English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

While this is made by Nikon, it applies for all brands as it compares Lens FX/DX and FX/DX sensors.

You can select four combinations and compare while adjusting the simulated focal lens (they used differents pictures by the way so it is not a 'calculated' display (Proof is on the model used whose position changes)

http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/IMG/Images/Micro-Sites/Lens-Simulator/simulator.htm

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Exposing my ignorance, what is Dx and Fx?

Adirondack Hiker Loc: Southern Adirondacks

DX is cropped sensor, for Nikon a factor of 1.5, hence a 100 mm lens would appear as a 150 mm. FX is full size sensor, 36x24 mm, same as film.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

FX = full frame = 35-mm film format = 36-mm x 24-mm sensor.
Common to Nikon D3, D4, and D700 cameras.

DX = "cropped format" = 15.8-mm x 23.9-mm sensor.
Common to Nikon D40, D60, D70, D90, D200 D300, D3000, D3100, D5000, D5100, D7000, etc.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Thanks. Then what function would using a Dx framing offer a photographer that could not be achieved with normal cropping? I am curious why one would want such a capability.

English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

DX is not a function but the size of the sensor.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Ok, this confuses me. If selecting Fx produces a full frame, and yet Dx is the size of the frame, how is can it (Dx) be said to produce a cropped image. I would expect the Fx to be more related to the size of the sensor and Dx to be based on something less since selecting Dx is said to crop.

English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

We are talking of the size of the sensor. THIS CANNOT BE CHANGED, you select it at purchase time.
As said by Nikonian72 FX sensor = 36 mm (24/36 - also called 'full frame sensor') DX sensor is 2/3 of the size of FX sensor, hence the multiplier.
You can use a FX lens on a DX body (multiplying its length by 1.5)
You can use a DX lens on a FX body. In the case of Nikon, the FX camera will adapt to the lens and use a fraction (1.5) of it's sensor size. I do not know what a canon will do (or any other brand for that matter).

You have four combination possible:

FX Body -> FX Lens (no change in length)
FX Body -> DX Lens (Camera adapts - Nikon)

DX Body -> FX Lens (Multiply length by 1.5)
DX Body -> DX Lens (no change in length)

The link posted shows the changes visually. When you click on 'crop' in the demo it shows what a DX would see using a FX body. Note that the 'crop option is not available all the time and only when using the FX body sensor.

If you want more detailed explanation, you may want to use google and find a technical site that will give you the lowdown of using a lens that is not adapted to the camera body sensor.

One thing to interest:
A wide angle in all native FX combination is a wide angle, unlike DX native combination (see visual demonstration on the link provided).

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

The old wolf snarls in wonderous ways to make good sense here. So, the two items makeing a difference, one a lens and the other the sensor with its own lens have four ways to interact to cause in their combinations different effective magnifications. Perhaps it was the crop terminology which threw me most off. I think of cropping as exterior to the camera lens combinations.

I looked at the example and saw the difference in the angles covered variously. But, I was conserned, that at least some of the difference might be due to empty magnifacation. I wondered if the cropping was throwing away some sensor width losing pixels.

Thanks a bunch.

English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

It does (width and length) under the FX/DX combination as to work with with a DX lens the circle of diffusion is smaller than the FX. The adaptation lies there but it is not something one really wants.

Illustration:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pva1964/4211866523/
Also:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pva1964/4211866567/in/photostream/

This is important to understand when switching standard.

By example, I am looking at the new Nikon D800. If I decide to get it, it means I will have to get three new lenses so that I do not lose what I am purchasing: A full frame sensor. I have five DX lenses that will become obsolete just like that - will still use them on my D300 and my wife D40x but...

The result is that I do not have to finance for $3,000.00 for the camera but about twice as much for lenses I want and need (as I am using their equivalent in DX format). My budget will basically double to $6,000.00 if not more.

Since I am also looking at the medium format (Mamya/leaf/phase one) I have some budget concerns. The medium format is pricey and unyielding in everyday shooting but gives incredulous results in studio and 'formal' while the FX body offers flexibility and universal use.

Basically, for me, if the D800 FX format lives up to the hype, I may just squash the medium format altogether and get a second body (as a back up) with a fourth lens (because I want it :shock: - A portrait lens that will have to be as good if not superior to my old Nikkor 135 f2 I used eons ago). And, oh, yeah, take a long vacation in Europe with my wife.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

I'm washing around in the recesses of the back of my mind the thought that a new camera could get me outdoors more often. Especially with some greater lens versatility than I have now. I Won't be needing much in the way of studio capability, that is not on my agenda.

I could be found piggybacking onto a telescope on occasion. I have been kicked out of some lazy thought patterns via participation here and even my old Olymp. E10 is having more of its capabilities exercised. For instance RAW. When I got the camera, I had no concept of what raw meant, and was happy in ignorance as digital was a whole new world for me and enough else kept me busy.

It sounds like you have some dividing decisons on your plate. Good speed on arriving at a great hardware destination.

Wanda Krack Loc: Tennessee, USA

English Wolf, I'd like to hear your take on the coming of the mirror-less cameras. Do you think they will be the camera of the future? Some people think yes.

English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

It is not the way of the future for me. The use of mini electronic display will be a real challenge to focus manually, if at all possible (at least for me, I need a diopter correction for my eyes). If offered with a side optical viewer, my opinion may change but the reflex was invented to prevent parallax problems* and it's results: beheading, mowing and so forth.

So... a step back or a step forward?

Note this is a personal opinion and nothing more.

I have not had one on my hands and if I do not have a 'pocket' camera it is because I am seriously unhappy with the live view focusing as it is. (Change to reading glasses, be seriously upset at the end result - focus - I have tried my wife's other camera - profoundly dislike it)

IF I recall correctly there was a couple of SLRs film cameras that were touted as "mirror-less motion". What was done there was to use a 'semi-transparent' mirror that had two major draw-backs: a) the focusing screen was darker than normal b) the light entering the camera was diminished due to the split. This was made to prevent the 'shakes' and gain speed as many cameras had the mirror going up and down while taking pictures. Only high end cameras kept the camera up for the burst duration. This had not relieved the problem of excessive weight but then again to insure your camera does not move when handheld, a bit a weight is needed (another reason why I do not espouse the 'mirror-less' cameras - too light - on paper).

If something like that is re-offered, I may revise my opinion.

Then again, in some aspects, I am an old fart so my opinion is a bit retro, I guess. (You cannot retrain a crotchety old dog)

-----
* Scroll to Parallax error in photography blurb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

Dean Sturgis

Nikon can't use the same terms as the rest of the camera world. Sensor of about 15.8 x 23.9mm are also called APS-C,
Canon's slightly different size sensor are called APS-S or APS-H from APS film format sizes.

dsturgis

Dean Sturgis

With a Pentax & I think with the others you can mount a full frame or film lens on the digital camera and take a picture with a smaller field of view of coarse. A digital lens on a film camera will have a image circle smaller than the frame of the film. At the longer end a zoom lens may cover the film except for the extreme corners. At the wider end the image will be close to a circle on the film. The outer 0.5 to 1mm of the image will have strange colors.

dsturgis