TaoTeJared is right on about shooting the D800 in FF mode. Crop mode in DX makes no sense to me. I am sure looking forward to TaoTeJared's findings with his 70-300VR on the D800. I have held out on buying a D800 as I use the 70-300VR a lot. My use of 70-300 Nikkor D lens on my F5 (not recently mind you as I am using digital all the time now) though convinces me that the D800 will be great with that lens. I have shot with the current 80-400VR and that lens is NOT for me. I will not buy a telephoto lens that will not work on FF cameras like the D800 or a D600. Last thing that keeps me from buying a D800 is that right now my next splurge is not going to be a camera OR a lens. I also admit that I am starting to waiver on my resolve not to buy a D800. Only my sum total experience with large format has kept me from buying the D800. I did learn that bigger is always not better. I would way rather have a 24MP D400. I hope MsMoto is right about a September announcement.
D400
(862 posts) (98 voices)-
Posted 10 months ago #
-
Yeah, I hope she is correct about the D400, ha, ha, ha....how about the anouncement sometime after September 18, 2012? ......the first day of Photokina in Cologne, Germany.
This does make sense. While this is not a Nikon Pro body, as only the FX bodies are seen as "pro" by Nikon, it is such a "pro-like" body, it is reasonable that it comes after all the goings on with the D4/D800 stuff have somewhat subsided. And the little bugs have been worked out, hopefully. I am planning on purchasing a new P & S like the Panasonic Lumix LX7 and see how it goes, then order the D400 after the first several batches are out. But, that does not mean I am not holding my breathe.... occasionally.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Of course it wouldn't make sense to buy an FX body and only shoot in DX crop mode.That's why I don't have a D800.If I only shot landscapes and portraits,I would indeed buy one.Shooting mainly macro and wildlife,I could cover the macro half on FX,but the wildlife half would require that I purchase Nikon's long glass,and only shooting as a hobby,I can't justify that expense.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Mmmm.... could it be the NR Main Blog is suggesting Photokina will be our time of celebration here on the D400 thread?
Posted 10 months ago # -
Oh msmoto....please,please,let it be true;)
Posted 10 months ago # -
Being a newcomer to NR, and coming into this discussion at a very late stage, I am a D300s user that has long waited for a D300s replacement and currently looking at used D3s models instead.
If a D400 or other D300s replacement were to be announced, how long after the announcement would I need to wait for the new model to hit the shops?
Posted 10 months ago # -
BarryH said:
Being a newcomer to NR, and coming into this discussion at a very late stage, I am a D300s user that has long waited for a D300s replacement and currently looking at used D3s models instead.If a D400 or other D300s replacement were to be announced, how long after the announcement would I need to wait for the new model to hit the shops?
Ha, ha, ha......the "$64,000 question" as we used to say. Guessing... Announcement in September, delivery to begin late November, early December. Average Joe gets one maybe in February or later totally dependent upon the demand and Nikon's production process. And, my guess, given no additional disasters such as the Tsunami or floods at production facilities, the flow of product will be much faster than the recent pro bodies. Thus, maybe January would be a time for delivery.
The issue of changing to FX format from DX is entirely different. This is a jump in mega dollars, Euros, whatever. If you have DX lenses, the FX Pro lenses cost from $500 up, most upwards of $1000 USD.
Hope this is helpful...
Posted 10 months ago # -
DaveyJ said:
I am sure looking forward to TaoTeJared's findings with his 70-300VR on the D800. I have held out on buying a D800 as I use the 70-300VR a lot.Here is a quick few thoughts but I need to find some birds that are moving here. 10th day in a row that basically has been in the hundreds and heat index has been around 110-115F. Zero rain in almost a month. Last time it was this hot was 1956. In Nebraska this is unheard of. Birds are panting and falling dead everywhere. All wildlife is hurting and hiding to get out of the sun. It is a real sad state here at the moment and not good to shoot in.
What I have seen the 70-300VR works better. The D800 can AF down to F8 in evening light easily. It grabs focus faster and more accurate for sure. Sharpness is just as good as well in the middle of the frame. I haven't been able to try out the tracking at all and there are some things a bit different. Just need to read that section again, and again or maybe I need to find MSmoto and see what she does with her D4. Overall, it is just as good as it was before the MP.
Posted 10 months ago # -
msmoto said:
Ha, ha, ha......the "$64,000 question" as we used to say. Guessing... Announcement in September, delivery to begin late November, early December. Average Joe gets one maybe in February or later totally dependent upon the demand and Nikon's production process. And, my guess, given no additional disasters such as the Tsunami or floods at production facilities, the flow of product will be much faster than the recent pro bodies. Thus, maybe January would be a time for delivery.The issue of changing to FX format from DX is entirely different. This is a jump in mega dollars, Euros, whatever. If you have DX lenses, the FX Pro lenses cost from $500 up, most upwards of $1000 USD.
Hope this is helpful...
I repeat again, FX lenses are more expensive, but has better value.
Here's a copy from another thread. Don't bother writing it all over again.
"Let's talk about the two pro lenses.
DX 17-55mm f/2.8 $1400
FX 24-70mm f/2.8 $1900DX seems cheaper eh? Now let's factor in crop factor (1.55x).
The 17-55mm f/2.8 is equivalent to 26-85mm f/4.3Hmmm... Now FX is a better choice!
DX 26-85mm f/4.3 $1400
VERSUS
FX 24-70 f/2.8 $1900.DX is indeed cheaper, but value for money wise, FX is far ahead.
Another comparison:
DX 26-85mm f/4.3 $1400
VERSUS
FX 24-120mm f/4 $1300"Posted 10 months ago # -
blockquote>msmoto said:
Ha, ha, ha......the "$64,000 question" as we used to say. Guessing... Announcement in September, delivery to begin late November, early December. Average Joe gets one maybe in February or later totally dependent upon the demand and Nikon's production process. And, my guess, given no additional disasters such as the Tsunami or floods at production facilities, the flow of product will be much faster than the recent pro bodies. Thus, maybe January would be a time for delivery.The issue of changing to FX format from DX is entirely different. This is a jump in mega dollars, Euros, whatever. If you have DX lenses, the FX Pro lenses cost from $500 up, most upwards of $1000 USD.
Hope this is helpful...
Thanks for all the replies, if it helps I'm a wildlife photographer and use both the 500 F4 and the truly great 300 F2.8 for this work.
The only reason I'm considering the D3s apart from its excellent pedigree is that I feel I've been waiting forever for the D300s replacement.
Posted 10 months ago # -
MikeWhis said:
I repeat again, FX lenses are more expensive, but has better value.Here's a copy from another thread. Don't bother writing it all over again.
"Let's talk about the two pro lenses.
DX 17-55mm f/2.8 $1400
FX 24-70mm f/2.8 $1900DX seems cheaper eh? Now let's factor in crop factor (1.55x).
The 17-55mm f/2.8 is equivalent to 26-85mm f/4.3Hmmm... Now FX is a better choice!
DX 26-85mm f/4.3 $1400
VERSUS
FX 24-70 f/2.8 $1900.DX is indeed cheaper, but value for money wise, FX is far ahead.
Another comparison:
DX 26-85mm f/4.3 $1400
VERSUS
FX 24-120mm f/4 $1300"Sorry I don't think I agreed with your discussion of this before, but for someone such as I that hasn't ever shot film or FX it makes no sense to talk about things such as this. Or even to talk about what my DX lens is in FX format...it means nothing when I haven't shot it. Of course looking into FX I might take it into account that now all my lenses are short at a future time.
But if you are shooting DX the 17-55 is a DX range and meant for DX. If you want to talk about value you need to add in the additional lens you are going to need to cover wider then 24 mm, when you get the 24-70 instead of the 17-55. So add another $800+ and it isn't a great value. It is a pointless discussion anyway...many people use an FX lens on DX bodies. In some cases there isn't a DX substitute so what is a better value...my 300 F4 on DX or FX?
As far as the crop factor and aperture your equation is wrong IMO. If you put an FX lens on a DX body the aperture opens the same size for both. So how is using a DX F2.8 lens like a F4.6 or whatever on FX? How is the crop sensor now changing how large the aperture is opening?
/end rant
and back on topic. I am hoping for the D400 by Christmas time. Would be a nice way to fit it in as a "present" :)
Posted 10 months ago # -
MikeWhis said:
DX seems cheaper eh? Now let's factor in crop factor (1.55x).
The 17-55mm f/2.8 is equivalent to 26-85mm f/4.3Math is wrong - you do not multiply (x)1.5 to the F-stop - it is always 2.8.
---------------------
The only argument to "make" FX cheaper is using resale value. If you keep your gear in great condition and sell it every few years. FX equipment holds value much better <5 yrs. This is true now, since almost all FX glass is "pro" level but when more consumer FX glass is released, that will change the argument a bit. The only consumer glass is the new 24-85vr, 70-300, and the newer 28-300.
--------------------------DX bodies are min $1000 less. (D600 may change that) Pro DX glass is 10-60% cheaper at the 2.8 levels, but most of it is 3rd party.
Here is the simple numbers for a range of coverage 16mm -> 300mm (Current and updated Nikon lenses)
Bodies: D800 ($3000)& D400 ($1800)(D300 price)
FX 1-lens: 28-300vr ($1,050) = $4,050
DX 1-lens: 18-300vr ($1,000) = $2,800FX high (2.8): 14-24 ($2k), 24-70($1,900), 70-200 ($2,400), 300mm ($5,500) = $14,800
DX high (2.8-f4): 12-24 ($1,225), 17-55 ($1,500), 70-200 ($2,400) = $6,925FX Mid-high (2.8-4): 16-35 ($1,300), 24-120 f4 ($1,300), 70-200 ($2,400), 300mm f/4($1,500) =$9,500
DX Mid-high (2.8-4ish): 12-24 ($1,225), 16-85vr ($700), 70-200 ($2,400) = $6,125FX Mid-Low: 16-35 ($1,300), 24-85vr ($600), 70-300vr ($600) = $5,500
DX Mid-Low: 10-24 ($900), 16-85vr ($700), 70-300vr ($600) = $4,000(Drop wide angle)
FX Low: 24-85vr ($600), 70-300vr ($600) = $4,200
DX low: 18-105vr ($400), 55-300vr ($400) $2,600FX Lowest/er: None
DX lowest:18-55vr ($200), 55-200vr ($250) = $2,250D3200 ($700), 18-55vr ($200), 55-200vr ($250)= $1,150
= 24mp, 1080 HD video, reach to 300mm.Note the the FX lowest cost (2-lens set up) is higher than a DX mid level with an ultra-wide angel.
You can split hairs, mix/match lenses, add 3rd party, etc. but the gap in price does not change enough to ever say DX isn't way cheaper.
Posted 10 months ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
Math is wrong - you do not multiply (x)1.5 to the F-stop - it is always 2.8.---------------------
The only argument to "make" FX cheaper is using resale value. If you keep your gear in great condition and sell it every few years. FX equipment holds value much better <5 yrs. This is true now, since almost all FX glass is "pro" level but when more consumer FX glass is released, that will change the argument a bit. The only consumer glass is the new 24-85vr, 70-300, and the newer 28-300.
--------------------------DX bodies are min $1000 less. (D600 may change that) Pro DX glass is 10-60% cheaper at the 2.8 levels, but most of it is 3rd party.
Here is the simple numbers for a range of coverage 16mm -> 300mm (Current and updated Nikon lenses)
Bodies: D800 ($3000)& D400 ($1800)(D300 price)
FX 1-lens: 28-300vr ($1,050) = $4,050
DX 1-lens: 18-300vr ($1,000) = $2,800FX high (2.8): 14-24 ($2k), 24-70($1,900), 70-200 ($2,400), 300mm ($5,500) = $14,800
DX high (2.8-f4): 12-24 ($1,225), 17-55 ($1,500), 70-200 ($2,400) = $6,925FX Mid-high (2.8-4): 16-35 ($1,300), 24-120 f4 ($1,300), 70-200 ($2,400), 300mm f/4($1,500) =$9,500
DX Mid-high (2.8-4ish): 12-24 ($1,225), 16-85vr ($700), 70-200 ($2,400) = $6,125FX Mid-Low: 16-35 ($1,300), 24-85vr ($600), 70-300vr ($600) = $5,500
DX Mid-Low: 10-24 ($900), 16-85vr ($700), 70-300vr ($600) = $4,000(Drop wide angle)
FX Low: 24-85vr ($600), 70-300vr ($600) = $4,200
DX low: 18-105vr ($400), 55-300vr ($400) $2,600FX Lowest/er: None
DX lowest:18-55vr ($200), 55-200vr ($250) = $2,250D3200 ($700), 18-55vr ($200), 55-200vr ($250)= $1,150
= 24mp, 1080 HD video, reach to 300mm.Note the the FX lowest cost (2-lens set up) is higher than a DX mid level with an ultra-wide angel.
You can split hairs, mix/match lenses, add 3rd party, etc. but the gap in price does not change enough to ever say DX isn't way cheaper.
You do multiply the f/stop by the crop factor. That's one thing you don't know of. To get the equivalent low light performance, you have to multiply the fstop by the crop factor. It's not that DX has any lower low light efficiency, just that it's equivalent fstop is bigger. And to get the equivalent depth of field, you also have to multiply the fstop by the crop factor.
Posted 10 months ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
Math is wrong - you do not multiply (x)1.5 to the F-stop - it is always 2.8.---------------------
The only argument to "make" FX cheaper is using resale value. If you keep your gear in great condition and sell it every few years. FX equipment holds value much better <5 yrs. This is true now, since almost all FX glass is "pro" level but when more consumer FX glass is released, that will change the argument a bit. The only consumer glass is the new 24-85vr, 70-300, and the newer 28-300.
--------------------------DX bodies are min $1000 less. (D600 may change that) Pro DX glass is 10-60% cheaper at the 2.8 levels, but most of it is 3rd party.
Here is the simple numbers for a range of coverage 16mm -> 300mm (Current and updated Nikon lenses)
Bodies: D800 ($3000)& D400 ($1800)(D300 price)
FX 1-lens: 28-300vr ($1,050) = $4,050
DX 1-lens: 18-300vr ($1,000) = $2,800FX high (2.8): 14-24 ($2k), 24-70($1,900), 70-200 ($2,400), 300mm ($5,500) = $14,800
DX high (2.8-f4): 12-24 ($1,225), 17-55 ($1,500), 70-200 ($2,400) = $6,925FX Mid-high (2.8-4): 16-35 ($1,300), 24-120 f4 ($1,300), 70-200 ($2,400), 300mm f/4($1,500) =$9,500
DX Mid-high (2.8-4ish): 12-24 ($1,225), 16-85vr ($700), 70-200 ($2,400) = $6,125FX Mid-Low: 16-35 ($1,300), 24-85vr ($600), 70-300vr ($600) = $5,500
DX Mid-Low: 10-24 ($900), 16-85vr ($700), 70-300vr ($600) = $4,000(Drop wide angle)
FX Low: 24-85vr ($600), 70-300vr ($600) = $4,200
DX low: 18-105vr ($400), 55-300vr ($400) $2,600FX Lowest/er: None
DX lowest:18-55vr ($200), 55-200vr ($250) = $2,250D3200 ($700), 18-55vr ($200), 55-200vr ($250)= $1,150
= 24mp, 1080 HD video, reach to 300mm.Note the the FX lowest cost (2-lens set up) is higher than a DX mid level with an ultra-wide angel.
You can split hairs, mix/match lenses, add 3rd party, etc. but the gap in price does not change enough to ever say DX isn't way cheaper.
The only thing cheap about DX is its body. (D300 vs D700) All the other bodies aren't a good comparison. Maybe D600 and D7100 can be a comparison, but that will take some time.
The lenses you used for comparison isn't equivalent to each other.
FX 28-300mm 3.5-5.6 $950
DX 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 (28-310mm 5.4-8.7) $850
- $100(10%) for 1 1/3 stop advantage with loss of 10mm at the long end.
- 28-300mm wins crazily.FX 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 $600
DX 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 (28-85mm 5.4-8.7) $200
- 4mm at the wide end, quite big of a difference. 1 1/3 advantage at wide end and 2 stop advantage at long end
- Okay, this is reasonable. But if the FX 24-85mm is as mass produced as 18-55mm, it will be cheaper. 18-55mm wins.FX 24-70mm 2.8 $1900
DX 17-55mm 2.8 (26-85mm 4.3) $1450
- 2mm advantage and 1 1/3 stop advantage for $450 (30%).
- 24-70mm wins.FX 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 $600
DX 55-200mm 4.0-5.6 (85mm-310mm 6.2-8.7) $250
- 15mm advantage at wide end and 10mm disavantage at long end. 1 stop advantage at wide end and 1 1/3 stop advantage at long end.
- Okay, this is reasonable. But if the FX 70-300mm is as mass produced as 55-200mm, it will be cheaper.FX 16-35mm 4.0 $1150
DX 10-24mm 3.5-4.5 (15.5-37mm 5.4-7.0) $850
- 0.5mm disadvantage at wide end and 2 mm disadvantage at long end, but 1 stop advantage at wide end and 1 stop 2/3 advantage at long end - for 35% extra price
- This seems reasonable again, given that landscape doesn't use wide apertures really much, so I give the slight edge to 10-24mm this time.FX 24-120mm 4.0 $1300
DX 16-85mm 3.5-5.6 (25-132mm 5.4-8.7) $650
- 1mm advantage at wide end but 12mm disadvantage at long end. 1 stop advantage at wide at and 1 2/3 stop advantage at long end.
- This seems reasonable again, it's a draw (with 24-120mm having the slight edge at the long end) - twice the light for twice the price.In conclusion, they are similar in value:price for anything below $700. Anything above that, FX wins. Anything below $300, DX wins, just because there is almost no FX lens at those prices.
Posted 10 months ago # -
MikeWhis said:
You do multiply the f/stop by the crop factor. That's one thing you don't know of. To get the equivalent low light performance, you have to multiply the fstop by the crop factor. It's not that DX has any lower low light efficiency, just that it's equivalent fstop is bigger. And to get the equivalent depth of field, you also have to multiply the fstop by the crop factor.Mike, I'm sorry to say but you are very incorrect. The light transmitted through the lens does not change, just the image circle that is captured is less.
From Nikon:
"This is beneficial now that your lens now seems to have a longer focal length and since the aperture is not effected you can get the angle of view and fast aperture in a less expensive lens. Remember, lens focal length only effects angle of view."
http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/288/kw/dx%20multiplier%20on%20F/session/L3RpbWUvMTM0MzExMDk2NS9zaWQvRWZuZSpWMWw%3DYou have quoted the above site multiple times and I'm afraid there are many things he has wrong or very poorly explained. His math and understanding of physics is off as well. Just because someone posts a bunch of words, doesn't mean it is correct.
If you still question it, do an internet search, e-mail Nikon and any working photographer. They will all tell you the same, Changing the format only changes the focal length (actually just crops the image), not the F-stop.
As on saying a $2,000 kit is somehow more expensive to shoot than a $4,000 kit... You can buy me a D4 and I'll buy you a D400 when it comes out and we can trade.
Posted 10 months ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
Changing the format only changes the focal length (actually just crops the image), not the F-stop.lets get this straight, changing format does NOT change the focal length of a lens
a f2.8 50mm lens, is a f 2.8 50mm lens, no matter what camera you put it on
the focal length of the lens is, and will always be, 50mm and needles to say it will remain an f2.8 lens until the laws of physics change
50mm is considered to be a standard lens on a FX or full frame camera, but a long focus or telephone lens on a say a CX camera . If it's image coverage was wide enough, it would be a wide angle, on say a hasselblad
Changing format or cropping , will affect perspective and DOF
There will be a change in IQ due due to the fact the image on a small format camera will probably be enlarged more than the image on large format camera(what on earth has this got to do with the D400)
Posted 10 months ago # -
This is a D400 thread, but seems to be a discussion of some strange issue of what a photographer with a blog claims as "equivalence". TTJ is correct from a physics perspective, IMO, the size of the format has nothing to do with the optical performance of the lens. They simply are not connected. However, when we look at an image on, for example, a 4" x 5" format, (normal lens about 150-160mm) and the image size is obtained with a lens of 90mm focal length, the size of the object is 3.5 inches tall, we have an image with a very distinct DOF. If, we shoot this on a full frame Nikon, with a 28mm lens, the same apparent image will appear, but the DOF will be much greater, assuming the f/stop used on both exposures was numerically the same. Same ISO, same shutter speed.
On the other hand if we shoot with the Nikon and a 90mm lens, we get an identical image, only we do not get but a small piece of this image as the format is only about 1.5 inches in maximum height.I believe what some folks discuss is trying to come up with a way to look at obtaining an "equivalent" image on a full frame Nikon compared to a cropped sensor. And in doing so, the use of some what appears to be, "invented terms" are created, all of which leads to a lot of confusion to those of us who are older than dirt. BTW the term neologism may apply here.
So, now that I have put in my additional 2 cents worth, I would like to quote the islander...Sevencrossing, "(what on earth has this got to do with the D400)" ???
And the answer is, It relives our anxiety about the fact the D400 is not being announced until Photkina in Cologne way up in September. But, maybe there will be more "leaks" on the main blog.....
Posted 10 months ago # -
msmoto said:
I believe what some folks discuss is trying to come up with a way to look at obtaining an "equivalent" image on a full frame Nikon compared to a cropped sensor. And in doing so, the use of some what appears to be, "invented terms" are created, all of which leads to a lot of confusion to those of us who are older than dirt.
This is very true
and Nikon don't help
The P7100 has a NIKKOR lens; Focal length: 6.0-42.6mm; View angle: 35mm format equivalent angle of view: 28 to 200 mm
thus if you set to the equivalent of 200mm, you are if fact shooting with a 42 mm
lens and DOF must be calculated at 42mm, not 200mmPosted 10 months ago # -
My comparisons actually neglected the resolution advantage and build quality advantages of the FX lenses. If those are factored in too, FX would kinda win hands down.
I have a question, why aren't we applying crop factor to the fstop? If you're applying to the crop factor to the focal length, then you should apply it to the fstop too. Fstop means *focal length/entrance pupil*. If you are changing the focal length (assuming in this case 'equivalent focal length', the focal length in the fstop shall change too. Hope you get what I mean.
To know the depth of field of any format, you'll need an equivalent fstop. Multiplying the crop factor to the fstop perfectly shows the equivalent depth of field. You can try calculating it yourself and test it yourself. See if there's any problem with it.
And the decade old myth about the larger format having a better low light performance is bull .... The whole reason the larger format 'seems' to have a better low light performance is because at the same fstop, the larger format have a larger entrance pupil. With the same entrance pupil (which often translates to similar lens size), the low light performance is no different. Of course, there's an optical limit.
Another decade old myth is reach. DX don't get more reach. All of it is just an illusion. 300mm/4 on FX is not 200mm/4 on DX. To get an equivalent image, the DX will need a larger aperture or vice versa, and therefore need a larger lens, and becomes more expensive.
Posted 10 months ago # -
MikeWhis said:
. If you are changing the focal length (assuming in this case 'equivalent focal length', the focal length in the f stop shall change too.Your are NOT changing the focal length
It is just a guide of an equivalent lensIf you are as old as dirt and used to thinking focal length in terms of a full frame Nikon F 35mm film camera and have just bought a D7000 you want to know the equivalent field of view
if you put a 50mm lense that you used on your Nikon F, on your new D7000, it will have the Equivalent field of view as an 80mm lens on the F
but it is still a 50mm lens and laws of physics have not changed
Posted 10 months ago # -
Gosh, f/4 at 1/500th second for a hand held light meter is good for a Hassleblad, Nikon full frame or crop sensor. Makes no difference if it is a 24mm lens or a 240mm lens. The meter gives and f/stop shutter speed combination which is correct for any camera.
Larger format having better low light performance is bologna, I agree. If anything, larger format means longer lenses, smaller f/stops, longer exposure times, and poor low light performance. This from having shot 11" X 14" color transparencies where the exposure may have been 30 secs to a minute in the studio. I have shot with a Minox (film about 8mm size) as well, and it all is just about shutter speed , f/stop and ISO, or ASA as we called it in the old days.
But, when this word equivalence comes up, all bets are off. Because this is where there is lacking any physical basis for the concepts, but instead the "impression" one gets from the photo.
I shoot with a 70-200 with a 2X converter, a 400 prime and an 80-400 zoom. All the same. Exposures the same no matter if on DX or FX. Maybe 20,000 exposures with these lenses...so, I think I may be doing something correct..
Posted 10 months ago # -
-
Unless I am totally mistaken in my photography knowledge the aperture is how much the diaphragms of the lens are opened or closed. So as I mentioned before if you have a lens at F2.8 the aperture is opened the same amount for both FX and DX bodies...there is no difference. The difference is in the sensor and the amount of area focused on the sensor by the lens. The crop factor only applies to the "focal length" in terms of the sensor is cropping the image to create an image that appears longer in focal length...like this http://www.garydatesphotos.com/superphotodude/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/crop-circle.jpg
There is nothing about the aperture in the crop factor. Take the new FX bodies for example...they have a crop mode. You are shooting the same lens. What happens when you put the camera in crop mode? Nothing except you are cropping the image to a smaller size...same f-stop, same focal length, but you take a smaller rectangle of the total round area that the lens capturing the image of. The camera aperture does not change when you change from the FX mode to crop mode.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Anyway...not sure if this has D400 merit, but I just got a Nikon $200 rebate for the D5100. I hope that Nikon releases all kinds of fun toys in September...it is making me antsy.
Posted 10 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
