Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
Photo Album
Colorado Places and Beauty
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TerryMiller" data-source="post: 2741897" data-attributes="member: 7900"><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Justin,</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">I've now uploaded a series of pictures using the two different camera bodies and two different lenses. At the time I took these, the only lenses I had were the Nikon 18-200mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. Of course, the 18-200 lens is a DX lens and the 70-200 lens is an FX one.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">I was confused at first about why it was that the FX seemed to have the subject (the playground equipment) further away. Another OSA member responded to a question that I posed about it and explained that the FX lens is a true setting at whatever millimeter setting it is set at. For instance, 70 mm is a true 70 mm on an FX camera. On a DX camera, there is a factor of 1.5 that comes into play, making the 70 mm to actually appear at 105 mm. So, on a DX, I guess one could say that their lens allows an even longer millimeter range, thus bringing the subject in closer to the viewer.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">The link below will take you to my Photobucket account. It will come up at the first picture of the series. I've titled each image with what camera body and lens was being used. To get a better idea of "depths," on the 18-200mm lens the first images are at 70mm so as to compare to the smallest millimeter setting on the 70-200mm. It will certainly give you an idea of how much more area one can get with the full frame camera body and an FX lens. Click on the arrows at the sides of the images to move forward and back. I'd have used the "slideshow" feature, but that didn't show the titles of each image so well.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"><a href="http://s1190.photobucket.com/user/TerryandJo/media/Camera%20Equipment/Nikon%20FX%20Versus%20DX%20Camera%20Photos/1%20D300_18_200%20at%2070mm_rszd_zpsnzqdjihr.jpg.html?sort=4&o=0" target="_blank">Comparison of Nikon DX and FX Camera Bodies with Two Different Lenses</a></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">As a side note, the next lens that I want to get is the Nikkor 28-300mm lens, which is also an FX lens.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TerryMiller, post: 2741897, member: 7900"] [FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]Justin, I've now uploaded a series of pictures using the two different camera bodies and two different lenses. At the time I took these, the only lenses I had were the Nikon 18-200mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. Of course, the 18-200 lens is a DX lens and the 70-200 lens is an FX one. I was confused at first about why it was that the FX seemed to have the subject (the playground equipment) further away. Another OSA member responded to a question that I posed about it and explained that the FX lens is a true setting at whatever millimeter setting it is set at. For instance, 70 mm is a true 70 mm on an FX camera. On a DX camera, there is a factor of 1.5 that comes into play, making the 70 mm to actually appear at 105 mm. So, on a DX, I guess one could say that their lens allows an even longer millimeter range, thus bringing the subject in closer to the viewer. The link below will take you to my Photobucket account. It will come up at the first picture of the series. I've titled each image with what camera body and lens was being used. To get a better idea of "depths," on the 18-200mm lens the first images are at 70mm so as to compare to the smallest millimeter setting on the 70-200mm. It will certainly give you an idea of how much more area one can get with the full frame camera body and an FX lens. Click on the arrows at the sides of the images to move forward and back. I'd have used the "slideshow" feature, but that didn't show the titles of each image so well. [URL="http://s1190.photobucket.com/user/TerryandJo/media/Camera%20Equipment/Nikon%20FX%20Versus%20DX%20Camera%20Photos/1%20D300_18_200%20at%2070mm_rszd_zpsnzqdjihr.jpg.html?sort=4&o=0"]Comparison of Nikon DX and FX Camera Bodies with Two Different Lenses[/URL] As a side note, the next lens that I want to get is the Nikkor 28-300mm lens, which is also an FX lens. [/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
Photo Album
Colorado Places and Beauty
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom