ole sarg Loc: south florida

That being the case I guess there is no free lunch at the deli or in photography!

ShooterOR

Make a rectangular cutout in a piece of cardboard. Hold it at arm's length. Think of this as "DX". Move it closer. Think of this as "FX". That's the difference.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

True, but this does not contradict my post. In your example the FX 'image' would be larger than the DX 'image'.

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

I think if you read that thread carefully, it says the "subject" and not the "image" appears larger by way of reduced field of vision. Therefore, if the FOV is reduced by 1.5X and the photo reproduction is made on the same size paper or screen, the DX format appears to have a greater magnification factor through the same size lense..

The analogy of looking through a window and then taping a paper cover over that window reducing it's FOV by 1.5X gives the best example of this effect. In this example, there is no change in magnification at all and demonstrates a reduced "field of vision".

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

See attached. Both taken with same lens at same focal length from (virtually) same position on counter (tripod unavailable). First is FX camera, second is DX.

Can you tell me DX image does not appear 'zoomed in'?

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

Yes, your second photo appears "zoomed in" but this is only because of a reduced field of view caused by the fact there are extra pixel information being observed through the lens with the FX format accounts for a 1.5X more data being recorded. The sensor in DX format captures 1.5 times less of the image but you display your exmples on the same area of picture space. It's like cropping your photo by a factor of 1.5X.
Now if you consider a camera like the new D800, that has 36 megapixels in it's sensor, over an older DX format camera with only 12 megapixels, there would be 3 times the resolution in the compared photos using DX versus FX. This change in resolution is proven by the file size, in megabytes, of the 2 stored images.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

[[/quote]

Yes, your second photo appears "zoomed in" but this is only because of a reduced field of view caused by the fact there are extra pixel information being observed through the lens with the FX format accounts for a 1.5X more data being recorded. The sensor in DX format captures 1.5 times less of the image but you display your exmples on the same area of picture space. It's like cropping your photo by a factor of 1.5X.
Now if you consider a camera like the new D800, that has 36 megapixels in it's sensor, over an older DX format camera with only 12 megapixels, there would be 3 times the resolution in the compared photos using DX versus FX. This change in resolution is proven by the file size, in megabytes, of the 2 stored images.[/quote]

The OP had nothing to do with megapixels. The question was whether or not you 'got more reach' with a DX camera.

For what it's worth, to compare apples to apples, if you use 2 cameras, one FX and one DX, both 12MPs, and then you cropped your FX image to match your DX image, then your DX image would have better resolution, since the DX image contains all 12MPs, whereas the cropped FX image would only have 8MPs.

My premise was that if the images were the same physical size, the DX image would APPEAR zoomed in. I made no claim about file size or resolution. And the DX image does appear to be zoomed more (greater 'reach'), does it not?

Lazy Old Coot Loc: Gainesville, Florida

No no no! Think only about what's important and then shoot to your heart's content. You'll be a lot happier and get better photos to boot. ......... Coot

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

The OP had nothing to do with megapixels. The question was whether or not you 'got more reach' with a DX camera.

For what it's worth, to compare apples to apples, if you use 2 cameras, one FX and one DX, both 12MPs, and then you cropped your FX image to match your DX image, then your DX image would have better resolution, since the DX image contains all 12MPs, whereas the cropped FX image would only have 8MPs.

My premise was that if the images were the same physical size, the DX image would APPEAR zoomed in. I made no claim about file size or resolution. And the DX image does appear to be zoomed more (greater 'reach'), does it not?[/quote]

Yes but that's really an optical illusion since the DX is really only blown up to fit the same size photo sheet and therefore cropped if compared to the same photo taken with an FX sensor camera. I think you need to see the differences between CX, DX and FX sensors to get the complete idea about "field of view". Recently, someone posted a great illustration of the differences in size.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

[[/quote]

Yes but that's really an optical illusion since the DX is really only blown up to fit the same size photo sheet and therefore cropped if compared to the same photo taken with an FX sensor camera. [/quote]

Hence the word "appear".

rgstoneinsc Loc: Salem, SC

Sorry, no.

The image would be exactly the same the surrounding FOV would be less.......think of it as the DX is cropping....when you crop the actual image is not magnifiied, you are just taking away the surroundings.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

Take a look at both pictures, they are the same size. See the cookbook on a stand in the middle of the picture. The one taken with DX is bigger. You can even measure the difference on the screen.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

change the field of view and it will be the same

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

... and now both with FX image cropped to match DX image

DX


FX

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

What kind of bar is this with no malt scotch? Some host you are. Not even good brandy. LOL.