Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby MULTILINGUAL NIKONIANS English Café (Public) topic #85836
View in linear mode

Subject: "How can I be polite and say this ?" Previous topic | Next topic
largebore Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Jan 2011Tue 11-Dec-12 08:46 PM
658 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"How can I be polite and say this ?"


Clarks Summit, US
          

If I hear one more person tell me how they love the extra reach that the DX format gives them I will make an appointment with a shrink.

I dunno I do not understand what in the world they are talking about.
The DX lense does not get you any closer to the subject or increase the magnifacation. It simply has a narrower angle of view.. So where does this added "reach" come in ?

Do people just make this stuff up ???

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
JBS101 Silver Member
11th Dec 2012
1
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
JCY88
11th Dec 2012
2
     Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
bellnier Silver Member
11th Dec 2012
3
     Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
jamesvoortman Silver Member
12th Dec 2012
10
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
Floridian Silver Member
12th Dec 2012
4
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
RABaker
12th Dec 2012
5
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
largebore Silver Member
12th Dec 2012
8
     Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
ShrimpBoy Silver Member
12th Dec 2012
9
          Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
largebore Silver Member
12th Dec 2012
12
          Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
jgould2 Gold Member
18th Dec 2012
22
          Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
phlash46
18th Dec 2012
23
          Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
largebore Silver Member
26th Dec 2012
29
               Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
phlash46
26th Dec 2012
30
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
ZoneV Silver Member
12th Dec 2012
6
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
dhrphoto Silver Member
12th Dec 2012
7
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
Scotty Silver Member
12th Dec 2012
11
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
CaptainYooh Platinum Member
12th Dec 2012
13
     Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
Scotty Silver Member
13th Dec 2012
14
     Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
briantilley Moderator
13th Dec 2012
15
          Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
gbheron Silver Member
13th Dec 2012
16
          Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
CaptainYooh Platinum Member
13th Dec 2012
18
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
limeyzen Silver Member
13th Dec 2012
17
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
gbowen Gold Member
14th Dec 2012
19
     Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
NikonMark37814
15th Dec 2012
20
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
cwils02 Gold Member
17th Dec 2012
21
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
Sing141 Silver Member
18th Dec 2012
24
     Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
Jimi Team Member
18th Dec 2012
25
     Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
jbloom Gold Member
18th Dec 2012
26
          Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
Jimi Team Member
18th Dec 2012
27
               Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
phlash46
18th Dec 2012
28
     Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
cwils02 Gold Member
27th Dec 2012
31
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
nrothschild Silver Member
29th Dec 2012
32
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
cwils02 Gold Member
30th Dec 2012
33
Reply message RE: How can I be polite and say this ?
dclarhorn Moderator
30th Dec 2012
34

JBS101 Silver Member Nikonian since 20th Apr 2009Tue 11-Dec-12 08:59 PM
519 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 0


Canberra, AU
          

I believe the added "reach" comes from having more megapixels in the shot. For example, a D300 will produce a 12 mp DX frame whereas a D700 only puts about 6mp in the DX frame. More mp allows you to produce larger prints at a given quality level. Whether it is correct to describe this as "more reach" is debatable.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
JCY88 Registered since 24th Aug 2012Tue 11-Dec-12 09:36 PM
193 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 1


US
          

Interesting point. Is this mean once having D800 with 36MP or 16MP DX, you no longer need DX camera under 16MP?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
bellnier Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Jul 2006Tue 11-Dec-12 11:00 PM
1706 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 2


Buffalo, US
          

Pretty much. I have a ~12 MP DX camera (D300s). A full frame camera with 1.5 x 1.5 x 12 = 27 MP would be pretty much equivalent, all other things being equal.

"Stupidity is a gift from God, but one mustn't misuse it" - Pope John Paul II

Http://bellnier-photos.smugmug.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
jamesvoortman Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Sep 2004Wed 12-Dec-12 05:06 AM
1201 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 2


Durban, ZA
          

Yep

That's why I bought a D800 instead of D600. The more pixels you put on the target, the more flexibility you have to crop and process the image - provided that the lens has sufficient resolution to utilise the extra pixels

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007Wed 12-Dec-12 01:32 AM
2735 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 0


Tallahassee, Florida, US
          

>If I hear one more person tell me how they love the extra
>reach that the DX format gives them I will make an appointment
>with a shrink.

I love the extra reach the DX format gives me! (I can picture you making that appointment now.)

>The DX lense does not get you any closer to the subject or
>increase the magnifacation. It simply has a narrower angle of
>view.. So where does this added "reach" come in?

The added reach comes from the narrower angle of view. You just said that yourself. Without cropping, I get about the same photo from a 200mm lens that I'd get from a 300mm lens on FX. Wow, talk about reach!

I'll give you a more extreme example: my new 7.1mm-28.4mm lens. That sounds like it's a fairly wide-angle zoom. Not much reach there the way you look at it. But it is on my small-sensor Fujifilm X10, making it the 35mm equivalent of a 28-112. When I look at the photos I take at 28.4mm they don't look like wide-angle photos; they look like they are taken by a telephoto because the small sensor gives the lens reach. You may not like the terminology, but the concept itself seems pretty straightforward... enough so that I don't think you really need to see that shrink about it.

In fact, on the X10 the lens says on the front it is 7.1-28.4mm, but on the zoom ring the markings go from 28-112. The concept of reach makes so much sense that to aid understanding, Fuji marked the lens with the reach of its 28-112 35mm equivalent rather than its actual focal length of 7.1-28.4. Why? Because camera users will understand the reach based on 35mm equivalent more readily than they would the actual focal length of the lens.

That's not unique to the Fuji X10. For most point-and-shoots the manufacturer advertizes the zoom range in 35mm equivalent rather than its actual focal length. Why? Because the concept of reach is more easily understandable to buyers and camera owners than having to make a conversion from the camera's actual focal length to its field of view.

>Do people just make this stuff up ???

I'm not making this up.

Randy

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

RABaker Registered since 01st Oct 2003Wed 12-Dec-12 01:35 AM
731 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 0


Sunnyvale, US
          

"Do people just make this stuff up ???"

Well... yes and no. Somebody made up the explanation that a DX sensor's narrow angle of view compared to 35mm film or FX gives one the "equivalent" of a longer lens used on a "full frame" camera. Lots of folks have misunderstood the concept of "equivalent" and believe that somehow the DX sensor actually changes the lens focal length when the lens is attached to the camera.

However, others fully understand the issues involved and understand that the lens focal length remains the same regardless of what camera it is attached to, but they use the term "extra reach" as a convenient shorthand for the results of the more narrow angle of view provided by DX cameras.

So I believe one segment is laboring under a misunderstanding of the principles and another is just using a convenient (but inaccurate) terminology. I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I suspect that it is now so widespread that it is unlikely we can eliminate the terminology from the photographic lexicon. ...at least, not any time soon.

Good luck,
Richard

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
largebore Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Jan 2011Wed 12-Dec-12 02:25 AM
658 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 5


Clarks Summit, US
          

>"Do people just make this stuff up ???"
>
>Well... yes and no. Somebody made up the explanation that a
>DX sensor's narrow angle of view compared to 35mm film or FX
>gives one the "equivalent" of a longer lens used on
>a "full frame" camera. Lots of folks have
>misunderstood the concept of "equivalent" and
>believe that somehow the DX sensor actually changes the lens
>focal length when the lens is attached to the camera.
>
>However, others fully understand the issues involved and
>understand that the lens focal length remains the same
>regardless of what camera it is attached to, but they use the
>term "extra reach" as a convenient shorthand for the
>results of the more narrow angle of view provided by DX
>cameras.
>
>So I believe one segment is laboring under a misunderstanding
>of the principles and another is just using a convenient (but
>inaccurate) terminology. I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I
>suspect that it is now so widespread that it is unlikely we
>can eliminate the terminology from the photographic lexicon.
>...at least, not any time soon.
>
>Good luck,
>Richard\\

Right, yes I fully understand that it has a narrower angle of view, but gee all I need to do is crop the image and away I go.. The same narrow view. I guess people can call that what they will, be it really adds to the confusion rather than the clarity and understanding what is happening...

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
ShrimpBoy Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Jan 2006Wed 12-Dec-12 03:57 AM
882 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 8


Brighton and Hove, GB
          

> but gee all I need to do is crop the image and away I
>go.. The same narrow view.

If you don't care about image resolution, what you say is true. But consider:

I have a 12MP DX camera and a 12MP FX camera. I put a 200mm lens on each and shoot the same scene. I crop the FX image to get the same angle of view as the DX image. The DX frame is something like 42% of the size of an FX frame by area (24x15mm versus 36x24mm, roughly), so I'm cropping the FX frame down to 42% of its original size, ie down to 5MP. So now, for the same view, I have a 12MP DX image or a 5MP FX image. Looking at it the other way around, to get a 12MP FX image with the same angle of view I need a 300mm lens (that magic factor of 1.5 on the focal length). This is where the equivalent reach concept comes from: on a DX camera I get my scene at 12MP with a 200mm lens and on an FX camera I get the same scene at 12MP with a 300mm lens.

Where you are quite right is that this really is just an angle of view equivalence.

Gary
"Yea, Sussex by the sea!" - Rudyard Kipling

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
largebore Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Jan 2011Wed 12-Dec-12 10:42 AM
658 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 9


Clarks Summit, US
          

>> but gee all I need to do is crop the image and away I
>>go.. The same narrow view.
>
>If you don't care about image resolution, what you say is
>true. But consider:
>
>I have a 12MP DX camera and a 12MP FX camera. I put a 200mm
>lens on each and shoot the same scene. I crop the FX image to
>get the same angle of view as the DX image. The DX frame is
>something like 42% of the size of an FX frame by area (24x15mm
>versus 36x24mm, roughly), so I'm cropping the FX frame down to
>42% of its original size, ie down to 5MP. So now, for the
>same view, I have a 12MP DX image or a 5MP FX image. Looking
>at it the other way around, to get a 12MP FX image with the
>same angle of view I need a 300mm lens (that magic factor of
>1.5 on the focal length). This is where the equivalent reach
>concept comes from: on a DX camera I get my scene at 12MP with
>a 200mm lens and on an FX camera I get the same scene at 12MP
>with a 300mm lens.
>
>Where you are quite right is that this really is just an angle
>of view equivalence.


Very interesting point about image resolution. Never thought about that before..

Thank you that information ads a new dimension to my thinking about the subject.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
jgould2 Gold Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 13th Oct 2007Tue 18-Dec-12 04:57 AM
4412 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#22. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 9


Fort Pierce, US
          

Hi Gary.

Thanks for stating so succinctly what several posters seem to be having trouble with. Do you want a 12MP picture or a 5MP picture.

JIM

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
phlash46 Registered since 01st Feb 2008Tue 18-Dec-12 11:36 AM
2207 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#23. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 22
Tue 18-Dec-12 11:38 AM by phlash46

Peekskill, US
          

The best explanation I've seen yet. I'm guilty of calling reach, but, I know what I measn. I shoot a D300 and D700 and with telephoto lenses I often use the D300 to have fa more megapixels on the shot after cropping the FX shot. Yes, I'd rather have 12 mp in the image than 5!

New York Nikoner
My Nikonians Gallery

"Insanity is repeating the same process expecting a different result" Albert Einstein

NAS can go into remission, but, it is incurable.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
largebore Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Jan 2011Wed 26-Dec-12 11:25 AM
658 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#29. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 9


Clarks Summit, US
          

>> but gee all I need to do is crop the image and away I
>>go.. The same narrow view.
>
>If you don't care about image resolution, what you say is
>true. But consider:
>
>I have a 12MP DX camera and a 12MP FX camera. I put a 200mm
>lens on each and shoot the same scene. I crop the FX image to
>get the same angle of view as the DX image. The DX frame is
>something like 42% of the size of an FX frame by area (24x15mm
>versus 36x24mm, roughly), so I'm cropping the FX frame down to
>42% of its original size, ie down to 5MP. So now, for the
>same view, I have a 12MP DX image or a 5MP FX image. Looking
>at it the other way around, to get a 12MP FX image with the
>same angle of view I need a 300mm lens (that magic factor of
>1.5 on the focal length). This is where the equivalent reach
>concept comes from: on a DX camera I get my scene at 12MP with
>a 200mm lens and on an FX camera I get the same scene at 12MP
>with a 300mm lens.
>
>Where you are quite right is that this really is just an angle
>of view equivalence.


Thanks learning a lot here.

Follow up question.



Does pixel size, not density, vary with the type or size of the sensor?

In comparing a 12MP DX with a 12MP FX image are the pixels on the FX image larger or are they they same size as the pixels on the DX image but less dense?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
phlash46 Registered since 01st Feb 2008Wed 26-Dec-12 12:55 PM
2207 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#30. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 29


Peekskill, US
          

The pixels on the FX sensor are larger and farther spaced. That should, by itself, result in lower noise at all ISO settings, but, noise reduction algorithms make a difference too. See comparisons of the D600 and D700; neither is a slouch in low noise at high ISO's, but, the D600, despite twice the pixels in the same space, reportedly has better noise handling above ISO 1600 than the D700.

New York Nikoner
My Nikonians Gallery

"Insanity is repeating the same process expecting a different result" Albert Einstein

NAS can go into remission, but, it is incurable.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

ZoneV Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Jan 2005Wed 12-Dec-12 02:21 AM
3496 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 0


US
          

The whole point of a telephoto lens is reach.

But the truth is, the definition of a long focal length is something that depends upon the imaging format it's used on. Would you use a 300mm focal length lens on an 8x10 large format and expect to get a "telephoto" effect?

Absolutely not. That 300mm, even though it may act like a very long lens on a DX sensor, is merely a normal lens on an 8x10 inch camera!

At the other end of the imaging format spectrum, that 300mm lens behaves like a super tele on a 4/3 format digital body!

The one constant is the lens focal length.

The thing that's not constant is the amount of magnification needed to render an image of a certain size.

For example, the 8x10 inch camera requires no magnification to yield an 8x10 inch print. The DX format sensor will require a good bit of magnification, while the 4.3 format sensor will require even more magnification.

When working in the darkroom to print a negative, this magnification is achieved by increaseing the distance between the lens and the photographic paper!

But digital photography does not use a physical apparatus to print the image, so there is no physical magnification, but only virtual magnification.

This gets muddled by the discreet nature of digital images: A pixel on the sensor is either on or off. There is a finiite number of pixels in an image, and this image gets scaled in digital software to a certain size for a given print output size.

It gets muddled even further when you compare two different size sensors with the same number of pixels. But even digital imaging sensors cannot escape the laws of physics. That is why, all other things being equal, a larger sensor will always provide higher image quality (in theory) than a smaller sensor.

To add insult to injury, DX format lenses are created especially for DX sensors, which means, other than having reduced coverage, they are engineered to be able to project a good image into a more dense sensor (again, in theory. In reality, a lot of older glass works really well on the newest, most dense sensors...the D800 having one of the most dense sensors around today).

I would say, don't sweat it. DX sensors do provide more reach than FX sensors, all other things being equal. And the DX sensor often has a denser pixel array to compensate for the resolution loss inherent in cropping an a 35mm format image to DX proportions.

That said, sometimes there are cameras that utilize virtually the same sensor in DX and FX formats, just having it scaled up to the larger size for the FX sensor. In these cases, the sensors are equal, and if you crop out the center DX portion of the FX frame, it will be identical to the DX frame in quality. But even in these cases, the DX sensor camera body offers some advantages if you're planning to crop anyway: such as less wasted sensor real estate, less wasted money spent on the sensor, and a higher magnification viewfinder with borders that make framing in the DX format easier.

An undeniable paradox: To think that there is any such thing as an absolute rule is at worst naïve, and at best, shortsighted. There is no such thing as an always-true, all context- or situation-salient, absolute rule that always holds true…including this one!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

dhrphoto Silver Member Nikonian since 03rd Sep 2007Wed 12-Dec-12 02:21 AM
142 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 0


Laurel, US
          

>If I hear one more person tell me how they love the extra
>reach that the DX format gives them I will make an appointment
>with a shrink.

>I dunno I do not understand what in the world they are talking
>about.
>The DX lense does not get you any closer to the subject or
>increase the magnifacation.

True.

>It simply has a narrower angle of
>view.. So where does this added "reach" come in ?

On my monitor

>Do people just make this stuff up ???

Yes.

And I don't believe you need a shrink, just let NAS take over.
Thanks for the laugh, I needed it!
Sincerely, David.

May Your Day Be Happy And
Full Of Beautiful Images
D.H.R.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Scotty Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Feb 2002Wed 12-Dec-12 09:57 AM
4835 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 0


Ely, Cambridgeshire, GB
          

people just use the wrong terminology for ease of understanding. For example - my biggest bug bear is people wanting to know the difference between a D lens and a G lens when in fact all G lenses are also D lenses as well. What they mean is a lens with an aperture ring and a lens without one, and for some unknown reason have hit on the D - G terminology albeit erroneously...

D2Xs + AF20-35mm f2.8 + AF35-70mm f2.8 + AF80-200mm f2.8

or

FE + Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AIS

Hunger pays a heavy price to the shining Gods of speed and steel

Check out my website...
http://alexjpscott.wix.com/photography

LIKE me on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/AlexJPScottPhotography

Follow my blog...

http://alexjpscottphotography.blogspot.co.uk/


Look me up on Flickr...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_jp_scott/


Alex

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
CaptainYooh Platinum Member Nikonian since 27th Oct 2011Wed 12-Dec-12 06:18 PM
263 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 11


Calgary, CA
          

Well, there's a bit more to this one when it comes to application though. You cannot use any -D lenses on some DX cameras (e.g. on D5100) except in fully manual mode.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Scotty Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Feb 2002Thu 13-Dec-12 12:21 AM
4835 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#14. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 13


Ely, Cambridgeshire, GB
          

But that has nothing to do with it being a D lens - that is my point. The D designation means it transmits Distance information to the camera. It doesn't mean anything else, but many people now use it to mean other things - exactly as you have said. It isn't the D designation that prevents it from working fully with a D5100.

D2Xs + AF20-35mm f2.8 + AF35-70mm f2.8 + AF80-200mm f2.8

or

FE + Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AIS

Hunger pays a heavy price to the shining Gods of speed and steel

Check out my website...
http://alexjpscott.wix.com/photography

LIKE me on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/AlexJPScottPhotography

Follow my blog...

http://alexjpscottphotography.blogspot.co.uk/


Look me up on Flickr...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_jp_scott/


Alex

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
briantilley Moderator Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Thu 13-Dec-12 08:08 AM
29080 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 13


Paignton, GB
          

>You cannot use any -D lenses on some DX
>cameras (e.g. on D5100) except in fully manual mode.

That shows why we need to be so careful in making these statements - because what you say isn't true...

There have been several "D" Nikkors with an AF-S motor as well as the aperture ring (the AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8D is just one of them) that will work fine on a D5100.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
gbheron Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Apr 2007Thu 13-Dec-12 12:09 PM
172 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#16. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 15


Cedar Falls, US
          

Good morning, Brian,

My favorite example is the wonderful 300mm f/4 AF-S that is so useful for close-ups of dragonflies and butterflies.

--- Randy ---

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
CaptainYooh Platinum Member Nikonian since 27th Oct 2011Thu 13-Dec-12 10:54 PM
263 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#18. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 15


Calgary, CA
          

You are correct, Brian. Strictly speaking, it's the absence of AF-S not the -D.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

limeyzen Silver Member Nikonian since 27th Aug 2011Thu 13-Dec-12 12:50 PM
356 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#17. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 0
Thu 13-Dec-12 01:27 PM by limeyzen

Waynesville, US
          

As a relative newcomer to digital and my D90 I will try to avoid being finite on this but I have done a lot of reading on this topic because, like so many others apparently, I was confused. I have learned that for me there are two key concepts that are rarely referred to. One is what you see in the viewfinder is what you get (except as Briantilley pointed out the D90 actually lets you see only 95% but Live View is 100 or very close) the other is that the apparent longer reach of any given lens on DX vs FX is achieved only and as a result of magnification of the "negative" (sorry for the old film days terminology) to the equivalent size of a FX one. It was this latter point that I was missing for a long time

Edit: Should have noted that I do realize this is because the DX sensor is smaller than FX and realised that I was not adding anything to this discussion unless I say that I do understand the confusion if only, for me at least, I wish the above points were more succinctly stated. Seems like there is a lot of technical verbiage (not on this site of course )clouding what seems to me to be a simple concept.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
gbowen Gold Member Nikonian since 31st Mar 2011Fri 14-Dec-12 10:49 AM
1111 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#19. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 17


Canton, US
          

I like keeping it simple, and to me it's all about field of view. Pixel density and all that I will leave to the pixel peepers. I am just concerned about what I can see with a given lens and how the final image will look.

George

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
NikonMark37814 Registered since 20th May 2010Sat 15-Dec-12 12:25 PM
1125 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#20. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 19


Morristown, US
          

To keep it simple and a quote Thom Hogan, he says DX is a free teleconverter with long lenses and that's how I use it. Can't afford a 500 f/4 but enjoy the 450mm field of view and f/2.8 that my 300 f2.8 gives me on my D2x. Put another way, to get the same field of view with FX you have to add a tc.

mVs
D2x, D300s, D700 & D800

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

cwils02 Gold Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2012Mon 17-Dec-12 09:17 PM
807 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#21. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 0


HIXSON, US
          

It's reading all these explanations that make me want to see a shrink.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Sing141 Silver Member Nikonian since 04th Oct 2006Tue 18-Dec-12 03:07 PM
65 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#24. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 21


Bakersfield, US
          

"Reach" or whatever you want to call it, is why I like my D300 and keep hoping for an upgrade version - a D400, or whatever, with less noise at higher ISO, DX format etc. I can't afford or justify buying a 400mm or 500mm lens, but I already have a 70-200 F/2.8 FX lens which reaches out to 300mm on the D300 and works well with the 1.4 Nikon Teleconverter giving me even greater "reach." 420mm equivalent at f/4 I believe. Someone can correct me if that's wrong.

I really don't expect Nikon to come out with a D400 or any kind of upgrade to the D300/D300s.

Sing141

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Jimi Team Member Nikonian since 09th Nov 2006Tue 18-Dec-12 04:34 PM
327 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#25. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 24
Tue 18-Dec-12 04:39 PM by Jimi

South Lake Tahoe, US
          

"What we have here is a lack of communication"...

"Reach" is the culprit. My desktop dictionary says something about sailing, length of one's arm, but nothing about photography.

It all goes back to what size film/sensor you have in your camera. A DX format is not like having a 1.5 extender. Why? Because a 1.5 extender does not change the film size/format.
A 1.5 extender magnifies the focal length of the lens. A DX format is just smaller film compared to 35mm (FX) (or 8x10).

What is actually going on is cropping. Let's use any of the Nikon FX bodies that have a control that switches to DX format as an example. All of them, I believe. When you switch to DX all you are doing is cropping the image in the camera instead of in the computer. That's it! The camera is not only a capture device but it has now become a processing device. A darkroom in your hand. Crop, noise reduction, color balance, etc..

You may ask why? Why did Nikon turn my camera into a darkroom? Because they can!

So now you may ask, what about DX cameras? Well, DX was introduced because of a cost benefit factor. When DSLRs first arrived, sensors where very expensive. A full frame sensor would have put the price of the first series of DSLR cameras out of the range of almost everyone.

Hey, let's cut cost by shrinking the sensor, and increase profits by selling DX lenses! Great idea.
Oh yea, one more thing. We compare everything to 35mm because it is the most popular format and is universal.

Okay, off track. Back to 'reach'. Think of the word 'reach' like 'dialing a phone'.

Have a Merry Happy!

Jim Stamates
Nikonians Academy Workshop Instructor

http://www.nikoniansacademy.com
http://stamates.com/blog
http://www.stamates.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
jbloom Gold Member Awarded for the continuous and generous sharing of his high level expertise and his always encouraging comments in several forums. Nikonian since 15th Jul 2004Tue 18-Dec-12 06:15 PM
6612 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#26. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 25


Wethersfield, US
          

Many activities develop their own jargon unique to that activity. Just because dictionaries don't acknowledge it or simply haven't caught up to fast-moving language shifts doesn't make that terminology wrong.

The reason we use "reach" and focal-length "equivalents" to describe the difference between sensor sizes is because it is handy when comparing the way different lenses work on different bodies. Saying to someone: "If you move from DX to FX your 300-mm lens will have the reach of a 200-mm lens on your DX body," is an easy way of giving them an idea of the difference since they are likely to be somewhat familiar with a DX 200-mm FOV.

>What is actually going on is cropping.

Not completely, because seldom are we comparing a DX sensor to an FX sensor that, when cropped, would produce the same image resolution (number of megapixels). If all sensors had the same pixel density, "cropping" would be the ideal way to describe the difference between DX and FX. But they don't, which is why we have to resort to other ways of easily thinking about the differences.

The burden is on those who complain about this use of language to come up with another way of saying it. Note that the way you come up should let the reader intuitively visualize the difference based on experience with their existing format and be less confusing than "reach." So "crop factor" doesn't really get it done. And you get no points for literal technical accuracy since this is not an exercise in pedantry.

-- Jon
Wethersfield, CT, USA
Connecticut High School Sports Photos

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Jimi Team Member Nikonian since 09th Nov 2006Tue 18-Dec-12 08:15 PM
327 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#27. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 26


South Lake Tahoe, US
          

It was an exercise in humor. I always wanted to be a stand up comic, now I'm too old to stand up.

Crop factor is exactly what is going on. Image quality and pixel density have nothing to do with reach.

Now, two photographers walk into a bar...

Jim Stamates
Nikonians Academy Workshop Instructor

http://www.nikoniansacademy.com
http://stamates.com/blog
http://www.stamates.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
phlash46 Registered since 01st Feb 2008Tue 18-Dec-12 09:26 PM
2207 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#28. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 27


Peekskill, US
          

>It was an exercise in humor. I always wanted to be a stand up
>comic, now I'm too old to stand up.
> I know the feeling...
>Crop factor is exactly what is going on. Image quality and
>pixel density have nothing to do with reach.
> Yes, they do. If I tae a picture of someting with a 300mm lens on a D700 and then take the same picture (standing in the same place, same central focus point) with the same lens on a D300 body I get...drum roll, 2 captures on 12 mp sensors with identical pixel density. However, when I crop down the D700 capture to match the one from the D300 I get...drum roll, captures of the same scene at 12 mp from my D300 and about 5 mp fromm my D700. Assuming not low light or fast movement where the D700 is better, which one would you rather have? Which one has better image quality?
>Now, two photographers walk into a bar...
I've heard this one...

New York Nikoner
My Nikonians Gallery

"Insanity is repeating the same process expecting a different result" Albert Einstein

NAS can go into remission, but, it is incurable.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
cwils02 Gold Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2012Thu 27-Dec-12 03:51 AM
807 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#31. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 24


HIXSON, US
          

Allen,

Not sure who to reply to here. If I understand where this conversation has ended, The D800 has greater "Reach" than a D600?

Okay, many could agree that a 300mm lens has greater reach than a 200mm lens, wouldn't they? Hmmm... When I shoot a photo on my D7000/18-200mm VRII combination (at max focal length), the EXIF data says that my focal length is 200mm, but it also says that the 35mm focal length is 300mm.

Now the same lens on a D600 would show the focal length at 200mm, and the 35mm focal length is also 200mm. Or if you select DX for the lens, does it also say 300mm for the 35mm focal length?

Now, let's look at non-cropped sizes. On the D7000, it would be 16mp and on the D600, it would be 10mp, using the same exact lens. Based on what several have said before, then it's the D7000 that has more reach.

Yikes! I'm just going to say that lenses have more reach on a cropped sensor camera, and not worry about the absolutely correct way to say it. I'm pretty sure that most will understand what I am saying.

Charlie

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Sat 29-Dec-12 01:18 PM
10916 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#32. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 0


US
          

>> If I hear one more person tell me how they love the extra reach that the DX format gives them I will make an appointment with a shrink.

I would suggest you find a shrink who is also a serious birder .

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
cwils02 Gold Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2012Sun 30-Dec-12 05:23 AM
807 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#33. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 32


HIXSON, US
          

Neil,

Wish that I had said that.

Charlie

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

dclarhorn Moderator In depth knowledge and high level skills in a variety of areas including landscape Nikonian since 31st Mar 2002Sun 30-Dec-12 12:06 PM
14335 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#34. "RE: How can I be polite and say this ?"
In response to Reply # 0


Berwyn Heights, US
          

Understanding pixel density, focal length, crop factor and field of view, I'm comfortable with the terminology.


Dan L.
http://www.danlarussophotography.com/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby MULTILINGUAL NIKONIANS English Café (Public) topic #85836 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.