Why complain about lack of reach with FX format.

[buzzphotos]

I hear a lot of posters complaining about the FX format requiring long telephoto lenses as opposed to DX format where the 1.5x crop factor give you a smaller FOV spread across the DX sensor with same megapixels.

How did these people cope with the FF film bodies before digital? Is film more forgiving when blowing up a cropped portion of the picture than the DX 5MP crop from the D3 would be?

Are they so used to the FOV of 1.5x crop cameras that they have forgotten how they used to get by on a FF film body without having a long telephoto lens handy?

 

[michaeladawson]

How did these people cope with the FF film bodies before digital? Is
film more forgiving when blowing up a cropped portion of the picture
than the DX 5MP crop from the D3 would be?

How did they cope? They didn't. There weren't really many options unless you were rich and could buy the huge teles. DX format has made wildlife photography accessible to a larger audience that were priced out of it before.

Many of the posters in this forum were never really into film. Some are too young and picked up photography as digital from the start. Others are older but still really only started in photography once digital became popular. Then you have those users that are very familiar with film but their primary interest is fully met my DX. They're either wildlife photographers or have no need for ultra wide angle. On top of this many don't really have any need for superlative high ISO performance.

Bottom line is that you now have a lot of people who could do quite well with the 300mm f/4 or the 70-300 zoom on a DX body. Now you introduce FX and their only option is to spend huge bucks on a 500mm f/4 lens.

What would you do?

Are they so used to the FOV of 1.5x crop cameras that they have
forgotten how they used to get by on a FF film body without having a
long telephoto lens handy?

See my response above.

--
Mike Dawson

 

[Kerry Pierce]

I hear a lot of posters complaining about the FX format requiring
long telephoto lenses as opposed to DX format where the 1.5x crop
factor give you a smaller FOV spread across the DX sensor with same
megapixels.

How did these people cope with the FF film bodies before digital? Is
film more forgiving when blowing up a cropped portion of the picture
than the DX 5MP crop from the D3 would be?

There is an easy way to answer your questions yourself. Make 2 photos from your d200, at the same subject distance, one at 200mm and the other at 300mm, then crop the 200mm shot to give the same FOV as the 300mm shot. Print both at 12x18 and see which one you like the best.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Higuma]

A better test would be to shoot a D200 with a 200mm lens against a D3 with a 300mm then crop down the D3 shot to match the 200 FOV and print at your stated size...

Objectively I think that the D3 shot will still kickass&takenames at that size of print...

The fairest test for the DX crowd would be to do the same test using a D300 and a D3... This would tell you if all the "loss of 1.5x crop factor" winning had any real basis in practical terms...

I will likely perform this test myself after getting my bodies and post the results here...

Test 1 - - D300 with 80-200 2.8 ED @ 200mm compared to the D3 with 300 2.8 ED at the same time and location...

Test 2 - - Same situation but with the a 1.4 TC on the D3 300mmm combo...

Personally I still think that the D3 will hold it's own in this situation... Doubt it will exceed the D300 but will "hold it's own" with the advantage swinging the D3's way as soon as the ISO starts to climb past 800...

From a practical standpoint I can see where the D3's better ISO will be advantages when shooting wildlife in low light - I'd rather crop by 33% then have to do noise reduction any day...

Cheers...

 

[Kerry Pierce]

The guy apparently wants to know the difference of FX vs DX crop factor. The method I outlined is the easiest and fastest way to demonstrate same, with the equipment he already has at his disposal. It doesn't need to be a test between 2 specific cameras, which throws a ton of other variables in the mess. Fair has nothing to do with an objective test.

A better test would be to shoot a D200 with a 200mm lens against a D3
with a 300mm then crop down the D3 shot to match the 200 FOV and
print at your stated size...

You talk about being "fair" then want to compare 10mp against 12, which is not what the OP asked for nor does it properly address the actual difference for crop factor. You wouldn't need to crop the d3 shot with your stated 200 vs 300.

Objectively I think that the D3 shot will still kickass&takenames at
that size of print...

A little bit of hype there? So, now the d3 will be worlds better than every other camera in existence?

The fairest test for the DX crowd would be to do the same test using
a D300 and a D3... This would tell you if all the "loss of 1.5x crop
factor" winning had any real basis in practical terms...

I think I'd be more than willing to put a wager on the d300 vs a 5mp d3 file when printed at 12x18.

I will likely perform this test myself after getting my bodies and
post the results here...

Test 1 - - D300 with 80-200 2.8 ED @ 200mm compared to the D3 with
300 2.8 ED at the same time and location...

No, you're goofing the test. Use the same lens on both cameras and crop the d3. That gives you the real DX crop factor advantage.

We already know the FF penalty for doing it the way you describe. That 300 f/2.8 is heavier and much more expensive, on top of the expense of the d3 vs d300.

From a practical standpoint I can see where the D3's better ISO will
be advantages when shooting wildlife in low light - I'd rather crop
by 33% then have to do noise reduction any day...

The crop is to very slightly over 5mp.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Jim Fenton]

To be fair however, I suppose it matters if you're shooting something like elephants or birds

Seriously....when I shoot a fox in the wild using a 500 f4 with a TC14EII on a DX body and HSC.....I might as well stand there and watch it if I were shooting FF....unless of course I was going to do nothing other than display it on the web.
--
Jim Fenton
http://www.pbase.com/soonipi1957

 

[Higuma]

Beg to differ all we want from what ever side of this we wish to champion...

But this is all just "theory & supposition" until we see a real world test... We'll just have to wait and see...

In the interim my own suppositions remains unchanged...

Cheers...

 

[Marco]

Test 1 - - D300 with 80-200 2.8 ED @ 200mm compared to the D3 with
300 2.8 ED at the same time and location...

Test 2 - - Same situation but with the a 1.4 TC on the D3 300mmm
combo...

mmm... this is not fair also... I already know the answer giving my 300/2.8 VR is much better than my 70-200/2.8 VR at 200mm.

The "fair" test should be using the 70-200 at 200mm (or the 300 VR for that matter) on both cameras, with the D3 in DX mode and then print the results at the same size, after interpolating the 5 Mp D3 DX if needed.

Anyway I'm with you, we have to wait and see the actual output from the D3 and D300 before making valid assumptions on the "loss" of subject-resolution with the D3 FX.

So far after seeing images on the web from both cameras I rate the D3 IQ (not only noise) so much better than D300's that I'd prefer to crop the D3 instead of using the D300... but I guess D300 firmware is still in its final development so I'm ready to eat my words

One thing is for sure, the great D3 high ISOs performance would let me use a 1.4x or 1.7x TC wih ease, also stopped down to recup the loss of sharpness at wider apertures.

Just look at the monkey shot at 1600 ISO... taken with the TC-14E and stopped down 1 and 1/3 stop (effective f/6.3). It's very detailed and still at least as clean as my D200 400 ISO.

That's two stops in good light (at higher ISO settings the difference is probably as much as 3 stops...) meaning I could use a 1.4x (to recup the crop factor) stopped down 1 stop (to recup the loss of detail) and still have the same shutter speed.

If I were a bird shooter I'd probably don't bother with the D3 and be happy with the D2X, but that's all.

 

[Anastigmat]

How did these people cope with the FF film bodies before digital? Is
film more forgiving when blowing up a cropped portion of the picture
than the DX 5MP crop from the D3 would be?

How did they cope? They didn't. There weren't really many options
unless you were rich and could buy the huge teles. DX format has
made wildlife photography accessible to a larger audience that were
priced out of it before.

That is an illusion. Olympus marketed a half frame film camera called the Pen F, and it surely did not make wildlife photography accessible to more people. There is no need to shrink the sensor to make telephotos appear longer. It is just making lemonade when you have got lemon (a small sensor that is forced on users because of economic reasons).

Many of the posters in this forum were never really into film. Some
are too young and picked up photography as digital from the start.
Others are older but still really only started in photography once
digital became popular. Then you have those users that are very
familiar with film but their primary interest is fully met my DX.
They're either wildlife photographers or have no need for ultra wide
angle. On top of this many don't really have any need for
superlative high ISO performance.

Wild animals do not stand still. They do interesting things when they move. To capture these interesting moments, it is sometimes necessary to use high ISO settings in less than ideal light. Wildlife photographers actually benefit more from the D3 than they do from the delusion of longer reach with a cropped sensor.

Bottom line is that you now have a lot of people who could do quite
well with the 300mm f/4 or the 70-300 zoom on a DX body. Now you
introduce FX and their only option is to spend huge bucks on a 500mm
f/4 lens.

Not really. An FX sensor is approximately twice the size of an APS-C sensor. If one wants to simulate a DX camera, all that one needs to do is crop the image taken with a FX sensor to APS-C size again. Voila, you have the same "reach" you used to have with a DX camera.

What would you do?

Are they so used to the FOV of 1.5x crop cameras that they have
forgotten how they used to get by on a FF film body without having a
long telephoto lens handy?

See my response above.

--
Mike Dawson

I think it is just a knee jerk reaction to the full frame format. Many people think that sports and wildlife photography are better served by a cropped sensor. Not so. Canon's 1D MKIII is a 1.3x crop sensor. Theoretically it is not as good as Canon's 1.6x crop cameras such as the 40D for sports, correct? If so, why does the 1D cost more than a 40D? If small sensors are so great for wildlife photography, then may be we should all sell our APS-C cameras and full frame cameras and go get an olympus 4/3 format camera.

 

[michaeladawson]

Wild animals do not stand still. They do interesting things when
they move. To capture these interesting moments, it is sometimes
necessary to use high ISO settings in less than ideal light.
Wildlife photographers actually benefit more from the D3 than they do
from the delusion of longer reach with a cropped sensor.

I agree. But that argument is lost on most people. They look at the smaller FOV they get with DX and that's it.

Not really. An FX sensor is approximately twice the size of an APS-C
sensor. If one wants to simulate a DX camera, all that one needs to
do is crop the image taken with a FX sensor to APS-C size again.
Voila, you have the same "reach" you used to have with a DX camera.

This is your one truly bad comment. Take a 12 MP D3 and a 12 MP D300. Put a 300mm lens on each. Now crop the D3 to DX format. What do you have? 5 MP from the D3 while your D300 still has 12 MP.

--
Mike Dawson

 

[Jarkko Haarla Jr]

Just wait for the 24mp DXx to come out and nobody needs to complain.

FF format will give superior wide angles, noise and control over depth of field. Cropping for better reach should be an issue with a higher resolution body.

Neither should buying a AF-S 600 mm AF-S VR IF-ED G T lens be an issue for somebody getting serious about long reach telephoto.

The digital age has brought forward people ( not photographers ) with expensive cameras complaining that the image edges get darker with their 12000 euro body+lens combo and they wonder why. Either the gear is still too cheap or people have too much money.

 

[lanef]

I hear a lot of posters complaining about the FX format requiring
long telephoto lenses as opposed to DX format where the 1.5x crop
factor give you a smaller FOV spread across the DX sensor with same
megapixels.

How did these people cope with the FF film bodies before digital? Is
film more forgiving when blowing up a cropped portion of the picture
than the DX 5MP crop from the D3 would be?

Are they so used to the FOV of 1.5x crop cameras that they have
forgotten how they used to get by on a FF film body without having a
long telephoto lens handy?

When experienced photographers want more reach they choose a longer lens not a smaller sensor. Smaller sensor does not change the focal length or the magnification, only the FOV is changed.

 

[JoeR]

On a D2x there is absolutely no difference between an image taken at 1.5x and cropped to 2x or the same image taken at 2x. Try it and see. This is the best test since no additional variables muddy up the results. I'm a "birder", and prefer to shoot the D2x at 1.5. It is more forgiving on a moving target and provides some flexibility with cropping.

Now, when comparing a DX camera to a FX, the results may be different due to the pixel density of the sensors. On two 12MP cameras, I'm speculating the the DX image would be better with regard to detail, although it may have more noise.

We'll have to wait and see.

I've got my order in for the D300.

joer56

 

[pp168]

Where are all those folks complaining about noise and discussing the lack of FF?!?! Propably the same folks are complaining now about the lack of missing reach because of the FF... They have to complain about anything instead....

lol

Cheers and have a nice sunday,

Oliver

 

[DogShot]

There are few axioms in life (or image quality), but one might be that when it comes to gathering light for the image (be it film or a sensor), bigger is always better. The only reasons for going smaller are for convenience, technological impositions, or cost. The D3 poses a barrier in terms of cost, but even that is not so large in the context of photography as a hobby or profession. I can't wait to leave DX behind.

 

[pertti]

This is your one truly bad comment. Take a 12 MP D3 and a 12 MP
D300. Put a 300mm lens on each. Now crop the D3 to DX format. What
do you have? 5 MP from the D3 while your D300 still has 12 MP.

Otoh: if you put 1.4 tele converter into D3 you will have a way better system overall unless you have to crop resulting picture. With D3 lens has to resolve less, you have more room for depth of field adjustments and high ISO settings. Picture from bigger sensor with equal technology is looking more correct with colors and so on, even with low ISOs. I couldn't get that kind of color layout with 'pixel advantage' of Canon 30D, but with 1DMKIII this has become the norm:

Quite randomly selected from an hour shootout, 50% crop, slight USM



If you think you can sort 500/4 lens out from 300/4 lens by crop factors and tele converters then good luck for you I have used (a lot) three different crop ratios for bird shooting this year. I have 500/4 and would say that I prefer 1.3 or FF any day over 1.6 crop ratio for majority of situations. And that is why I sold 30D. If you really need 500mm or 600mm it will not materialize with crop factors and 300/4, at least that is my experience from five years of bird photography.

off topic: By looking Nikon D3 samples, I can suggest people even more to go for bigger sensor!

-
http://www.jussivakkala.com

 

[PerL]

This is your one truly bad comment. Take a 12 MP D3 and a 12 MP
D300. Put a 300mm lens on each. Now crop the D3 to DX format. What
do you have? 5 MP from the D3 while your D300 still has 12 MP.

Otoh: if you put 1.4 tele converter into D3 you will have a way
better system overall unless you have to crop resulting picture. With
D3 lens has to resolve less, you have more room for depth of field
adjustments and high ISO settings. Picture from bigger sensor with
equal technology is looking more correct with colors and so on, even
with low ISOs. I couldn't get that kind of color layout with 'pixel
advantage' of Canon 30D, but with 1DMKIII this has become the norm:

The TC suggestion with a FF is an interesting option the gain the "reach" of a crop sensor. On the other hand, how do I get something like the 18-200VR (28-300 in a small package) with a FF? For travelling light crop cameras seems to be the best choice.

--
Small D200 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d200_12
Small D40 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d40_12
Small Nikon P5000 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/nikonp5000_12
http://www.pbase.com/interactive

 

[DonBJr]

How did these people cope with the FF film bodies before digital? Is
film more forgiving when blowing up a cropped portion of the picture
than the DX 5MP crop from the D3 would be?

Your argument can easily be reversed. How did photographers cope without such high ISO's?

Better technology allows for better results under increasingly diverse shooting conditions. I'd love to have better high ISOs. I'd also love to have more reach. Photography is about trade offs. This is just another one.

I currently have a d200 with a 300f4 and 1.4x teleconverter (along with some shorter lenses). I find I never use my 300 without the teleconverter as it is now. And with this setup, I find myself wishing for more reach.

I'm considering getting a 200-400 or a 500, but I want these lenses to get me more reach than I have now. I don't want them to get me back to where I started because I went out and bought a FX camera.

It's true that we each have our own perspective. If all I had ever used was FX, then the D3 would still be a great upgrade. However, my experience is with DX, so while the D3 is an upgrade in many ways, I would also be losing something. (And I'd be losing something after spending $5000 on a body that's going to be 'obsolete' in a couple years anyway.) That's just the way it is.

 

[michaeladawson]

--
Mike Dawson

 

[michaeladawson]

Much simpler explanation is that the noise and FF crowd is now silent because they have what they want (and I'm in that crowd) and it's the DX crowd that is now worried about the future of DX.

I have nothing against DX. I think Nikon should continue with both. The question is going to be whether Nikon continues to support both formats at the flagship level or whether DX is relegated to the consumer section.

Where are all those folks complaining about noise and discussing the
lack of FF?!?! Propably the same folks are complaining now about the
lack of missing reach because of the FF... They have to complain
about anything instead....

lol

Cheers and have a nice sunday,

Oliver

--
Mike Dawson