looking to try FX , but which body

4

480sparky

Senior Member
hark said:
I believe I understand where the misunderstanding comes from...let's say we are in a small room and want to take a group photo of 12 people. When using an FX camera with a 24mm lens, I am all the way back against the wall. I can't move back any further. I take the shot. Now when I switch to a DX camera with a 16mm lens, I am not able to move back further to accommodate for the 1.5 crop sensor difference. THIS is where I believe the misunderstanding takes place. There will be distortion around the edges. If the photographer isn't able to move back to account for the 1.5 crop and has to take both photos from the same place, there will be a difference in perspective which amounts to more distortion on a DX camera. However, if the photographer has the ability to move back and take the photo from further away, then it isn't so much of a problem.

It all boils down to where the photographer is standing in relation to the subject. I *think* that's what Glenn was trying to say earlier when he gave the example of being in a small crowded room.
Click to expand...

But if they stand in the same spot and have the same FOV, how can there be more distortion with one lens/sensor combination than the other?

That's what I'm asking for.

If I go into my back yard and toss on my 17-35 AF-D onto my D600, turn the zoom ring to, say, 20mm and shoot in DX mode, then turn off DX mode and zoom to 30mm, what will change? I never moved between the two. Won't I end up with the same image?
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
480sparky said:
To answer YOUR question, YES, I have shot with one of the lenses listed. The Nikkor 10-24. Since going to FX, I replaced it with a Nikkor 17-35. I see no difference between them, other than the apertures and the slight differences in FOVs.
Click to expand...

Sparky - Thank you for your answer. That is all I need to know.

It is obvious to me that what you see as acceptable might not be with me and there is nothing wrong with that. I am just a little more critical with my test and what bothers me might not bother you at all.

480sparky said:
But if they stand in the same spot and have the same FOV, how can there be more distortion with one lens/sensor combination than the other?

That's what I'm asking for.
Click to expand...

There is no point in answering your question if the distortion when using an UWA lens (less than 24mm and even more so less than 18mm) does not bother you. If you don't find the distortion disturbing when using these lenses, then it is all good. :)
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I took two photos of my Aussie. One was with DX at 18mm and the other was FX with 27mm (18mm is my widest so I chose its comparable FX counterpart). I stood in the same place and was close enough to cause distortion in both. Both photos are cropped of her head. Can you see a difference in that the DX view has more distortion than the FX? (I focused on her nose for both).

DX 18mm:

DX 18mm.jpg



FX 27mm:

FX 27mm.jpg
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
gqtuazon said:
Sparky - Thank you for your answer. That is all I need to know.

It is obvious to me that what you see as acceptable might not be with me and there is nothing wrong with that. I am just a little more critical with my test and what bothers me might not bother you at all.



There is no point in answering your question if the distortion when using an UWA lens (less than 24mm and even more so less than 18mm) does not bother you. If you don't find the distortion disturbing when using these lenses, then it is all good. :)
Click to expand...

It's not that the distortion doesn't bother me..... it's that I don't see the distortion you're saying exists. That's what I'm asking for..... what distortion?
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
hark said:
I took two photos of my Aussie. One was with DX at 18mm and the other was FX with 27mm (18mm is my widest so I chose its comparable FX counterpart). I stood in the same place and was close enough to cause distortion in both. Both photos are cropped of her head. Can you see a difference in that the DX view has more distortion than the FX? (I focused on her nose for both).

DX 18mm:

FX 27mm:
Click to expand...

the FX is aesthetically better looking. you dont have the distorted look of the wide angle where things that are close are big and things further seem much further away. I prefer the FX shot because aesthetically it looks better. even his nose compared to his head is in better proportions.

gorgeous how how. I love dogs. theyre so loyal.
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
iOK, I have to admit I'm not using my main computer with the huge monitor since it's in the shop being migrated to a new build and I'm stuck with my laptop.

But I'd like to know where the distortion differences are between these two I just took in my back yard.

20mm in DX format:
D61_3269.jpg




30mm in FX:
D61_3271.jpg




They sure look the same to me.
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
480sparky said:
iOK, I have to admit I'm not using my main computer with the huge monitor since it's in the shop being migrated to a new build and I'm stuck with my laptop.

But I'd like to know where the distortion differences are between these two I just took in my back yard.

20mm in DX format:
D61_3269.jpg




30mm in FX:
D61_3271.jpg




They sure look the same to me.
Click to expand...

Excellent example! :) Right click on both photos so they open in separate tabs then toggle back and forth between them. You should see the center area of one photo bubble outwards compared with the other. That is the difference in distortion between the two focal lengths. In this example, the distortion isn't too obvious when just looking at each separately. The difference is there though. The bottom line is that an 18mm photo on DX still exhibits the same distortion on FX. An 18mm image is still an 18mm image no matter which body it is on. It will cover the same field of view as a 27mm lens gives on an FX body, but it won't give the same perspective as a 27mm image.
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
hark said:
Excellent example! :) Right click on both photos so they open in separate tabs then toggle back and forth between them. You should see the center area of one photo bubble outwards compared with the other. That is the difference in distortion between the two focal lengths. In this example, the distortion isn't too obvious when just looking at each separately. The difference is there though. The bottom line is that an 18mm photo on DX still exhibits the same distortion on FX. An 18mm image is still an 18mm image no matter which body it is on. It will cover the same field of view as a 27mm lens gives on an FX body, but it won't give the same perspective as a 27mm image.
Click to expand...


Wait....... what?

We're talking abot optical properties of lenses? I thought we were discussing distortion due to physical distance from the subjects! Otherwise, there wouldn't be this mythical wall our backs are up against.

Well, gee whiz. You're ALWAYS going to have OPTICAL distortion, and there's ALWAYS going to be differences in those distortions between lenses. And as shown, even with the same lens at a different focal length. EVERY lens has distortion.... it's a fact of life.

I thought we were talking about shooting groups with wides on FX and ultra-wides on DX and the perspective distortion caused by being forced to shot close to them (i.e, the people in front are twice as large as the folks in the back row).
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
480sparky said:
Wait....... what?

We're talking abot optical properties of lenses? I thought we were discussing distortion due to physical distance from the subjects! Otherwise, there wouldn't be this mythical wall our backs are up against.

Well, gee whiz. You're ALWAYS going to have OPTICAL distortion, and there's ALWAYS going to be differences in those distortions between lenses. And as shown, even with the same lens at a different focal length. EVERY lens has distortion.... it's a fact of life.

I thought we were talking about shooting groups with wides on FX and ultra-wides on DX and the perspective distortion caused by being forced to shot close to them (i.e, the people in front are twice as large as the folks in the back row).
Click to expand...

But it is THAT type of distortion that cause noses to stick out further with one focal length than another. A 50mm lens on an FX camera won't yield the exact same photo as a 35mm lens on FX because of this optical property. Hello...that's where the difference of opinion comes from! ;)
 
S

stuartm

Senior Member
Um yeah... wow. Not the argument I intended to start. I think I'm going to rent a d600 for a week and see how that goes.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
 
E

Englischdude

Senior Member
as a newbie (assuming this is true going by your profile), I suggest you stick with the D7k. The D7k is a great high ISO / low light camera, that coupled with some good fast glass should give you pleasing results in a nightclub, bar or wherever, however, pleasing is of course subjective.
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
stuartm said:
Um yeah... wow. Not the argument I intended to start. I think I'm going to rent a d600 for a week and see how that goes.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If I came across as argumentative, I am truly sorry!!! :eek: That was not my intention at all. What I know about Sparky is that if anything, he knows more about photography than I do--I am not afraid to admit that. Plus he is quite tenacious so I hoped he would hang in there for the duration which he did. :encouragement: It's not that one of us was right and one was wrong...we just weren't on the same page. Unfortunately the written word has a lot to be desired in situations such as this. And the adage that a picture is worth 1000 words sure came into play here! Once Sparky posted his 2 photos, he was able to define the words that I lacked...optical distortion. So Sparky, if you are ever near Philly in the US, please let me know. I owe you a drink! :very_drunk: Thanks for hanging in there--and I think your 2 photos will be really beneficial for those who do not understand the concept of optical distortion. :cool: (I gotta remember this term!)

To the OP...renting a D600 will let you know definitively whether or not FX is for you. Good decision! ;) I just hope your wallet can afford it because I believe you will be pleasantly surprised as to its abilities! And please be sure to post some photos! :)
 
S

stuartm

Senior Member
I priced it out here in Canada and they are quite pricey so I imagine if I jump in il pick up a used one on the USA side.
And sorry I didn't mean to say argument so to speak. Optical distortion is a bit beyond my scope but it was great to see the comparison shots

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I..... just can't resist..... lol

48839645.jpg


But really, it is the best bang for buck outshooting A99, 5Dmk3, and I believe that's all the real competition it still has today in it's class/price range/etc.

Absolutely love mine thus far, and I've put on about 5k clicks on it since it came back from service.
 
Top