Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D600/D610
D600 and the Full Frame
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PhotoEnth47" data-source="post: 120994" data-attributes="member: 13095"><p>Thanks for that, BackdoorHippie. The point you have raised regarding lenses on FX is valid and one not everyone thinks about.</p><p></p><p>There is another point, and that is depth of field (DOF). I remember when I was using 35mm film, that I could get extremely small DOF, even when using a 50mm lens. Such small DOF is not quite possible when using APS-C cameras. A "normal" lens on 35mm is of course, 50mm, whereas on APS-C it is around 35mm. Even though the actual images from both of these (FX with 50mm, and DX with 35mm) will have the same field of view, and produce a picture that may look exactly the same, the DOF will be different. That is because the DX camera with a 35mm lens will have a DOF of a 35mm lens, not of a 50mm lens. And the wider the angle of the lens, the greater the DOF. This is simply an optical fact. </p><p></p><p>This difference is much more noticeable on small sensor cameras like digital compacts, where everything is almost always in focus in every picture (which is why those cameras typically don't offer any f-stops smaller that F8). It was very hard to isolate your subject from its background using "selective focus". I had until recently, a Fujifilm S200EXR, which was a lovely camera, with all the features and handling of a DSLR, except that it had a 1/1.6 sensor, which measured approx. 8.8mm x 6.6mm. The DOF problem, and the overall image quality is what made me change to a D90. I'm really glad I did, as there is simply no comparison between the two cameras in picture quality, even though both cameras have 12 megapixels. There is such a difference in the size of the pixels, that I worked out, if my D90 had the same pixel density as the Fuji, it would have more than 85 megapixels! So each pixel on my D90 is around 7 times larger than on my Fuji. No wonder then that the picture quality is so much greater.</p><p></p><p>So, if getting a small DOF is important to you, then FX is still a better option than DX.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PhotoEnth47, post: 120994, member: 13095"] Thanks for that, BackdoorHippie. The point you have raised regarding lenses on FX is valid and one not everyone thinks about. There is another point, and that is depth of field (DOF). I remember when I was using 35mm film, that I could get extremely small DOF, even when using a 50mm lens. Such small DOF is not quite possible when using APS-C cameras. A "normal" lens on 35mm is of course, 50mm, whereas on APS-C it is around 35mm. Even though the actual images from both of these (FX with 50mm, and DX with 35mm) will have the same field of view, and produce a picture that may look exactly the same, the DOF will be different. That is because the DX camera with a 35mm lens will have a DOF of a 35mm lens, not of a 50mm lens. And the wider the angle of the lens, the greater the DOF. This is simply an optical fact. This difference is much more noticeable on small sensor cameras like digital compacts, where everything is almost always in focus in every picture (which is why those cameras typically don't offer any f-stops smaller that F8). It was very hard to isolate your subject from its background using "selective focus". I had until recently, a Fujifilm S200EXR, which was a lovely camera, with all the features and handling of a DSLR, except that it had a 1/1.6 sensor, which measured approx. 8.8mm x 6.6mm. The DOF problem, and the overall image quality is what made me change to a D90. I'm really glad I did, as there is simply no comparison between the two cameras in picture quality, even though both cameras have 12 megapixels. There is such a difference in the size of the pixels, that I worked out, if my D90 had the same pixel density as the Fuji, it would have more than 85 megapixels! So each pixel on my D90 is around 7 times larger than on my Fuji. No wonder then that the picture quality is so much greater. So, if getting a small DOF is important to you, then FX is still a better option than DX. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D600/D610
D600 and the Full Frame
Top
