How about D7100 + Sigma 18-35/1.8?
D600 & 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 or D7100 & 17-55mm f/2.8
- Thread starter cheesy
- Start date
am i right to say that..
the D600 & 24-85mm combo is preferred due to the FX sensor but at the same time due to limitation of the lens, the FX sensor cannot be maximised?
the D7100 & 17-55mm combo however is also ideal due to the lens that is able to maximise the DX sensor ("best" combo in the DX league) but loses out because its not a FX sensor?
the D600 & 24-85mm combo is preferred due to the FX sensor but at the same time due to limitation of the lens, the FX sensor cannot be maximised?
the D7100 & 17-55mm combo however is also ideal due to the lens that is able to maximise the DX sensor ("best" combo in the DX league) but loses out because its not a FX sensor?
Question to you is: what do you intend to shoot?
If you are shooting sports, street, candid, event, portraits, then maybe f/2.8 is better for you when you need to isolate the subject(s) from the background. However, you must know how to work with that shallower depth of field, else you may end up working with f/4 or f/5.6 instead.
If you are shooting landscapes, then you highly likely won't be using f/2.8 most of the time. The ideal landscape aperture is usually f/5.6-f/9, in order to capture all details (or minimise background blur, since you need the background's details as well). In this case, you won't need an f/2.8 lens.
Below is a street shot I took with my D600+24-85mm VR combo:
I used f/4.4 at 85mm focal length. Essentially, an f/2.8 lens would easily give some creamy bokeh (blur) to the background. But that is not what I want. I also wanted to show a bit of the facial expressions of the people behind my subject, and to do so I cannot blur them out by using f/2.8.
So essentially how good a picture turns out to be is up to the photographer's ability to compose the shot and the the shot rather than the powerful specs of the lens. A photographer may hold an expensive 24-70 f/2.8 lens in his hands, but without the necessary skills, his final shot may turn out to be worst than a skilled photographer using an 18-55mm kit lens paired on the same camera shooting the same subject.
So really, do consider what you like to shoot, what you intend to shoot and how you would utilise the equipment to shoot what you want before plunging into purchasing either of the two combos.
Luminare
Senior Member
It is not so much that the lens combo resulting in the FX sensor not being maximised.
You still capture the moment but with a lens that has a variable aperture, you are unable to fully control the DOF across the range. Additionally, in low light conditions, due to a small aperture, AF consistency can be unreliable. That leads to the question of if a big aperture of f/2.8 across the focal range is very important to you as the photographer.
As for the D7100 combo. There are 2 key elements. One, the D7100 is a very capable DX camera body. It has 51 AF points across the DX sensor and it also has very good ISO and AF capabilities despite having an APS-C sensor. The main element is the lens. The 17-55 f/2.8 is a constant aperture lens with the biggest aperture of f/2.8 which gives many options to the photographer. This combo can be used for [A] astro photography, portraits (while not as good as prime f/2 or bigger aperture lens), [C] events, [D] indoor and [E] outdoor events in low light, [F] landscapes, [G] street.
I would use the D7100 + 17-55 f/2.8 for all the mentioned but i'll only use the D600 + 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 for [C], [F] and [G] and I wont like the DOF except for [F]. I also stress that DOF is very subjective element and differs from photographers and there is no right or wrong but what ad how they want to express the story of the photo.
You still capture the moment but with a lens that has a variable aperture, you are unable to fully control the DOF across the range. Additionally, in low light conditions, due to a small aperture, AF consistency can be unreliable. That leads to the question of if a big aperture of f/2.8 across the focal range is very important to you as the photographer.
As for the D7100 combo. There are 2 key elements. One, the D7100 is a very capable DX camera body. It has 51 AF points across the DX sensor and it also has very good ISO and AF capabilities despite having an APS-C sensor. The main element is the lens. The 17-55 f/2.8 is a constant aperture lens with the biggest aperture of f/2.8 which gives many options to the photographer. This combo can be used for [A] astro photography, portraits (while not as good as prime f/2 or bigger aperture lens), [C] events, [D] indoor and [E] outdoor events in low light, [F] landscapes, [G] street.
I would use the D7100 + 17-55 f/2.8 for all the mentioned but i'll only use the D600 + 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 for [C], [F] and [G] and I wont like the DOF except for [F]. I also stress that DOF is very subjective element and differs from photographers and there is no right or wrong but what ad how they want to express the story of the photo.
Last edited:
I like this discussion. I am also at the same cross-roads as I try to decide between the FX and DX formats.
FX provides more DOF control (i.e., one can shoot at VERY shallow depth of field). This is nice for portrait and sometimes street shooting.
DX format, on the other hand, is a high grade 1.5x lens extender, perfect for macro and wildlife photography.
One thing I need to point out is that the DX 17-55 f/2.8 provides a FOV and DOF equivalent to a 25.5-82.5 f/4.2 lens on FX sensor, so it is nearly the same as the FX 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 lens. Also, the f/2.8 lens on DX sensor is going to provide similar high ISO performance as the 24-85 lens on FX sensor. However, the latter is a cheap lens while the Nikon DX 17-55 f/2.8 lens is relatively expensive. But the D7100 is a cheaper camera than the D600. So, everything kind of washes out....
As a whole, I also think the DX format is more versatile.
FX provides more DOF control (i.e., one can shoot at VERY shallow depth of field). This is nice for portrait and sometimes street shooting.
DX format, on the other hand, is a high grade 1.5x lens extender, perfect for macro and wildlife photography.
One thing I need to point out is that the DX 17-55 f/2.8 provides a FOV and DOF equivalent to a 25.5-82.5 f/4.2 lens on FX sensor, so it is nearly the same as the FX 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 lens. Also, the f/2.8 lens on DX sensor is going to provide similar high ISO performance as the 24-85 lens on FX sensor. However, the latter is a cheap lens while the Nikon DX 17-55 f/2.8 lens is relatively expensive. But the D7100 is a cheaper camera than the D600. So, everything kind of washes out....
As a whole, I also think the DX format is more versatile.
Luminare
Senior Member
I understand that they are two schools of debates going on with regards to sensors and DOF.
[A] One school of argument is that DOF in simplicity is a function of Aperture, Focal length and Distance to subject and regardless of Sensor size (maintaining the same pixel resolution), the DOF does not change.
Another school of argument is that a DX sensor roughly needs 1 aperture stop more to get the same DOF as on a FX sensor.
[A] One school of argument is that DOF in simplicity is a function of Aperture, Focal length and Distance to subject and regardless of Sensor size (maintaining the same pixel resolution), the DOF does not change.
Another school of argument is that a DX sensor roughly needs 1 aperture stop more to get the same DOF as on a FX sensor.
shutterspeed
Member
If DOF is a concern, should just pay a bit more and get a prime lense ... 50 1.8 is not too pricey. The difference between f3.5 and f2.8 is not very significant.
kwanhan
Senior Member
what is your road map of lenses to buy, upgrade to?
personally i love the form factor of the 17-55 more than the 24-70.. just feels very right in my hands
that said, as some have pointed out, if you are just shooting casually know what you NEED to achieve what u want to shoot.
there will always be workarounds even if you can't get to the high ISO.. improving your shot discipline etc
one of the following shots is by a D300 + Tamron 17-50, @f2.8 (non VC), another is by a D600 with 28 1.8 G @1.8
my point being you can still get your shot, regardless of the body, just a matter of how hard it has to be :bsmilie:
I upgraded because high ISO performance was number #1 on my list.
What are your priorities?
personally i love the form factor of the 17-55 more than the 24-70.. just feels very right in my hands
that said, as some have pointed out, if you are just shooting casually know what you NEED to achieve what u want to shoot.
there will always be workarounds even if you can't get to the high ISO.. improving your shot discipline etc
one of the following shots is by a D300 + Tamron 17-50, @f2.8 (non VC), another is by a D600 with 28 1.8 G @1.8
my point being you can still get your shot, regardless of the body, just a matter of how hard it has to be :bsmilie:
I upgraded because high ISO performance was number #1 on my list.
What are your priorities?
Last edited:
shutterspeed
Member
Techniques aside. Will plonk for full frame (I did that). Start with 50 1.8 ... and stick with it for half a year. (Did that with film RF camera). Having learned the typical type of pictures and range, will move on to longer telephoto ... 85 1.8 or 105? For convenience and travelling ... 24-85 vr. I noticed that at the shorter end, shallow dof is usually not necessary. After that ... Maybe a 70-200 (cheap one) if necessary. Anything at f2.8 or below for the longer end, many pix likely to be out of focus.
lens aperture should be unchanged by format size isn't it? be it FX or DX, it still lets in f/2.8 amount of light. the only thing that changes is the field of view.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
One stop less, or is it half stop I can't remember. Think it is one stop with m43, ie you need f2 at equivalent FOV for same DOF as f2.8 at FX.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
This is correct. But DOF is tied to focal length, the shorter the more deeper DOF. So you can get same FOV with smaller sensor but always more DOF with the same aperture setting. You need to open up to get same DOF.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
Should be equivalent to f4.
Last edited:
Naturally, there is only 1 correct answer.
It's really quite easy to understand. A DX sensor offers a 1.5x crop factor. So, for example, f=55 mm on DX is equivalent to 82.5 mm on FX. However, if you could originally frame your scene with FX camera and f=55mm lens, then you find that when you have a DX camera in your hand, the same 55 mm lens now gives you a much narrower field of view (equivalent to 82.5 mm lens on FX). So, in order to keep the framing identical to FX camera, you'll have to step further away from the scene if you are now shooting with a DX camera. Since your subject distance is changed, your depth of field (DOF) naturally changes. A simple rule of thumb is that f=2.8 on DX has equivalent DOF as f=4.2 (multiplied by crop factor) lens on FX camera.
You are right however that the light gathering capability of the lens does not change.
f2 on m43 at equivalent FOV has equivalent DOF as f4 on FX. Just multiply f number with crop factor.
Luminare
Senior Member
So what you is explained here is that to get a similar FoV, for DX, the photographer needs to adjust the distance to object by backing up to increase the distance and hence increasing the DOF.
Nonetheless, it was not explained this way by many of the usual revered review authors like Thom Hogan, Gordon Laing, KRW and many more.
There is no conclusive answer and the debate goes on and on.
However, real life results shows that it is that it is really not visually noticeable either be it being truly a one stop difference in DOF or not.
http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2084
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dchVtTWyVw4
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/28380995
Nonetheless, it was not explained this way by many of the usual revered review authors like Thom Hogan, Gordon Laing, KRW and many more.
There is no conclusive answer and the debate goes on and on.
However, real life results shows that it is that it is really not visually noticeable either be it being truly a one stop difference in DOF or not.
http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2084
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dchVtTWyVw4
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/28380995
Naturally, there is only 1 correct answer.
It's really quite easy to understand. A DX sensor offers a 1.5x crop factor. So, for example, f=55 mm on DX is equivalent to 82.5 mm on FX. However, if you could originally frame your scene with FX camera and f=55mm lens, then you find that when you have a DX camera in your hand, the same 55 mm lens now gives you a much narrower field of view (equivalent to 82.5 mm lens on FX). So, in order to keep the framing identical to FX camera, you'll have to step further away from the scene if you are now shooting with a DX camera. Since your subject distance is changed, your depth of field (DOF) naturally changes. A simple rule of thumb is that f=2.8 on DX has equivalent DOF as f=4.2 (multiplied by crop factor) lens on FX camera.
You are right however that the light gathering capability of the lens does not change.
Last edited:
Actually, the answer is VERY conclusive and there's no debate at all.
Read the detailed explanation here for example. I am sure Thom Hogan etc all mean the same thing, just different ways of saying it.In this Photozone review of the Panasonic m43 12-35 f/2.8 lens, it says:
"Equiv. focal length 24-70 mm (full format equivalent)
Equiv. aperture f/5.6 (full format equivalent, in terms of depth-of-field)"
This is exactly what I am talking about.
Is there a difference between f/2.8 and f/4.2 in terms of DOF? Sure there is! One can even calculate that given the lens focal length, subject distance etc etc.
I did not go through all the links you provided, but in this DPReview post, the writer says:
"With DX camera you used a 16mm lens at f4 and with the FX camera you used a 24mm lens also at f4. Both cameras were used at the same distance to the subject. The images from each camera were each enlarged to print full frame on 11x14 paper. The question is, would there be a difference in DOF between the two paper images?"
Of course, the difference is absent because there is no change in subject distance! That is the wrong way of testing because the framing is totally different between FX and DX (crop factor of 1.5x) in this case, and writer has not taken composition into account. Composition is important because we are dealing with real world photography after all!
Last edited:
Similar threads
