Why Nikon should upgrade the D300

"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?


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.


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.

Trevor.

"Apteryx" wrote in message
...
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.

No argument from me, but no my 35mm lenses don't work on my 6x6cm.


In fact, since 36mm by 36mm is a format larger than 36 by 24mm, and
therefore is a medium format,

I did have a 4x4cm camera once, but I know of no 36mmx36mm camera. I doubt
my SLR lenses would fit any that were ever made anyway.


it is pretty much inevitable that the lenses you think of as FX are in fact
MF (unless their image "circle" is not a true circle). They would be
producing "crops" of what they could display on a possible MF camera with
that format when used on your FX camera.

So, I never said otherwise. In any case it's a complete straw man argument.


And given the way in which many Nikon DX zoom lenses, although only
needing to cover a sensor a little smaller than 24mm by 16mm, nonetheless
have image circles that will cover an FX sensor over part of their zoom
range, I would be surprised if none of their FX zoom lenses would not in
the same way cover a sensor 44mm by 33mm, which is in cameras marketed as
digital MF

You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know of that have
rectangular or oval image "circles". The simple fact is that many 35mm Fx
lenses could be made to work with a 44mm sensor, IF you don't mind the
distortion and vignetting that are bound to arise. WHY you'd want to
cripple a high priced MF digital camera by using a lens poorly suited to the
task I guess only you can answer? I won't be trying it any time soon! :-)

Trevor.

Eric Stevens wrote in
:

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:28:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 10, 8:33*pm, "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!

I doubt you'd say that 35mm format is "simply permanent cropping"
compared to medium format,

Well yes I would if you put a MF lens on a 35mm camera and then
pretended to compare the lens reach as is being done here.

but saying that is just as valid as what you are saying.
There are advantages to smaller formats - it's not a case of
"bigger = better".

Of course, as I said all along. Size, weight, cost are always valid
considerations. However pretending that the same lens on a Dx body
has greater reach for wildlife shots etc. is NOT one of them IMO.
Simply wrong thinking.

Trevor.

Pixel density in a scene determines resolution, provided the lens can
handle it. 24mp into a DX scene produces a higher pixel density and
resolution than a 36mp FX camera.

It depends how you measure pixel density. You are right if you express
the density in (say) pixels/mm but wrong if you express it in
pixels/image-width. Assuming of course that you select lenses to
project the same image on the sensor. The 36 mp sensor will always
produce an image of higher resolution.

No, it won't. If you use the same lens on the APS and FF sensors, a random
subject (wildlife) will occupy the same space (in mm's) on both sensors,
but it will subtend more pixels on the APS 24mp sensor than the 36mp FX
sensor. Lets say on the APS sensor, the subject is 3000 pixels wide, or
half the frame. On the FX sensor, subtending the same width in mm's on the
sensor means it only occupies 2300 pixels or more than 20% less resolution
than on the APS sensor. The only way to match the subject resolution on
the FX sensor is to boost the lens from 300mm almost 400mm. The 36mm sensor
has more pixels, but it isn't putting as many into a specific subject in
the frame because less of a percentage its frame is occupied with the
subject when using the same f.l. lens as on the APS sensor.

In order to get the same subject resolution as the 24mp APS sensor, using
the same f.l. lens, the 36mp FX sensor would have to be boosted to 48mp.

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".

In fact, since 36mm by 36mm is a format larger than 36 by 24mm, and
therefore is a medium format, it is pretty much inevitable that the
lenses you think of as FX are in fact MF (unless their image "circle" is
not a true circle). They would be producing "crops" of what they could
display on a possible MF camera with that format when used on your FX
camera.

In fact, since 6-1/2" x 8-1/2" is a format larger than 4" x 5" and it
is pretty much inevitable that the lenses you think of as
4" x 5"are in fact 6-1/2" x 8-1/2" (unless their image "circle" is
not a true circle). They would be producing "crops" of what they could
display on a possible 6-1/2" x 8-1/2" camera with that format when
used on your "4 x 5" camera. But so what?

And given the way in which many Nikon DX zoom lenses, although only
needing to cover a sensor a little smaller than 24mm by 16mm,
nonetheless have image circles that will cover an FX sensor over part of
their zoom range, I would be surprised if none of their FX zoom lenses
would not in the same way cover a sensor 44mm by 33mm, which is in
cameras marketed as digital MF

Apteryx
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:33:39 -0500, Rich wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote in
:

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:28:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 10, 8:33*pm, "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!

I doubt you'd say that 35mm format is "simply permanent cropping"
compared to medium format,

Well yes I would if you put a MF lens on a 35mm camera and then
pretended to compare the lens reach as is being done here.

but saying that is just as valid as what you are saying.
There are advantages to smaller formats - it's not a case of
"bigger = better".

Of course, as I said all along. Size, weight, cost are always valid
considerations. However pretending that the same lens on a Dx body
has greater reach for wildlife shots etc. is NOT one of them IMO.
Simply wrong thinking.

Trevor.

Pixel density in a scene determines resolution, provided the lens can
handle it. 24mp into a DX scene produces a higher pixel density and
resolution than a 36mp FX camera.

It depends how you measure pixel density. You are right if you express
the density in (say) pixels/mm but wrong if you express it in
pixels/image-width. Assuming of course that you select lenses to
project the same image on the sensor. The 36 mp sensor will always
produce an image of higher resolution.

No, it won't. If you use the same lens on the APS and FF sensors, ...

If you carefully read what I have just written you will see that you
are talking about a different case. I specifically wrote " Assuming of
course that you select lenses to project the same image on the
sensor." You are talking about using the same lens on both sensors
which will of course project different images on each.

... a random
subject (wildlife) will occupy the same space (in mm's) on both sensors,
but it will subtend more pixels on the APS 24mp sensor than the 36mp FX
sensor. Lets say on the APS sensor, the subject is 3000 pixels wide, or
half the frame. On the FX sensor, subtending the same width in mm's on the
sensor means it only occupies 2300 pixels or more than 20% less resolution
than on the APS sensor. The only way to match the subject resolution on
the FX sensor is to boost the lens from 300mm almost 400mm. The 36mm sensor
has more pixels, but it isn't putting as many into a specific subject in
the frame because less of a percentage its frame is occupied with the
subject when using the same f.l. lens as on the APS sensor.

In order to get the same subject resolution as the 24mp APS sensor, using
the same f.l. lens, the 36mp FX sensor would have to be boosted to 48mp.

You are confusing yourself.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.


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

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

On 12/10/2012 2:44 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Apteryx" wrote in message
...
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.

No argument from me, but no my 35mm lenses don't work on my 6x6cm.


In fact, since 36mm by 36mm is a format larger than 36 by 24mm, and
therefore is a medium format,

I did have a 4x4cm camera once, but I know of no 36mmx36mm camera. I doubt
my SLR lenses would fit any that were ever made anyway.


it is pretty much inevitable that the lenses you think of as FX are in fact
MF (unless their image "circle" is not a true circle). They would be
producing "crops" of what they could display on a possible MF camera with
that format when used on your FX camera.

So, I never said otherwise. In any case it's a complete straw man argument.


And given the way in which many Nikon DX zoom lenses, although only
needing to cover a sensor a little smaller than 24mm by 16mm, nonetheless
have image circles that will cover an FX sensor over part of their zoom
range, I would be surprised if none of their FX zoom lenses would not in
the same way cover a sensor 44mm by 33mm, which is in cameras marketed as
digital MF

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.



The simple fact is that many 35mm Fx
lenses could be made to work with a 44mm sensor, IF you don't mind the
distortion and vignetting that are bound to arise. WHY you'd want to
cripple a high priced MF digital camera by using a lens poorly suited to the
task I guess only you can answer? I won't be trying it any time soon! :-)

Trevor.

On 12/10/2012 6:13 PM, 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".

In fact, since 36mm by 36mm is a format larger than 36 by 24mm, and
therefore is a medium format, it is pretty much inevitable that the
lenses you think of as FX are in fact MF (unless their image "circle" is
not a true circle). They would be producing "crops" of what they could
display on a possible MF camera with that format when used on your FX
camera.

In fact, since 6-1/2" x 8-1/2" is a format larger than 4" x 5" and it
is pretty much inevitable that the lenses you think of as
4" x 5"are in fact 6-1/2" x 8-1/2" (unless their image "circle" is
not a true circle). They would be producing "crops" of what they could
display on a possible 6-1/2" x 8-1/2" camera with that format when
used on your "4 x 5" camera. But so what?


I use a 210mm lens for my 4x5 and I know it covers at least 10x10 as I
use this lens, in my 8x10 enlarger.

Did know the circle of coverage at one stage, of most LF lenses.



And given the way in which many Nikon DX zoom lenses, although only
needing to cover a sensor a little smaller than 24mm by 16mm,
nonetheless have image circles that will cover an FX sensor over part of
their zoom range, I would be surprised if none of their FX zoom lenses
would not in the same way cover a sensor 44mm by 33mm, which is in
cameras marketed as digital MF

Apteryx

My 18-35mm lens on the FX camera must be close as I have noticed some
vignetting with this lens that only has a thin UV filter. Worse with a
PL filter being too thick.

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.





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'.