Full Frame worth it for me?

Reach is defined as zoom. Crop forces you farther away from subject to get same frame as fx. Fx allows you to be closer. Jeesh, it's really not that hard to understand.

weird. One might call that "extra reach". since with a crop, shooting at the same focal length, they could be standing much further away but still reach the same subject equally -- espeically if both result in a 6000x4000 image that look exactly the same.

It's not hard to understand, but semantics are stupid.

It is 100% fair to say a crop body gives you more reach than a full frame body. Not once was a lens/optics mentioned. Nothing you said was wrong, fwiw. I just dont understand why some people reject the term reach being used in the manner we are using it. We are clearly all on the same page here, but I dont get why using the term reach gets some many people so worked up.
 
Last edited:
Does this mean that the d800's have more reach than other FF bodies?
 
It is 100% fair to say a crop body gives you more reach than a full frame body. Not once was a lens/optics mentioned. Nothing you said was wrong, fwiw. I just dont understand why some people reject the term reach being used in the manner we are using it. We are clearly all on the same page here, but I dont get why using the term reach gets some many people so worked up.

Photography forums will always have this issue.

As for the definition of "reach": arrive at; get as far as.

It is absolutely fair to say a crop sensor "arrives at" an equivalent field of view that provides a perceived "zoomed in" image. Yes, the aperture and depth of field properties are a different story.

I think arguing like a warrior over technicalities such as this is only worth it if there is fairly immediate practical value to the OP. In this case, I don't think there is. A technicality that does have more practical value to the OP is thinking about the actual perceived resolution/sharpness that a crop body can pull out of a lens. I think a lot of lenses cannot resolve enough detail for a crop sensor camera, so a full frame camera is often more practical overall. (All trade-offs considered, including ISO, depth of field, cropping vs. sensor-based cropping, sharpness of the lens across the whole lens, etc).
 
Field of view but the subject matter isn't enlarged, you're only getting a smaller portion of the frame with dx. Do we all agree to that! :D
 
Field of view but the subject matter isn't enlarged, you're only getting a smaller portion of the frame with dx. Do we all agree to that! :D

No? That's an absurd way to word it. The subject matter is enlarged. You get a 6016 x 4016 file with FX, and a 6016x4016 file with DX.

For argument's sake, let's say you are shooting with a 300mm lens that resolves perfect sharpness. You're standing in the same spot. If you are trying to take a photograph of a motocross racer, and you want to fill the frame with that motocross racer as much as possible, the crop sensor camera will produce an uncropped image that fills that 6016x4016 file with more of the racer.

To say "you get a smaller portion of the frame" leaves out a ton of details. You get a more detailed portion of the frame, which translates into a larger subject.

I know exactly what you're saying, but I think it would be incorrect to say what you're saying without providing more details. It's a "smaller portion of the equivalent FX frame" with a greater pixel density in that smaller portion of the frame. What do we call it when we zoom in digitally? Digital zoom. So we're getting crop factor zoom. Just saying :)

The reason why I disagree with your wording is because it never makes sense to anyone but the people who already know, and even then I think there's better ways to word it. If everyone got super technical about these sorts of details, every thread would be an essay in length.
 
WHAT???? Please refer to this http://www.nikonusa.com/Images/Lear...009/DX-FX-Formats/Media/DX-FX-Diagram-NEW.jpg

I don't know if you are confused or we're in agreement and talking semantics. DX does not enlarge anything. It's a cropped version of the FX frame. PERIOD

Yes to fill the frame with FX I'd have to be closer to the subject BUT then I would be the one ZOOMING in because my subject matter would be larger ;)

Just think of DX as a CROP of FX and it's easy to fathom. I don't see why this is so difficult.

What you are saying is if both are the same MP then all things else the same the DX would have more subject in the frame. Yes, you can say that or you can say that to get that same shot the DX has to be farther from the subject.
 
Last edited:
Man oh man! Lets use no words and just use an image :bouncingsmileys:
fxvsdx.jpg
 
I understand that but it clearly demonstrates the idea.... as does your example
 
There are really zero advantages of using DX instead of FX except for costs. FX offers much more than DX, both in the physics and also in what the MFGs build into the FX bodies.

That said, there's nothing wrong with DX and a good photographer could do anything he/she desired with success as well.
 
I believe I will bide my time and money and save up further for either used D750 or 810 and a used piece of glass. I figure another 6 months of diligent saving may even yield me enough for a second lens as well. Ive waited this long and its not as though I cant shoot currently so I will press on
 
Man oh man! Lets use no words and just use an image :bouncingsmileys:
View attachment 114998
There are really zero advantages of using DX instead of FX except for costs. FX offers much more than DX, both in the physics and also in what the MFGs build into the FX bodies.
That said, there's nothing wrong with DX and a good photographer could do anything he/she desired with success as well.
What RDenhardt is showing is actually valid. I am a bird photographer so I always think in terms of being focal length limited. If we were standing next to each and I had a D7200 and you had a D750. Lets says we took the above image at 200mm wide open. If we went to print at 300 DPI we would have a 20" tall image and the results would be pretty much what is shown in this example. But I agree "reach" should be in quotations as it does not increase magnification, only pixel density, which could make a big difference in print output. Let's say you were to crop the D750 to the same field of view, you would have the same image but at a resolution of roughly 180 DPI..

I would tend to think the D500 will be built much better than the D610 or D750 whereas the D7200 is built about the same. I don't buy into your argument that FX is built better than DX, it depends on the body...

Of course once we get to low light situations, the FX will win for the most part. But in my situation, again, let's say we are standing next to each other with a D7200 and a D750 again. We are on the edge of a pond with an Eagle 150 feet away on an Island. We are focal length limited with a 500 F4. You would have two options to get the same image I have. 1: You could crop and have the exact same image with 10 MP left, or to frame it the same you would need to add a 1.4x TC and at that point you would loose your 1 stop advantage, plus take a hit in focus speed and a 5%+ reduction in IQ...
 
that's why I shoot a D810 and when Nikon mfg's a 64MP body I'll buy that too :D

I understand and agree with what you've presented.
 
This thread hurts my brain.

If you "crop" a fx 300mm shot to 450mm, you have the same image as a 300mm dx shot. Hence, crop factor. Not reach, no zoom, no magic fairies...just field of view.
 
This thread hurts my brain.

If you "crop" a fx 300mm shot to 450mm, you have the same image as a 300mm dx shot. Hence, crop factor. Not reach, no zoom, no magic fairies...just field of view.

No you do not get the same image. The pixels per square inch are different. That can be significant.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top