Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
A DX Body Does Not Increase The "Reach" Of An FX Lens - Change My Mind
Page <<first <prev 5 of 22 next> last>>
Apr 8, 2022 07:30:12   #
Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL
 
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 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.
The Common Fallacy - Putting an FX lens on a DX (C... (show quote)


Oh no, not again!

Reply
Apr 8, 2022 07:40:12   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
ELNikkor wrote:
In speaking on any topic, we often "streamline" speech, as the hearer is intelligent enough to accept the statements without stopping the speaker and demanding more precise language. When we photographers speak of "reach", when speaking of FX lens to DX sensor size, we are inferring the words "apparent reach", but don't need to say it because we are speaking to a usually intelligent and gracious audience. Those who nit-pick the terms are just bored and looking to put on the airs of being a bit higher and more mighty than the rest, but just, in reality, are just a bit less gracious.
In speaking on any topic, we often "streamlin... (show quote)


And there in lies a problem. You are assuming that everyone understands what you are talking about.

If everyone already understood it, you wouldn't have to be speaking at all.

---

Reply
Apr 8, 2022 07:45:46   #
mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD
 
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 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.
The Common Fallacy - Putting an FX lens on a DX (C... (show quote)



Reply
 
 
Apr 8, 2022 08:01:00   #
mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD
 
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 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.
The Common Fallacy - Putting an FX lens on a DX (C... (show quote)



Reply
Apr 8, 2022 08:08:54   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
ELNikkor wrote:
In speaking on any topic, we often "streamline" speech, as the hearer is intelligent enough to accept the statements without stopping the speaker and demanding more precise language. When we photographers speak of "reach", when speaking of FX lens to DX sensor size, we are inferring the words "apparent reach", but don't need to say it because we are speaking to a usually intelligent and gracious audience. Those who nit-pick the terms are just bored and looking to put on the airs of being a bit higher and more mighty than the rest, but just, in reality, are just a bit less gracious.
In speaking on any topic, we often "streamlin... (show quote)


Reply
Apr 8, 2022 08:09:51   #
EJMcD
 
Ahhhhhh...there's nothing better than the polite, friendly exchange of thoughts and opinions among people who share a common interest.

Reply
Apr 8, 2022 08:13:02   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
srt101fan wrote:
So the reach of your lens increases as you move closer to your subject?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2944342


Well, aside from the fact that I didn't say that, that's your inference.

If one is reaching for something on a shelf and cannot reach it, one would get closer to it, eh?
So I suppose how one looks at it (interprets), one may say yes.

Perception....

Reply
 
 
Apr 8, 2022 08:27:51   #
BebuLamar
 
Longshadow wrote:
Wow again!
I never associated reach having a direct relationship with image quality, or lack thereof, just how close something could be made to appear,
even with my film cameras,
or binoculars,
or telescope.

When did "retaining image quality" enter into the equation?
1980's; 90's?


But if quality isn't a consideration I can fill the frame with distance object just by cropping.

Reply
Apr 8, 2022 08:29:26   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
BebuLamar wrote:
But if quality isn't a consideration I can fill the frame with distance object just by cropping.


Exactly!!!
Some people might even call that "zooming in".

Reply
Apr 8, 2022 08:30:05   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
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 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.
The Common Fallacy - Putting an FX lens on a DX (C... (show quote)


Yes you are correct but for all practical purposes its just semantics...I'll increase my reach by crop factor or cropping, you can do what ever suits you.

BTW crop sensors usually have higher pixel density and capture more information than FF cropped. This is the best reason to use them.

Reply
Apr 8, 2022 08:33:48   #
BebuLamar
 
The one thing that does make a difference is that the smaller APS-C cameras tend to have higher pixel density so they yield more MP for same area. But today that's no longer true with FF camera that has 60MP and APS-C cameras that only have 20MP.

Reply
 
 
Apr 8, 2022 08:36:13   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
BebuLamar wrote:
The one thing that does make a difference is that the smaller APS-C cameras tend to have higher pixel density so they yield more MP for same area. But today that's no longer true with FF camera that has 60MP and APS-C cameras that only have 20MP.

Adding superfluous information to the stew?
The effect has nothing to do with pixel count.

Reply
Apr 8, 2022 08:41:11   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
Longshadow wrote:
Adding superfluous information to the stew?
The effect has nothing to do with pixel count.

That is incorrect: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-4.html#13057282

Reply
Apr 8, 2022 08:44:12   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
BebuLamar wrote:
The one thing that does make a difference is that the smaller APS-C cameras tend to have higher pixel density so they yield more MP for same area.

Exactly right.
BebuLamar wrote:
But today that's no longer true with FF camera that has 60MP and APS-C cameras that only have 20MP.

And that makes the issue a pragmatic, economic one. For many photographers the question is how can I extend my "reach" cost effectively. The answer then is often a DX sensor body.

Reply
Apr 8, 2022 08:49:50   #
srt101fan
 
Longshadow wrote:
Well, aside from the fact that I didn't say that, that's your inference.

If one is reaching for something on a shelf and cannot reach it, one would get closer to it, eh?
So I suppose how one looks at it (interprets), one may say yes.

Perception....


Just mess'n with ya! 🤗

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 22 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.