-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why complain about lack of reach with FX format.
- Thread starter buzzphotos
- Start date
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
Be careful Kerry. You list a lot of attributes that differentiate DX from FX and you also left out a bunch. It's not a mathmatical formula that you can plug numbers into and have it spit out an answer.
It's not a "fact" that DX is better than FX any more than the FX crowd can claim the opposite.
DX is better for you and that's great.
Mike Dawson
It's not a "fact" that DX is better than FX any more than the FX crowd can claim the opposite.
DX is better for you and that's great.
--
Mike Dawson
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
What is subjective about the reasons I stated? It isn't a list of my preferences, it's a list of objective differences.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
The OP was about the telephoto crop factor. That's what I've addressed. I don't think that I've left out any significant attribute that pertains to that issue, but if you think I've left out a bunch, I'd like to know what they are.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. There certainly are facts that can be demonstrated where one format is better than the other, for certain applications. In a general sense, FX is better for WA and high ISO performance, for example.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
I don't "prefer" the DX sensor. My preference for any given format would depend on the application.
What is wrong with you? Why are you posting this as if I've made any claims about high ISO performance that go against common knowledge? Making stuff up like this, does nothing but make you look like a fool.
More foolishness. Address the issue in total, as I outlined. Doing otherwise simply evades the issue. Aside from cost, you omitted size, weight, portability, usability, lens availability, etc.
More nonsense. So, you'd buy a $5k camera, then you'd put cheap glass on it, if it exists, that will lose a stop in order to try to offset the cost, size, weight, portability advantage of DX. Slower glass screws the AF in lower light conditions and needlessly burns higher ISO capability Brilliant....
I've already told you that I've never said that, princess. You can't show any post where I've said that. You insist on plucking things out of thin air, which again makes you look like a fool.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
George DeCamp
Senior Member
...they will for sure come out with a D3x sooner or later...probably sooner than later! However, I don't see them offering it with HSC modes at hi speeds. They have the D3 as their high speed camera, the D3x will probably be their hi MPX studio/landscape type camera.
Note I said "I think"...who knows! I don't see them shooting themselves in the foot by making a camera that will kill off D3 sales.
--
George DeCamp
http://www.decamp.net
Note I said "I think"...who knows! I don't see them shooting themselves in the foot by making a camera that will kill off D3 sales.
--
George DeCamp
http://www.decamp.net
You're right, the 400f2.8 is so much handier than the 600 f4. What was nikon thinking? And the 200 f2....why I can hold it up with just my pinky.
Nor is there a DX alternative to the 70-200 2.8, namely a 50-135 f2. Doesn't exist. DX forces us to lose things just as it forces us to "gain" things.
This all comes down to the longstanding refusal on your part to acknowledge that you're not taking the same picture with a 200 f2.8 on DX as you're taking on a 300 2.8 on FX. They're not the same picture. They have the same angle of view, but they don't have the same DOF. And they never will.
What you should be saying is "I find the lack of DOF isolation and bokeh characteristics of the DX format sufficient to the point that I don't want to go back to FX." It isn't that it's superior, it's that it's your opinion that it's good enough.
Remember Ed Betz's comments here a few weeks ago about the D3? About how he finally got to shoot a baseball pitcher with a 600mm again instead of a 400, and how much better the DOF isolation was and how he prefered that? Somehow, god bless him, he wasn't crushed under the weight of the 600mm, just like tens of thousands of film shooters before him weren't either. Somehow he found sufficient support for it, and found a way to pay for it. Or his newspaper did. Either way, the point remains the same. People have different opinions about this, but they're just that: opinions. There's nothing "objective" about saying I can use this lens to take a different picture than you can with that that lens, and my way is superior/preferred by everyone.
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
The 600 loses a stop of real light and is 1lb heavier. There is no 900mm f/4. True or not?
That's true. That doesn't negate anything that I've said.
This all comes down to you guys continually making stuff up, rather than just stating facts. I've never refused to acknowledge any objective fact, despite your silly assertions to the contrary.
No, I am not interested in arguing subjective issues. Weight, size, cost, and availability are not subjective issues.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Jim Fenton
Senior Member
Let me preface this by stating that while I do shoot all sorts of wildlife and landscapes, I shoot predominantly birds.
I would love a D3 with it's high noise capabilities, however, the reality is that for my type of shooting, it is not the correct tool due to it being a FF camera.
There are those who constantly tell those of us who "require" the DX FOV to simply get longer lenses.
I currently shoot a Nikon 500f4 with either a TC 14EII or a TC17EII and even with this equipment, I frequently shoot HSC mode as I'm wasting card space otherwise based on the size or proximity of my subjects.
A 600 f4 with TC's still won't give me the "reach" that I often require and currently achieve with a 1.5 crop. Not to mention that to those of us who actually go out and pursue our subjects in the field, rather than sitting stationary in a venue such as a press photographers area, find the additional weight to be a real issue.
A Sigma 800 is larger yet and looses more light...something which really is an issue relative to shutter speed when shooting early and late.
As far as those who argue that w should simply get closer to our subjects, that is a dead argument. I pride myself with being able to achieve a close, stealthy approach to my subjects and often times have to get to the minimum focus distance o the 500 (which is closer than the 600) to fill the frame in an adequate composition.
The DX crop in the FX format, simply will supply to few pixel's for the 16" x 20" prints which I routinely produce.
Great camera....would love to own one for those times I'm shooting landscapes and larger subjects....but it would leave me validly wanting the resolution and "reach" which the DX format provides.
--
Jim Fenton
http://www.pbase.com/soonipi1957
I would love a D3 with it's high noise capabilities, however, the reality is that for my type of shooting, it is not the correct tool due to it being a FF camera.
There are those who constantly tell those of us who "require" the DX FOV to simply get longer lenses.
I currently shoot a Nikon 500f4 with either a TC 14EII or a TC17EII and even with this equipment, I frequently shoot HSC mode as I'm wasting card space otherwise based on the size or proximity of my subjects.
A 600 f4 with TC's still won't give me the "reach" that I often require and currently achieve with a 1.5 crop. Not to mention that to those of us who actually go out and pursue our subjects in the field, rather than sitting stationary in a venue such as a press photographers area, find the additional weight to be a real issue.
A Sigma 800 is larger yet and looses more light...something which really is an issue relative to shutter speed when shooting early and late.
As far as those who argue that w should simply get closer to our subjects, that is a dead argument. I pride myself with being able to achieve a close, stealthy approach to my subjects and often times have to get to the minimum focus distance o the 500 (which is closer than the 600) to fill the frame in an adequate composition.
The DX crop in the FX format, simply will supply to few pixel's for the 16" x 20" prints which I routinely produce.
Great camera....would love to own one for those times I'm shooting landscapes and larger subjects....but it would leave me validly wanting the resolution and "reach" which the DX format provides.
--
Jim Fenton
http://www.pbase.com/soonipi1957
dannv
Senior Member
--
don't wait for technology -- it won't wait for you
I have been carrying all that stuff around for a couple of years. Yes it is expensive and heavy. But yes it also has some benefits over 300/4 attached with 1.5/1.6x prosumer body. Let's assume a keen bird photographer with D3 and 500/4VR, benefits:
- uncompromized action camera for moderately close-up birds.
- uncompromized picture quality for all ISOs as long as 500/4 and tele converters are enough
- possibility to use extension tubes for really close birds with f-4-4.5, interesting looking perspective and dof in some occasions.
- possibility to use some 1.5x body for distant situations (in good light) where you should severely crop with FF, used D2Xs or D300 is not bad surplus for an +$12.000 investment
Pictures from 300/4 were not up to par for big glass in 98% of situations I have encountered. Big glass is taking TCs so much better etc. etc. Of course there are drawbacks too, but you have listed them quite well already...-
http://www.jussivakkala.com
True. But the point of bringing up the 400 and 600 is because those are the
two lenses at the two f-stops that make the equivalent. And my point is that the size, weight, and support issue aren't really much different. Of course, you're still refusing to address the f-stop/DOF issue, instead trying to change the argument to an exposure issue.
But that's what I want. And if I take your tact, what I want is what everyone else should want, including you. My needs are more important than your needs. In fact, my needs are representative of the entire market.
I just stated a fact, and you now say I'm making something up. I'm not making it up: a 200 f2.8 on a DX lens is not the same picture as a 300 f2.8 on a FX. That is a fact.
Is ignore the same as refuse to acknowledge?
Don't stop believin'...hold on to that feelin'....
Don't think of FX as having lack of reach, but rather DX has lack of wide.
18mm on a full frame camera looks a million times better than 12mm on a DX camera.
--
Yukon Territory / Canada
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoshq
18mm on a full frame camera looks a million times better than 12mm on a DX camera.
--
Yukon Territory / Canada
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoshq
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
Those 2 lenses are not "equivalent". They differ by 1 full stop for purposes of exposure and AF capability. They are only "similar" in the relative DOF to be had for the 2 formats.
Since when, is DOF a critical issue that trumps exposure? Since when, is DOF more important than a full stop of light for AF? What kind of nonsense is that? It's FF marketing nonsense.
Now you're being just as stupid as the other guy.
You offered that nonsense as if I stated that you'd get the same picture with different formats. I have never stated that one can get identical photos on different formats. That is a lie that you have made up. Lying to try to prove your point, proves nothing more than that you're a liar. You ignore the facts that I presented and then lie about what I've said. Good job.....
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
Why would you use a 300 f/4 on the 1.6 body, rather than a 300 f/2.8?
Why wouldn't you use the 500 f/4 on the 1.6 body? Isn't it because the 1.6 bodies were 8mp and the FF bodies that you used were either 12 or 16mp? Such disparity in pixel density makes a significant difference, does it not?
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Weight advantage you mentioned earlier is not too much to mention with 500/4 vs. 300/2.8, at least that is the situation in Canon lineup. In real life 300/2.8 is practically always used with teleconverters for birding, no matter what dslr -body (ie crop ratio) is used. That is my observation from field, also people are upgrading from 300/2.8 to 500/4 as they have noticed the difference of 100mm with equal speed in real life bird photography.
I sacked 1.6x very soon after I got my hands into 5D and 1DMKIII. In real life it stayed in bag useless. But test yourself what combination is most suitable for you , practice hard but do not get tangled in pixel counting and ratio theories. That is my advice for you.
-
http://www.jussivakkala.com
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
What you wrote sounds like a complaint too.
Most of the times, poorly. Especially hobbyists were affected. You will see shortly.
Standards changed, we are spoiled with sharpness.
What is your personal experience in this field?
--
no text
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
Yes, that is true, which brings to play the lens availability issue. The lenses aren't too much different in weight, because they aren't the same speed. The weight advantage would come if the lenses were the same speed.
I assume that you mean equal speed, because you're not using a TC on the 500.
Sure, that makes perfect sense, especially with the 1dmk3. You get more MP's than the 30d, pro AF and retain excellent high ISO performance.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum