Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
FX vs DX
Page <<first <prev 5 of 24 next> last>>
May 14, 2019 16:27:46   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
Yourstruly43 wrote:
Sounds good — I go a bit wider on all those formats: 65 or 90 on a 4x5, 60 on a Fuji 6x9, wise angle zooms on Nikon FX, and 16-70 on Sony Nex7


It's just that you mentioned the perfect portrait lens, Yours - and since most of my work is in that vein - these are the lenses which have proved to me - to be the most valuable. Also have the 65mm on the RB, and have used that - with some success. On my APS-C cameras, the 10-20 Sigma has worked out well on my Canons. But, on my Nikons - 16-18 - is about as wide as I've ever wanted to go … Sonys, too …

Reply
May 14, 2019 16:37:28   #
alfengael
 
rmorrison1116 got it exactly right, as did some other replies. I come from the film era. For digital I shot APS Canon EOS cameras for some years before switching to a Canon full-frame EOS 6D, and I really wish I had switched a couple years earlier before I took hundreds of great shots of shorebirds. They're great, but they have a fair amount of noise that they wouldn't have had I been shooting full-frame, and printing them 48" wide reveals too much of it. In a nutshell, if you're serious about photography and are likely to go forward with it for a long while, and if you can afford it, buy a full frame camera. You won't regret it. If you do buy a DX camera and lenses to go with it, buy full-frame lenses so that you will be ready for full-frame when you realize you have to move up to it.

Reply
May 14, 2019 16:47:30   #
DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina
 
In the Nikon world, FX is referred to as Full Frame, DX is referred to as Crop Sensor. In Canon speak, Full Frame equates to EF lens, and EF-S lens requires crop sensor camera. Some FF newer Canon’s will shoot EF-S lens, after a switch to 1.6 crop factor for aspect ratio. Hang in there, you’ll get it sooner or later.

Reply
 
 
May 14, 2019 17:07:59   #
LMurray Loc: North Orange County, CA
 
SteveR wrote:
BTW....Since you don't know the answer to this question, if you're buying a camera, go with a DX camera. I would suggest a D7200 (D7500 or even the more expensive D500 if you shoot sports a lot, otherwise the D7200 is an awesome camera), a Nikon 28-300mm lens and a Tamron 10-24mm (wide angle, the new version). With this kit you wouldn't need to buy another camera or lens.....except perhaps the 35mm or 50mm f1.8 for low light and to have a prime.

If you shoot a lot of sports my lens suggestion might be somewhat different. However, you can't go wrong with the 28-300mm.
BTW....Since you don't know the answer to this que... (show quote)


He said in another post he has a D90.

Reply
May 14, 2019 17:11:50   #
Yourstruly43
 
I had some experience working for a for one of New York City's leading fashion photographers during one summer when I was in undergraduate school. He was monthly in Vogue and Harper's Bizarre. He and all his competitors/friends used a 105mm on a Nikkon and a 150mm on a Hansselblad for head and shoulder pictures. Those lens subtly flatten facial features and make people better.

Reply
May 14, 2019 17:18:35   #
Yourstruly43
 
Sounds good

Reply
May 14, 2019 17:22:25   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
Yourstruly43 wrote:
Sounds good


A newbie hint:
Using the “Quote Reply” option as I have done will let us know what you think “Sounds good” means to you.
Cheers!

Reply
 
 
May 14, 2019 17:28:19   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
Yourstruly43 wrote:
I had some experience working for a for one of New York City's leading fashion photographers during one summer when I was in undergraduate school. He was monthly in Vogue and Harper's Bizarre. He and all his competitors/friends used a 105mm on a Nikkon and a 150mm on a Hansselblad for head and shoulder pictures. Those lens subtly flatten facial features and make people better.


Yup! Twice the “normal” focal length for any camera format was the recommended typical portrait length I learned in school. That should give you approximately the same camera to subject distance with all of them, which will give you about the same perspective.

Reply
May 14, 2019 17:56:29   #
LeeinNC Loc: Morganton, NC
 
Thanks for bringing this up. I have wanted more info myself, and these fine folks have provided just that.

Reply
May 14, 2019 18:41:27   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
stanikon wrote:
Thanks everyone for the responses. I get it and have added this to my pea-brain storage system. At least now when I read some of the UHH postings I will have an idea of the subject matter. FWIW I will stick with my little D90 with it's DX sensor for the foreseeable future since I do not see myself joining the pro ranks any time soon.


BTW, Stan - didn't give you the run-down on Canon DSLRs before, as you indicated you had a D90 - and wanted to know the difference between DX (APS-C - or crop-sensor) and FX (full-frame) but the way it pans out is this … the pro 1Dx Mk. III (FF), and the pro-level 7D Mk. II (APS-C) both use 20MP sensors, whilst the 5Ds and 5Ds R (FF) both use the 50MP sensor, and the 5D IV (FF) - uses a 30MP sensor (as does the new R mirrorless) whilst the 6D Mk. II (FF) uses a 26MP sensor (as does the new RP mirrorless.) In the APS-C series - apart from the pro-level 7D2 already mentioned, there is the 80D and the 77D - which both use the 24MP sensor, as does the top Rebel in that series - the T7i. The older T6i also has the 24MP sensor, but the older T5i and T4i - use the 18MP sensor, as does the T3i. Not quite sure about the T2i - but I think that one had the 18MP sensor, too. The SL series - now, up to Mk. III - is a more compact version - suited better to street use. Both the 2nd and 3rd - have the 24MP sensor, but I think the original either had the 18MP sensor, or the 20MP sensor. The original 7D (pro-level APS-C) had a 20MP sensor, as did the 6D (entry-level FF) and the 70D (APS-C.) The beginner series are those models which lack the "i" - which basically means they don't have the Intelligent auto-sensor cleaner. So far, the models have included the Rebels T3, T4?, T5?, T6, and T7. The T3 was a 12MP camera (like your D90, Stan) but the later models went to 18MP and now are 24MP. Ok? Thassit!

Stan - sounds terribly complicated, reading it back - doesn't it? … All you really need remember for the Canons are - the 1D series, the 5D series, and the 6D series - are ALL Full-Frame sensor Cameras. Now, then - the 7D series are pro-level APS-C cameras, and the EOS 60D, 70D, 77D, and 80D - are all upper level APS-C designs - similar to the Nikon Prosumer line (D7000 series, incl. the D90, and the D500.) The Canon cameras which ALL sport the Rebel name - are ALL APS-C sensor cameras - the higher up the number - the more advanced they are … the SL series are beginner cameras, with a twist - they have some features of the "i" series, but are still quite small. The most basic entry-level Canons - are the ones w/o the "i" appendix ... they are also the cheapest.

Reply
May 14, 2019 21:32:02   #
ecurb1105
 
User ID wrote:
`


The 24x36mm "FF" dimensions derive
from the 135 film format, which varies
a bit but is ~21.5x33.5mm.

The variable is the actual aperture in
the negative carrier. The film cameras
made images of ~24x36mm so that
the image would be larger than the
aperture in the negative carrier, thus
avoiding a bright outline of clear film
base, which would acoarst result in
harmful scatter light between the film
and the lens.

Most users of 135 film cameras sent
color films to commercial processors
who either mounted the chromes into
cardboard mounts or printed 4x6 inch
borderless prints. In either case the
actual format in use was far smaller
than 24x36 ... the borderless [bleed
printed] machine prints often using
only ~20.5x31.5mm image area.

OTOH, digital "FF" uses the entire
image, which is ~23.5x35.5mm, a
definite improvement vs 135 film :-)

-----------------------------------

FWIW, the wastefulness of the 2x2"
cardboard mount for chromes was
unjustified, since there was no clear
film base surrounding the 24x26mm
on-film image area. Only negs had
clear film base outside of the image.
[Chromes had black.] Unfortunately
there was no industry standard for
locating the sprocket holes relative
to the image area.

.
` br br br The 24x36mm "FF" di... (show quote)


And who remembers filing out your negative carrier to print black frames around the image in order to prove you did not crop the image?

Reply
 
 
May 14, 2019 21:32:18   #
ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio
 
orrie smith wrote:
When cameras went digital, camera makers had the ability to play with the sensor that takes the photo. In a DX formatted camera, the sensor is a bit smaller, causing the photo to actually be cropped in camera, making the photo slightly larger when viewing it. In Canon, it is a 1.6 crop, and in Nikon, it is a 1.5 crop. FX utilizes the full sensor size of 35mm film cameras. What this means to you, as a photographer, and as a beginner, is little to nothing. Both FX and DX cameras, on a general basis, take great quality photos. When it will make a difference is when you become more skilled and you expand your interests. A DX camera will do well in good light for wildlife, landscapes, and portraits. Actually, a lot of bird and other wildlife photographers prefer DX because of it's cropped sensor allowing them to use a smaller and lighter lens when going out into the wild to get their photos. If you venture into photography that restricts your light, usually a full frame (FX) camera will work better, as they will allow you to use a higher ISO to compensate the lower light situations. Whichever you choose, try to buy FX lenses. You may use an FX lens on a DX camera, but a DX lens on a full frame camera does not work well. Hopefully this information is understandable and helpful. Many people start out with a DX camera because of initial cost, and many stay with this format and are very happy with their choice. Personally, I have both, and for what I use them for, they both compliment each other.
When cameras went digital, camera makers had the a... (show quote)


Very good explanation Orrie.

Reply
May 14, 2019 21:41:25   #
ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio
 
stanikon wrote:
Thanks everyone for the responses. I get it and have added this to my pea-brain storage system. At least now when I read some of the UHH postings I will have an idea of the subject matter. FWIW I will stick with my little D90 with it's DX sensor for the foreseeable future since I do not see myself joining the pro ranks any time soon.


And a very good decision and choice. I own a D90 and it produces wonderful images. You can enjoy DX and FX lenses on the D90 and it will continue to give you great service. Best of luck!!

Reply
May 14, 2019 21:53:32   #
ecurb1105
 
Chris T wrote:
And, I'll bet you never had a moment's trouble with oil on the sensor, with your D600 - huh, Chris?

You owned Digital Sinars and Hasselblads, huh? … Must have cost you a pretty penny. So, you think the product you get from your D800 is better than the product you got from THEM - huh? …. Amazing!!!!

Just shows you - it doesn't necessarily mean - going LARGER - makes things BETTER - huh?

Hey, listen - not everybody can afford to put down $3300 for a D850, or even TWO GRAND, for a D500 - Let alone $6500 for a D5 … so don't feel bad, Chris … some folks are just in diff price brackets - yaknow?
And, I'll bet you never had a moment's trouble wit... (show quote)


FYI, I shoot a D600, bought just before the 610 was released, never had the oil on sensor issue.

Reply
May 14, 2019 22:05:50   #
User ID
 
traderjohn wrote:
It's a poor workman that blames his tools.



Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 24 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
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.