A DX Body Does Not Increase The "Reach" Of An FX Lens - Change My Mind
Apr 7, 2022 19:33:50 #
User ID wrote:
A nugget of fully digested and ejected dog food.
So you view this forum as your personal fiefdom to spew your misinformation as you see fit. How very narcissistic of you.
Apr 7, 2022 19:34:44 #
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
And you apparently can't fix being passive aggressive.
Trolls are in no position to accuse others of being passive aggressive.
Anywho, Im not passive. I call a spade a spade, a troll a troll and stupid as stupid.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FWIW, for a given lens, if youre gonna crop the FX format down to the DX area, an actual DX camera body can provide superior results. The IS and focus are calibrated for 50% higher magnification applied to the result.
Apr 7, 2022 19:35:38 #
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."
Thanks. I thought we had gotten past this. My bad.
---
Apr 7, 2022 19:35:49 #
User ID wrote:
Trolls are in no position to accuse others of being passive aggressive.
Anywho, Im not passive. I call a spade a spade, a troll a troll and stupid as stupid.
Anywho, Im not passive. I call a spade a spade, a troll a troll and stupid as stupid.
Projection much?
Apr 7, 2022 19:39:14 #
Apr 7, 2022 19:40:38 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
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 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.
Nothing about the lens changes.
The extra "reach" that commonly comes from using a DX sensor is a function of pixel density -- how many pixels are you putting on the subject.
Obviously the same lens is projecting the same image to either sensor. If that lens isn't long enough to crop the subject as desired with the FX sensor then you have to crop in post and you're losing pixels. You could crop in camera and set the FX camera to DX mode -- again you're losing pixels.
The DX sensor camera will normally place more pixels on the subject than the FX sensor cropped to the same enlargement size. As a result of more pixels on the subject you can record more detail with the DX sensor.
Do this math: I have an FX sensor camera that records 6000 x 4000 pixels for a 24 megapixel final image. I also have a DX sensor camera that records 6000 x 4000 pixels for a 24 megapixel final image.
We set up a tripod and use a long lens to photograph our subject. My DX camera with that lens get's the shot with next to no cropping required. My FX camera captures more info than needed and I have to crop in post or in fact it would be just about right if I put the FX camera in DX mode to take the photo. Which camera is putting more pixels on the subject and that's your "reach."
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
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.
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.
The crop factor between FX and DX is 1.5.
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
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.
"Reach" as frequently expressed on this forum and others is a unicorn and can't be quantified.
Apr 7, 2022 19:40:52 #
flip1948 wrote:
But, but, but...the little birdie looks huger. 
Perception.....
Apr 7, 2022 19:42:52 #
Bill_de wrote:
Thanks. I thought we had gotten past this. My bad.
---
---
Thanks. Now if we can only get User ID to stop running his mouth without his brain engaged, we might make some headway.
Apr 7, 2022 19:43:34 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
flip1948 wrote:
Sir...that horse is dead, you can put the stick down.
Unfortunately, despite being dead, it is also part of the "lore" that insists on infecting, misleading, and confusing photographers to the point of believing that it not only magically changes the physical optical properties of lenses but also the sensitivity of sensors. And some of the online teaching morons remain among the worst offenders. So yes, we apparently still need to talk about it.
Apr 7, 2022 19:43:40 #
Apr 7, 2022 19:44:18 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
In this age of information, ignorance is a choice.
So is tunnel vision.
Apr 7, 2022 19:49:02 #
Longshadow wrote:
So is tunnel vision.
So is tunnel vision.
A cropped field of view is a terrible way to travel through life.
Apr 7, 2022 19:53:20 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
A cropped field of view is a terrible way to travel through life.
But everything looks larger!
Apr 7, 2022 19:55:45 #
Longshadow wrote:
But everything looks larger!
Actually, as expressed in this thread, nothing actually looks larger. The exact same focal length image exists in both the FX and DX version of the same image from the same lens. You just see less of the image circle from the DX crop. Or, are you under this Reach spell?
Apr 7, 2022 19:57:37 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Actually, as expressed in this thread, nothing actually looks larger. The exact same focal length image exists in both the FX and DX version of the same image from the same lens. You just see less of the image circle from the DX crop. Or, are you under this Reach spell?
I see the effect I see.
Look through an FX camera with a 50mm; look through a DX camera with the same 50mm,
Does one look closer?
If something is closer, doesn't it look larger?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.