Dx lens on Fx Camera Need Help

[ntz]

The DX 10-24 on my D800 is not "crutch and tape." The D800 in DX mode is only very slightly shy of the resolution my D7200 gives, and has much better low-light capability (as most full-frame cameras do.) ISO 3200 is completely usable on the D800, where ISO 800 is just nasty on the D7200. As said in another thread, "Get the photo." So if I find myself in tight quarters in low light, I have no problem whatsoever putting the 10-24 on my D800, and getting phenomenal images that I'd never get with the D7200. The 28mm f:1.8 might be a better choice in that situation, but I don't happen to have one.

... crop factor that D7200 has is 1.5, so ISO equivalence is 1.5**2 == for ISO 800 on D7200 it's ISO 1800 on D800 (even not accounting a pixel density which will put a sliders a bit more back in favour to D7200 because it's 24MP Vs 36MP)

please take your D7200 to repair if you have completely usable photos with ISO 3200 with crop factor 1 and unusable with ISO 800 with crop factor 1.5

also please feel free to share more about benefits of using DX lens on FX body

regards !!!

 

[480sparky]

... crop factor that D7200 has is 1.5, so ISO equivalence is 1.5**2 == for ISO 800 on D7200 it's ISO 1800 on D800 (even not accounting a pixel density which will put a sliders a bit more back in favour to D7200 because it's 24MP Vs 36MP)....

Crop factor has ZERO effect on ISO. ISO 400 is ISO 100, whether it's your iPhone, micro 4/3s, DX, FX, or an 8x10 view camera.

 

[ntz]

... crop factor that D7200 has is 1.5, so ISO equivalence is 1.5**2 == for ISO 800 on D7200 it's ISO 1800 on D800 (even not accounting a pixel density which will put a sliders a bit more back in favour to D7200 because it's 24MP Vs 36MP)....

Crop factor has ZERO effect on ISO. ISO 400 is ISO 100, whether it's your iPhone, micro 4/3s, DX, FX, or an 8x10 view camera.

in the meaning of equivalence the crop factor ofc applies on ISO also including noise .. we were talking about performance of ISO 800 on DX Vs ISO 3200 on FX ... see please this What Is Equivalence in Photography? | Camera Terms .. it's nonsense to state out that projected output from DX with ISO 800 is horrific under same conditions with FX and ISO 3600

 

[Soocom1]

... crop factor that D7200 has is 1.5, so ISO equivalence is 1.5**2 == for ISO 800 on D7200 it's ISO 1800 on D800 (even not accounting a pixel density which will put a sliders a bit more back in favour to D7200 because it's 24MP Vs 36MP)....

Crop factor has ZERO effect on ISO. ISO 400 is ISO 100, whether it's your iPhone, micro 4/3s, DX, FX, or an 8x10 view camera.

in the meaning of equivalence the crop factor ofc applies on ISO also including noise .. we were talking about performance of ISO 800 on DX Vs ISO 3200 on FX ... see please this What Is Equivalence in Photography? | Camera Terms .. it's nonsense to state out that projected output from DX with ISO 800 is horrific under same conditions with FX and ISO 3600

With respect i agree to a point but i also want to point out that the diff. between FF and APC is marginal in this argument over that of FF 35mm vs. Med. Format.
THATS a difference.
The amount of light for equivalent aperture ranking means a goodly amount more light comes in for a MF over a 35mm.

FF vs. APS it is marginally different but the f16 APS (ergo DX lens) is exactly the same as a FX. Same with Canon EF vs EF-S. this is because of the registration distance (flange distance) of a 35mm vs a MF vs a Mirrorless. The actual volume of light is obvious here.

 

[Jerry_]

Hi

I have my Nikon D5100 camera Dx lenses, if i use them on a Nikon D750 full frame camera, would it be any different regarding image quality,sharpness, size..... ??

Number of good advice in previous posts.

The D5100 has a 16.9MP DX and the D750 a 24MP FX sensor.

As mentioned before, the (center) light circle projected by a DX lens will not cover the full FX sensor - therefore the resulting picture will not « use » all of the pixels. More precisely, in crop mode, the picture will cover about 45% of the available pixels, resulting on a 24MP FX sensor to cover slightly less than 11MP

On the other hand - and with the same lens - the more recent technology and the newer processor in the D750 may result in better results, compared to the D5100, in challenging situations. But to get the full benefit of the D750, you will need (good) FX lenses.

 

[ntz]

... crop factor that D7200 has is 1.5, so ISO equivalence is 1.5**2 == for ISO 800 on D7200 it's ISO 1800 on D800 (even not accounting a pixel density which will put a sliders a bit more back in favour to D7200 because it's 24MP Vs 36MP)....

Crop factor has ZERO effect on ISO. ISO 400 is ISO 100, whether it's your iPhone, micro 4/3s, DX, FX, or an 8x10 view camera.

in the meaning of equivalence the crop factor ofc applies on ISO also including noise .. we were talking about performance of ISO 800 on DX Vs ISO 3200 on FX ... see please this What Is Equivalence in Photography? | Camera Terms .. it's nonsense to state out that projected output from DX with ISO 800 is horrific under same conditions with FX and ISO 3600

With respect i agree to a point but i also want to point out that the diff. between FF and APC is marginal in this argument over that of FF 35mm vs. Med. Format.
THATS a difference.
The amount of light for equivalent aperture ranking means a goodly amount more light comes in for a MF over a 35mm.

FF vs. APS it is marginally different but the f16 APS (ergo DX lens) is exactly the same as a FX. Same with Canon EF vs EF-S. this is because of the registration distance (flange distance) of a 35mm vs a MF vs a Mirrorless. The actual volume of light is obvious here.

I completely agree on point that FX has much better ISO performance than DX but I cannot agree on overstated example with @wfooshee 's D7200 and ISO 800 Vs D800 and ISO 3600 .. it's simply out of reality ... I am sure you certainly know this (and this) .. The iso performance including a noise levels roughly matches the sensor crop factor which is in this case 1.5**2 == 2.25x multiplier (pixel density put a balance a little back to the favour of D7200 because it has fewer pixels) .. @wfooshee was talking about horrific results under same conditions with ISO 800 on DX Vs good performance with ISO 3600 on FX .. that's FUD D, he's wronging to his D7200) or there's something wrong with his D7200 and it needs to be repaired ..

for you @bigtwinky also ^^ ... you disagreed above, no idea why, probably because you don't know how it works ..

 

[Soocom1]

... crop factor that D7200 has is 1.5, so ISO equivalence is 1.5**2 == for ISO 800 on D7200 it's ISO 1800 on D800 (even not accounting a pixel density which will put a sliders a bit more back in favour to D7200 because it's 24MP Vs 36MP)....

Crop factor has ZERO effect on ISO. ISO 400 is ISO 100, whether it's your iPhone, micro 4/3s, DX, FX, or an 8x10 view camera.

in the meaning of equivalence the crop factor ofc applies on ISO also including noise .. we were talking about performance of ISO 800 on DX Vs ISO 3200 on FX ... see please this What Is Equivalence in Photography? | Camera Terms .. it's nonsense to state out that projected output from DX with ISO 800 is horrific under same conditions with FX and ISO 3600

With respect i agree to a point but i also want to point out that the diff. between FF and APC is marginal in this argument over that of FF 35mm vs. Med. Format.
THATS a difference.
The amount of light for equivalent aperture ranking means a goodly amount more light comes in for a MF over a 35mm.

FF vs. APS it is marginally different but the f16 APS (ergo DX lens) is exactly the same as a FX. Same with Canon EF vs EF-S. this is because of the registration distance (flange distance) of a 35mm vs a MF vs a Mirrorless. The actual volume of light is obvious here.

I completely agree on point that FX has much better ISO performance than DX but I cannot agree on overstated example with @wfooshee 's D7200 and ISO 800 Vs D800 and ISO 3600 .. it's simply out of reality ... I am sure you certainly know this (and this) .. The iso performance including a noise levels roughly matches the sensor crop factor which is in this case 1.5**2 == 2.25x multiplier (pixel density put a balance a little back to the favour of D7200 because it has fewer pixels) .. @wfooshee was talking about horrific results under same conditions with ISO 800 on DX Vs good performance with ISO 3600 on FX .. that's FUD D, he's wronging to his D7200) or there's something wrong with his D7200 and it needs to be repaired ..

for you @bigtwinky also ^^ ... you disagreed above, no idea why, probably because you don't know how it works ..

One main point that has to be made.
The DX is pushing through light intended for a crop sensor. So the amount (given the vignetting) is LESS than a FF (FX) lens at the same setting. this is very true.
but the Nikons have the DX setting on the FF cameras. I have a D3 and this is not an issue.

Yes the ISO will change because of the lower light levels. But its really subjective.

Ysarex posted some time back on a thread I was posting a point of ISO on the same subject with the same light amount given.
the end result showed with proper adjustments, the images were virtually the same.

but again because the registration distance is the same, the amount of light hitting the sensor if a DX will be less, but wont affect the outcome of the image because if properly adjusted, the end result will effectively be the same.
Again, play that game with a MF lens and a whole lot changes.

BTW i emphasize that because I have done alot of MF to 35mm adapters and the end result is dramatic.

 

[wfooshee]

@ntz I really don't care what you think about it, but my reality IS that I can't shoot at ISO 800 on my D7200 without noise filtering to the point of losing image detail, and I can produce very good images from the D800 at ISO 3200. I know what I see from my own cameras, on my own computer, so don't tell me that it's nonsense. As for the D7200's performance, I was amazed by it after upgrading to it from a D7000. Nevertheless, I find it unacceptable at ISO 800.

Also, your comparison of ISO to crop factor makes no sense. That's no different than saying shutter speed is different on a crop factor camera, or aperture is different on a crop factor camera. Exposure is exposure, nothing changes from sensor size. Depth of field at a given aperture is different between DX and FX, but exposure is not. Some have said here that less light gets through a DX lens, which may be true, but it's not less light per area of the sensor, and unless your metering emphasizes areas in the vignetted area, there's no difference. Also, many DX zooms are vignetted only at their widest range, and will cover an FX sensor at the long end. (My DX 10-24 covers the FX frame at 15mm and longer; vignetting only appears under 15mm.)

And I still don't know where you're coming from with your view that a camera is somehow crippled by mounting a DX lens. There is some very good DX glass out there. That said, I would never consider mounting my kit 18-55 on the D800, under any circumstances, but my work with the 10-24 on the D800 shows very nice results.

When I got the D800, I made a couple of test shots to compare. These shots are 1-to-1 crops of a sections of the frame, shot at ISO 6400 on both the D7200 and then on the D800. No filtering has been applied, and the difference is quite obvious. I don't have a similar comparison handy at ISO 800, but my test that day was to see what the D800 would do compared to the D7200.

As for losing something by mounting a DX lens, yes, you lose resolution. The D800 is 36MP in FX, 16 MP in DX. So in DX mode it's not quite the 24MP I get on the D7200, but it matches the 16MP I got on my D7000, and has far superior low-light capability to either of those cameras, as expected for a top-line FX camera, even though it's older than the D7200. I'll take a 16MP usable image over a 24MP throwaway image every day of the week and twice on Sunday! So please, please, please, tell me what I lost. I'll tell you what I didn't lose, and that was the images I shot on a Saturday evening a week ago with my DX lens on my D800, which I would not have gotten using the D7200.

 

[Soocom1]

"Also, your comparison of ISO to crop factor makes no sense. That's no different than saying shutter speed is different on a crop factor camera, or aperture is different on a crop factor camera. Exposure is exposure, nothing changes from sensor size. Depth of field at a given aperture is different between DX and FX, but exposure is not. Some hav esaid here that less light gets through a DX lens, which may be true, but it's not less light per area of the sensor, and unless your metering emphasizes areas in the vignetted area, there's no difference. Also, many DX zooms are vignetted only are their widest range, and will cover an FX sensor at the long end. (I haven't actually looked into that with my 10-24, but I know it to be a fact with the 18-55."

Actually there is.
but you have to read alot on how light works overall.
the meter reads more than center weight and as a result the ISO will alter if you shoot in such a manner.

Get a DX 50mm and a FX 50mm set both to the same settings with shutter speed and aperture on a FF camera, then watch what happens.

 

[wfooshee]

If the metering matrix is in the vignetted area, then yes, your image will probably overexpose. On my use that evening, I was spot-metering the center. With the awareness of the vignetting I always use center-weight or spot when mounting DX glass on a full frame body.

And I just dug out the lens and the camera to test, and edited my post to show that the 10-24 does cover the FX frame at longer focal lengths, which puts the matrix metering question out the window as well.

 

[ntz]

@wfooshee - I am not opposing yoy, I do agree with you in general .. I am only saying, that it's unfair and overstated to say, that ISO 800 on DX is outmatched by ISO 3200 on FX because the sensor is larger and pixels are bigger .. that's physically and mathematically impossible .. if you don't want to try that for yourself, there are tons of videos on youtube demonstrating how the equivalence works .. just find some and watch .. if you still disagree, please take both your cameras and do the same test and then do pixel peeping ...

I appreciate that you posted above two photos, not sure why ? to demonstrate that ISO 6400 on DX will look awful Vs the same on FX .. geez, I don't dispute that ..

 

[ntz]

@wfooshee - please look on this, 1:1 ... is it enough ?

it's not about who wins for the sake of God .. I only do not agree with that one statement about numbers and that's it .. I agree with you in the rest

 

[wfooshee]

I did say that FX is better in low light, generally, but I never gave that as the one specific reason for the difference between my cameras. The D8x0 cameras are widely recognized as among the best ever at high ISO. The D7200 was leagues better than the D7000 I had before, but it will never compare to the D800. Regarding your chart, my D7200 is far noiser than that.

I never said I was comparing DX to FX for the noise, I was always comparing my D7200 to my D800.