DSLRUsers.com

Do I change to a faster camera 11fps.... thats the new Nikon, trust me, or stay with the D2xs......mmmmmm

The best value, for me as I do shot a lot of birds, is the extra reach the DX sensor gives to the lens over FF....... althrough it may not be a lot, but with things that are small and quick, every lens MM does count. It is vary rare that I shoot faster than 400 iso, but is does happen...... so I guess I will be staying with the DX sensor for a while..... just love the extra reach.....

If you go the new d3 you will be able to shoot both dx and ff

Kyle wrote:If you go the new d3 you will be able to shoot both dx and ff

...... buggar..... just got my f2.8 120-300mm...... I guess with all the Nikon glass I have, I will be using the D2xs for a while

Sorry if my post was useless bp..

The nikon model aimed at sports shooters is the main camera being released ATM..... 11fps and a lot more.......

would DX lenses work on it in FF mode? or would it be forced into HSC mode?
finally nikon catch up haha
i might snap up a D2xs as the prices fall.. or a D200 if budget doesnt quite scrape

-j

Using a DX lens will put the camera into DX crop mode. The edges of the viewfinder are then darkened.

I still dont fully understand this Full Frame bs..
the way i understand is that there is less 'cropped' with a Full Frame camera. but how does this make it different to a 'cropped' camera sensor? i mean, cant you frame the shot the same as a FF with a DX by moving the camera backwards? someone explain. then i will make up my mind

Laurie wrote:I still dont fully understand this Full Frame bs..
the way i understand is that there is less 'cropped' with a Full Frame camera. but how does this make it different to a 'cropped' camera sensor? i mean, cant you frame the shot the same as a FF with a DX by moving the camera backwards? someone explain. then i will make up my mind

Well really it's just that the FX sensor is physically larger than a DX sensor. So a DX sensor captures a smaller piece of the light projected onto it from the lens.

And yes, to get the same framing with the same lens as a DX camera... the FX camera has to be closer.

Big Pix - sounds like you need a D300 then!!!

DX sensor, 8fps, ISO up to 6400.... what's not to love?

Laurie wrote:I still dont fully understand this Full Frame bs..
the way i understand is that there is less 'cropped' with a Full Frame camera. but how does this make it different to a 'cropped' camera sensor? i mean, cant you frame the shot the same as a FF with a DX by moving the camera backwards? someone explain. then i will make up my mind

ok now....

for arguments sake, lets say we are talking about a 50mm lens, and we are talking in 35mm terms (FF).

on a 35mm body, the lens has a 50mm field of view.

on a DX sensor crop, the lens has a 75mm field of view.

you can get around this by shuffling back and forwards, to a point, but the field of view also has an effect on perspective... so a shot with a 50mm on a 35mm body will not be the same as a 50mm on a DX body, even if you achieve it so the shot is framed the same.

do a google search on field of view and how it affects perspective...

here's the wiki for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view

28mm on FF


50mm on FF


70mm on FF


or perhaps to make the context more relevant:

i believe i remember you noting that you once shot skateboard stuff. if you get a 28mm and 70mm lens, you will tend to find (if you frame your shot to capture the same area), the ramp will look much steeper with the 70mm. AFAIK... 50mm (on FF) is considered a normal lens... go wider than that, you are emphasising / exaggerating perspective... go longer and you are de-emphasising perspective.

this quote from wikipedia is useful, i think:

"Longer lenses magnify the subject more, apparently compressing distance and (when focused on the foreground) blurring the background because of their shallower depth of field. Wider lenses tend to magnify distance between objects while allowing greater depth of field."

i'll leave it to someone with more technical knowledge (gary?) to fully nut this out for you though.

edit: gave a bit of a more detailed explanation...

Note that the D3 in DX mode will throw away most of its resolution, as you would if you did the same crop in PP.

The advantage (?) in FX is that the photosites are larger, for a given res, meaning less noise, and that your wide angle lenses are even wider.

If neither of these affect you (and they don't affect me) then save a truckload of clams and kilos and get a D300 and 18-200, rather than a D3 and 14-24, 24-70,70-200.

big pix wrote:Do I change to a faster camera 11fps.... thats the new Nikon, trust me, or stay with the D2xs......mmmmmm

The best value, for me as I do shot a lot of birds, is the extra reach the DX sensor gives to the lens over FF....... althrough it may not be a lot, but with things that are small and quick, every lens MM does count. It is vary rare that I shoot faster than 400 iso, but is does happen...... so I guess I will be staying with the DX sensor for a while..... just love the extra reach.....

DX or EF-S for Canon, do not give you extra reach.

Laurie wrote:I still dont fully understand this Full Frame bs..
the way i understand is that there is less 'cropped' with a Full Frame camera. but how does this make it different to a 'cropped' camera sensor? i mean, cant you frame the shot the same as a FF with a DX by moving the camera backwards? someone explain. then i will make up my mind

Have a look here http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php? ... highlight=

for a discussion of focal length, perspective, etc.

Cheers

norbs wrote:

DX or EF-S for Canon, do not give you extra reach.

granted....... but you get the 1.4-5 crop factor which is a lot like having additional reach....... then you get in camera additional crop which has the effect of further reach, D2xs......and I am making these references to lens over 300mm and the additional reach or crop factor at long focal lenght lens makes a big difference when shooting birds, without loss of IQ. I am cropping some of these images even further and doing 420 x 594 colour prints that have great detail and image quality..... quite happy to send you a colour print

Edit:DX crop factor explained http://www.millhouse.nl/digitalcropfactorframe.html

Hi everyone,

would it be fair to say the following:
If you shoot ff with let's say 11MP and then crop the image to an equivalent of a 1.5 crop factor you get the same effect as shooting with a dx; however the resulting number of pixels (11MP devided by 1.5 = 7.3 MP ?) would be less than ff and therefore digitally zooming the image would become a bit more limited ?
However if you use a ff wideangle lens on a ff camera; the wide angle would be more pronounced compared to a dx because there is no crop factor.

HTH,
CD

christiand wrote:Hi everyone,

would it be fair to say the following:
If you shoot ff with let's say 11MP and then crop the image to an equivalent of a 1.5 crop factor you get the same effect as shooting with a dx; however the resulting number of pixels (11MP devided by 1.5 = 7.3 MP ?) would be less than ff and therefore digitally zooming the image would become a bit more limited ?

I initially thought no. But I'm not sure.

christiand wrote:However if you use a ff wideangle lens on a ff camera; the wide angle would be more pronounced compared to a dx because there is no crop factor.

HTH,
CD

when you put a ff wideangle on a ff camera, you are achieving a wider field of view than you could achieve on a dx cam.

this wider field of view exaggerates perspective, etc. see above post.

From http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond3/page2.asp

Image sizes(FX format)
• 4256 x 2832 [L; 12.1 MP]
• 3184 x 2120 [M; 6.8 MP]
• 2128 x 1416 [S; 3.0 MP]
Image sizes (DX format)
• 2784 x 1848 [L; 5.1 MP]
• 2080 x 1384 [M; 2.9 MP]
• 1392 x 920 [S; 1.3 MP]]
Image sizes (5:4 format)
• 3552 x 2832 [L; 10.0 MP]
• 2656 x 2120 [M; 5.6 MP]
• 1776 x 1416 [S; 2.5 MP]

So your 12.1 MP D3 it down to 5.1MP in DX format. Reason being that you are taking away quite a large area, if not a huge change in dimensions.

jamesw wrote:this wider field of view exaggerates perspective, etc. see above post.

Perspective has nothing to do with focal length, field of view, or any other attribute of the camera or lens. The pictures posted earlier in this thread demonstrate that.

Have a look here http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=27299&highlight= where this subject is discussed at length.

Cheers

Luke Smith wrote:Note that the D3 in DX mode will throw away most of its resolution, as you would if you did the same crop in PP.

The advantage (?) in FX is that the photosites are larger, for a given res, meaning less noise, and that your wide angle lenses are even wider.

It's not just a question of bigger/larger photosites=less noise but less Diffraction.
more than noise is the controll of Diffraction the most important thing in "D" photography

It' a physics law, have a look here http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

That's why IMOH Nikon came out with the first FF or FX of "just" 12 mp to have a smooth entrance in a "difficult rough world"

Ps: The D2X can get the best result of controll diffraction up to f11!!!!!!

digitor wrote:Perspective has nothing to do with focal length, field of view, or any other attribute of the camera or lens. The pictures posted earlier in this thread demonstrate that.

You are right. It is the distance from lens to subject. 20mm at 10m has exactly the same perspective as 50mm at 10m. But, for a given FOV, move closer with a shorter focal length....

While it is technically incorrect to say that wide lenses offer a different perspective, I am happy with that explanation, because they do, but not for the reasons that most people think.

Cheers

digitor wrote:

jamesw wrote:this wider field of view exaggerates perspective, etc. see above post.

Perspective has nothing to do with focal length, field of view, or any other attribute of the camera or lens. The pictures posted earlier in this thread demonstrate that.

Have a look here http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=27299&highlight= where this subject is discussed at length.

Cheers

but you surely would not argue if you framed a shot, and then shot it with two different lenses, they would (at least) have subtle differences...

because perspective is more about distance to subject, which you have informed me of previously.

a wide angle will tend to make you stand closer to your subject, and the converse applies with a telephoto.

jamesw wrote:a wide angle will tend to make you stand closer to your subject, and the converse applies with a telephoto.

I would have thought that where you were, relative to your subject, would control all of this. I'm not convinced, by your argument here, that a wider angle lens might want to make me stand any closer to, for instance, the Grand Canyon.

...

...

How you wished to convey an image of your subject from where you were, relative to your subject, or perhaps how much (or how little) of your subject you wished to show in the image, would then dictate your choice of lens.

gstark wrote:

jamesw wrote:a wide angle will tend to make you stand closer to your subject, and the converse applies with a telephoto.

I would have thought that where you were, relative to your subject, would control all of this. I'm not convinced, by your argument here, that a wider angle lens might want to make me stand any closer to, for instance, the Grand Canyon.

...

...

How you wished to convey an image of your subject from where you were, relative to your subject, or perhaps how much (or how little) of your subject you wished to show in the image, would then dictate your choice of lens.

yeah i wrote a really long post, thought it rambled a bit too much, so i just simplified it to what I said...

my initial thought (and your dispute with what I said, too) was that the wide angle could be used for a landscape shot... well then throw what I said out the window...

jamesw wrote:my initial thought (and your dispute with what I said, too) was that the wide angle could be used for a landscape shot... well then throw what I said out the window...

Just ftr ...

Not only can I produce a landscape image with a telephoto lens, it could be argued that, with the appropriate technique, I could even produce a more than satisfactory wide angle landscape image using a telephoto lens.

gstark wrote:

jamesw wrote:my initial thought (and your dispute with what I said, too) was that the wide angle could be used for a landscape shot... well then throw what I said out the window...

Just ftr ...

Not only can I produce a landscape image with a telephoto lens, it could be argued that, with the appropriate technique, I could even produce a more than satisfactory wide angle landscape image using a telephoto lens.

stiching?

jamesw wrote:stiching?

Not necessarily. It is often possible to cover the required FOV with a longer lens and longer distance to subject. I regularly shoot landscapes with a 50mm or 85mm. Also, a landscape shot does not necessarily have to be a wide angle shot. Some of the best landscapes (IMO) that I have seen have been taken with longer lenses.

Cheers

jamesw wrote:

gstark wrote:

jamesw wrote:my initial thought (and your dispute with what I said, too) was that the wide angle could be used for a landscape shot... well then throw what I said out the window...

Just ftr ...

Not only can I produce a landscape image with a telephoto lens, it could be argued that, with the appropriate technique, I could even produce a more than satisfactory wide angle landscape image using a telephoto lens.

stiching?

That's just one of many ways. As MattC said ....

Technique ... placement ... FoV .... and did I mention technique?

big pix wrote:...... so I guess I will be staying with the DX sensor for a while..... just love the extra reach.....

G'day

I'm not an engineer nor a techie boffin, but it is my understanding that a DX sensor does not give a lens extra reach. What they do is take an image and crop away the edges. This means that the subject takes up a higher percentage of the DX crop pixels hence the subject "appears" to be larger as if it was taken with a longer focal length lens. However the number of pixels that record details of the subject (bird?) remains the same.

CheersBob in Bull Creek

I wish the world would move on from this topic.

There is no "ideal" sensor size. 36mm is just an arbitary size based on an ancient motion picture film size. A medium format sensor (60mm?) will never be practical for most consumers, the lenses are too big and expensive to make, both from and engineering and materials point of view.

The DX format and its relatives (EF-S) are a good compromise for most people, allowing flexible lense choices (18 to 200mm!) and more than enough detail for most people. Shortcommings in electronic noise peformance at high ISOs is something that can and is being overcome through better semiconductor technology.

Any guesses as to what a 18-200 on DX equiv. lens would cost and weigh for 36mm?

tamron and sigma both make 28-300mm FF lenses, which would be similar to 18-200 on DX.

the tammy weighs 420g, sigma weighs 490g.

the nikon 18-200 weighs 560g.

notably the tam and sigma are 3.5-6.3, while nikon is 3.5-5.6 with VR.

jamesw wrote:tamron and sigma both make 28-300mm FF lenses... notably the tam and sigma are 3.5-6.3, while nikon is 3.5-5.6 with VR.

Canon make a 28-300IS that is f/3.5-5.6 and is by all reports quite nice to use. But you're right, it's not in the same game as the cheaper lenses from other manufacturers. It's just slightly disappointing that they don't have a crop equivalent like Nikon do. But then Nikon don't have a full-frame equivalent...