Why Nikon should upgrade the D300

On 12/10/2012 7:35 PM, Apteryx wrote:
On 12/10/2012 8:13 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:00:37 +1300, Apteryx
wrote:

On 11/10/2012 2:33 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"Me" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/2012 1:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"Me" wrote in message
...
snipo
(BTW the D800 in DX crop mode is about 16mp, not 24mp).

My point is a Dx camera is simply permanent cropping in camera Vs the
ability to crop whatever you want in software with a Fx camera.
Not really. Dx (APS-c) is a legitimate and popular format, as is 4/3.
They aren't "cropping" - the format is what it is.

Perhaps, but put a Fx lens on a Dx body, and in camera "cropping" of
the
lens image is *exactly* what you get!

Have you checked whether any of your "FX" lenses might in fact have
image circles that would cover a medium format (ie, any format larger
than 36mm by 24mm)? If they would, then they are in fact MF lenses, but
are producing only "cropped" images on your FX camera.

60 years ago I was using a 4" x 5" field camera with a collection of
lenses which had a sufficiently wide field of view that I could raise
the front, tilt the font, tilt the back, skew things, twist things etc
etc. When the camera was set up straight and centred those lenses had
a field of view considerably larger than the 4" x 5" sheet film. By
your definition they were then producing 'cropped' images. That is
they could have produced significantly larger images up to and
including 'whole plate' = 6-1/2" x 8-1/2".

It is not my definition - it is Trevor's. I am just pointing out that if
you regard DX as a "crop" of FX, then every format is in the same
(rather pointless sense of the word) a crop of some larger format, real
or theoretical.

Apteryx


Why is it that with larger formats, the image feels better. 6x7cm
always looked better than 35mm.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:35:23 +1300, Apteryx
wrote:

On 12/10/2012 8:13 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:00:37 +1300, Apteryx
wrote:

On 11/10/2012 2:33 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"Me" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/2012 1:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"Me" wrote in message
...
snipo
(BTW the D800 in DX crop mode is about 16mp, not 24mp).

My point is a Dx camera is simply permanent cropping in camera Vs the
ability to crop whatever you want in software with a Fx camera.
Not really. Dx (APS-c) is a legitimate and popular format, as is 4/3.
They aren't "cropping" - the format is what it is.

Perhaps, but put a Fx lens on a Dx body, and in camera "cropping" of the
lens image is *exactly* what you get!

Have you checked whether any of your "FX" lenses might in fact have
image circles that would cover a medium format (ie, any format larger
than 36mm by 24mm)? If they would, then they are in fact MF lenses, but
are producing only "cropped" images on your FX camera.

60 years ago I was using a 4" x 5" field camera with a collection of
lenses which had a sufficiently wide field of view that I could raise
the front, tilt the font, tilt the back, skew things, twist things etc
etc. When the camera was set up straight and centred those lenses had
a field of view considerably larger than the 4" x 5" sheet film. By
your definition they were then producing 'cropped' images. That is
they could have produced significantly larger images up to and
including 'whole plate' = 6-1/2" x 8-1/2".

It is not my definition - it is Trevor's. I am just pointing out that if
you regard DX as a "crop" of FX, then every format is in the same
(rather pointless sense of the word) a crop of some larger format, real
or theoretical.

My apologies. It sounds as though you and I agree. To regard a smaller
sensor as a crop of a larger implies that the smaller sensor is
restricted to the same lens as the larger. It might very well be able
to use the same lens but there is no reason why it should not use a
proportionally shorter.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:16:18 +1100, Rob wrote:

On 12/10/2012 7:35 PM, Apteryx wrote:
On 12/10/2012 8:13 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:00:37 +1300, Apteryx
wrote:

On 11/10/2012 2:33 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"Me" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/2012 1:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"Me" wrote in message
...
snipo
(BTW the D800 in DX crop mode is about 16mp, not 24mp).

My point is a Dx camera is simply permanent cropping in camera Vs the
ability to crop whatever you want in software with a Fx camera.
Not really. Dx (APS-c) is a legitimate and popular format, as is 4/3.
They aren't "cropping" - the format is what it is.

Perhaps, but put a Fx lens on a Dx body, and in camera "cropping" of
the
lens image is *exactly* what you get!

Have you checked whether any of your "FX" lenses might in fact have
image circles that would cover a medium format (ie, any format larger
than 36mm by 24mm)? If they would, then they are in fact MF lenses, but
are producing only "cropped" images on your FX camera.

60 years ago I was using a 4" x 5" field camera with a collection of
lenses which had a sufficiently wide field of view that I could raise
the front, tilt the font, tilt the back, skew things, twist things etc
etc. When the camera was set up straight and centred those lenses had
a field of view considerably larger than the 4" x 5" sheet film. By
your definition they were then producing 'cropped' images. That is
they could have produced significantly larger images up to and
including 'whole plate' = 6-1/2" x 8-1/2".

It is not my definition - it is Trevor's. I am just pointing out that if
you regard DX as a "crop" of FX, then every format is in the same
(rather pointless sense of the word) a crop of some larger format, real
or theoretical.

Apteryx


Why is it that with larger formats, the image feels better. 6x7cm
always looked better than 35mm.

Different proportions. The 6x7cm has proportionally finer grain. There
is no direct relevance to cropping.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:13:32 +1100, Rob wrote:

On 12/10/2012 6:38 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:30:52 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
The size of the sensor does not on its own determine the field of
view. Its the size of te sensor combined with the focal length of the
lens which determines the field of view. While the FF sensor does not
provide a wider field of view it does require a longer (and larger and
heavier) lens to obtain the same field of view as a smaller 'crop'
sensor.

NOT if you simply *choose* to crop later rather than having the camera
give
you no choice!

We are talking about DSLRs most of which have interchangeable lenses.
Normally the user chooses the lens so as to enable the camera to
obtain the required field of view.

How does that negate the ability to crop (or not) in software with any
digital image Vs in camera to obtain the same image?

It doesn't.

Nor does it negate the ability to fit a lens to the camera which
projects an image sized to suit the dimensions of the sensor.


Given the same lens, and same pixels per sq inch sensor types, you would
get
exactly the same results if the Dx crops in camera, or you crop the Fx
image
in PS.

Cropping an image is an entirely different matter.

Cropping is cropping, whether done in camera or in PS. The result is the
same for the example I gave.

I have a Dx camera. When I take a photograph I _never_ think in terms
of me cropping the image. I might decide to crop the image later in
processing but I never think I am cropping an already cropped image.


And why should you? - you take what you see, not what you may need later.

More to the point, I don't say to myself "I wish I had an Fx camera so
I didn't have to suffer this cropped field of view". I get the field
of view I want by selecting the appropriate lens focal length. That
the appropriate focal length is not the same as for an Fx camera
doesn't bother me. Trevor doesn't seem to think this way and the
smaller Fx format seems to bother him.



What is the image you are cropping?

Anything I want! And *often* do so.


(but yes a Dx only lens can be a little smaller than a Fx one for a given
focal length, however in practice I don't really see enough difference to
justify locking yourself into a Dx only system.)
I'm amazed there are people still arguing about this.

Me too.

Well with so much BS being spread, it's still necessary to post the facts
unfortunately.

The problem is that there is an enormous amount of obfuscation
generated by people who insist in thinking only in terms of a
still-camera image size based on the Edison Kinetographic film size of
1890. It doesn't matter what the sensor (film or silicon) size is:
it's not a 'crop sensor'.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Rob" wrote:

Why is it that with larger formats, the image feels better. 6x7cm
always looked better than 35mm.


Short answer: 35mm is crap, always has been, always will be.

Long answer: It's real clear if you make prints.

A 7x enlargement from good film is gorgeous, but 10x is pushing it. So if
you want to make a quality 11x14 print, even a 10 x 13 on 11x14 paper with
1/2" margins, it's essentialy impossible from 35mm since that's at least an
11x enlargement. But a 16x20 from 6x7 will stand up to the closest
nose-on-print inspection, assuming your images are interesting enough for
people to want to look at them for more than a brief glance.

So if you actually make prints, 6x7 is seriously wonderful and 35mm is
god-awful crap.

Another issue is that people with larger format film go looking for images
with the kind of detail that will be effective when printed large. In the
landscape magazines I get, the 4x5 stuff jumps at one even at somewhat
smaller sizes.

Nowadays, with super A3 printers widely available, 12x18 on 13x19 paper is a
natural thing to do, but that's completely unreasonable from 35mm, and like
falling off a log even with the now outdated 12MP FF cameras.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Apteryx" wrote in message
...
It is not my definition - it is Trevor's. I am just pointing out that if
you regard DX as a "crop" of FX, then every format is in the same (rather
pointless sense of the word) a crop of some larger format, real or
theoretical.

What total nonsense. If you mount a lens designed for 8"x10" on a 35mm body,
you are indeed cropping it's image! Since you cannot use a 35mm lens on an
8"x10" camera, the reverse is not possible. You can however crop the 8x10"
negative under the enlarger for the same result. What you choose as your
definitions makes no difference to physical reality.

Trevor.

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
It is not my definition - it is Trevor's. I am just pointing out that if
you regard DX as a "crop" of FX, then every format is in the same
(rather pointless sense of the word) a crop of some larger format, real
or theoretical.

My apologies. It sounds as though you and I agree. To regard a smaller
sensor as a crop of a larger implies that the smaller sensor is
restricted to the same lens as the larger. It might very well be able
to use the same lens but there is no reason why it should not use a
proportionally shorter.

So you choose to ignore the fact that 90% of Canon and Nikon lenses fit
either Dx or Fx bodies, (and the lens mount is the same)? And some Nikon Dx
lenses can be used in "crop mode" on an Fx body anyway? Fine, your choice.
Not like I should care :-)

Trevor.

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
Well with so much BS being spread, it's still necessary to post the facts
unfortunately.

The problem is that there is an enormous amount of obfuscation
generated by people who insist in thinking only in terms of a
still-camera image size based on the Edison Kinetographic film size of
1890. It doesn't matter what the sensor (film or silicon) size is:
it's not a 'crop sensor'.

How *you* choose to define it makes no difference to the image obtained,
that's my point!

Trevor.

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Cropping is cropping, whether done in camera or in PS. The result is the
same for the example I gave.

I have a Dx camera. When I take a photograph I _never_ think in terms
of me cropping the image. I might decide to crop the image later in
processing but I never think I am cropping an already cropped image.


And why should you? - you take what you see, not what you may need later.

Actually the argument mentioned reach of lenses for wildlife, where you may
well shoot your longest lens knowing you still have to crop later. If the
image obtained is satisfactory for what you want, why should it matter if
it's uncropped, a crop or a "crop" of a crop". Simply unimportant
definitions as I have stated all along.


Well with so much BS being spread, it's still necessary to post the
facts
unfortunately.

The problem is that there is an enormous amount of obfuscation
generated by people who insist in thinking only in terms of a
still-camera image size based on the Edison Kinetographic film size of
1890. It doesn't matter what the sensor (film or silicon) size is:
it's not a 'crop sensor'.


Yep, that statement would certainly be "obfuscation"! :-)
The sensor is indeed "cropping" the image a Fx lens was designed for, and
isn't when used with a Dx lens. Your choice, except Canon and Nikon only
give you a small choice of Dx only lenses. Of course my argument was not
based on simple definitions anyway, only on the fact that it *is* possible
to obtain similar results with the *same* lens on an Fx or Dx body. You can
ignore it all you like, define it away however you want, but it doesn't
change the physics, or final image that is possible.

Trevor.

"Rob" wrote in message
...
You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know of that
have
rectangular or oval image "circles".

yes there are BTW - think movie lenses.

Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a circular
glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular of course, which is a
totally different issue.

Trevor.