Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
What do you use? |
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Author | ||||
RWBlue
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.... 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.
|
||||
RWBlue
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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 price2. 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.
|
||||
RWBlue
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
RWBlue
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. |
||||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Nice shots,RWB!
|
||||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||||
RWBlue
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. |
||||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. |
||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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
|
||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
See a couple of comments above.
|
||||
RWBlue
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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
|
||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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
|
||||
daveco
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/15/2015 Location: Missouri Status: Offline Points: 94 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Canon mostly, and some Leica M stuff.
|
||||
SEMO Shooter
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/06/2013 Location: SE Missouri Status: Offline Points: 199 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. |
||||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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
|
||||
DCAMM94
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: April/19/2008 Location: Fort Worth Status: Offline Points: 3491 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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
|
||||
Son of Ed
Chuck Norris Joined: June/18/2011 Location: TEXAS Status: Offline Points: 122210 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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
|
||||
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |