Sell me on full frame cameras...

The intent was to demonstrate the variance in Field of View (FoV) between a Nikon APS-C (DX) sensor and a Full Frame (FX) sensor rather than the misunderstood "extra reach" a cropped camera will give. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens regardless of the sensor size. Look beyond the monkey. I took two common focal length prime lenses, 35mm and 50mm. The side-by-side images demonstrate this fairly well IMO. You'll also notice further down that a 35mm lens on a cropped body will yield a very close approximation that a 50mm lens will produce on a full framed body. Even further down, the 100% crops shows how the FF sensor renders a smoother bokeh, again, IMO. Plus, the tequila was at a perfect temperature and tasting mighty fine that day.

 

Why were you using the 85mm for portrait work, you should have been using a 50mm to do that, using an 85mm on a DX in studios makes no sense, you could have saved money and got a 50mm and that would have put you where you want to be.

 

What are you talking about, I have a 50 1.4 I use in the studio too? I wanted to shoot at 85mm, and that was an example.

Asides, whether on DX or FX 85 is 85 characteristics on the model. Just on the DX you have to back way the $#%^ up plus you lose depth of field performance

Full frame win win =)

 

The Nikkor 85mm lens, whether f/1.4 or f/1.8, G or D mount, is a superior lens to the 50mm in any iteration.

 

In addition to what Mike said above, RAW files from a full-frame camera give you much more latitude in post-processing, for example when dodging/burning. This, for me, is priceless. In certain circumstances when a DX camera would force you to resort to HDR or compositing, a full-frame camera would allow you to get away with a single frame.

To your point regarding not using the DX mode in a FX camera because it would defeat the point, I agree – but only to a certain extent. You'll be getting a smaller file, but still getting all the benefits of a big sensor (except the wider angle of view, of course). If you have good DX glass – a great example being the Tokina 11-16– you can use it on a full-frame camera and be a very happy camper – I know this from personal experience.

A "disadvantage" that I'm not sure has been mentioned in this thread is that a full-frame camera will expose bad glass. For example, the Nikon AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6 D ED (which I think is a full-frame lens) will look like trash.

For reference, I shoot with a D700 and a D300.

 

Ok, you say that, but why? I've never used one, why is it superior. To be honest you can pretty much get whatever look you want in post processing as long as you get the exposure right. What does the 85mm offer over the 50mm.

 

Does not answer my question requesting the reasons why the 85mm is superior to the 50mm. I get the point though, but I'm looking for a bit more technical answer.

 

The 85 1.4 is made up of 9 blades of quality, cream-cheese bokeh! To have that lens ...le sigh.

 

I have been doing some reading on the 85mm and 50mm 1.4g and 1.8g and a lot of people say that the 1.8g versions of both lenses are nearly as good and in some cases noticeably superior to their more expensive 1.4g counterparts.

 

If you need to be "sold" on FF body's, probably means that you should stick with a crop sensor body.

 

October, 2012 at Thom Hogan's Nikon site has been "DX Month". On OCtober 5, he wrote a very short column. HERE is a lengthy excerpt from that column:

"But consider this: portraiture is partly about perspective. A head and shoulders shot of a bride-to-be is often in the 85-105mm range for a reason: it provides a very flattering perspective. Nikon wants you DX users to use an FX 50mm f/1.4G for this. But let's see what happens.When I shoot an 85mm at 8' on FX I get a cut-off just above the elbows, a traditional chest/shoulder/head view. With a 50mm on DX at 8' I am framed slightly below the waist and well below the elbows; in fact, it's an awkward framing. I have to move in nearly two feet to get the same framing as FX, but now my perspective is starting to not be flattering on the model.

So what FX lenses do we have that can put us in the right position and perspective? The 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, which is going to be too sharp for most portraiture (unless you like doing lots of skin fixing after the fact) and not allow us as much DOF control. The 70-200mm f/2.8 (or any other f/2.8 lens that can get us to 70mm). Same comment about DOF control.

Back in 2001 (yes, over ten years ago; consider that in considering the DX portrait problem), I wrote that the perfect FX lens for portraiture on the DX DSLRs that Nikon made was...the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT. Almost immediately every used NOCT on the market disappeared and the price sky-rocketed. Partly because every pro shooting portraits realized I was right. It's 87mm equivalent on DX and it's got that fast aperture, a fast enough aperture that we almost get to 85mm f/1.8 FX equivalence on a DX body. To this day, it still is the best choice for a DX wedding shooter looking for that classic 85mm portrait look. Did Nikon notice? No. Did Nikon ever release a true DX portrait lens? No.

This is just one of the reasons why I don't think that "just use FX lenses" is the right answer to supply DX shooters. It's a hostile answer that tells photographers that "We don't care what you think about perspective, just do it our way and shut up." How's that for customer support?
Professional photographers understand and care about perspective, depth of field, and all the other elements that allow them to make their imagery exactly as they want it. If they're using DX cameras, the company that makes them doesn't care about those things nearly as much. That's being "at the heart of the image"? That's a focus on what's necessary to be the leader in imaging? I don't think so, because it doesn't actually show much understanding of what makes an image what it is."

The above is quoted from Thom Hogan's site, at http://www.bythom.com/dxweek1.htm