Adamz, yes, that was kinda my point. As Soap points out, I can get the same effective pixel density by using a high density FX camera, but I don't want to put out that kind of money right now. The D300 and D700 are what most people are deciding between when thinking about DX vs FX purchases.

as for pixel density - indeed that's what matters, but AFAIK only d3x has a pixel density similar to d90/d300, and for the price difference You can get a really good glass

warprints said:
Going back to your point about pixels - again, the argument doesn't hold up with comparing the D300 to the D700. I could spend several thousand dollars more to get the added pixel denisty, but I'd rather not.

Soap is saying that if you buy the D700, you'd be paying extra for -lower- pixel density, which is why some wildlife photographers will choose the D300 over the D700. The only other Nikon choice for the same pixel density as the D300/D300s/D90/D5000 is the D3x.
Of course, physical pixel density doesn't tell the whole story, either. Some people say the D300 outresolves the canon 7D: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=915

bmxdad said:
DOF is from a factor of focal mm and aperture

So an actual 50mm lens has the DOF on both DX and FX, at the same aperture and distance to subject

an actual 35mm lens same thing

But 35mm and 50mm lenses(or focal lenght) does not give you the same DOF at the same aperture and distance to subject, 35mm would have a larger DOF than 50mm at the same aperture and distance to subject

Pete

That is why a 85mm F1.4 can give such a amassing shallow DOF at F1.4

If real life would be that easy :)
FX has a larger COC than a DX sensor which at a given Focal Length, Aperture & distance would give a larger DOF on FX.
In real life you mostly don't keep the same distance to the subject with different focal length and/or Sensor sizes instead you adjust the distance in order to frame your subject so the fixed distance/focal length DOF is not really that field relevant.
With a given Aperture, Magnification factor (lens) and sensor size/type the DOF will be about the same with differing focal length. DX / FX will put a little twist to it since you'll have to be closer with FX in order to get the same frame as DX. :)

soap said:
A - FX viewfinders are physically larger, you're seeing more but the subject isn't _much_ smaller. (Varies depending on the models being compared)
B - magnifying eyepieces exist.

The viewfinder images on D700 and D300 are not going to give you the same size view with the same lens - unless there is some kind of optical illusion going on.
The point is to wag less stuff, not more, I don't want to use a magnifying eyepiece.

Going back to your point about pixels - again, the argument doesn't hold up with comparing the D300 to the D700. I could spend several thousand dollars more to get the added pixel denisty, but I'd rather not.

A - FX viewfinders are physically larger, you're seeing more but the subject isn't _much_ smaller. (Varies depending on the models being compared)
B - magnifying eyepieces exist.

Soap - Your argument has some merit, but does not give the whole picture (sorry about the pun). When I look through the viewfinder of an FX camera with a 600mm lens on it, I "see" a certain FOV. With the same lens on a DX camera, I "see" a mcuh closer view. Doing wildlife, I want that closer view -- for less weight and cost.

I didn't know we we having an argument at all - when it comes to pure preferences (e.g. what should we call this lens - 35mm or 50mm), there is no right or wrong. If you want to name the lens by its focal length, then there is a correcdt answer. If you want to name it by the apparent focal length (FOV), there is a correct answer for that (based on what sensor size is being used).

bmxdad said:
No where have I stated that DX gives 1.5 Zoom,

I don't recall calling you out

bmxdad said:
but at the moment special in entry DSLR you get effective mm, right, what you see in your viewfinder. A 50mm lens on a DX will give you angle view of app 75mm if seen through a FX camera. If a customer walks in with a F80 and his 28-80mm lens and don't want a D700, what should I tell him that his 28-80mm lens is going to do on his new D90, should tell him that he would end up with app a (effective) 42-120mm lens, because if I do not get him to walk home with a 18-105mm zoom(or similar) he will back the next day telling me what is going on, I can hardly shoot any pictures inside now

While your discussion of FoV is technically correct, it is not the aspect of this conversation I was addressing.
Regardless of what the effective FoV is, wildlife shooters want pixels per degree. You want as many pixels on your subject as possible. You can do this with longer lenses, or you can do this with denser sensors. The _size_ of the sensor is irrelevant.

This argument _can_ be won (No, I haven't added up who is on what side) because facts are facts. DX is a cropped sensor format, not a magic zoom sensor format. Many people (rightfully) want the high-pixel-density sensors, but that is a whole other ballgame not technically tied to the crop formats.

For example:
A D3 has a higher pixel density than a D2H. Sure, on the D2H, that 600mm lens has a FoV equivalent to a 900mm lens on the D3, but the D3 is still putting more pixels on the subject bird than the D2H is with than 600mm lens. FX/DX isn't the indicator people make it out to be. The much more difficult to sell concept of density is.

DOF is from a factor of focal mm and aperture

So an actual 50mm lens has the DOF on both DX and FX, at the same aperture and distance to subject

an actual 35mm lens same thing

But 35mm and 50mm lenses(or focal lenght) does not give you the same DOF at the same aperture and distance to subject, 35mm would have a larger DOF than 50mm at the same aperture and distance to subject

Pete

That is why a 85mm F1.4 can give such a amassing shallow DOF at F1.4

Shouldn't the DOF be similar between the 35mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8? They're both the same apertures.

soap said:
I hate to be the pedantic a**hole, but DX does not give you 1.5x zoom, it gives you 1.5x crop. A FX camera with the same pixel density as your DX camera would have the same resolution (pixels per degree) as your current setup. As the technology starts to mature (in so far as densities) I expect FX and DX sensors to plateau at around the same density, making this pedantic point all the more clear.

No where have I stated that DX gives 1.5 Zoom, but at the moment special in entry DSLR you get effective mm, right, what you see in your viewfinder. A 50mm lens on a DX will give you angle view of app 75mm if seen through a FX camera. If a customer walks in with a F80 and his 28-80mm lens and don't want a D700, what should I tell him that his 28-80mm lens is going to do on his new D90, should tell him that he would end up with app a (effective) 42-120mm lens, because if I do not get him to walk home with a 18-105mm zoom(or similar) he will back the next day telling me what is going on, I can hardly shoot any pictures inside now

Yes I know this argument will newer end or be won.

Why else would you purchase a new 35F1.8 DX lens, because it shoots the same way like a 50mm does on DX, yes DOF is different, but the angle and what is seen in the viewfinder is certainly very similar(and that is what's count the most

Pete

I hate to be the pedantic a**hole, but DX does not give you 1.5x zoom, it gives you 1.5x crop. A FX camera with the same pixel density as your DX camera would have the same resolution (pixels per degree) as your current setup. As the technology starts to mature (in so far as densities) I expect FX and DX sensors to plateau at around the same density, making this pedantic point all the more clear.

bmxdad said:
BTW why is that a lot people shooting birds prefer DX cameas, a 600mm lens will act like a 900mm compared to FX or political correct a D700 would crop to app 5MP to get the same image

Pete

I prefer DX for wildlife because a 600mm lens costs less and weighs less than a 900mm of equal f-stop. Wagging the bigger heavier lens into a wilderness area is not fun.

mb said:
I really do not understand what is the problem here?
For example Nikon 50mm can be used on film/FX, DX and Olympus PEN and all with different angle of view and crop, do you really need 3 markings on it or you could do the simple math and multiply it with 1, 1.5 and 2 if you really need to.
Or you can just look through the darn viewfinder and you’ll see and learn soon enough.
On the other hand if you seldom use your camera no lens measurement will help you.

I personally don't have problem with this and I totally understand what the real focal lenght is OK. I am in camera sales and people actually take notice of the fact Olympus has that sticker on their lenses and I just would like the same on Nikon lenses, big deal have a small sticker.

BTW why is that a lot people shooting birds prefer DX cameas, a 600mm lens will act like a 900mm compared to FX or political correct a D700 would crop to app 5MP to get the same image

Pete

I really do not understand what is the problem here?
For example Nikon 50mm can be used on film/FX, DX and Olympus PEN and all with different angle of view and crop, do you really need 3 markings on it or you could do the simple math and multiply it with 1, 1.5 and 2 if you really need to.
Or you can just look through the darn viewfinder and you’ll see and learn soon enough.
On the other hand if you seldom use your camera no lens measurement will help you.

The crop factor is a non issue really, it doesn't change how a lens performs, it just changes the field of view for different size sensors. I doesn't change perspective or "magnifaction", it doesnt make the lens any different focal length, it just doesnt change a thing about the lens.

NikoDoby said:
I think NSX is totally right on why Nikon doesn't add stickers - confusion.

Why don't you just make a chart for your customers and put it up on a wall?
You can call it NikoDoby's chart of conversion :^)

Not even the confusion, it's the discontinuity from your old models. Your old models didn't have stickers!!! OMG what am I going to do?

Yes it gets tricky doesn't it? Point and shoots can be tough and then a body like the M8 has a 1.33 crop factor, which also complicates things. Here is a cheatsheet for Nikon DX : Focal length FX first DX second. 12>18, 14>21, 17>25.5, 18> 27, 20> 30, 24>36, 28>42, 35> 52.5, 50> 75, 60>90, 70>105, 85> 127.5, 105> 157.5, 135> 202.5, 180> 270, 200> 300, 300> 450, 400>600, 500>750, 600>900. I also need to do these calculations when setting my Flash Sb-600 zoom length as well, which is annoying but you get used to it. I might be getting my D700 soon though haha

NSXType-R said:
Chances are, if you're interested in the focal length anyway, you'll know to just multiply by 1.5.

If you're not interested, you're not going to care 18 is actually 24.

And plus, if Nikon changes their naming convention, it'll cause more confusion than anything else.

I think NSX is totally right on why Nikon doesn't add stickers - confusion.

Why don't you just make a chart for your customers and put it up on a wall?
You can call it NikoDoby's chart of conversion :^)

NikoDoby said:
That's because Nikon users are smarter than Olympians and we can figure out the simple math for ourselves :^)

Yes we are, but why is so difficult to just state it, I have to explain it every day and at least Nikon is easy to calculate, but with canon we 1.6 and 1.3 factor, hopeful some day it will all be FX, but then we will have moved into larger than FX right

Now where is that darn calculator, my glasses, my ????

Pete

NikoDoby said:
That's because Nikon users are smarter than Olympians and we can figure out the simple math for ourselves :^)

I'm so quick at multiplying stuff a 1.5 now! The other day at school in math we were doing a problem on the board, and the teacher asked what ___x2.5 was, and I was the first to give the answer, except I multiplied by 1.5! *facepalm*

Canon users have the most annoying crops, 1.6 and 1.3, that just makes life difficult for them. Ha cha cha!

I envy the full frame users who multiply by 1 instantaneously... ;^)

That's because Nikon users are smarter than Olympians and we can figure out the simple math for ourselves :^)

NSXType-R said:
Chances are, if you're interested in the focal length anyway, you'll know to just multiply by 1.5.

If you're not interested, you're not going to care 18 is actually 24.

And plus, if Nikon changes their naming convention, it'll cause more confusion than anything else.

I am not looking for renaming, simply a small sticker giving the effective mm when used on a DX camera, so a 50mm lens is app 75mm DX equiv

This is what Olympus does:

Pete

Chances are, if you're interested in the focal length anyway, you'll know to just multiply by 1.5.

If you're not interested, you're not going to care 18 is actually 24.

And plus, if Nikon changes their naming convention, it'll cause more confusion than anything else.