It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
. Thus, DX sensors give you more "reach" than FX sensors using the same lens.
@PB_PM: The question is about reach and sensor size and not about the general benefits of FX..
<.<i> If people want to ignore the science of optics that's their problem not mine.
All this suggests to me, unless one is going to wall sized prints, the arguments of quality, DX vs, FX are far more academic than of any real practical value.
Looking forward to having this thread discover what that factor is ! :-)
I have been fairly amused and confused by this thread ... its seems incredibly obvious to me that the DX format has the reach advantage over FX. but since there are so many people arguing the opposite (and they are not trolls ! ) then what is interesting to me is that there must be something / some factor that is as yet unquantified by both sides. Some how this factor is being looked at from different directions. Looking forward to having this thread discover what that factor is ! :-)
so the Sigma 35mm f1.4 becomes a DX 50mm extremely sharp normal with great bokeh; the Nikon 85mm f1.8 becomes a very sharp DX 130mm portrait lens; the 105 macro become a 150mm macro lens for creature which fly away when you get too close, the Nikon 70-300 f4 becomes a 105-450 mm zoom for wildlife, and the Nikon 300 mm f4 becomes a 450mm prime .
Of course sensor size and reach are related.