Can Fx Lenses Be Used On Dx Cameras
Jmuir • New Member • Posts: 2
What am I missing - FX lens on DX torso?
I started past wanting to get additional zoom. I have a xviii-300mm Nikon lens for DX body. I heard that using a FX lens on a DX body would creat a 1.5 multiple in zoom due to the crop factor. Perfect I idea! Just what I wanted. I purchased a 28-300mm FX lens. I compared the two lenses by taking total zoom pics with each.. The effect, idential images interms of zoom. Across all zoom points 28mm and to a higher place, each potagraph appeard the aforementioned. There was no difference. No 1.5 multiple increase with the FX lens. Am I doing something wrong? Is there a setting I need to conform when using a FX lens on a DX torso. I am using a Nikon D5500. Any assistance would exist much appreciated.
Thanks
Reply:
This question has not been answered yet.
Bob GB • Senior Member • Posts: 1,826
Re: What am I missing - FX lens on DX trunk?
half-dozen
Jmuir wrote:
I started past wanting to go additional zoom. I have a 18-300mm Nikon lens for DX torso. I heard that using a FX lens on a DX body would creat a 1.5 multiple in zoom due to the ingather factor. Perfect I thought! But what I wanted. I purchased a 28-300mm FX lens. I compared the two lenses by taking full zoom pics with each.. The result, idential images interms of zoom. Across all zoom points 28mm and above, each potagraph appeard the same. At that place was no difference. No one.5 multiple increase with the FX lens. Am I doing something wrong? Is in that location a setting I demand to adjust when using a FX lens on a DX trunk. I am using a Nikon D5500. Any assistance would exist much appreciated.
Y'all are not doing anything wrong. Yous have just misunderstood the term 1.5 crop factor.
Focal length is focal length. The departure is all about the field of view for the DX sensor compared to the FX sensor. Moving a lens from a FX camera to a DX camera volition just show narrower field of view. The 300 mm on DX volition prove the aforementioned field of view as a 450 mm on FX.
Bob GB • Senior Member • Posts: 1,826
The other style around
1
Mounting your 18-300 mm lens on a FX camera volition show a unlike problem. The DX lens cannot comprehend the larger FX sensor, showing dark corners. However, the central function of the epitome will exist identical to the one you obtain with your DX camera.
Re: The other manner around
Bob GB wrote:
Mounting your 18-300 mm lens on a FX camera volition testify a different problem. The DX lens cannot comprehend the larger FX sensor, showing dark corners. Withal, the central function of the image will be identical to the ane you obtain with your DX camera.
FX bodies therefore have a "DX ingather mode" that shows a frame inside the larger FX full frame. The photograph is automatically cropped to the field of view of your DX lens. That means you lot can either use a DX lens and not have it vignette, or you lot can get the same 1.5X crop factor to get more than attain from an FX lens.
For instance, I'll usually have my 24-70 f2.8 (FX) lens on my FX D800. 70mm may not be long enough for some shots, and I may not have time to switch lenses, and then I'll switch to DX crop fashion, pretend it's a 36-105mm (still f2.8) lens and get a shot that's a bit tighter. Of form, I'd get pretty much the same affair with a D7000 and that same lens (fifteen-sixteen MP) because all the extra pixels on my D800 have been cropped out. Information technology just saves time from mail processing (cropping) later.
Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D7100 Nikon 1 V3 Nikon Z7 II +21 more than
smithim • Senior Member • Posts: 1,766
Re: The other style around
1
Parry Johnson wrote:
For instance, I'll usually take my 24-lxx f2.eight (FX) lens on my FX D800. 70mm may not be long enough for some shots, and I may not have time to switch lenses, so I'll switch to DX ingather mode, pretend it'southward a 36-105mm (still f2.viii) lens and go a shot that's a flake tighter. Of course, I'd get pretty much the aforementioned thing with a D7000 and that aforementioned lens (15-16 MP) because all the actress pixels on my D800 have been cropped out. It only saves time from post processing (cropping) subsequently.
Apart from the difference in file sizes, why carp? You lot'll get the same result by cropping in mail, and go out yourself more flexibility.
Re: The other manner around
smithim wrote:
Parry Johnson wrote:
For instance, I'll normally have my 24-70 f2.8 (FX) lens on my FX D800. 70mm may not be long plenty for some shots, and I may not take time to switch lenses, and then I'll switch to DX crop mode, pretend it'south a 36-105mm (still f2.8) lens and go a shot that'due south a bit tighter. Of form, I'd get pretty much the same matter with a D7000 and that same lens (15-16 MP) considering all the extra pixels on my D800 accept been cropped out. Information technology just saves time from post processing (cropping) later.
Apart from the difference in file sizes, why bother? You lot'll get the same result by cropping in mail service, and leave yourself more flexibility.
Truthful, it's easier to just shoot full frame, simply if you're doing many long shots with unlike compositions, using in-camera crop makes more sense.
I'll do the same with 1.3X crop manner on my DX bodies, oftentimes to get a higher frame rate also -- these are features, and involve more than flexibility, inventiveness and skill than relying on mail.
Nikon D800 Nikon ane V1 Nikon D7100 Nikon 1 V3 Nikon Z7 Two +21 more
Parry Johnson wrote:
smithim wrote:
Parry Johnson wrote:
For instance, I'll usually take my 24-70 f2.viii (FX) lens on my FX D800. 70mm may not be long enough for some shots, and I may not have time to switch lenses, and so I'll switch to DX crop mode, pretend it's a 36-105mm (withal f2.8) lens and become a shot that'south a fleck tighter. Of course, I'd get pretty much the same matter with a D7000 and that same lens (15-xvi MP) because all the extra pixels on my D800 have been cropped out. It merely saves time from post processing (cropping) after.
Autonomously from the difference in file sizes, why carp? You'll get the aforementioned event by cropping in post, and leave yourself more flexibility.
True, it'due south easier to just shoot total frame, but if you're doing many long shots with different compositions, using in-camera crop makes more sense.
I'll do the same with ane.3X ingather mode on my DX bodies, often to get a higher frame charge per unit besides -- these are features, and involve more flexibility, creativity and skill than relying on postal service.
Furthermore, there is a huge advantage in aperture and cost compared to equivalent tele photos.
Nikon D800 Nikon one V1 Nikon D7100 Nikon 1 V3 Nikon Z7 Ii +21 more
smithim • Senior Fellow member • Posts: i,766
Re: The other manner around
iii
Parry Johnson wrote:
True, it'south easier to but shoot total frame, simply if you lot're doing many long shots with different compositions, using in-camera ingather makes more sense.
Makes more than sense to me to sit downwardly quietly afterward the event and make up one's mind on the best crop on a decent monitor, but it's upward to you...
...and involve more flexibility, inventiveness and skill than relying on mail service.
Well, there we'll have to disagree...
Re: What am I missing - FX lens on DX body?
Focal lengths for a "DX" lens are same every bit they are for an "FX" lens. A DX camera has a smaller sensor than an "FX" camera and so the field of view you go with a DX camera is narrower than an FX camera when both are using the same focal length. This is because a portion of the DX image gets cropped abroad.
DX lenses are designed to provide total sensor coverage with DX sensors. FX lenses are designed to provide full sensor coverage with FX sensors. A 300mm FX lens volition provide the aforementioned FOV as a 300mm DX lens when both are mounted to your DX camera. The same 300MM lens volition provide a wider FOV on FX because the sensor is bigger and the image is not existence cropped. Read this:
http://world wide web.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/products-and-innovation/the-dx-and-fx-formats.html
https://photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx
http://www.photographybay.com/2014/07/10/what-is-the-difference-between-nikon-dx-and-fx-lenses/
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Nikon D5500 Nikon D850 Nikon 85mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/i.4D +23 more
Re: The other mode around
smithim wrote:
Parry Johnson wrote:
True, it'due south easier to just shoot full frame, just if you're doing many long shots with different compositions, using in-camera crop makes more sense.
Makes more sense to me to sit down quietly afterwards the event and decide on the best crop on a decent monitor, but it'south upwards to yous...
...and involve more than flexibility, inventiveness and skill than relying on mail.
Well, at that place nosotros'll accept to disagree...
I wouldn't say I disagree with yous, it'southward only a different process to obtain similar results. Truthfully, I frequently ingather or otherwise alter even the in-camera cropped images. The chief thing is that I don't have to zoom in or chimp shots to meet whether I've got something worthwhile.
For me, this process goes back to my film days when information technology made more sense to try to have the best paradigm in-photographic camera rather than spend a long time afterwards in the darkroom trying to make a mediocre image into a great 1. In those days, darkroom pprocessing took real skill, much like a practiced Photoshop technician now. Nowadays, however, at that place are quick-ready actions, auto-set up settings or even whole aps that practise most of the brain power. To me, that takes abroad creativity and expertise.
When I look dorsum at the latest-and-greatest new characteristic over the years (Program exposure, then Autofocus, so paradigm stabilization...), every fourth dimension I bought a camera with i of those new features, my skill set became sloppy until I learned to use those features. Whenever I forced myself to slow down and use more of the muscle between my ears, and thought of my dad the carpenter'south advice, "Measure twice, cutting once," those skills improved. Thinking afterwards the fact is rarely the best choice, even though it works for some. Perhaps I should just leave it at that.
Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D7100 Nikon one V3 Nikon Z7 2 +21 more
James809 • Senior Member • Posts: one,386
Re: What am I missing - FX lens on DX trunk?
1
Jmuir wrote:
I started by wanting to get additional zoom. I have a xviii-300mm Nikon lens for DX body. I heard that using a FX lens on a DX body would creat a 1.5 multiple in zoom due to the crop factor. Perfect I thought! Just what I wanted. I purchased a 28-300mm FX lens. I compared the ii lenses past taking full zoom pics with each.. The consequence, idential images interms of zoom. Across all zoom points 28mm and in a higher place, each potagraph appeard the same. There was no departure. No 1.5 multiple increment with the FX lens. Am I doing something wrong? Is there a setting I demand to adjust when using a FX lens on a DX trunk. I am using a Nikon D5500. Any help would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Information technology's a i.5 *crop* cistron, not i.5 *zoom* factor.
Nikon one J1 Nikon D750 Nikon D4S Nikon D5 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.8G +6 more
1llusive • Veteran Fellow member • Posts: 3,560
Re: What am I missing - FX lens on DX body?
Think of the ingather factor equally opening up the epitome on your computer and cropping 50% from the length and width. You are now left with the center portion which now looks "zoomed in" but has fewer total pixels.
That is what APS-C "ingather" sensors are compared to "full frame".
Some other way to visualize: imagine the epitome circumvolve coming from the rear lens element, projecting onto the sensor. Imagine this is a full-frame lens that completely covers a full-frame sensor. Now replace that sensor with a smaller one in which 50% of the image is projected off the sides. You will but record the center portion, and it will appear to be more "zoomed in", even though your lens did not modify.
Hope this helps visualize.
Nikon Z6 Ii Sigma 100-400mm F5-half dozen.3 Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 85mm F1.8 +1 more
James809 • Senior Member • Posts: i,386
Re: What am I missing - FX lens on DX body?
1llusive wrote:
Think of the crop gene equally opening up the prototype on your reckoner and cropping 50% from the length and width. Y'all are now left with the middle portion which now looks "zoomed in" but has fewer total pixels.
That is what APS-C "ingather" sensors are compared to "full frame".
Another way to visualize: imagine the epitome circle coming from the rear lens element, projecting onto the sensor. Imagine this is a full-frame lens that completely covers a total-frame sensor. At present replace that sensor with a smaller one in which 50% of the image is projected off the sides. You will just record the heart portion, and it volition appear to be more than "zoomed in", even though your lens did non change.
Hope this helps visualize.
I'll have to remember your 3rd paragraph the side by side fourth dimension someone tries to sell the "DX attain advantage" argument.
Nikon one J1 Nikon D750 Nikon D4S Nikon D5 Nikon AF-Southward Nikkor 50mm F1.8G +6 more than
Here's the signal y'all missed.
1
It's not the lens that has a ingather factor, it's the body. Put an 18-300mm DX lens on a DX body, and information technology has the field of view (cropped) of a 24-450 lens. Put a (doesn't be) 18-300mm FX lens on the DX body and you get ... the field of view of a 24-450. But it would be a lot bigger lens, because it would have to cover the corners of a much bigger sensor.
Imagine a much bigger body - an 8X10 view camera of quondam. Wouldn't you expect to need a much larger lens to cover a much larger sensing area? Same thing happens on a pocket-size scale going from DX sensor size to FX sensor size.
And then what happens to a DX lens when you put it on an FX body? Does the lens somehow go 'shorter/wider'? No, an xviii-300mm lens on an FX body gives you the field of view of an 18-300mm lens. It probably won't cover the corners of the sensor at wide angles though, and then to get a usable image out of it, you have to crop off the corners. What happens to the rest of the image when you crop it? It seems to 'get bigger', merely you're just seeing a cropped (1.5x) field of view.
Here'due south an case of a DX lens on FX sensor. This might explain the ingather factor in a way you had non visualized:
Yous tin see that the DX lens just isn't physically big enough to cover the corners (and you can see some lens hood as well).
If you put a SMALLER sensor nether that lens, the image covers it. In essence, the smaller sensor 'pre-crops' the effect, What would happen if I cropped the higher up image to but bear witness the DX sensor surface area and get rid of those ugly edges? Well, I'd end up with a shot that would look just similar putting a 35mm (FX) lens on a DX body. My 24mm shot gets cropped to a 35mm shot. But it is all the same a 24mm shot with a 24mm lens. It's merely using less area than a DX lens, and then you enlarge the result by cropping.
-- hide signature --
Phoenix Arizona Craig
www.cjcphoto.net
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D800E +37 more
OP Jmuir • New Fellow member • Posts: 2
Re: What am I missing - FX lens on DX trunk?
OK, then all the info I have read that says a 300mm FX lens will expect more like a 450mm lens on a dx is incorectly stated? Seems odd considering under this rule there is absolutly no divergence between FX and DX lenses when existence put to use on a DX torso. And then the 28-300mm lens I have now is identical to my 18-300 DX lens with the exception of have 10 more mm up front. This is certainly what I am expieriencing, it just seems odd that people would talk about a 1.5 crop gene when using a FX lens on a DX body when in reality at that place is no departure in bodily use from that of a DX lens.
James809 • Senior Member • Posts: 1,386
Re: What am I missing - FX lens on DX trunk?
ane
Jmuir wrote:
OK, so all the info I take read that says a 300mm FX lens volition await more like a 450mm lens on a dx is incorectly stated? Seems odd because under this rule there is absolutly no difference between FX and DX lenses when existence put to use on a DX body. And so the 28-300mm lens I have now is identical to my 18-300 DX lens with the exception of take 10 more mm up forepart. This is certainly what I am expieriencing, it just seems odd that people would talk virtually a i.5 crop factor when using a FX lens on a DX torso when in reality there is no difference in bodily employ from that of a DX lens.
The key term is "look more than like" which is admittedly correctly stated. The trouble is yous've been hearing people talk nearly the crop factor equally if it's a zoom factor, and you lot're expecting that behavior.
Many accept convinced themselves that it's really a 1.5 zoom gene, and will argue until you walk away, when the proof (if people would look at it) is right in front of them.
And incidentally, as stated above, the 1.v crop factor is in the body due to the size of the sensor; putting an FX lens on information technology doesn't change the zoom range, information technology inherits the angle of view from the DX sensor to a more-cropped image.
Nikon ane J1 Nikon D750 Nikon D4S Nikon D5 Nikon AF-Southward Nikkor 50mm F1.8G +6 more
smithim • Senior Member • Posts: 1,766
Re: What am I missing - FX lens on DX body?
one
Jmuir wrote:
OK, so all the info I have read that says a 300mm FX lens volition wait more similar a 450mm lens on a dx is incorectly stated?
No, that's true - if you lot put a 300mm FX lens on a DX camera, information technology volition still be a 300mm lens, only will have a field of view equal to a 450mm lens on an FX camera.
Seems odd because under this rule there is absolutly no difference betwixt FX and DX lenses when being put to utilize on a DX body.
At that place isn't - a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens. What is dissimilar is the image circumvolve that the lens has been designed to comprehend - so an FX lens will work fine on FX and DX cameras, whereas a DX lens won't usually cover the total surface area of the FX sensor.
Re: What am I missing - FX lens on DX torso?
1
James809 wrote:
Jmuir wrote:
OK, so all the info I have read that says a 300mm FX lens will await more than similar a 450mm lens on a dx is incorectly stated? Seems odd considering under this rule there is absolutly no departure betwixt FX and DX lenses when being put to use on a DX torso. So the 28-300mm lens I have now is identical to my 18-300 DX lens with the exception of have 10 more mm upwards forepart. This is certainly what I am expieriencing, it just seems odd that people would talk most a ane.5 ingather factor when using a FX lens on a DX torso when in reality there is no divergence in actual use from that of a DX lens.
The cardinal term is "look more similar" which is absolutely correctly stated. The problem is you lot've been hearing people talk about the ingather factor as if it's a zoom factor, and you're expecting that behavior.
Many have convinced themselves that it's really a 1.5 zoom gene, and will argue until you walk abroad, when the proof (if people would expect at information technology) is right in front of them.
And incidentally, as stated in a higher place, the 1.v crop factor is in the body due to the size of the sensor; putting an FX lens on it doesn't change the zoom range, it inherits the angle of view from the DX sensor to a more-cropped image.
However, at that place is 1 more advantage of FX lenses used on DX bodies: nearly lenses are sharper in the centre, and since you lot're not using the outer role of the paradigm circle, frequently the whole image is sharper.
This is irresolute, however, because newer lenses are designed to better resolve for mod 24+ MP cameras. That wasn't required as much in the past.
Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D7100 Nikon 1 V3 Nikon Z7 II +21 more
James809 • Senior Fellow member • Posts: ane,386
Re: What am I missing - FX lens on DX body?
ane
Parry Johnson wrote:
Still, there is one more advantage of FX lenses used on DX bodies: nigh lenses are sharper in the centre, and since yous're not using the outer part of the epitome circle, often the whole prototype is sharper.
This is changing, however, because newer lenses are designed to better resolve for modern 24+ MP cameras. That wasn't required every bit much in the by.
Truth! I found this out hen I started investing in film/FF lenses earlier I bought my D750. Many DX cameras use the sweet spot of the FX lens elements.
Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D750 Nikon D4S Nikon D5 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.8G +6 more
Re: What am I missing - FX lens on DX trunk?
smithim wrote:
Jmuir wrote:
OK, so all the info I have read that says a 300mm FX lens will look more like a 450mm lens on a dx is incorectly stated?
No, that'southward true - if you lot put a 300mm FX lens on a DX camera, information technology will still be a 300mm lens, only volition have a field of view equal to a 450mm lens on an FX camera.
Seems odd because nether this rule in that location is absolutly no difference between FX and DX lenses when being put to utilise on a DX body.
There isn't - a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens. What is different is the prototype circle that the lens has been designed to cover - so an FX lens will work fine on FX and DX cameras, whereas a DX lens won't usually embrace the total surface area of the FX sensor.
Maybe we should be explaining in terms of "multiplication factor". To get a "normal" human vision 1X view, nosotros would demand a 50mm lens for FX, 35mm lens for DX or 18mm focal length for Nikon 1 CX cameras (two.7X ingather factor, nigh 1 inch diagonally, and smaller than a DX rectangle -- more later).
All those lenses used on the respective format bodies produce what "looks like" the same picture -- all "normal".
However, if I utilize an FX seventy-300mm lens, which has the biggest image circle (and therefore covers FX, DX and CX), here's what I get for magnification:
1.5-6X on an FX body (pretty good magnification, say for sports)
2 - 9X on a DX body (better for wild fauna, like a 105-450mm DX lens)
3.five - 10.5X on a CX body (even better for wild animals - more than like good binoculars!)
Of course, yous can get the same effect by really cropping in tight from a full-frame FX shot, merely you lose all the advantages of the sensor -- what used to be a 36MP epitome with my D800 becomes a 15MP DX image, or only 7MP to get the aforementioned CX ingather.
I take an 18MP Nikon V3 on which I employ FX/DX lenses. Native-mount CX lenses are better designed to resolve for the tiny sensor and minuscule pixel density of those cameras, and they autofocus much better on a Nikon ane camera, but the same crop gene differences apply as going from FX to DX. The cease outcome is that I can get pictures that would otherwise be impossible.
I more than comparing for CX: Using my lxx-200 f2.8 VR2 FX lens on my CX body, that's similar a 200-540 f2.8! A full frame lens similar that would toll tens of thousands of dollars, would counterbalance a ton and would be so unwieldy that I'd never have fourth dimension to set up a shot! With that small bundle, I can handhold and go a brusk 60 fps RAW burst. Try THAT with any other camera! Crop factors have their advantages, besides.
Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D7100 Nikon ane V3 Nikon Z7 2 +21 more than
Source: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4211811
Posted by: aherncapsery.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Can Fx Lenses Be Used On Dx Cameras"
Post a Comment