A DX Body Does Not Increase The "Reach" Of An FX Lens - Change My Mind
Apr 7, 2022 18:56:57 #
The Common Fallacy - Putting an FX lens on a DX (Crop) body changes the optical peformance of that lens.
A 300mm FX lens does not have the magnification of 450mm when mounted on a DX body. It only has the tighter field-of-view of a 450mm lens. The DX sensor is the same distance from the lens mount as an FX sensor. Same focal plane.
A sample frame from a Nikon DX is natively 14.3" x 9.5" opened in Photoshop. An FX frame is 27.5" x 18.4.
The DX area is about 1/4th the size of the FX area. To achieve comparable magnification, you have to up-size the DX frame 2 times to achieve the same image area. That alone gives the mistaken impression that the DX body has some mystical juju. If that were the case then the smallest possible sensor would be top of the camera food chain while everyone was working at adapting medium format lenses to them for the biggest bang for the buck.
"Reach" as frequently expressed on this forum and others is a unicorn and can't be quantified.
A 300mm FX lens does not have the magnification of 450mm when mounted on a DX body. It only has the tighter field-of-view of a 450mm lens. The DX sensor is the same distance from the lens mount as an FX sensor. Same focal plane.
A sample frame from a Nikon DX is natively 14.3" x 9.5" opened in Photoshop. An FX frame is 27.5" x 18.4.
The DX area is about 1/4th the size of the FX area. To achieve comparable magnification, you have to up-size the DX frame 2 times to achieve the same image area. That alone gives the mistaken impression that the DX body has some mystical juju. If that were the case then the smallest possible sensor would be top of the camera food chain while everyone was working at adapting medium format lenses to them for the biggest bang for the buck.
"Reach" as frequently expressed on this forum and others is a unicorn and can't be quantified.
Apr 7, 2022 19:02:09 #
Apr 7, 2022 19:09:06 #
Bill_de wrote:
Is there something new here that I am missing?
---
---
Just of the oft-repeated claim that "Reach" exists, especially on this forum. In fact Nikon used a testimonial from a professional photographer lauding one of their earlier DX models as having "Reach".
As evidenced by an OP just today on a dilemma he had about what camera to take on a trip -
"My camera bodies are a D7000 and D810 (I take them both for backup and to give me more reach with the Dx body."
Apr 7, 2022 19:11:17 #
Apr 7, 2022 19:11:48 #
Perception....
While true, it does not change the optical performance (characteristics) of the lens itself,
the area the sensor sees is smaller, so if one prints a 4x6 from each camera with the same lens (at the same setting if a zoom), the one from the crop sensor camera will appear to be a "magnified" or "telephoto" version.
Semantics.
While true, it does not change the optical performance (characteristics) of the lens itself,
the area the sensor sees is smaller, so if one prints a 4x6 from each camera with the same lens (at the same setting if a zoom), the one from the crop sensor camera will appear to be a "magnified" or "telephoto" version.
Semantics.
Apr 7, 2022 19:17:05 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
You really can't argue with ignorance.
Well, if we are putting ourselves out there as learned individuals on the subject of the photography and influencing others, we could start with this nugget.
Apr 7, 2022 19:19:10 #
Longshadow wrote:
Perception....
While true, it does not change the optical performance (characteristics) of the lens itself,
the area the sensor sees is smaller, so if one prints a 4x6 from each camera with the same lens (at the same setting if a zoom), the one from the crop sensor camera will appear to be a "magnified" or "telephoto" version.
Semantics.
While true, it does not change the optical performance (characteristics) of the lens itself,
the area the sensor sees is smaller, so if one prints a 4x6 from each camera with the same lens (at the same setting if a zoom), the one from the crop sensor camera will appear to be a "magnified" or "telephoto" version.
Semantics.
If it actually increased sharpness, I would agree. In any case, it is the photographic equivilant of "Fools Gold".
You are just blowing up the smaller DX frame to match the already 4x6 FX frame.
Apr 7, 2022 19:22:25 #
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
The Common Fallacy - Putting an FX lens on a DX (C... (show quote)
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally ?!?!?!!??
Apr 7, 2022 19:23:02 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
Just of the oft-repeated claim that "Reach" exists, especially on this forum. In fact Nikon used a testimonial from a professional photographer lauding one of their earlier DX models as having "Reach".
As evidenced by an OP just today on a dilemma he had about what camera to take on a trip -
"My camera bodies are a D7000 and D810 (I take them both for backup and to give me more reach with the Dx body."
As evidenced by an OP just today on a dilemma he had about what camera to take on a trip -
"My camera bodies are a D7000 and D810 (I take them both for backup and to give me more reach with the Dx body."
I remember the Nikon online brochure with the comment about "reach" in DX cameras. I've mentioned before that the term takes me back to my days in the semiconductor industry. It was very common to have design flaws in products. It was also very common to call out those flaws as beneficial characteristics.
The internal buzz phrase was, "If you can't fix it, feature it."
Apr 7, 2022 19:23:40 #
Apr 7, 2022 19:24:52 #
Apr 7, 2022 19:25:30 #
User ID wrote:
Ya cant fix stupid.
And you apparently can't fix being passive aggressive.
Apr 7, 2022 19:28:23 #
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
If it actually increased sharpness, I would agree. In any case, it is the photographic equivilant of "Fools Gold".
You are just blowing up the smaller DX frame to match the already 4x6 FX frame.
You are just blowing up the smaller DX frame to match the already 4x6 FX frame.
Exactly. Using a telephoto is "blowing up" the view also.
Print both to their respective physical size (Size A and Size A/(crop factor), there will be no "blow-up". One will simply be a physically smaller print.
(Which side of the fence are we on?)
Apr 7, 2022 19:29:11 #
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
Well, if we are putting ourselves out there as learned individuals on the subject of the photography and influencing others, we could start with this nugget.
A nugget of fully digested and ejected dog food.
Apr 7, 2022 19:31:19 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.