was_a_guru

Thanks. Actually I have a Nikon SB-600 Speedlight. Dates back to my use with a film SLR. Haven't used it for a long time and never thought about using a flash for my trip. That might be better than the booster you recommended?

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Make sure it is compatible with the new camera, some older strobes can fry modern camera electronics, high voltage spikes.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Any lens on an APS-C body makes an image is 1.5 times more "blown up" than on a FF body. This is usually referred to as being AN EFFECTIVE focal length 1.5 times the true focal length. A 400mm lens on an APS-C body makes an image with a field of view a 600mm lens makes on a FF body. So we say the lens has an EQUIVALENT focal length of 600mm when on an APS-C body.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Using the “Quote Reply” option as I have done here will Help us know what post you are addressing.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

The SB 600 will be fine on a digital camera. It came out in about 2004.

It can even be used as a remote off-camera flash and contrilolled with the pop-up flash from the Nikon D7500. Works with infrared light emitted from the pop-up flash. Has to be line of sight to the optical sensor of the flash , but it can usually be turned to work.

david vt Loc: Vermont

Interesting, until this, I did not know my D7200 APC even had this option. As far as I can tell, this is about the same function as a FF going into crop mode (say to accomodate a DX lens). basically, turn off sensor pixels around the outside of the sensor

The only advantages I can see for this are a) longer effective FOV SOOC (straight out of camera), a smaller file (15MP vs 24MP), so that more fit onto a memory card, and slightly faster burst mode. If none of these apply, and I am willing to crop in PP, are there any other advantages that I am missing?

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Exactly. Teleconverters have to be matched to the lens to function.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

A lot of us look for all the advantages we can find with our equipment, and all the tools available. I started out with one camera and one lens (50 yrs. back), for me it is second nature. Another advantage, IT IS FREE, doesn't cost a thing.

Try it out. It isn't panacea, but it can help in certain situations. There is nothing wrong with 15 MP resolution for situations like this; yes to longer equivalent FOV, like adding a teleconverter that causes no light loss, no sharpness loss, utilizing same lens (if it tests out successfully, and you are good with the result) how would that be bad?

Set up in the reassigned button option, you can switch back and forth at will. It won't help a bad lens, or one that just isn't sharp at 400mm, but if the lens makes an image that is acceptable to you, it is another option for greater reach, with little or no negative effect. And, remember in earlier post, another option is crop in PP, but you still have that option even with this method. I just see it as another tool in the onboard tool box. YMMV

was_a_guru

Would the following statement be correct? For example, with my 18-400 Tamron on my D7500 APS-C 1.5x crop sensor, the 400 mm is achieved optically, and the increase to 600 mm is achieved digitally?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

This IS the problem - it should NEVER be written/said equivalent focal length - it should be equivalent FULL FRAME FIELD OF VIEW !! - and that is what confuses people !

..

david vt Loc: Vermont

I think, technically, probably yes. In reality, as you only have one DSLR which happens or be a APC, it is moot. You get the reach you get with you 18-400. Unless you want to compare with other postings shot with a FF body, it matters NOT

As for your trip, I would think your 18-400 would be enough reach. I would be more concerned about light. Ensure you have a really good tripod as I suspect you will want to shoot that lens near or at wide open, which means slower SS and be able to keep ISO low I think other UHHs have been there, so can advise better than I

If you want to splurge, rent a 500 f4, but take out the full insurance on this 10k lens! Lots of reach, and the f4 may help in the canopy

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Actually it is usually stated as 35mm equivalent

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

No. Inherently a crop sensor uses a smaller portion of the projected image. In fact, it is the same as the image of a lens of 1.5 times the focal length on a full frame sensor. Nothing digital about it.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Semantics may be hindering understanding, my last try. My take, and the way it has been explained in the print I've read (Sources I can think of immediately are David Busch's D7100 Guide to Digital SLR Photography and Darrell Youngs Mastering the Nikon D7100): For a given lens; in comparison to Full Frame effective equivalent FOV, achieved optically on the sensor, the 400mm yields 600mm as 1.5 X 400mm = 600mm effective equivalent FOV. If you enable the "in camera" 1.3 X crop in setup menu, this results in an effective equivalent FOV of 780mm as a 15MP cropped image.

My Sony A58 does something similar, by way of a digital crop, and it goes to 2X, which is an even more dramatic crop. It is called "Clear Image Zoom" if memory serves me. It is very effective in placing an even larger subject image on a small space, and is variable from 0 to 2X. I don't remember how many MP you end up with at 2x, it is a 20 MP camera, so probably somewhere around 10+ MP.

My last thought on it tonight is try it out, if you have a teleconverter, compare it to that, you will see a difference... I can think of no instance where I have seen a brighter/clearer/larger/sharper subject in the image using a converter, as compare to the in camera crop.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

You loose NO pixels with CIZ ! - even 2X - and, you loose no light as with a TC ! - you should try it and USE it !