Observations moving from DX to FX
Here is my first real observation using an FX body.
Everyone talks about DX cameras screwing with focal lengths. But how about an FX screwing with focal lengths? A DX sensor adds a factor of 1.5mm to any lens you use. Or does an FX subtract a factor of 1.5 to any lens you shoot with? It all depends on what your perspective is.
If you are a film guy that has gone digital with a DX format body, all of your lenses will look too long. On the flip side, if all you have ever used is a DX format body, everything looks really wide on FX.
So say you have a 17-55 on a DX body, it is really would look like a 25.5-82.5 on a FX fomat body. Or say you have a 20mm on a DX it is really more like the view of 30mm on an FX.
But all of this perspective goes down the drain when you are used to what the same 20mm looks like on your DX. To me on my DX body 20mm is 20mm. But on the FX body it looks more like a 13.3 on a DX body! That is getting close to my 10.5 fisheye! It is all in the eye of the beholder. The crop factor either way totally screws with you.
So for those of you who shoot DX here is what some important lenses will look like when you put them on an FX format camera.
20mm = 13.3mm
50mm = 33.3mm
105mm = 70mm
80-200mm = 53.3-133.3mm
24-70mm = 16-46.6mm
Looking at one of the new Nikon lenses the 28-300. At first glance it seems like a weird range. It really isn't that weird when you come from DX. On an FX this lens could be a killer. Especially combined with the high ISO capability of an FX camera. This thing will look like an 18.6-200mm on the FX. Sounds a lot like the popular 18-200 DX lens. It could be an awesome walk around super zoom for FX. For DX it is a goofy lens range. And not being a constant 2.8? Who cares on FX. Shoot it at f5.6 all the time. And crank your ISO to use it in whatever light you need.
Everyone talks about DX cameras screwing with focal lengths. But how about an FX screwing with focal lengths? A DX sensor adds a factor of 1.5mm to any lens you use. Or does an FX subtract a factor of 1.5 to any lens you shoot with? It all depends on what your perspective is.
If you are a film guy that has gone digital with a DX format body, all of your lenses will look too long. On the flip side, if all you have ever used is a DX format body, everything looks really wide on FX.
So say you have a 17-55 on a DX body, it is really would look like a 25.5-82.5 on a FX fomat body. Or say you have a 20mm on a DX it is really more like the view of 30mm on an FX.
But all of this perspective goes down the drain when you are used to what the same 20mm looks like on your DX. To me on my DX body 20mm is 20mm. But on the FX body it looks more like a 13.3 on a DX body! That is getting close to my 10.5 fisheye! It is all in the eye of the beholder. The crop factor either way totally screws with you.
So for those of you who shoot DX here is what some important lenses will look like when you put them on an FX format camera.
20mm = 13.3mm
50mm = 33.3mm
105mm = 70mm
80-200mm = 53.3-133.3mm
24-70mm = 16-46.6mm
Looking at one of the new Nikon lenses the 28-300. At first glance it seems like a weird range. It really isn't that weird when you come from DX. On an FX this lens could be a killer. Especially combined with the high ISO capability of an FX camera. This thing will look like an 18.6-200mm on the FX. Sounds a lot like the popular 18-200 DX lens. It could be an awesome walk around super zoom for FX. For DX it is a goofy lens range. And not being a constant 2.8? Who cares on FX. Shoot it at f5.6 all the time. And crank your ISO to use it in whatever light you need.
0
Comments
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
You didn't mention that not all lenses will work on a DX and FX body without vignetting. I have heard the D3 and I think D700 will adapt and crop to the DX size to work with a DX lens but I'm not sure it this is true as I haven't been able to spend any time with them.
Being able to go from my F4s to an FX body with the same lens and without having to "translate" the focal length will be great.
I recently had to by a new walk around lens for the D70s. I wanted to get something that would work for both formats so I would loose the lens later but that meant losing the wide aspect in DX mode, i.e. the 24-80 f2.8 is a thing of beauty but a little heavy and expensive for a walk around lens-you also loose the wide aspect in DX format. I ended up going with the 16-85 as I found a refurb for a good price so it won't kill me to not be able to use it later on a FX body.
__________________________________________
Enjoy the journey, it's the best part.
Nikon D70s
Nikon F4s
Pentax K1000
Olympus OM-10
Gitzo CF tripod/Arca Swiss ball head
Not nearly enough lenses
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
And mine is thus: I shot 35mm film my entire adult life, not pro, but always had a 35mm. Once I decided to actually do something with photography, digital was all the rage, and Nikon was my choice. Once they came out, and I got, an FX camera...it was a total Ahhaa Moment! I knew something had been missing, I found it, and it was such a relief. Now, I can own a DX and use it like the tool it is, but I never will forget that day.
Sure, but if your perspective includes history, then FX is the reference standard. 35mm film was a common standard (though never the only one) for still photography more than half a century before crop-frame digital cameras came along. Of course one can find examples of "crop-frame" film cameras too, such as the 1960s Olympus PEN series and the 1990s APS cameras, but they were always in the minority. And nobody really knew or cared about the focal length of the lens built into an Instamatic.
Similarly, one could argue that medium format or large format should be the reference standard; both predate 35mm, but neither has a single standard (MF has 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7..., LF has 4x5", 5x7", 8x10"...) and 35mm was the single most common format of the 20th century.
It's true that it's really not necessary to define DX in terms of FX, but it is helpful in that it gives people a way of understanding the differences between them. Why does my 50mm lens behave differently on DX than on FX? Because of the 1.5x crop factor. What lens on DX would give me the same field of view as 50mm on FX? 50 / 1.5 = 33mm. There you go.
It does? On FX it used to be quite common for zooms to start at 28mm and extend up to 80mm or so. Then 24mm became more common, but 28mm is still used for super-zooms, probably because 28-300mm sounds more impressive than 24-250mm (the zoom factor is roughly the same either way).
Yes, I think that's exactly the idea. If you want a tourist super-zoom, on FX you get 28-300mm, and on DX you get 18-200mm; they're roughly equivalent.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Is there a DX setting on the FX sensor that crops the image space on the sensor to fit?
__________________________________________
Enjoy the journey, it's the best part.
Nikon D70s
Nikon F4s
Pentax K1000
Olympus OM-10
Gitzo CF tripod/Arca Swiss ball head
Not nearly enough lenses
From my experience using the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 lens on a Canon full-frame camera, the problem is that when you zoom out too far, the lens is unable to fill the sensor and you start getting black areas in the corners.
Some (all? not sure) Nikon full-frame cameras have a DX mode, but you throw away most of the sensor's resolution when you do that. A 12 MP D700 becomes about 4.6 MP in DX mode.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
If egg came first...what laid it????? just a thought not looking for answer.....
Not sure Nikon was late...just took a bit more time to perfect their offering.
I do not think the shots have improved but the resolution of a 12mp cam is better on ff than on dx...the resolution of a D700 to D300 is quit a bit better, due to the larger pixels and the space between which makes for much less noise....it is still upto the photog to make use of the toll for better pix.