A DX Body Does Not Increase The "Reach" Of An FX Lens - Change My Mind (Page 3): Maybe I was unclear ... this thread is blatantly intentional trolling ... great "family fun". Its...

User ID

BlackRipleyDog wrote:

Projection much?

Maybe I was unclear ... this thread is blatantly intentional trolling ... great "family fun".

Its nothing more than amateur mildly comic entertainment, a "Gong Show".

I await some amusing escalation and, acoarst, am actually grateful for your providing a bit of weeknight diversion.

Bill_de Loc: US

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?

That can't be true. If it was that simple we wouldn't spend this much time discussing it.

---

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Longshadow wrote:

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?

You might want to run your experiment yourself and report your actual results. The focal length doesn't change. You should not, in fact, see any difference in magnification.

BlackRipleyDog

User ID wrote:

Maybe I was unclear ... this thread is blatantly intentional trolling ... great "family fun".

Its nothing more than amateur mildly comic entertainment, a "Gong Show".

I await some amusing escalation and, acoarst, am actually grateful for your providing a bit of weeknight diversion.

Wow, how perceptive. Yes, I do live to troll you. Thanks for playing along.

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

Does it really matter!!!!!!
You look through your viewfinder, if you want more image change to a wider angle lens. You want to zoom in change to a telephoto lens. Who CARES if it's a DX, FX, 3/4, It's all horse bologny. What you see in the viewfinder is the image you'll photograph.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Steve DeMott wrote:

Does it really matter!!!!!!
You look through your viewfinder, if you want more image change to a wider angle lens. You want to zoom in change to a telephoto lens. Who CARES if it's a DX, FX, 3/4, It's all horse bologny. What you see in the viewfinder is the image you'll photograph.

Amazing how that works, and how simple it is, eh?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

BlackRipleyDog wrote:

The Common Fallacy - Putting an FX lens on a DX (C... (show quote)

Yes, knowledgeable photographers already knew that. Newbies and the chronically ignorant may not know this, but this knowledge will have little effect on their photography anyway. In fact this knowledge will little effect on almost everyone's photography.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Who has a doctorate in photography, optics, and physics.
Forget logic, we don't need that.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If your sensor throws away 50% of the frame, how will you ever achieve your potential as a photographer?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON wrote:

If your sensor throws away 50% of the frame, how will you ever achieve your potential as a photographer?

Take twice as many pictures!

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

Sometime your boys worry me!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Life as a photographer is either a daring adventure or just a cropped-sensor body.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

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.

Since that center section of the image circle is usually the sharpest part of the image it not only is "pre-cropped" as if it were a longer lens but the image will have better sharpness over all because the usually softer edges and corners are "cropped off". Hence "crop sensor". Plus at a given MP for the sensor the crop sensor has smaller, denser pixels and thus usually shows more small detail.

So "DX", APS-C or crop sensor actually does in effect act as if your lenses is longer even though it isn't.

To get the same density and therefore detail as the 7DII 20.2MP a full frame sensor would need aprx 46MP.

A 20MP FF sensor does have much larger pixels and those are almost always better in dim light and in my experience less subject to motion blur from tiny camera movements.

The Canon 90D with 32MP was a chore for me to get used to and not get excessive blur from camera motion.

OK, take a shot at my personal belief/understanding. I am a retired History/Geography/Government teacher and "No habla tecnología/matemática." very well in my own opinion. Though I am often surprised at how bad some who think they are experts really are. Might come from teaching at some schools with very high ranked/elite math and science departments where some of the teachers I was friends with were PhDs. You do not run into many PhDs in anything but "Education" teaching at Jr and Sr High Schools.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Steve DeMott wrote:

Sometime your boys worry me!

Who's boys?

IDguy Loc: Idaho

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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

Plus you get more MP on the subject. Using a DX lens on my Z6 only uses about 10 MP. On my Z50 I get 24 MP on the photo. That can be significant…especially if you plan to crop.