Choose image size

[Lacrossedad]

On Nikon cameras there is a setting that lets you extend any lens by choosing an image size of 1.3 of normal. The question is, does this setting lower the sharpness? Does it reduce the pixels on each image?

 

[JBPhotog]

Nope!

The only options I have seen on FX bodies is 1.2 or 1.5(DX). But don't confuse this with extending the lens, all you are doing is cropping in on the lenses inherent field of view. For example a 50mm lens on an DX body still has the characteristics of a 50mm but the filed of view of a 75mm(50 x 1.5).

Given the same camera position, you get more pixels in FX mode than you do in DX mode.

Maybe offer the reason you are trying to achieve 1.3.

 

[Derrel]

1.3x, I have never seen that, but I have seen 1.2 and 1.5 and also 2.0 ( the high-speed crop on the Nikon d2x which made a 6.7 megapixel capture from the original 12.2 aps-c size full-sensor capture ).

My experience has been that yes ,using any format except the full capture area reduces the pixel count, but that does not mean it makes a bad picture necessarily.

 

[Ysarex]

On Nikon cameras there is a setting that lets you extend any lens by choosing an image size of 1.3 of normal. The question is, does this setting lower the sharpness? Does it reduce the pixels on each image?

Are you referring to the menu option to change the format FX to DX or are you referring to the Image Size menu option? Both reduce the number of total pixels saved in the final image. In the case of the format change the camera in fact uses less of the sensor. In the image size option the images are down-sampled. Sharpness loss? Less pixels is less recorded detail. In the format change from FX to DX using less of the sensor drops the DR and low-light performance so there's loss. Not sure sharpness is the best way to describe the loss.

P.S. Just read your question again -- and see the lens extend reference so you probably mean the format change from FX to DX. Yes, less pixels and yes a drop in performance (DR and low-light).

Joe

 

[Lacrossedad]

On Nikon cameras there is a setting that lets you extend any lens by choosing an image size of 1.3 of normal. The question is, does this setting lower the sharpness? Does it reduce the pixels on each image?

Are you referring to the menu option to change the format FX to DX or are you referring to the Image Size menu option? Both reduce the number of total pixels saved in the final image. In the case of the format change the camera in fact uses less of the sensor. In the image size option the images are down-sampled. Sharpness loss? Less pixels is less recorded detail. In the format change from FX to DX using less of the sensor drops the DR and low-light performance so there's loss. Not sure sharpness is the best way to describe the loss.

P.S. Just read your question again -- and see the lens extend reference so you probably mean the format change from FX to DX. Yes, less pixels and yes a drop in performance (DR and low-light).

Joe

I am using a Nikon D500. In my menu there is an option to shot photos at DX = 24x16 or I can choose 1.3x = 18x12. Obviously when I look thru the view finder the 1.3 setting is cropping down. I did say in my original post that this was extending my lens, but I think that it is just cropping the image and thus cutting out some of the pixels as well. I was hoping that 1.3 image was the pixel size as when I am shooting in standard DX mode. Confusing???? Is to me...

 

[Ysarex]

On Nikon cameras there is a setting that lets you extend any lens by choosing an image size of 1.3 of normal. The question is, does this setting lower the sharpness? Does it reduce the pixels on each image?

Are you referring to the menu option to change the format FX to DX or are you referring to the Image Size menu option? Both reduce the number of total pixels saved in the final image. In the case of the format change the camera in fact uses less of the sensor. In the image size option the images are down-sampled. Sharpness loss? Less pixels is less recorded detail. In the format change from FX to DX using less of the sensor drops the DR and low-light performance so there's loss. Not sure sharpness is the best way to describe the loss.

P.S. Just read your question again -- and see the lens extend reference so you probably mean the format change from FX to DX. Yes, less pixels and yes a drop in performance (DR and low-light).

Joe

I am using a Nikon D500. In my menu there is an option to shot photos at DX = 24x16 or I can choose 1.3x = 18x12. Obviously when I look thru the view finder the 1.3 setting is cropping down. I did say in my original post that this was extending my lens, but I think that it is just cropping the image and thus cutting out some of the pixels as well. I was hoping that 1.3 image was the pixel size as when I am shooting in standard DX mode. Confusing???? Is to me...

OK, so you're starting out with a DX sensor. The 1.3X is a crop of the DX sensor done in camera. You then use less of the total sensor area and of course wind up with less total pixels. The 1.3 is the crop factor. Your field of view or framing changes and that makes it seem like you switched to a longer lens. You could apply the same crop in processing for the same result. An overall loss in quality? Yes. Cropping costs us no matter if done in the camera or later. I would chose to do it later as I'd have more control. Doing it in camera has the advantage of smaller file sizes saved to the SD card.

Joe

 

[Lacrossedad]

On Nikon cameras there is a setting that lets you extend any lens by choosing an image size of 1.3 of normal. The question is, does this setting lower the sharpness? Does it reduce the pixels on each image?

Are you referring to the menu option to change the format FX to DX or are you referring to the Image Size menu option? Both reduce the number of total pixels saved in the final image. In the case of the format change the camera in fact uses less of the sensor. In the image size option the images are down-sampled. Sharpness loss? Less pixels is less recorded detail. In the format change from FX to DX using less of the sensor drops the DR and low-light performance so there's loss. Not sure sharpness is the best way to describe the loss.

P.S. Just read your question again -- and see the lens extend reference so you probably mean the format change from FX to DX. Yes, less pixels and yes a drop in performance (DR and low-light).

Joe

I am using a Nikon D500. In my menu there is an option to shot photos at DX = 24x16 or I can choose 1.3x = 18x12. Obviously when I look thru the view finder the 1.3 setting is cropping down. I did say in my original post that this was extending my lens, but I think that it is just cropping the image and thus cutting out some of the pixels as well. I was hoping that 1.3 image was the pixel size as when I am shooting in standard DX mode. Confusing???? Is to me...

OK, so you're starting out with a DX sensor. The 1.3X is a crop of the DX sensor done in camera. You then use less of the total sensor area and of course wind up with less total pixels. The 1.3 is the crop factor. Your field of view or framing changes and that makes it seem like you switched to a longer lens. You could apply the same crop in processing for the same result. An overall loss in quality? Yes. Cropping costs us no matter if done in the camera or later. I would chose to do it later as I'd have more control. Doing it in camera has the advantage of smaller file sizes saved to the SD card.

Joe

Thanks, for good explanation...….

 

[Derrel]

I do not own a d500 could this possibly allow you a bigger buffer capacity? Or as in the case of the d2, a faster firing rate? If either of these two is true, then the 1.3 X crop done in camera might potentially offer some advantage in certain situations. Otherwise, I would be tempted to shoot at full sensor size and crop as needed. With the d2x the high-speed crop mode was actually quite useful going from 5.0 frames per second to 8.2 frames per second with a 2X crop of a DX sensor. In some situations such as baseball or softball, this made certain lenses better than they otherwise would have been.

 

[Derrel]

In some high-volume shooting situations such as when one is Shooting Sports for publication oftentimes the frame counts are over 700 per event, and you might only have one lens with you, so in-camera cropping of this type often makes quite a bit of sense in terms of storage and archiving, and cropping all being done in camera is the best way, thus allowing a fast workflow. Even if it takes 3 seconds each to crop a frame, if you have 850 frames that is an actual amount of time that many working Pros do not have. There is little sense in capturing a high-resolution file for most Sports & news usage; if a higher resolution file is needed, and I stress the if quite strongly,then you can up-Res the needed file.

I shot sports for publication with the Nikon d1h which had a 2.7 megapixel sensor, and it did quite well on photos that were published in the newspaper and on the web. My next newspaper camera was 12.2 mp.

For newspaper or magazine or web use, you don't need that much in terms of megapixel count.

 

[dunfly]

I have a D7200 that has a 1.3 crop setting. It is primarily for video but works for stills also. You are better off shooting normal and cropping in post. One big problem taking stills is the crop does not show up in the viewfinder, so you don't really know what you are getting.

 

[wfooshee]

Setting my D7200 to 1.3x results in a higher continuous frame rate as well as more frames before crashing against the buffering limit. As a matter of fact, if I set it to JPEG capture and 1.3x, it's unlimited frames at maximum speed. I'll keep it in RAW, though, because... well, RAW!

Running DX (not the 1.3) gives me about 20 frames at 6-ish frames per second before it starts hanging in the buffer. Frames are 6004 x 4004, or 24mp. Setting the 1.3 gives me about 32 frames at a solid 8 frames per second before buffering. Frames are 4828 x 3196, just under the 16mp I got with my D7000.

The 1.3 isn't there to "extend" your lens, it's there to give you a mode with more buffer and speed, a result of lowering the computational cost per frame.

And... the crop does show in the viewfinder, as a frame outline that's not there unless you're in the 1.3 mode. The viewfinder doesn't change size, but it does show you the reduced frame size.

 

[Derrel]

The only in-camera crop I have on my phone...that I am sure was an in-camera crop..70-300 VR at 300, Fx 24mp cropped to Dx in-camera...

 

[greybeard]

Using anything other than the full frame is just cropping in the camera. Most of the time, I prefer to shoot full frame and crop in PP. There are times however, when it makes sense. For instance, the Nikon D850 can be shot in DX mode and is still 19mp. This allows for much smaller files and more frames before the buffer fills up. I use this once in a while shooting sports and with my 300mm f/4 which gives me more reach.