Debunking the DX reach myth

Started Nov 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
J Mankila
J Mankila Veteran Member • Posts: 4,234
Nope, sort of... :)

JCB123 wrote:

Aurora0026 wrote:

I still see a lot of people, even pros, talking about using DX for having extra reach. It seems that most people do not unterstand what's going on here. A smaller sized sensor will not magically give you more optical reach!

A DX camera gives you higher pixel density than an FX camera with the same number of pixels when using the same lens from the same distance. For wildlife photographers who cannot approach closer than a certain distance this provides what they quite reasonably refer to as "reach".

But why would there be an FX and DX sensor with the same pixel count? Isn't that rather an irrelevant scenario? Why would the pixel count be equalised?

What matters is the pixel pitch, or how the QE, electronics and oblique ray angles are managed with decreasing pixel pitch (actually, the last one is highly dependent on the sensor size, which hurts my argument). The D800 followed D7000's pixel pitch, and a future high resolution FX sensor could share that of D7100 and sport a roughly 54MP sensor. Making a larger sensor with the same pixel is not much of a problem.

Yes a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens ... , but get a life.

A 24MP DX sensor will have the equivalent of a 450mm lens in this case, yes, but so will a 54MP FX sensor in DX mode. Both will have the 'reach', but only one will have the flexibility.

-- hide signature --

Janne Mankila, Finland

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow