Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 173071" data-attributes="member: 12496">Any FX zoom benefit is towards wide angle.&nbsp;&nbsp; 24 mm on FX is 24mm and rather wide.&nbsp; The 24mm on DX is 36 mm effective comparison, really a normal view lens for DX, not wide angle at all.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; &nbsp; But on DX, 200mm is 300mm effective view (compared to FX), and on FX, same lens is &quot;only&quot; 200mm.&nbsp; For that reason, DX seems pretty important to sports and wildlife photographers. But yes, FX could be cropped the same DX size, with maybe a few less pixels, but still a lot, and still same view as DX.FX is a sensor 1.5x times larger dimensions than DX, so it has 2.25x area to have more pixels, or it could have larger pixels, or possibly a combination of both.&nbsp; Larger pixels are favored for their lower noise, which allows much higher ISO to be used.&nbsp;&nbsp; New sensors like the D7100 are improved and very good, but the D800 also is, even with 36 megapixels, still seems to lead (on usability of highest ISO).So, you would buy FX for one or both of those reasons, more wide angle, and/or higher ISO with lower noise, or like the D800, possibly those two plus the resolution of more pixels (36 mp).You would not buy FX for its telephoto performance, and not just because it can also do DX (and other) crops, but it can do that too.&nbsp; So more choices (but we cannot say DX could simulate FX).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 173071, member: 12496"] Any FX zoom benefit is towards wide angle. 24 mm on FX is 24mm and rather wide. The 24mm on DX is 36 mm effective comparison, really a normal view lens for DX, not wide angle at all. :) But on DX, 200mm is 300mm effective view (compared to FX), and on FX, same lens is "only" 200mm. For that reason, DX seems pretty important to sports and wildlife photographers. But yes, FX could be cropped the same DX size, with maybe a few less pixels, but still a lot, and still same view as DX. FX is a sensor 1.5x times larger dimensions than DX, so it has 2.25x area to have more pixels, or it could have larger pixels, or possibly a combination of both. Larger pixels are favored for their lower noise, which allows much higher ISO to be used. New sensors like the D7100 are improved and very good, but the D800 also is, even with 36 megapixels, still seems to lead (on usability of highest ISO). So, you would buy FX for one or both of those reasons, more wide angle, and/or higher ISO with lower noise, or like the D800, possibly those two plus the resolution of more pixels (36 mp). You would not buy FX for its telephoto performance, and not just because it can also do DX (and other) crops, but it can do that too. So more choices (but we cannot say DX could simulate FX). [/QUOTE]

Verification