OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Photography > Cameras, Equipment and Settings
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - What do you use?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

What do you use?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RWBlue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 17:39
FX lens on DX bodies are always a point of discussion.

First, there is vignetting.  FX on FX or DX on DX can give you vignetting.  Vignetting for those that don't know is darkening around the corners of the frame.

Second, I think the image with better with FX glass.  I don't know if it is the coating of quality of glass or how they put it together or....., but I can see some difference in some lenses.

Third, I have thought I was going to get a FX body for several years.  It is always just a little out of reach or, I see other needs or now the DX bodies are getting so good and several thousand less ......I have a hard time justifying the FX.  Side note, I may have a lead on a body with almost no use on it.  As it is just too heavy for the person who bought it....Trade them a D7100 for an D810 even up....Whacko

Fourth, They didn't have the 18-300 Nikkor when I bought my lens.  If they did, it would have been more difficult to decide.  But isn't the 18-300 a true 18-300 on a DX, where my 28-300 is really a 36-450mm (check my math) on a DX
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
Back to Top
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RWBlue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 17:43
RifleDude, 
"There are 4 reasons I chose the f/4 version of the 70-200 over the f/2.8 version:
1. It's half the price
2. It's much lighter
3. It's much shorter
4. It actually has better VR technology, being a later generation."

I will give you, reasons 1, 2, & 3.  Those are some good reasons.

We can argue over VR.  To be honest, I am not really impressed with an VR.  I have seen some studies posted on line and I will agree that VR helps, but at least for me....not enough.  I swear the difference between a gallery shot and crap is just too small.
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
Back to Top
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RWBlue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 17:53
Lets see if this works.

28-300mm  Just walking around during a party and found this cat.  When I tried to get closer for a second shot, the cat ran.....so 450mm of zoom really helped that day.

I shot this bear while the person I was trying to change lenses well add a 2x to the 70-200mm.  
That extra little bit of reach was also useful in allowing me to keep some distance.
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
Back to Top
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RWBlue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 17:59
Fun typo above....

I shot this bear while the person I was with was trying to change lenses.  I had the 50-500 ready to go.  He has the 70-200 ready to go.  He needed more reach (2x +70-200mm is still not 450mm), but it was a lower Fstop.
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
EVIL OPPRESSOR

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 16337
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 19:22
Originally posted by RWBlue RWBlue wrote:

But isn't the 18-300 a true 18-300 on a DX, where my 28-300 is really a 36-450mm (check my math) on a DX


No, the focal lengths on all lenses are expressed exactly what they are. They don't use "FF equivalent" conversions in the focal length specs for DX lenses. A given lens's focal length(s) always remains the same whether a lens is attached to a crop sensor or full frame sensor camera, it's just that in comparison, the DX's smaller sensor size means a given image occupies 1.5x more of the sensor area (or has 1.5x smaller angle of view) than a full frame sensor, giving the appearance of 1.5x greater magnification. The 18-300 is 27-450mm equivalent (to the angle of view on a FX sensor), but it's still an 18-300.
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
EVIL OPPRESSOR

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 16337
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 19:24
Nice shots,RWB!
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RWBlue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/31/2014 at 21:11
Thanks and RifleDude, you are really confusing me.

So using my DX body, if I take some photos with my DX lenses set on 70mm and my FX lenses set on 70mm, they will all be the same image?  (It may be true, but I sure doesn't seem that way...I may have to set down with a tripod and my lenses to see it with my own eyes.)
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
EVIL OPPRESSOR

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 16337
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2014 at 00:00
The end result won't be the same only because of the DX sensor's 1.5X "crop factor" vs. the FX's "full frame" sensor. Yes, technically the image reaching both sensors will be the exact same size, but since the DX sensor is 1.5X smaller than the FX sensor, the image will fill more of the DX frame, giving the appearance of greater magnification. Or, you could say that the FX sensor has a greater field of view. In reality, the subject isn't more magnified in the DX camera, it just occupies a greater % of the DX's smaller sensor, as the angle of view is narrower. If you took the exact same shot at the same distance, same vantage point, and same focal length with both cameras, the DX image will appear more magnified for the reasons already stated. However, if you cropped the FX image so that it has the same amount of space surrounding the subject as the DX image, the images from both will appear the same (assuming the same or similar pixel pitch) with the same level of detail.

Crop factor explained here.
http://digital-photography-school.com/crop-factor-explained/
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
EVIL OPPRESSOR

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 16337
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/01/2014 at 00:03
Originally posted by RWBlue RWBlue wrote:

...my 28-300 is really a 36-450mm (check my math) on a DX


A 28-300mm lens would be equivalent to a 42-450mm on a DX.
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/08/2014 at 14:43
Originally posted by Bitterroot Bulls Bitterroot Bulls wrote:

Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:


I wasn't aware it didn't have an OLPF. I thought that was only a feature of the D800E and D810,


Actually Ted, the 800E does have an OLPF. But it also has a "cancelling" optical glass layer. the D810, D7100, and even the D3300 are lacking the OLPF alltogether. I will keep a look out for moire, but I will deal with it when it happens. I will take the extra sharpness the rest of the time!

Just stumbled onto this.  Can you elaborate on this?  I do not fully understand how you can cancel a random blur filter.  I was under an impression that the blur filter is taken out and a different piece of glass with the same optical pathlength is added to the stack.  

Perhaps, I misunderstand something.

Thanks
ILya
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/08/2014 at 14:54
Originally posted by RWBlue RWBlue wrote:

FX lens on DX bodies are always a point of discussion.

First, there is vignetting.  FX on FX or DX on DX can give you vignetting.  Vignetting for those that don't know is darkening around the corners of the frame.
Not necessarily.  You get vignetting if the lens is not optimized correctly for a given image size.  You are right though that the probability of vignetting even with comparatively low end FX lenses on DX bodies is very small.  However, for nice lenses that are discussed here, I would not worry about signetting too much.

Second, I think the image with better with FX glass.  I don't know if it is the coating of quality of glass or how they put it together or....., but I can see some difference in some lenses.
If the lenses are of the same quality, you will not see any difference between FX and DX aside from sample variation.  There are a few exceptions to that: cheap lenses where edge issues of FX lenses are not visible on DX bodies, wide angle lenses where many lenses have telecentricity issues that are less visible with larger FX lenses.

Third, I have thought I was going to get a FX body for several years.  It is always just a little out of reach or, I see other needs or now the DX bodies are getting so good and several thousand less ......I have a hard time justifying the FX.  Side note, I may have a lead on a body with almost no use on it.  As it is just too heavy for the person who bought it....Trade them a D7100 for an D810 even up....Whacko

Fourth, They didn't have the 18-300 Nikkor when I bought my lens.  If they did, it would have been more difficult to decide.  But isn't the 18-300 a true 18-300 on a DX, where my 28-300 is really a 36-450mm (check my math) on a DX
Focal lengths are what they are regardless of the sensor format.  You can convert the focal length into "35mm equivalent" to figure out the field of view you will get with a given lens, but that does not mean the lens is of actually different focal length.  All that means is that a 300mm lens on a DX body will give you the same field of view as the 450mm lens on a FX body.

See a couple of comments above.
Back to Top
RWBlue View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RWBlue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/08/2014 at 22:17
I have seen it on Nikoncafe Vignetting does happen with these lenses in the right environment.


You are over complicating the conversation about focal length.
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
Back to Top
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bitterroot Bulls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/09/2014 at 09:17
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Originally posted by Bitterroot Bulls Bitterroot Bulls wrote:

Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:


I wasn't aware it didn't have an OLPF. I thought that was only a feature of the D800E and D810,


Actually Ted, the 800E does have an OLPF. But it also has a "cancelling" optical glass layer. the D810, D7100, and even the D3300 are lacking the OLPF alltogether. I will keep a look out for moire, but I will deal with it when it happens. I will take the extra sharpness the rest of the time!

Just stumbled onto this.  Can you elaborate on this?  I do not fully understand how you can cancel a random blur filter.  I was under an impression that the blur filter is taken out and a different piece of glass with the same optical pathlength is added to the stack.  

Perhaps, I misunderstand something.

Thanks
ILya

Nikon is kind of vague on how it works, but they are clear they "removed the effect" of the OLPF, but kept it there.


The new cameras have it removed altogether.
-Matt
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/09/2014 at 09:45
Originally posted by Bitterroot Bulls Bitterroot Bulls wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Originally posted by Bitterroot Bulls Bitterroot Bulls wrote:

Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:


I wasn't aware it didn't have an OLPF. I thought that was only a feature of the D800E and D810,


Actually Ted, the 800E does have an OLPF. But it also has a "cancelling" optical glass layer. the D810, D7100, and even the D3300 are lacking the OLPF alltogether. I will keep a look out for moire, but I will deal with it when it happens. I will take the extra sharpness the rest of the time!

Just stumbled onto this.  Can you elaborate on this?  I do not fully understand how you can cancel a random blur filter.  I was under an impression that the blur filter is taken out and a different piece of glass with the same optical pathlength is added to the stack.  

Perhaps, I misunderstand something.

Thanks
ILya

Nikon is kind of vague on how it works, but they are clear they "removed the effect" of the OLPF, but kept it there.


The new cameras have it removed altogether.

That makes sense.  They must be using a birefringent material of some sort as an OLPF, which splits the polarization states by a small amount.  Using an identical birefringent material mounted in an inverses manner will re-combine the polarization states.

Now that I think about, they have to do this every time they have two versions of the same camera: with and without the OLPF.  If they only had one model, they could simply position the imager a touch further from the lens and maintain the optical pathlength despite a couple of elements missing from the imager stack.

ILya
Back to Top
daveco View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: January/15/2015
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 94
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote daveco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/15/2015 at 01:32
Canon mostly, and some Leica M stuff.
Back to Top
SEMO Shooter View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/06/2013
Location: SE Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 199
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SEMO Shooter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/15/2015 at 08:35
Originally posted by SEMO Shooter SEMO Shooter wrote:

Most of my photos are taken while scuba diving.  I use an Olympus E-PL1 with either a 14-42 or 9-18 lens, in an Olympus underwater housing with 2 Inon D-2000 strobes.  I typically shoot in manual mode raw format.  I have Lightroom 4 and Photoshop Elements 9.  I like Elements much better than Lightroom, probably because I have used it more.

I bought an Olympus OM-D E-M5 and underwater housing last week and have not had much time to play with it yet.  I'm going on a dive trip 6 weeks.  Hopefully I'll have it figured out by then.
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
EVIL OPPRESSOR

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 16337
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/15/2015 at 12:08
Good deal, SEMO!

I'd be interested in hearing your impressions on the OM-D-M5 body, and I look forward to seeing your underwater photos!
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bitterroot Bulls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/15/2015 at 14:58
I will update my list on this thread with the addition of a Sony RX100III.

It is a fantastic large sensor compact with a fast lens and EVF. I used it for the pic in this thread:

http://www.opticstalk.com/elk-camp-view_topic41039.html
-Matt
Back to Top
DCAMM94 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: April/19/2008
Location: Fort Worth
Status: Offline
Points: 3491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DCAMM94 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2015 at 22:47
I'll play.  I have the Nikon D50 we bought when my oldest was born 8 1/2 years ago.  I know less about it than I should, but it takes decent photos if you take your time.  I also use a Galaxy Note 4, and tonight I dug this bad boy out of the closet.  Thought I'd post it for you guys so you could get nostalgic:


Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement. -Winston Churchill
Back to Top
Son of Ed View Drop Down
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris
Avatar

Joined: June/18/2011
Location: TEXAS
Status: Offline
Points: 122205
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Son of Ed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/18/2015 at 05:50

I haven't fired it up in a few years....East German  



I've got two of these and bunches of equipment and lenses.....










Visit the Ed Show
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.488 seconds.