FX lens on a DX camera...
Jan 24, 2018 20:22:05 #
Jan 24, 2018 20:24:55 #
blackest wrote:
So which is best for landscapes? does it depend on the size you want to print at?
This assumes of course that my sources are correct, what do you think?
So which is best for landscapes? does it depend on the size you want to print at?
This assumes of course that my sources are correct, what do you think?
Landscapes are usually taken with wide angles, hence you want to use a FF body (sensor) which subtends the widest angle of view and the greatest DoF with a given lens. You also want the highest resolution and detail and the highest DR you can get. So a good wide angle lens and a high end FF body would be the choice for landscape photography.
Jan 24, 2018 20:31:13 #
Thank you for your civil answer. Those of us who a learning can be lead astray by those who think they have all the answers. They should provide documented evidence of their claims if they want to be believed. Again, thank you for your reply, makes sense to me.
Jan 24, 2018 20:32:00 #
blackest wrote:
Looking here br br https://www.lensrentals.com/b... (show quote)
My opinion is that f16 is pushing it, risking loss of sharpness due to diffraction on a FF of 24-36 MP. Personally, I limit myself to f11 unless really necessary, but I have no calculations to support that.
Jan 24, 2018 20:33:49 #
TriX wrote:
My opinion is that f16 is pushing it, risking loss of sharpness due to diffraction on a FF of 24-36 MP. Personally, I limit myself to f11 unless really necessary, but I have no calculations to support that.
Another civil reply, thank you, seams correct tome.
Jan 24, 2018 20:34:50 #
Gene51 wrote:
Not true, John. Check out your premise on any DoF calculator. Pixel density does not enter into the CoC calculation. Only the size of the sensor, which relates to how much you need to magnify an image to get to a given print size, all things being equal. To take a DX sensor to a 16x24 you have to magnify the image 50% more than an FX sensor. The increase in magnification results in the perception of a shallower depth of field.
If you see my previous reply I proved myself wrong (it convinced me :) ) the calculator puts the d700 and d800 on the same sensor size and coc value. which makes pixel pitch irrelevant only sensor size matters.
However
thats just side by side aperture by aperture.
There is a limit beyond which diffraction starts to become noticeable and that is largely down to pixel pitch this threshold was f10 for the d7000 and D800 and f16 for the D700. Punching in figures just about makes the d700 the winner for depth of field in a landscape covering the same field of view. However the D800 puts more pixels on the scene making it the best to enlarge and put your nose on.
The D7000 at f11 lets your landscape start a little nearer. I guess you might use that. My landscapes probably start way to far away most of the time :)
it might be interesting to look at depth of field on longer lenses as well.
Jan 24, 2018 20:40:17 #
TriX wrote:
My opinion is that f16 is pushing it, risking loss of sharpness due to diffraction on a FF of 24-36 MP. Personally, I limit myself to f11 unless really necessary, but I have no calculations to support that.
And you are right to select this setting.
It has to do with optimal aperture.
Jan 24, 2018 20:42:01 #
And thank you for your civil reply. What you say makes sense to me. I use a D800 and have had better luck with landscapes than with my D200 although the D200 is a good camera. I'm just not as skilled as most. Again thank you for your reply.
Jan 24, 2018 21:03:18 #
TriX wrote:
My opinion is that f16 is pushing it, risking loss of sharpness due to diffraction on a FF of 24-36 MP. Personally, I limit myself to f11 unless really necessary, but I have no calculations to support that.
Yes Agreed!
For the page i linked the D700 was the only one given f16 as a limit its 12.1 Megapixels full frame.
For the D800 it was f10 and its a 36 Mpixel camera full frame.
for the D7000 it was f10 and its a 16.2 Mpixel dx camera.
for my k5 the pixel pitch puts it around f9
So f11 pretty much is as far as most of us should go. well its only a little too far :)
Just looked up the Pixel Pitch of the d850 4.34uM which according to that table would limit it before diffraction to F8 hyperfocal of 10.8 feet@f8 and a near focus limit of 5.4 feet.
for the d7000 at f8 on 18mm at the hyper focal the nearest distance is 3.5 feet v 2.38 feet at f11 would diffraction be noticeable??
I think i would need a tape measure to see how much difference a foot makes.
Jan 24, 2018 21:31:28 #
This may or not be pertinent to this discussion, and I don't know all about camera lenses but if the distance from the lens to the sensor is different between an FX and a DX body then that would definitely affect what the sensor sees through the same FX lens.
Jan 24, 2018 21:32:55 #
nauticalmike wrote:
This may or not be pertinent to this discussion, and I don't know all about camera lenses but if the distance from the lens to the sensor is different between an FX and a DX body then that would definitely affect what the sensor sees through the same FX lens.
You are correct but the distance lens/sensor is the same.
Jan 24, 2018 21:44:08 #
Rongnongno wrote:
You are correct but the distance lens/sensor is the same.
are they both at the center of the same focal point as well?
Jan 24, 2018 22:01:35 #
nauticalmike wrote:
are they both at the center of the same focal point as well?
yes
It's registration distance, this is largely determined by the needs of the camera a dx body could have got away with a shorter registration distance, the mirror can be smaller than for fx but for the transition from film to digital it meant existing lenses could be used even though the sensor was smaller and full frame sensors were still a few years away. For mirrorless cameras the registration distance is much shorter which leaves plenty of space for an adapter to sit between a lens designed for one system and a mirrorless body.
Jan 24, 2018 22:05:27 #
Rongnongno wrote:
And do you realize that the lenses are not the same????
Give me a calculator that specify the lens as FX and the camera a DX. - They will show the same result -
In their lens list they list perceived lenses length using the 1.x coefficient which is simply wrong.
Give me a calculator that specify the lens as FX and the camera a DX. - They will show the same result -
In their lens list they list perceived lenses length using the 1.x coefficient which is simply wrong.
I'm curious if anyone on here would ever admit if they were right or wrong. However I would imagine that originsl could be answered scientifically mathematically and or with physics. But that being said if I take a picture and I like it. is it a good one or a bad one. and is there any data that can back that up, if so where can I find it. Is it on s chart?
Jan 24, 2018 22:15:07 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.