Death of F-mount DX Challenge

1234568»

Comments

  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,222Member
    mhedges said:


    For an image with the same FOV and aperture setting you get more DOF on DX because you can use a shorter lens.

    Which is exactly the point that was made, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Pinstnbroke is correct, at the same focal length, on the same lens the DOF is the same, DX or FX. The framing will be different, but the focal length and magnification of the lens do not change in the slightest. Now if you want the same framing, yes of course it will be different, but that was not the point that was made.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,292Moderator
    So many ways of saying the same thing. We have to bear that in mind.
    Always learning.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,105Member
    edited December 2019
    If you continue to compare apple to oranges then you are right. Like for like you are wrong.
    If you take an FX image and crop to 24x15 do you get more depth of field?

    Love PB-PM . Spray ..there is only one truth however you say it.

    don't want to start a riot here just get people to think.
    Post edited by Pistnbroke on
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,292Moderator

    If you continue to compare apple to oranges then you are right. Like for like you are wrong.
    If you take an FX image and crop to 24x15 do you get more depth of field?

    Love PB-PM . Spray ..there is only one truth however you say it.

    don't want to start a riot here just get people to think.

    My point exactly using different words.
    Always learning.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 921Member


    don't want to start a riot here just get people to think.

    A polite little verbal riot would be fun, but I think we've gone through the basics already :).

  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,105Member
    I am only pleased that the people who believe in this fantasy having reviewed the evidence are not the jurors and me the accused .
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,351Member
    You have to pick a starting point as your constant when you compare DX to FX DOF. If you start with achieving the same image framing as a constant between DX and FX you will see different DOF. In contrast, if you keep your lens mm the same and the distance to the subject the same you will have the same DOF but different image framing. Essentially in that situation DX is simply a crop of FX if you have keept the same lens mm and the same distance from the subject to the camera. Take an FX camera, put a subject in the center of the frame, shoot it in FX mode and then shoot it again in DX mode: no change in DOF. Thus, you can say there is the same DOF between FX and DX. The only way to get the same image framing in DX as you had in FX is to either change to a wider mm lens or to step back. Either of those changes will change the DOF. Thus, you can say DX and FX have a different DOF. Both statements are correct. It just all depends upon what you have kept constant when making your comparison.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,327Member
    Well said Donaldjose.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 921Member
    @donaldejose:

    Changing the focal length does not change the dof.

    There are only two ways to change dof: changing the distance to the subject or changing the aperture.

    Based on this you can make derived rules to your own liking.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,581Member
    edited December 2019
    snakebunk said:


    Changing the focal length does not change the dof.



    Huh?

    So then how come with the same distance to subject and same FOV (so different focal length lenses) you need to be a stop faster in aperture on the crop sensor camera to get the same DOF as on FF?
    Post edited by mhedges on
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,105Member
    Snakebunk so my 14mm Samyang has the same DOF as my 5oomm Nikkor.
    There is an edit button on this forum.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,292Moderator

    So many ways of saying the same thing. We have to bear that in mind.

    @Pistnbroke: I can see what Snakebunk is saying, can't you?

    @donaldejose: Eloquently articulated in a few words.
    Always learning.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,581Member
    It's such an academic argument - I don't know why I keep getting sucked into it.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,292Moderator
    I used to be on a classic brit bike forum and the trap there was talking about oil. Here it's DoF. It does benefit newbies so what the heck.
    Always learning.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 921Member
    I don't want to cause any bad feelings, but I mean what I wrote in my previous post. This is what I have learned and experienced.

    If we only cared about dof and had no interest in resolution or image quality we could shoot everything with a fast wide angle lens and crop in post to get the reach we wanted.

    @Pistnbroke: If you want to try with your 500 and 14 mm lens it would be fun to see if we can spot any difference in dof. The 14 mm photograph would need an extreme crop though to get comparable images. It would be good with a sign or something slightly out of focus, and important to nail the focus on the same spot of course. Maybe easier with two lenses slightly closer to each other in focal lengths. I am not at home so I cannot do a comparison now, but in a week or so.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 482Member
    mhedges said:

    It's such an academic argument - I don't know why I keep getting sucked into it.

    I like that sentiment. :smiley:

    Here is my take on this. There are a lot of assumptions affecting DOF, such as framing, final print size, definition/threshold of in focus, pixel density, aperture, focal length of the optics, and I probably forgot several others. The way I see it, most of the people on this forum are not scientists and they can't make scientific descriptions with all the necessary assumptions and definitions clearly specified out. However, when some of those are missing, the listeners may assume differently, and your arguments will have holes. Even in the rare event that you are able to specify and describe everything scientifically correctly, most of the listeners don't have enough scientific background to comprehend completely or disagree with your assumptions anyway.

    So unless we are debating for the sake of debating to keep this forum alive, or to generate some boring fun, I think it's futile to try to convince either other. I trust most people on this forum are capable in creating the blurriness/focus they want in their pictures, and let's just leave it at that.

    Happy new year.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,351Member
    edited December 2019
    Actually, there is no need to argue the relative benefits between FX and DX: just buy both and use whatever best suits the shooting situation! FX and f1.4 glass for low light situations or bokeh backgrounds. DX and f4 mega lenses for wildlife. FX or even MF for landscapes. 16 to 24 mp for fast action sports and weddings. 36+ mp for huge enlargements. etc. Nikon makes plenty of bodies and you can get them for half price used when they are a generation old.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,327Member
    This is a good article on equivalence by Thom and is a good starting point to understand DOF.

    http://www.sansmirror.com/articles/equivalence-in-a-nutshell.html
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 859Member
    One day pro photographers will read this thread and smile as they take to the fields with their 6x17 medium format bodies and shoot beautiful panoramic landscapes for board room murals. Totally new technologies as different as glass plates and the best current digital makes and models we have today will come. Even Einstein probably would be amazed at the progress made since his death. Eventually most of what we use today will become obsolete but for the time being I'll keep using my DX bodies and buy another FF body when I decide which one will be my last one. If it's not broke I have no reason to try and fix it. :)
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 958Member
    NSXTypeR said:

    I'm surprised the Nikkor 16-80 DX is still selling for $1000. I would have assumed that there would be a fire sale on them as DX's days are numbered.

    Many of the 16-80s are sold with a camera. I have two of them. It is a great lens. I paid top dollar for the first one. It was worth every single penny. Looking at other lens that sell for roughly comparable amounts from Nikon it has a really good build quality. It is the single lens I rely on most. However the new Z50 and so so Kit lens has impressed me a lot. But the lack of black back real locking lens caps and no screw on hoods as part of the kit is somewhat daunting. Since I have used the camera with both lens now, the lack of lens hoods I can understand. A lot of amateur users would not want them. And maybe don’t have a great need for them. But the cheap white plastic slip in back lens cap is stupid and NEVER should have been a corner allowed to be cut. Takes longer to slip the White rear cap on and endangers the big sensor while you are juggling the camera and two lens.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,581Member
    DaveyJ said:



    Many of the 16-80s are sold with a camera. I have two of them. It is a great lens. I paid top dollar for the first one. It was worth every single penny. Looking at other lens that sell for roughly comparable amounts from Nikon it has a really good build quality. It is the single lens I rely on most. However the new Z50 and so so Kit lens has impressed me a lot. But the lack of black back real locking lens caps and no screw on hoods as part of the kit is somewhat daunting. Since I have used the camera with both lens now, the lack of lens hoods I can understand. A lot of amateur users would not want them. And maybe don’t have a great need for them. But the cheap white plastic slip in back lens cap is stupid and NEVER should have been a corner allowed to be cut. Takes longer to slip the White rear cap on and endangers the big sensor while you are juggling the camera and two lens.

    Believe it or not, there are some folks who actually like the white press on caps. I'm not one of them, but I do see the benefit of not having to line it up to put in on.

    I don't think the kits ever came with lens hoods, at least in the US. But you could buy a hood if you wanted one. Is there no hood available for the Z50 lenses?

    Yep the 16-80 is great, but kind of pricey. I don't think it's ever even been on sale. The only hope for a deal on it is gray market. That's what I did, and I sold it for almost what I paid for it when I moved to FF.
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 958Member
    edited March 2
    I have bought two 16-80 lens. First I bought alone. And was the single first person to rate and review the lens in the USA. Second was as a kit from B&H with the second D7500. Both 16-80s came with the fairly big and rugged lens hood. I never use the lens without the lens hood. Of my two 16-80s the lens hood on the first one has taken a beating and is quite protective and I believe necessary. I use thin polarizing filters on BOTH lens almost all the time as I frequently shoot around or down into the water and also often prefer the look of skys that way. The reason I do that is partially when I look at the LCD screen or the photo taken by the camera on a big screen, the JPEG is much closer to the way I saw the actual scene when I have the polarizing filter on the lens.

    There is now, and I use it all the time, a lens hood for the longer Z50 camera for the 50-250 kit lens. I also use that lens all the time with a thin polarizing filter on all the time. The 16-50 kit lens, which is nothing short of awesome still has no Nikon lens hood and I have asked for that lens hood from both Nikon and B&H. I have a UV Haze filter on that lens at all times.

    Despite having owned a personal fortune in large format cameras and lens and medium format cameras and lens, I still have only tried the FF Nikons in stores briefly. Since the GNCC and AMA races I have a role in are mostly dominated by D500 cameras and some Canons there some as DX some as FF by the pros, I'd have to really pay out to switch to full frame 35mm. I'd love to own a D850 and the lens to use on that. But from about 70mm and down I have only older 35mm lens which are ultra sharp, like the 20-35MM Nikkor I still have on my F5 Nikon which has the power grip on still. That F5 was an awesome camera.

    I believe Nikon stands to gain as much from a upgraded D500 as any camera it has upgraded from the D300 which I still own, to the D780. I personally think the D780 is a great camera, but my lenses better support a DX camera. So that is why I think the ultimate answer to the DX versus FF F Mount controversy is donalddejose's post, just buy both. If I could afford that, I'd just get a D850 and at least one great ZOOM to run with it. And probably get out my lovely but quite old 20-35mm Nikkor and see what that would do on the D850. But farm taxes are so high for me, most of my income evaporates with land taxes. The only medical expenses I do have are Nikon gear as I feel it does more for my health than pharmaceutical drugs!
    Post edited by DaveyJ on
Sign In or Register to comment.