There's a common misconception - one needs BOTH a DX Body AND an FX Body ... why?
Jan 10, 2018 01:42:51 #
I'll accept, lenses intended for FX bodies are prohibitively more expensive than ones designed for DX bodies, but after 70mm - that argument becomes moot, anyway! In other words - lenses in the Tele-Zoom category (100-400, 150-600, 200-500, etc. etc. etc.) are for BOTH formats! ... So, where's the delineation?
Jan 10, 2018 01:56:09 #
It may be a want instead of a need.
Also you are looking and the wrong end of the lens range.
I don't know about Nikon however with Canon if you want ultra wide to wide (fov), and fast, you will be looking at a full frame body.
Also you are looking and the wrong end of the lens range.
I don't know about Nikon however with Canon if you want ultra wide to wide (fov), and fast, you will be looking at a full frame body.
Jan 10, 2018 02:08:08 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
It may be a want instead of a need.
Also you are looking and the wrong end of the lens range.
I don't know about Nikon however with Canon if you want ultra wide to wide (fov), and fast, you will be looking at a full frame body.
Also you are looking and the wrong end of the lens range.
I don't know about Nikon however with Canon if you want ultra wide to wide (fov), and fast, you will be looking at a full frame body.
Richard ... I focused in on the Tele-Zoom range in my lead post - because it is THAT range - where the difference - becomes even more obscured ...
In the short zoom / WA prime category ... it is easier to see the difference in lenses designed for APS-C/DX as opposed to FF/FX ... do you follow?
I still contend ... one should be either a FF user, or an APS-C user ... there is absolutely NO NEED to be both ....
Then - there's MFT ... which is another matter, entirely ....
Jan 10, 2018 02:17:04 #
Chris T wrote:
I'll accept, lenses intended for FX bodies are prohibitively more expensive than ones designed for DX bodies, but after 70mm - that argument becomes moot, anyway! In other words - lenses in the Tele-Zoom category (100-400, 150-600, 200-500, etc. etc. etc.) are for BOTH formats! ... So, where's the delineation?
So you're telling me that I have a misconception because I have FX and DX bodies. Is that really your opinion? What's up with that? If you don't know why, then I really feel sorry for you.
Jan 10, 2018 02:21:09 #
jcboy3 wrote:
So you're telling me that I have a misconception because I have FX and DX bodies. Is that really your opinion? What's up with that? If you don't know why, then I really feel sorry for you.
John ... no need to feel sorry for me ... I'm not one of those who's gone to that expense. If you feel it's a sound decision for you ... tell me why - okay?
Jan 10, 2018 02:32:09 #
Chris T wrote:
John ... no need to feel sorry for me ... I'm not one of those who's gone to that expense. If you feel it's a sound decision for you ... tell me why - okay?
I will answer this. This was before I moved to M4/3 format (with it improved high ISO performance, even over the full frame digital slrs of old).
Same venue, however different concerts.
Jan 10, 2018 02:40:05 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
I will answer this. This was before I moved to M4/3 format (with it improved high ISO performance, even over the full frame digital slrs of old).
Same venue, however different concerts.
Same venue, however different concerts.
Lovely pics, Richard ....
I'm not sure I get your point, though, with this ....
What do these prove?
If you go back and look - I did make the comment - MFT - was another matter ... it does NOT figure into - this equation ... the point is between FX and DX ....
Jan 10, 2018 02:46:04 #
Chris T wrote:
Lovely pics, Richard ....
I'm not sure I get your point, though, with this ....
What do these prove?
If you go back and look - I did make the comment - MFT - was another matter ... it does NOT figure into - this equation ... the point is between FX and DX ....
I'm not sure I get your point, though, with this ....
What do these prove?
If you go back and look - I did make the comment - MFT - was another matter ... it does NOT figure into - this equation ... the point is between FX and DX ....
Thanks
Sometimes you just want to fill the frame with the subject that is a bit far away and sometimes you want to show the environment. Its a lot easier with a crop and a full frame body at hand.
These were shot with DSLRs - One full frame and one crop body - (with a pair of M4/3 bodies and fast zooms on each, it is a lot easier).
Also keep in mind I was shooting for a "client" so you need to have a second body anyway.
Jan 10, 2018 03:00:20 #
Chris T wrote:
John ... no need to feel sorry for me ... I'm not one of those who's gone to that expense. If you feel it's a sound decision for you ... tell me why - okay?
FX is better at low light, high DR, better resolution at wide angles.
DX is lighter and cheaper...and gets more pixels on a distant subject.
I use DX as backup and for wildlife. Otherwise, the better lenses are for FX.
Jan 10, 2018 03:07:55 #
jcboy3 wrote:
FX is better at low light, high DR, better resolution at wide angles.
DX is lighter and cheaper...and gets more pixels on a distant subject.
I use DX as backup and for wildlife. Otherwise, the better lenses are for FX.
DX is lighter and cheaper...and gets more pixels on a distant subject.
I use DX as backup and for wildlife. Otherwise, the better lenses are for FX.
See, now ... this is part of the problem I have, with this understanding ...
Yes, of course - DX is lighter and cheaper ....
But, MORE pixels on a distant subject? ... That part, I don't get, at all ...
Before the D800 came along, with its 36MP, and now, the D850 - with its 46MP ... the de-facto standard - for BOTH formats, had become 24MP ....
Now, given you have a dig cam in EACH format with that same 24MP ... how is the crop camera - going to obtain more MP on a "distant subject" ????
Jan 10, 2018 03:37:20 #
Tis the nature of crop sensor. A 24mp crop sensor is equivalent to a 54mp full frame sensor.
Of course, my 20mp D500 is only equivalent to a 45mp full frame sensor, which is about the D850. You could do just fine with a D850. At a hefty expense.
But you aren't a full framer yet, are you?
Of course, my 20mp D500 is only equivalent to a 45mp full frame sensor, which is about the D850. You could do just fine with a D850. At a hefty expense.
But you aren't a full framer yet, are you?
Jan 10, 2018 03:44:31 #
jcboy3 wrote:
Tis the nature of crop sensor. A 24mp crop sensor is equivalent to a 54mp full frame sensor.
Of course, my 20mp D500 is only equivalent to a 45mp full frame sensor, which is about the D850. You could do just fine with a D850. At a hefty expense.
But you aren't a full framer yet, are you?
Of course, my 20mp D500 is only equivalent to a 45mp full frame sensor, which is about the D850. You could do just fine with a D850. At a hefty expense.
But you aren't a full framer yet, are you?
No, John ... don't think I ever will be, either ... too rich for my blood ...
Not particularly enthused about venturing into another USED dig cam ... I made that mistake twice already ...
Not sure I follow this "equivalency" routine ... why would a 20MP crop sensor be equivalent to a 45MP FF sensor?
Not going to buy a D850, John ... $3300 does not come easy ...
Jan 10, 2018 06:53:25 #
the more you know about photography and your needs, the better you will be to decide what you need.
Jan 10, 2018 07:30:28 #
Chris T wrote:
Richard ... I focused in on the Tele-Zoom range in my lead post - because it is THAT range - where the difference - becomes even more obscured ...
In the short zoom / WA prime category ... it is easier to see the difference in lenses designed for APS-C/DX as opposed to FF/FX ... do you follow?
I still contend ... one should be either a FF user, or an APS-C user ... there is absolutely NO NEED to be both ....
Then - there's MFT ... which is another matter, entirely ....
In the short zoom / WA prime category ... it is easier to see the difference in lenses designed for APS-C/DX as opposed to FF/FX ... do you follow?
I still contend ... one should be either a FF user, or an APS-C user ... there is absolutely NO NEED to be both ....
Then - there's MFT ... which is another matter, entirely ....
Have you ever used a digital full frame camera?
Jan 10, 2018 08:54:37 #
I suspect OP is trying to find reasons to stick with crop, instead of FF. Its a futile effort. FF is a superior format, physics alone will back you up on that. If you find it to be to pricey then there is YOUR reason. No need to beat on a dead horse. Rent a FF......use it well and then you will find the right reasons to go FF...or maybe not.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.