For crop frame users...

[usayit]

You dont actually get more reach by using DX, you're just forced to pre-crop everything. That 'extra reach' is nothing that a batch crop couldn't do in post.

But only if you have a FF camera with enough megapixels to compensate. If you shoot with a D4 in DX crop, you are not going to get the resolution of the same shot with a D7000.

Its more than just the sensor... the lenses themselves have to be able to resolve more as well. This is ever so apparent when comparing similarly priced lenses designed for micro 4/3 (2x crop sensor) versus adapted lenses designed for FF.

 

[TonysTouch]

You dont actually get more reach by using DX, you're just forced to pre-crop everything. That 'extra reach' is nothing that a batch crop couldn't do in post.

But only if you have a FF camera with enough megapixels to compensate. If you shoot with a D4 in DX crop, you are not going to get the resolution of the same shot with a D7000.

Its more than just the sensor... the lenses themselves have to be able to resolve more as well. This is ever so apparent when comparing similarly priced lenses designed for micro 4/3 (2x crop sensor) versus adapted lenses designed for FF.

That is true but I meant using the same lens.

 

[TheBiles]

You dont actually get more reach by using DX, you're just forced to pre-crop everything. That 'extra reach' is nothing that a batch crop couldn't do in post.

But only if you have a FF camera with enough megapixels to compensate. If you shoot with a D4 in DX crop, you are not going to get the resolution of the same shot with a D7000.

The 1.5 crop from FX to DX isn't large enough to notice the difference in resolution, IMHO. the D4 is 16.2 MP, so the 33% reduction in MP to go to a DX conversion still leaves you with 11 MP, which I don't think is particularly noticeable. Especially considering the other IQ benefits that D4 has going for it. I'd be willing to bet you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between full size images shot with a D7000 v. a D4 in crop mode from a resolution standpoint.

It's not a simple reduction in megapixels by the crop factor. The actual area of a crop sensor is much less than that of a full-frame. There's a reason the massive 36MP D800 only has an 15.4MP DX mode.

The area of a full-frame sensor is 864 square mm, but an APS-C sensor only has an area of 370 square mm (for Nikon, 329 for Canon). Assuming equal pixels density, you're losing over half of your resolution.

Sent from my Galaxy S III

 

[fjrabon]

But only if you have a FF camera with enough megapixels to compensate. If you shoot with a D4 in DX crop, you are not going to get the resolution of the same shot with a D7000.

The 1.5 crop from FX to DX isn't large enough to notice the difference in resolution, IMHO. the D4 is 16.2 MP, so the 33% reduction in MP to go to a DX conversion still leaves you with 11 MP, which I don't think is particularly noticeable. Especially considering the other IQ benefits that D4 has going for it. I'd be willing to bet you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between full size images shot with a D7000 v. a D4 in crop mode from a resolution standpoint.

It's not a simple reduction in megapixels by the crop factor. The actual area of a crop sensor is much less than that of a full-frame. There's a reason the massive 36MP D800 only has an 15.4MP DX mode.

The area of a full-frame sensor is 864 square mm, but an APS-C sensor only has an area of 370 square mm (for Nikon, 329 for Canon). Assuming equal pixels density, you're losing over half of your resolution.

Sent from my Galaxy S III

ah, yeah, I forgot to square. In any regards, I still think that given the other benefits in image quality a D4 has, a crop frame sized crop of a D4 looks very close to a D7000 shot at full resolution. And I say this as a D7000 owner, who if anything should be biased the other way.

 

[SCraig]

The 1.5 crop from FX to DX isn't large enough to notice the difference in resolution, IMHO. the D4 is 16.2 MP, so the 33% reduction in MP to go to a DX conversion still leaves you with 11 MP, which I don't think is particularly noticeable. Especially considering the other IQ benefits that D4 has going for it. I'd be willing to bet you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between full size images shot with a D7000 v. a D4 in crop mode from a resolution standpoint.

I shoot a lot of birds and wildlife and even with a 500mm lens on an APS-C camera I sometimes have to crop a good bit to get the subject where I want it. If my overall sensor are was only 11mp and I cropped down from there then the difference would most assuredly be quite noticeable. I know that for a fact since I also have a 12.3mp D90, and the difference in resolution between it and my D7000 are certainly noticeable when cropped. On the other hand if I were shooting a portrait in a studio then I agree that the difference would be hardly noticeable.

Generalizations about what will work and what won't work seldom work because not all of us shoot the same thing. What is important to me may be meaningless to you, and vice versa. Personally I wouldn't mind having an FX camera for the times that I know distance is not going to be an issue, and have actually been looking at a few and thinking about it, however I won't give up my DX cameras because to me the extra effective reach of a DX camera is important. To each their own.

 

[fjrabon]

The 1.5 crop from FX to DX isn't large enough to notice the difference in resolution, IMHO. the D4 is 16.2 MP, so the 33% reduction in MP to go to a DX conversion still leaves you with 11 MP, which I don't think is particularly noticeable. Especially considering the other IQ benefits that D4 has going for it. I'd be willing to bet you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between full size images shot with a D7000 v. a D4 in crop mode from a resolution standpoint.

I shoot a lot of birds and wildlife and even with a 500mm lens on an APS-C camera I sometimes have to crop a good bit to get the subject where I want it. If my overall sensor are was only 11mp and I cropped down from there then the difference would most assuredly be quite noticeable. I know that for a fact since I also have a 12.3mp D90, and the difference in resolution between it and my D7000 are certainly noticeable when cropped. On the other hand if I were shooting a portrait in a studio then I agree that the difference would be hardly noticeable.

Generalizations about what will work and what won't work seldom work because not all of us shoot the same thing. What is important to me may be meaningless to you, and vice versa. Personally I wouldn't mind having an FX camera for the times that I know distance is not going to be an issue, and have actually been looking at a few and thinking about it, however I won't give up my DX cameras because to me the extra effective reach of a DX camera is important. To each their own.

you can just get a D800, so you can crop your cropped crops crops.

 

[usayit]

I dont think the OP intended to debate the merits of FF versus crop.......

 

[SCraig]

you can just get a D800, so you can crop your cropped crops crops.

You're right, and that would provide about the same resolution in DX mode as my D7000, actually a good bit better. In fact it's the one I've been thinking about. However your comment stated:

I'd be willing to bet you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between full size images shot with a D7000 v. a D4 in crop mode from a resolution standpoint.

and the D4 is a far cry from being a 36mp D800.

My D90 has 12.3mp, roughly the same as the D4 in DX mode. My D7000 has 16.2mp. With the same lens, and cropped roughly the same, I can see a difference in the resolution. Where the D90 in that situation will start to show some pixilization the D7000 doesn't. That was my point.

Again, though, I freely admit that it depends on the subject. A small bird on a branch at 30 yards is a small subject even with a 500mm lens, and it usually takes a good bit of cropping to get to the subject. A Whitetailed Deer at 30 yards or a portrait in a studio or a landscape, however, are completely different situations, and you are absolutely right in that respect. It all depends on what you are trying to do with the image since not all situations are the same. That was my secondary point.

But ... the D800 has really caught my eye

 

[fjrabon]

you can just get a D800, so you can crop your cropped crops crops.

You're right, and that would provide about the same resolution in DX mode as my D7000, actually a good bit better. In fact it's the one I've been thinking about. However your comment stated:

I'd be willing to bet you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between full size images shot with a D7000 v. a D4 in crop mode from a resolution standpoint.

and the D4 is a far cry from being a 36mp D800.

My D90 has 12.3mp, roughly the same as the D4 in DX mode. My D7000 has 16.2mp. With the same lens, and cropped roughly the same, I can see a difference in the resolution. Where the D90 in that situation will start to show some pixilization the D7000 doesn't. That was my point.

Again, though, I freely admit that it depends on the subject. A small bird on a branch at 30 yards is a small subject even with a 500mm lens, and it usually takes a good bit of cropping to get to the subject. A Whitetailed Deer at 30 yards or a portrait in a studio or a landscape, however, are completely different situations, and you are absolutely right in that respect. It all depends on what you are trying to do with the image since not all situations are the same. That was my secondary point.

But ... the D800 has really caught my eye

Yeah, though my specific comment was about taking the very center of a D4 and cropping it exactly down to what a D7000 would be, not cropping even further than that. And this is also a D7000 specific thing, because of how well it holds up to crops, especially as compared to other crop frame cameras. If you were comparing most other crop frames to a full frame's crop, then it would be a different story. I know, for example, that when I crop a 5DIII down to the image size of what the 7D is, the 5DIII looks better, noticeably better. My original comment was going back to saying that a lot of the 'extra reach' of crop frames are just because many people don't understand exactly what the term crop frame means. It literally means that it's exactly like cropping the edges out of a full frame shot.

 

[SCraig]

Yeah, though my specific comment was about taking the very center of a D4 and cropping it exactly down to what a D7000 would be, not cropping even further than that. And this is also a D7000 specific thing, because of how well it holds up to crops, especially as compared to other crop frame cameras. If you were comparing most other crop frames to a full frame's crop, then it would be a different story. I know, for example, that when I crop a 5DIII down to the image size of what the 7D is, the 5DIII looks better, noticeably better. My original comment was going back to saying that a lot of the 'extra reach' of crop frames are just because many people don't understand exactly what the term crop frame means. It literally means that it's exactly like cropping the edges out of a full frame shot.

In that respect you're right and I agree. Any difference in resolution would probably not be noticeable. And there is no question that how "Crop Sensors" work is misunderstood by many, you are absolutely right on that one!

 

[bratkinson]

To reiterate what's been said above...

A lens focal length does NOT change when mounted on a crop body. Putting a lens on a crop body is like putting 'horse blinders' on all 4 sides...thereby limiting side-view of the lens.

Do I think about the narrower field of view mounting a lens on my crop body Canon 60D? No.

Do I think about the so-called (erroneously) 'reach' of the lens on my 60D? No.

If I need more 'real' reach than what the currently mounted lens has, I put on a longer focal-length lens. Period. Do I need wider? Then I put on a shorter focal-length lens. Lacking the choice of mounting a different lens, I either move closer or further away, as needed. My camera bag has 3 lenses I use for 90% of my 'general' shooting...16-35, 24-105 and 80-200. The three of them cover all the focal lengths I need and have overlapping ranges so I don't have to changes lenses as often. Do I think of them as their 'longer' equivalents? No. Simply, wide, medium, and long. Who cares WHAT the numbers are?