EGCC777LR From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6879 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Depends on the money you are looking to invest. The Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR served me well and there will be a number on the used market now for sensible money. Glass is a better investment than an expensive body if you only have limited funds, it is a better long term investment as lenses do not depreciate like bodies.
A good friend of mine has nearly 600 shots here on A.net with the Sigma 50-500mm. I have to say it is hard to beat for versatility and will stop you having to wory about getting dust on your sensor as you wont have to change it over with that lens, but it is a lot more expensive.
On the up side, on a DX sensor that would give you 75-750mm You could read the Pilot's ID badge with that......
Flown On B704,722,732/3/4/7/8/9,744,752,762/3/4,772,77W,A319,A320,A321,A330,A388,L1011,F-50,BAE146,CRJ100, Dash-8. Left
It would not. You cannot change the focal length of a lens by putting it on a different camera. What the smaller sensor does is give you a cropped version of the shot you would get with the larger sensor.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
NWA330nut From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 117 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6835 times:
So you are saying that if pictures a FX and DX sensor such as a D700 and D90 or D40 were compared, there wouldn't be any difference? They have about the same number of MP, if that even makes a difference.
Still, I cannot agree with what you are saying. Your link seemed to solidify my stance, but now I am just getting confused trying to understand what you are saying.
Quoting viv (Reply 5): No it is not. each part of the image will be the same size and show the same level of detail.
Still, I cannot derive this from Rockwell's page. That is the same page I learned to understand it years ago.
viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6822 times:
Let me try again. A lens has a specific focal length, let us say 200mm.
On a Fx camera, it will give an image of a subject. On a Dx camera, it will show the same subject at the same size, but in a smaller frame, with less space around it, i.e. cropped. This is why it is called "crop factor".
If you cropped the Fx image in Photoshop you would the same result as with the Dx camera.
Many people misunderstand this. They believe that, because a lens will fill the frame with a specific subject on a Dx camera and will not fill it with the same subject on a Fx camera, that somehow the lens on a Dx camera is more "powerful". In reality, the only thing that changes is the area enclosed by the frame.
That is my final word on this. I have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to explain it in this forum. People persist in the belief that a smaller sensor will give them more "reach", because it is "easier to fill the frame". But the frame is SMALLER.
[Edited 2011-09-20 07:02:57]
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
TristarAtLCA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 689 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6803 times:
To the OP,
Just as many have said, buy the best you can afford and don't overlook the used market. Some lenses are built like tanks and most respectable retailers will give a limited guarentee i.e a 3 month warranty or such like on some used items.
Quoting viv (Reply 7): Many people misunderstand this.
And I was one of the many until last year when a wedding photographer explained the error of my thinking.
The crop factor is the reduction of the field of view you get from a lens when used on a crop sensor camera as opposed to a full frame camera. The error so many people make (like I did) was that the crop rate had somehow become interpreted as a magnification factor when of course, if you think about it logically, it is nothing of the sort. How does a 70-200 on a D700 suddenly become a 105-300 on D7000? The simple answer is it doesn't!
I think people get confused (because I sure did) when they read a lens review and the review says something along the lines of 'the 24-105mm (DX equivalent 36-158mm)' they read that to mean the focal length magically increases on a DX body when they are actually referring to the field of view equivalent the lens returns to the sensor. The images on the Ken Rockwell link above clearly show this narrower view. Just see how much less is in the images of the crop bodies as opposed to the full frame despite being taken with the same lens in the same position.
[Edited 2011-09-20 08:30:06]
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
scopedude From Indonesia, joined Oct 2010, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6749 times:
to the OP: take a look at Tamron 70-300 VC USD. It's very sharp to 240mm, and quite sharp up to 300mm with good contrast. AF is nearly silent although not as fast as AF-S. I have many photos taken through this lens on D7000.
about FX/DX; the bottom line is focal length doesn't change (a 200mm is a 200mm), only the FOV is changed due to sensor coverage area
darreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6748 times:
Quoting scopedude (Reply 11): to the OP: take a look at Tamron 70-300 VC USD. It's very sharp to 240mm, and quite sharp up to 300mm with good contrast. AF is nearly silent although not as fast as AF-S. I have many photos taken through this lens on D7000.
I'll echo this. The Tamron 70-300 vc usd is an excellent bargain considering the image quality. It sits on my d7000 the most.
JForbes From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 27 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6728 times:
There is some misunderstanding in here, I'll see if I can clear the last bit of doubt from everyone. I'm going to use FX/DX to describe the formats in shorthand. FX is a 35mm sensor, DX is an APS-C sized sensor with, in the case of Nikon, a 1.5x crop factor.
People often note the "equivalent" focal length of a lens in 35mm terms - put a 50mm lens on a DX camera and it will have a field of view equivalent to an 80mm lens on an FX camera. But it is still a 50mm lens. It will have more depth of field than an 80mm lens on the FX camera would.
If the pixel density on the two sensors is the same, then the DX camera image will literally be the exact same thing as a crop from the full frame camera. So if you had two cameras with the same pixel density, and the same lens, but one camera had an FX sensor and the other had a DX sensor, the latter will simply be a crop of the former in appearance. In every way.
In reality, however, FX cameras tend to have less dense sensors. In the case of the Nikon D700, this is a particularly strong case. At only 12 megapixels, it is much less dense than Nikon's current 14MP lineup of DX cameras.
So if you were to take the same lens and put it on the 12MP D700 and a 14MP D7000, the D7000 image would at small magnifications appear to be the same thing as the cropped D700 image, but due to the much higher pixel density of the D7000, the image on the D7000 would have a lot more detail than the crop from the D700 image.
But if you were to compare the D700 to the D40, the images would be roughly the same (barring noise due to the sensors being much different).
So if you're in an area where you need as much telephoto as possible, having higher pixel density on an FX sensor will give more detail than having lower pixel density on a crop sensor with the same lens - you'd still need to crop the image from an FX sensor to match the DX sensor's image appearance. The DX sensor would not be more magnified than the FX sensor in this case. It would just be a lower resolution, smaller crop of what the FX sensor is doing.