I may want vignetting

NikonMick

I'm a DX user who has DX lenses (12-24/f4, 35/1.8) and FX lenses, both AF-S and manual focus.

My question is about vignetting, as I'm interested to know if you can "force" an FX sensor-equipped body, eg the new Df, to capture the whole frame size (36X24) when using a DX lens. Rather than having the image captured at DX parameters (24x16).

For example, if I use my 12-24/F4 DX on an FX body, can it capture an angle of view that is actually 12mm-24mm FX equivalent, to ensure vignetting, so that the darkened corners we see on Top Gear cinematography can be had directly out of the camera, rather than doing it in post.

;-)

Thanks for any thinkings,

Mick

Ade

Yes one can "force" the camera to use the full FX sensor on a DX lens, by turning off the "Auto DX Crop" function and selecting "FX format" sensor image area.

(This capability is present on all current Nikon FX cameras, so presumably the Df will have it as well).

JakesGT

On top gear they use plates in front of the lens to create that effect and it's beautiful. A DX on fx won't necessarily do that. The 35 1.8 will vignette the corners until about f4 and then it will be harsh corners being cut. Most other lenses will probably result in having just cut of corners instead of vignetted. So I would buy fx glass and vignette in post

NikonMick

Both excellent responses, gracias !!

spraynpray

I suppose clicking a post-crop vignette on it during editing doesn't appeal then Mick? You can get 'gimmick filters'with all shapes of cut-outs in them which give a another option.

Msmoto

Modified 10.5mm f/2.8

NSXTypeR

Yup, you can get all the vignetting you want!

That's the first time I've ever seen someone ask for it, but sure, whatever floats your boat!

kyoshinikon

I sometimes add Vignetting in post. if you get a cheapo rubber threaded lens hood off adorama that makes for good natural vignetting. Ms Moto's modded 10.5 is off the deep end lol. I will probably cut off the hood of my next 10.5 I get

Fred_B

I cut the hood off of a Sigma 8-16 and shoot it on FX sometimes. With a lot of cutting you can get to about 11mm with a 16:9 crop and darker sides. It has some frustrating distortion though.

Photobug

MsMoto..."sweet" picture :-))

Vipmediastar_JZ

I tend to like vignette. Sometimes I remove it in post but otherwise leave it. With NIK silver I find myself adding it as well

NikonMick

@spraynpray wrote:

> I suppose clicking a post-crop vignette on it during editing doesn't appeal then Mick?

Morning S'n'P, but I don't do POST - if it's not on the card, it's not there at all.

Consider how camera capabilities have advanced - we can now control colour balance/temperature (no filters needed), we can now control film speed/ISO/ASA (no change of canister needed), and we can now control film style, eg Velvia, B/W, neg or tranny, again with no change of canister needed.

And we can still do all the things that were possible pre-digital, eg, aperture, exposure period, metering style, depth of field, etc.

IMHO, post processing's for people who don't know how to imagine photos.

;-)

Just teasing, of course

@PitchBlack wrote:

> it seems pointless to risk wrecking the photo in camera.

I'd respond that your idea of wrecking is my idea of creating.

Golf007sd

IMHO, post processing's for people who don't know how to imagine photos.

With all do respect, that statement is false on many accounts.

So long as you are happy with your in-camera image that is all good and dandy. But, should you want to get more creative get yourself a good PP software and you will find that their is a whole world that your image can be taken too.

TaoTeJared

DX lenses on FX bodies really vary on vignetting, most not in a good way or is very "hard"/deep/dark and I don't find it pleasing and most of the time unusable. Overall I wouldn't say it is a good option and if you were thinking you could keep your DX glass for FX body, I would say No to that to that thought. It would be better just to cut a black circle out of paper with a large hole (say 3/16" wide of material) and place it inside the filter threads if you want the look. Also realize DX lenses are optimized for a small sensor so the fall-off in quality is fairly major outside the intended image circle - But I doubt that is a concern if all you want is the "fall-off".

The 35mm 1.8 is actually the only Dx lens I think does well. I have not tried any of the DX macros on FX though. Zooms will get really cut off on the wide end, but actually will cover the sensor the more "zoomed" out you are. Still the quality is not there.

Post processing is 100% necessary unless you are shooting for journalism outlets. It is a tool no different than a filter or lens hood. I don't mean one needs a full version of Photoshop or that anyone has to do major changes, but Lightroom can tweak shots from blah, to much better without changing your original intent. It is also the one of the best cataloging system to keep track of files. It's vignetting tool is 1,000x better than any attempt to do it in camera.

spraynpray

@NikonMick:

"IMHO, post processing's for people who don't know how to imagine photos.

Just teasing, of course"

OK, well I can't really think of a better way that taking a few special effects filters out with you then Mick. I did a few shots like that back in the film days but haven't needed/wanted to since digital came along. I actually made my own and held it inside a UV filter with two fingers.

Would be good if you put up a few images to show your results - good luck!

shawnino

Filters? Who needs 'em?

And lenses? Lenses are for total humps:

PB_PM

So pin hole photography. Hardly anything revolutionary. :-@

NikonMick

Funnily enough, I found there's a dedicated Flickr group called "The Vignetting Pool", created in june 2005 with over 15,000, that is 15K, members.

Someone(s) is/are obviously interested in the subject.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/vignetting

Cheers, Mick