Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

FX vs DX and Wide Angle

DKESLERFL

Miami (Coconut Grove), US
3198 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

"RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle"

DKESLERFL Registered since 21st Mar 2003
Thu 03-Jul-08 08:34 PM | edited Thu 03-Jul-08 08:42 PM by DKESLERFL

AJ,

I have to take issue with all this. To me the less distortion of a scene the better, and the problem with DX and going wide is that you have to use such extremely wide focal lengths to accomplish the task and are left with scenes that while you do get everything into them, stuff gets pushed too far back and shrinks into the image, contains lots of barrel distortion, and the edge distortion is pathetic when used for demanding applications such as architecture, portraiture, product shots, photo copying, etc. Especially when compared to shooting the same scene at a substantially longer focal length.

Landscapes are not the best test of all this because they are usually not nearly as demanding in the edge areas - where round tables become oval and faces become elongated.

I shoot a lot of architectural shots, in fact they are my bread and butter. 70 percent of my work has been with the D2X and the 12-24. It has been no easy task and I have waited patiently (sort of) for FX ever sense the day I went digital. The 700 and the new 24mm PC will reduce my MF/Digital back rentals easily by six grand before the end of the year. When the 24 megapixel model comes along it will get even better.

This is a serious camera and a milestone in digital photography. I can't wait to have an FX camera that will give me twelve mega pixels in DX mode. That's going to truly be sweet for my wildlife photos and fantastic for my architectural work. As it stands the D2X will fulfill my long lens needs up to that time, and the 700 will be my medium telephoto to super wide machine with my 14-24 2.8 being on it most of the time. No contest!


Regards,

Don Kesler

http://www.donaldkesler.com

Through the judicious use of adjustment layers, no pixels were actually harmed in the processing of my shots..

This is a hot, active topic! FX vs DX and Wide Angle [View all] , Valentino Awarded for high level skills in landscape and wildlife photography , Wed 02-Jul-08 11:28 AM
Subject
ID
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
1
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
2
     Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
3
          Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
4
          Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
6
          Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
7
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
5
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
8
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
9
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
10
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
11
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
12
     Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
13
Reply message As wide as it gets on DX
14
Reply message RE: As wide as it gets on DX
15
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
16
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
17
     Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
18
          Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
19
               Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
20
               Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
21
               Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
23
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
22
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
24
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
25
Reply message RE: FX vs DX and Wide Angle
26