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
D800/D800E
NIKON D800 E and macro
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="WayneF" data-source="post: 206166" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>Not sure if you are speaking only of DOF, or about resolution. If about resolution, sorry, but your story is really hard to believe. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> You have not actually said your procedure, but I would suspect you are just making a mistake, not comparing (looking at) the images correctly.</p><p></p><p>For example, Nikon has a page to demonstrate the difference in DX and FX, at </p><p><a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/history/basics/19/01.htm" target="_blank">Nikon | Imaging Products | Digital SLR Camera Basics | Focal Length and Angle of view</a></p><p></p><p>Look about mid-page there, at the example of <strong>DX and FX Formats Compared</strong>... the drawing of the girl in a blue shirt. </p><p></p><p>It shows that with the same lens standing at same location, FX has a wider view, and DX is instead cropped, cannot show full view. But ... then when you show these smaller, both at the same size, the small DX is of course necessarily enlarged more, and you may imagine that is better. But that's wrong. DX is not larger, it is smaller.</p><p></p><p>Here is another example that I can post here:</p><p><img src="http://www.scantips.com/g2/dxfx.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>These are with a 105mm lens at 1:1. </p><p>FX on left is 36 mm wide view, 1:1.</p><p>DX on right is 24mm wide view, 1:1.</p><p></p><p>Normally, DX has to stand back 1.5x farther to show the same view with same lens (effective focal length), but these are not the same view. 1:1 IS a different story, it is at one specific distance with the macro lens, regardless of sensor size. And so now it is the same lens at same place, both 1:1, so the two images out of the lens are exactly the same. However, DX is is of course cropped due to the smaller sensor... it is not large enough to show the wide view FX shows.</p><p></p><p>We might mistakenly imagine "Wow, that DX image sure is big", but that is nonsense.</p><p></p><p>We may imagine this to be a telephoto effect, but DX simply cropped the lens view, and then enlarged it more. We can do that in our photo editor anytime.</p><p></p><p>These really ought to be compared this more realistic way:</p><p></p><p><img src="http://www.scantips.com/g2/dxfx2.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>This is the realistic comparison, both enlarged the same amount here. Both are of course the same image from the same lens at the same distance. The ruler spacing and marking size should look the same because this is the correct comparison of the sensor sizes (both enlarged the same amount).</p><p></p><p>But when enlarged to show above AT THE SAME SIZE anyway, DX is of course enlarged 1.5x MORE than FX, in order to appear same size, but which then makes DX look larger. It is a smaller image, but we enlarged it more than FX. But DX is not larger, it is smaller in every conceivable way (sensor size, megapixels, pixel dimensions, resolution, every possible way). We simply enlarged that ONE more here so DX could appear to compete. </p><p></p><p>But the FX image is still 36 megapixels and 7360 pixels wide (D800), and the DX image is 12 megapixels and only 4288 pixels wide (D300). The FX image is of course much larger, and has many more pixels to show more detail. We are just not showing it that way here. We are showing it only about 500 pixels wide, which is resampled to less than 0.2 megapixel, so we discarded about 99.5% of our original pixels and detail. And then we gave strong false advantage to DX, which of course is not reality, basically we lied to ourselves. You might even like that if you do not realize you could have enlarged the FX too. If you want FX to look that way too, simply just also enlarge it 1.5x more too.</p><p> </p><p>If you resample them small, of course then you only see reduced capability, lower resolution.</p><p>And if you show them the same size, then you only see this effect described here. Because, they simply are NOT the same size.</p><p></p><p>So, hold your breath, and try inspecting both at 100% size. Try to see the capability you have. You can use that capability, in extreme print sizes and in extreme crops.</p><p></p><p>I am stopping now, this is more than enough.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 206166, member: 12496"] Not sure if you are speaking only of DOF, or about resolution. If about resolution, sorry, but your story is really hard to believe. :) You have not actually said your procedure, but I would suspect you are just making a mistake, not comparing (looking at) the images correctly. For example, Nikon has a page to demonstrate the difference in DX and FX, at [URL="http://imaging.nikon.com/history/basics/19/01.htm"]Nikon | Imaging Products | Digital SLR Camera Basics | Focal Length and Angle of view[/URL] Look about mid-page there, at the example of [B]DX and FX Formats Compared[/B]... the drawing of the girl in a blue shirt. It shows that with the same lens standing at same location, FX has a wider view, and DX is instead cropped, cannot show full view. But ... then when you show these smaller, both at the same size, the small DX is of course necessarily enlarged more, and you may imagine that is better. But that's wrong. DX is not larger, it is smaller. Here is another example that I can post here: [IMG]http://www.scantips.com/g2/dxfx.jpg[/IMG] These are with a 105mm lens at 1:1. FX on left is 36 mm wide view, 1:1. DX on right is 24mm wide view, 1:1. Normally, DX has to stand back 1.5x farther to show the same view with same lens (effective focal length), but these are not the same view. 1:1 IS a different story, it is at one specific distance with the macro lens, regardless of sensor size. And so now it is the same lens at same place, both 1:1, so the two images out of the lens are exactly the same. However, DX is is of course cropped due to the smaller sensor... it is not large enough to show the wide view FX shows. We might mistakenly imagine "Wow, that DX image sure is big", but that is nonsense. We may imagine this to be a telephoto effect, but DX simply cropped the lens view, and then enlarged it more. We can do that in our photo editor anytime. These really ought to be compared this more realistic way: [IMG]http://www.scantips.com/g2/dxfx2.jpg[/IMG] This is the realistic comparison, both enlarged the same amount here. Both are of course the same image from the same lens at the same distance. The ruler spacing and marking size should look the same because this is the correct comparison of the sensor sizes (both enlarged the same amount). But when enlarged to show above AT THE SAME SIZE anyway, DX is of course enlarged 1.5x MORE than FX, in order to appear same size, but which then makes DX look larger. It is a smaller image, but we enlarged it more than FX. But DX is not larger, it is smaller in every conceivable way (sensor size, megapixels, pixel dimensions, resolution, every possible way). We simply enlarged that ONE more here so DX could appear to compete. But the FX image is still 36 megapixels and 7360 pixels wide (D800), and the DX image is 12 megapixels and only 4288 pixels wide (D300). The FX image is of course much larger, and has many more pixels to show more detail. We are just not showing it that way here. We are showing it only about 500 pixels wide, which is resampled to less than 0.2 megapixel, so we discarded about 99.5% of our original pixels and detail. And then we gave strong false advantage to DX, which of course is not reality, basically we lied to ourselves. You might even like that if you do not realize you could have enlarged the FX too. If you want FX to look that way too, simply just also enlarge it 1.5x more too. If you resample them small, of course then you only see reduced capability, lower resolution. And if you show them the same size, then you only see this effect described here. Because, they simply are NOT the same size. So, hold your breath, and try inspecting both at 100% size. Try to see the capability you have. You can use that capability, in extreme print sizes and in extreme crops. I am stopping now, this is more than enough. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D800/D800E
NIKON D800 E and macro
Top