DX Camera and DX Lens question?

[ShepherdKai]

Was listening to a YouTube photographer and he said that pictures taken with a DX Camera and DX lens can be cropped easier than FX camera pics. Not sure I am wording this statement correctly. It has something to do with the sensors ability to write information from a long DX lens.
But my question is why. Why is it easier to crop a DX picture over an FX picture.omegle xender

He also mentioned that National Geographic photographers are using DX cameras with FX lenses.
Nikon D3200, Nikon D610 18-55 mm, 18-105 mm, 55-200 mm lens, 80-400 mm lenses. 6 years experience with DSLR, 20 years experience with Pentax K-1000 film. I am a hobbyist and not a professional photography.

 

[wfooshee]

This same question, referencing the very same Youtube fool, has been asked before. The Youtuber is clueless. Stop watching the channel.

As for "National Geographic photographers are using DX cameras with FX lenses," I myself use a 70-300 ED lens, an FX lens, on my D7200. So what? Sometimes they do that to get "reach." An image from a DX camera will appear to be closer to the subject than an image from an FX camera with the same lens. OTOH, simply cropping the FX image yields the same image that the DX camera produced.

The only difference between an FX lens and a DX lens is the area the lens is designed to cover at the focal plane. A DX lens will probably not cover the entire sensor of an FX camera, although a DX zoom lens probably will fill the FX sensor at the longer end of its zoom range. Most FX cameras have a setting to automatically crop the image to DX size when a DX lens is fitted. If that's not present, or not enabled, the image from a DX lens will probably have dark corners.

Except for that, the lenses between DX and FX cameras are completely interchangeable. Generally speaking, the FX lenses will be (quote-unquote) "better" lenses, although there are some very good DX lenses out there.

As for DX images being easier to crop, I have no clue what he's talking about.

 

[stk]

I guess this is a matter of pixel density. A 24 MP crop sensor will have higher pixel density than a 24 MP full frame sensor.

 

[480sparky]

FX or DX.... cropping in post is exactly the same process.

 

[kevinroland]

Was listening to a YouTube photographer and he said that pictures taken with a DX Camera and DX lens can be cropped easier than FX camera pics. Not sure I am wording this statement correctly. It has something to do with the sensors ability to write information from a long DX lens.gb whatsapp
But my question is why. Why is it easier to crop a DX picture over an FX picture.

He also mentioned that National Geographic photographers are using DX cameras with FX lenses.
Nikon D3200, Nikon D610 18-55 mm, 18-105 mm, 55-200 mm lens, 80-400 mm lenses. 6 years experience with DSLR, 20 years experience with Pentax K-1000 film. I am a hobbyist and not a professional photography.

A 28-105 non-DX lens on a Nikon digital camera will have the field of view of a 42-157.5 on a 35mm ("full-frame") body. The 1.5 crop factor has not changed.

The main difference between a DX and non-DX lens is that the former will project an image circle large enough to cover a digital sensor, but not large enough to cover a 35mm or full-frame sensor. The smaller size of the digital sensor is the reason the crop factor applies.

Some DX zooms cover a 35mm frame at certain focal lengths, but not others. For example, the Nikkor 12-24 can be used on a film body for full-frame coverage between 17 and 24mm, but it vignettes when wider than that.

 

[Strodav]

The statement that the DX format is easier to crop is misleading. Go with the concept that the more sensor elements you can get on the subject the more detail you can capture. Say you have 2, 24mp camera bodies, one FX and one DX, using the same 500mm lens You frame up a distant subject that only fills a small part of the viewfinder on the FX body. Switch to the DX body with it's 1.5x crop factor advantage and your subject will fill much more of the frame, so more pixels on the subject for greater detail. The reach of the FX body with 500mm lens is 500mm. The reach of the DX body with 500mm lens is 750mm.

That's why I take a 45.7mp D850 and 20.9mp D500 with me when birding. When I can fill the frame, I'll use the D850. When I can't, I'll use the D500. The D500 actually has a 7% higher pixel density than the D850 in DX mode.

 

[DelminaNucci]

I think this is a matter of pixel density. A 24 MP crop sensor must higher pixel density than a 24 MP full-frame sensor. But if you go to cropping then FX and DX are the same process

 

[greybeard]

There is no difference in cropping dx vs fx. In some cases a fx camera will have better shadow detail than a dx camera because of the larger sensor. However, a 24 mp dx will have roughly the same pixel density as a 46mp fx camera which means it will be a better choice for wild life.

 

[ac12]

Was listening to a YouTube photographer and he said that pictures taken with a DX Camera and DX lens can be cropped easier than FX camera pics. Not sure I am wording this statement correctly. It has something to do with the sensors ability to write information from a long DX lens.
But my question is why. Why is it easier to crop a DX picture over an FX picture.omegle xender

He also mentioned that National Geographic photographers are using DX cameras with FX lenses.

Nikon D3200, Nikon D610 18-55 mm, 18-105 mm, 55-200 mm lens, 80-400 mm lenses. 6 years experience with DSLR, 20 years experience with Pentax K-1000 film. I am a hobbyist and not a professional photography.

Quote
He also mentioned that National Geographic photographers are using DX cameras with FX lenses.
End quote

Don't accept things at face value, always ask WHY?
Especially from some of the YouTubers, who don't know what they are talking about.
The devil is in the details.

For me, the reason to use DX cameras with FX lenses has nothing to do with "cropping easier."
The primary reason is, that the lens you want is not available in DX format, so you have to get a FX lens instead.

Example1. NO ONE currently produces a DX version of the standard FX 70-200/2.8 lens, which would be a DX 45-135.
- Sigma did produce a 50-150/2.8, but that lens is long out of production. And it was as big and heavy as a FX 70-200/2.8 lens.
- The closest match is the FX Tamron 35-150/2.8-4. It covers the focal range, BUT it is NOT f/2.8 for the full zoom range, which in my case IS a major reason for using a 70-200/2.8.
- Or the DX Sigma 50-100/1.8. Faster lens, but the zoom range is shorter, primarily on the long end. And it is not stabilized.
- I decided against those and bought a FX 70-200 for my DX camera. My second choice was the FX 24-120/4.

Example2. I do not know of a DX lens that is longer than the 70-300mm.
So if you want a longer lens, you have to use a FX lens.

Example3. Nikon only made a 35/1.8 prime, at the time that I was looking.
If you want a wider or longer prime, you have to use a FX prime. I have a FX 50/1.8.
Still waiting for a DX 24/1.8.

Finally, I can use a FX lens on either FX or DX camera. But you generally cannot use a DX lens on a FX camera.