounted on an FX camera would give the same field of view as an 18mm designed for DX and mounted on a DX camera. I guess you thought that the crop factor only comes into play when mounting an FX lens on a DX camera.