A DX Body Does Not Increase The "Reach" Of An FX Lens - Change My Mind (Page 16): Depends on the camera and the EXIF viewer or PP application. Mine shows “equivalent FL” also...

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

David in Dallas wrote:

Huh? I don't understand this at all. Are you viewing the EXIF on your computer? In the 'Properties" display? When I do that with my photos I am shown the actual focal length of the lens when the shot was made. Are you using some other software that perhaps uses the camera and lens data to compute the effective f/l?

Depends on the camera and the EXIF viewer or PP application. Mine shows “equivalent FL” also

David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

TriX wrote:

Depends on the camera and the EXIF viewer or PP application. Mine shows “equivalent FL” also

OK, what might that tool be? I just use the OS "Properties" Details view--I can multiply by 1.5 in my head.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

David in Dallas wrote:

Huh? I don't understand this at all. Are you viewing the EXIF on your computer? In the 'Properties" display? When I do that with my photos I am shown the actual focal length of the lens when the shot was made. Are you using some other software that perhaps uses the camera and lens data to compute the effective f/l?

Perhaps some more information is needed, here. The computer is an Apple iMac and I'm using the included photo editing app, "Photos". I click on "More Info" and that's what shows the camera, lens and exposure settings. It hasn't always been doing that. "300" was always "300", etc. Only now -- or maybe since a recent update? -- it shows "450".
I haven't changed anything (that I'm aware of).

rkaminer Loc: New York, NY

kb6kgx wrote:

Perhaps some more information is needed, here. The computer is an Apple iMac and I'm using the included photo editing app, "Photos". I click on "More Info" and that's what shows the camera, lens and exposure settings. It hasn't always been doing that. "300" was always "300", etc. Only now -- or maybe since a recent update? -- it shows "450".
I haven't changed anything (that I'm aware of).

Believe your eyes not the pixels, the image is 1.5 times bigger with a DX sensor compared to an FX one using the same lens. It does not matter the equivalent or other nonsense, when compared to a different sensor, the bird is bigger, period. Even Apple said so.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

rkaminer wrote:

Believe your eyes not the pixels, the image is 1.5 times bigger with a DX sensor compared to an FX one using the same lens. It does not matter the equivalent or other nonsense, when compared to a different sensor, the bird is bigger, period. Even Apple said so.

Not quite. No. I can take a photo of a "bird" -- since you give the example -- with a 105mm lens. I can crop in that image until it is as large of an image as if it had been taken with a 400mm lens. With me so far? It does NOT mean that by essentially increasing the "field of view" of the image taken by the 105mm, that we can say that the image is the same as if it had been taken by the 400mm (comparing, of course, the "bird" having been photographed with the 400mm lens for comparison. Depth of field, at the very least, will be different.

The DX sensor is effectively "cropping in" on what the FX sensor would be seeing.

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

mikeroetex wrote:

Can we please just go back to arguing over RAW vs JPG ?

We can expand the argument to Nikon RAW vs Canon JPG or Nikon JPG vs Canon RAW.

User ID

kb6kgx wrote:

OK, so I'll add my own two cents, though, no doubt... (show quote)

This is a serious problem, possibly calling for a constitutional ammendmant. Truth in Cropping is at risk.

rkaminer Loc: New York, NY

kb6kgx wrote:

Not quite. No. I can take a photo of a "bird&... (show quote)

You are correct, however the DX frame is cropped and you do not have a choice to see the missing field that an FX sensor can capture. Effectively, without any external manipulation the FX bird will be smaller than a DX bird. Since I store most of the images without making changes to the size, the FX results will alway show a smaller subject than the results of the DX sensor picture and will have a 1.5 magnification ratio to images of a given focal lens compared to an FX sensor. Depth of field has no bearing on the image size.

delder Loc: Maryland

Can we just say that the FX lens on the DX Body provides a 50% "PRE-CROP" to the resulting image?

rkaminer Loc: New York, NY

Sure, I settle for that.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

delder wrote:

Can we just say that the FX lens on the DX Body provides a 50% "PRE-CROP" to the resulting image?

If a large circle overlaps a small sensor by 50%, one begins to understand that about half of what separates a successful photographer from their peers is who has a full-frame camera.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

delder wrote:

Can we just say that the FX lens on the DX Body provides a 50% "PRE-CROP" to the resulting image?

Which can then result in a full-resolution view of the subject being identical between the two cameras -- same lens same image.

Bill_de Loc: US

David in Dallas wrote:

I can multiply by 1.5 in my head.

Well, that gives you a leg up as we sort through the mysteries of photography!

---

rkaminer Loc: New York, NY

Ysarex wrote:

Which can then result in a full-resolution view of the subject being identical between the two cameras -- same lens same image.

This true, but you cannot go from a DX image and make it identical to the FX image. The FX image has additional information which cannot be displayed if taken with a DX format and the same lens. Let me add that the lens has to be made for the FX format; just trying to confuse the argument.

So all things equal, the image is 1.5 times bigger. I can even do that in my head (I have been practicing).

srt101fan

David in Dallas wrote:
I can multiply by 1.5 in my head.

Bill_de wrote:

Well, that gives you a leg up as we sort through the mysteries of photography!

---

Well, I can handle 1.0; not so sure about 1.5 anymore.....