So that nobody will be fooled here at the TRAINS Forums … Some buy a Nikkor 500mm lens with wonder! But a 500mm “FX” lens is only a 333mm “DX” lens! (Nikon terminology.) And the camera knows the difference and can’t be fooled! The “conversion” factors are 1.5 and -1.5 depending on which way one is trying to go. Hopefully, everybody at these TRAINS forums is a lot wiser now if they didn’t already know this!
Maybe I’m not understanding you correctly. YMMV, but my experience is if you put 500mm FX lens on a Nikon DX camera, it is the equivalent of a 750mm lens on an FX camera. It’s a great combo to stay on public property and get a shot deep in the RR yard.
For the person who complained about this post… “YMMV” doesn’t mean what you think it does. It stands for “Your Mileage May Vary.” Meaning, although you may have experienced something different, this is what I’ve experienced.
What was trying to be conveyed is that there is little difference in reality between FX and DX when you put them side by side. With FX, the circuity is sprawling, but with DX things are more crammed. Very simple.
At the camera store I patronize, I asked a salesman point blank: Which was better, FX or DX. “They’re the same!”
Unfortunately, Nikon is making a clear distinction now, with cheap mirrorless all 20 MB, and the more professional mirrorless 24 and 47 MB. It is unknow if that strategy will ultimately be good for Nikon or bring them corporate instability. In light of camera stores dying in droves, I find it questionable that $5000 Nikons will be sold by people that have no idea about camera or care about camera inventories!
$5000 for a camera? Gee, I’ll stick with my old Argus hocky puck camera. With a little practice, use to be real fast on the click shutter, wind shutter, advance film for those here it comes, there it is, get that going away shot!
Much of that money is going for the larger sensor and faster, more complex parallel circuitry to record, buffer, and store a very-high-resolution image in realtime. Unless you need 6400-dpi film-level resolution, and intend to be making oversize enlargements, much of the recent professional or even ‘prosumer’ improvements in still cameras may not be something that even serious preservationists need to have.
8K video, even at frame-tripled and motion-vector-steered 24fps – that’s another matter. But it’s video.
One wonders if good old film will make a resurgence.
After all, today’s kids don’t think us oldsters understand vinyl records…
Kodak is still making film -
Following is part 1 of a three part series on Kodak film manufacturing.
seppburgh:
Yes, you seem to speak with a bit of sensibility and wisdom. Some years ago, I purchased a low end 24MB Nikon digital. I have need of a 45MB Nikon but have concluded that it might be best to just wait and see what develops. You mentioned an Argus. That hasn’t been heard for a while. Maybe camera manufacturers will finally get wise and start producing simple cameras that take sharp photos. Steinheimer and Adams used the simplest of cameras, not ones that take a lifetime just to read the reference manual!
most people carry one around in their pocket already.
My cell phone has better resolution than my Canon Rebel DSLR. Granted, I’ve had it for a while.
About the only advantage to the DSLR for day-to-day photography is the controls I have on the DSLR and the ability to change lenses.
My cell phone camera has different focal length lens on it. Close up to wide angle. No telephoto lens however.
Steve Otto (Moderator):
You brought up different ways of looking at things, and when a group is not on the same wavelength, problems can thus result. On that 500mm lens, I think where one starts at is key. My Nikon is a DX, and conveniently we can use 200mm and 300mm as benchmarks. An FX view at 300mm is equivalent (for all practical purposes) to a DX view at 200mm. That is with a start at the DX point, i.e., 200mm. So, a 300mm DX lens is equivalent to a 450mm FX lens.
It one combines an FX lens and a DX camera, the math and results are drastically different (and where you start at), as demonstrated by the numbers you posted. Without an explanation of the premises involved, the numbers seem contradictory and dizzying. Of course, then there is a DX lens and an FX camera. Thus …
Someone at Kalmbach may want to tackle the numbers and subject, and the math when looked at in DIFFERENT WAYS and different starting points, and very different results for each. It would be a real education article and save there resulting in confusing threads as this one.
Thanks.
I agree. From what I’ve read, the difference is the size of the sensor in the camera. Since the DX has a smaller sensor area, each focal length increase (or decrease) will have a bigger difference. Think of it (for us old folks) as the difference between a 24x36mm 35mm camera and a 110 13x17mm frame size. The lens isn’t different, just the “effective” focal length.
There is a misunderstanding here. Any given lens, regardless of its focal length, projects an image onto the camera’s sensor. The image does not change if you move the lens from an FX to a DX camera. The smaller sensor sees less of the image. It does not bring you closer. Imagine having a print with its subject in the center. You can crop away one third of the outer area of the print and the subject remains the same. It is the same going from FX to DX. If that 500 mm lens won’t get you the shot, putting it on a DX camera won’t help. You need either a longer lens or a position closer to the subject from which to shoot.
While there are quite legitimate points made in this thread, I have Nikon DX and FX cameras with the same resolution, 24 megapixels. For the same image, the FX camera has a “cleaner” appearance. The DX image has higher “digital noise” but this is only apparent in very large enlargements of the image. A feature not mentioned so far is that if you wish, you can take DX images on an FX camera. By selecting this image area, you can see an image frame in the viewfinder which shows the image area you have selected. Apparently (I’ve never tried it) you can fit a DX lens to an FX camera and again, a frame will appear to indicate the image area. In the case of my cameras, 24MP, the reduced image area is only 16MP. Of course you could just crop an FX image to get the same effect, but doing it live does allow you to frame the image at the time.
Strangely, you can crop the image the same way on a DX camera, again getting a reduction to 16MP resolution.
Of course, if you were out with your FX camera and didn’t have an FX wide angle lens, you could fit an 18-55 DX lens and get a 16MP 18mm image (assuming you had that lens but no DX camera, of course).
While FX and DX cameras are generally similar in size and weight, DX lenses are usually much lighter if you are going to be carrying one all day.
Peter
Although I moderate all the Tracks Group Forums, I work for Model Railroader magazine. If you would like to suggest an article for Trains Magazine, please contact their editor, Carl Swanson, at cswanson@kalmbach.com.
And my name is spelled Otte.
This Nikon article explains all the basics regarding DX and FX series cameras and lenses:
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/products-and-innovation/the-dx-and-fx-formats.html#
There is also a nice explanatory Vimeo video at the bottom