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
Learning
Photography Q&A
Help me understand FX vs. DX
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="hark" data-source="post: 519286" data-attributes="member: 13196"><p>Just to clarify the light loss thought...there was a comment posted here recently saying a DX is a teleconverter on its own. It isn't. There isn't any light loss. </p><p></p><p>The sensors between FX and DX are different. If you don't crop the FX, then FX is superior. Period. </p><p></p><p>BUT...if you take a photo with a 600mm camera on DX then switch the lens to FX without moving closer to your subject, you will need to crop the FX image to give you a comparable view of the image that the DX took. </p><p></p><p>That's where the image from the FX suffers. Cropping away those megapixels lowers the overall megapixels. If you were to blow up both images to 18" wide, the FX image will need to be enlarged more because it was cropped. You've cut away of the file size by cropping so it is smaller. And because the cropped FX image has to be enlarged to make the view the same as what you see in a DX image, any noise now becomes more noticeable (even though the FX sensors are MUCH better with handling noise).</p><p></p><p>If you choose to go with FX, there are 2 ways around it. You can get a teleconverter. However, there will be light loss, and because there is additional glass between the lens and the sensor, the image will be degraded slightly. The other option is to buy a more expensive longer telephoto lens for the FX so you won't need to crop.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hark, post: 519286, member: 13196"] Just to clarify the light loss thought...there was a comment posted here recently saying a DX is a teleconverter on its own. It isn't. There isn't any light loss. The sensors between FX and DX are different. If you don't crop the FX, then FX is superior. Period. BUT...if you take a photo with a 600mm camera on DX then switch the lens to FX without moving closer to your subject, you will need to crop the FX image to give you a comparable view of the image that the DX took. That's where the image from the FX suffers. Cropping away those megapixels lowers the overall megapixels. If you were to blow up both images to 18" wide, the FX image will need to be enlarged more because it was cropped. You've cut away of the file size by cropping so it is smaller. And because the cropped FX image has to be enlarged to make the view the same as what you see in a DX image, any noise now becomes more noticeable (even though the FX sensors are MUCH better with handling noise). If you choose to go with FX, there are 2 ways around it. You can get a teleconverter. However, there will be light loss, and because there is additional glass between the lens and the sensor, the image will be degraded slightly. The other option is to buy a more expensive longer telephoto lens for the FX so you won't need to crop. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Help me understand FX vs. DX
Top