A DX Body Does Not Increase The "Reach" Of An FX Lens - Change My Mind (Page 10): I am a specialist at trolling trolls for amusement, and yes a master at it.

User ID

rmalarz wrote:

Nope. And you’re pretty much a master.
—Bob

I am a specialist at trolling trolls for amusement, and yes a master at it.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

CHG_CANON wrote:

You really can't argue with ignorance.

Bill_de Loc: US

It is really pretty simple IMHO.

A DX sensor records a smaller section of the scene than an FX sensor, no matter how many pixels are included.

---

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Bill_de wrote:

It is really pretty simple IMHO.

A DX sensor records a smaller section of the scene than an FX sensor, no matter how many pixels are included.

---

EXACTLY!!!

BlackRipleyDog

User ID wrote:

I am a specialist at trolling trolls for amusement, and yes a master at it.

Ah yes. The Krueger-Dunning Effect.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

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.

I agree with you but think about this. If we have an Fx and Dx camera both of 12 megapixels which one can make a better crop? The DX has 12 megapixels to crop from the FX starts at a disadvantage because it has only 12 megapixels and has to crop just to equal the DX camera photo. Think about that

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

While there have been a couple of replies with some merit, the confusion, ambiguity, ignorance, and error displayed in these 10 pages is sufficient justification that the term "reach" should be banished forever. What has been demonstrated is that it has no use as a term of conversation or communication, and brings no value to the advancement of photography.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I agree with you but think about this. If we have an Fx and Dx camera both of 12 megapixels which one can make a better crop? The DX has 12 megapixels to crop from the FX starts at a disadvantage because it has only 12 megapixels and has to crop just to equal the DX camera photo. Think about that

In your example here the DX camera would create a 12 mp image while the FX camera would create an 8 mp image. Both images have the same content but viewed side by side the DX camera image contains better fine detail appearing sharper due to the fact that more pixels were placed on the subject. In colloquial terms we call that extending the "reach" of the lens by using the DX body. Here's an example: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-6.html#13058291

BebuLamar

larryepage wrote:

While there have been a couple of replies with some merit, the confusion, ambiguity, ignorance, and error displayed in these 10 pages is sufficient justification that the term "reach" should be banished forever. What has been demonstrated is that it has no use as a term of conversation or communication, and brings no value to the advancement of photography.

That I would agree. Many of the terms we use regularly in photography should be barnished. Crop factor, cropped sensor etc... All the stuff that was created when the camera manufacturers used the same lenses designed for 35mm film on cameras with sensor smaller than the 35mm frame. We wouldn't have all those terms if they either made cameras with sensor the same size as the 35mm frame or introduced entirely new lens line for the camera with small sensor from the start.

jcboy3

larryepage wrote:

While there have been a couple of replies with some merit, the confusion, ambiguity, ignorance, and error displayed in these 10 pages is sufficient justification that the term "reach" should be banished forever. What has been demonstrated is that it has no use as a term of conversation or communication, and brings no value to the advancement of photography.

I certainly didn't "reach" the same conclusion.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

larryepage wrote:

While there have been a couple of replies with some merit, the confusion, ambiguity, ignorance, and error displayed in these 10 pages is sufficient justification that the term "reach" should be banished forever. What has been demonstrated is that it has no use as a term of conversation or communication, and brings no value to the advancement of photography.

Why "banish"? Because you don't like it? Because of the varied opinions/understandings?

What is also evident is the ability of people to easily go off on a tangent or include superfluous information.
Or make things more complicated than they need be.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Longshadow wrote:

Why "banish"? Because you don't like it? Because of the varied opinions/understandings?

What is also evident is the ability of people to easily go off on a tangent or include superfluous information.
Or make things more complicated than they need be.

I am very much in favor of discussions about every aspect of photography. As a person who often has the minority viewpoint, especially here, I am always interested to figure out if I am "wrong" or just "different." But doing that requires knowing what I am saying and hearing what others are saying. It is clear from this interchange that there is little understanding or agreement over what the current topic of discussion even is. That will never lead to agreement or even advancement, just wasted time and energy.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

I just popped in on this topic to see how many pages it has gotten to . . . .

Stan

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

Ysarex wrote:

In your example here the DX camera would create a 12 mp image while the FX camera would create an 8 mp image. Both images have the same content but viewed side by side the DX camera image contains better fine detail appearing sharper due to the fact that more pixels were placed on the subject. In colloquial terms we call that extending the "reach" of the lens by using the DX body. Here's an example: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-6.html#13058291

Yes exactly my point. It doesn't increase reach but puts more pixels on the subject. It normally doesn't come into play much anymore with the great amount of pixels on most modern full frame sensors but it is a fact. Lol

BebuLamar

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

Yes exactly my point. It doesn't increase reach but puts more pixels on the subject. It normally doesn't come into play much anymore with the great amount of pixels on most modern full frame sensors but it is a fact. Lol

So what is reach?