D600 User Thread II

[nanof4]

Thx for replying so fast.

Actually I thought thru. I kinda feel 'outdated' shooting with D90. Coz 720p@24fps, plus high noise levels at low light during video mode, regardless of ISO set (I observe digital noise even at ISO 200 shooting video in low light conditions, quite pathetic when it comes to video-editing). And the 11-point AF (+1 crosstype) is seriously unnerving when I slap on my Raynox DCR-250, the D90 just cant seem to find a single AF point! The continued AF hunting really turns me off when I try macro with the Raynox. I'm hoping that D600 with 39-point AF can be much better at this. And the dynamic range - hopefully fellow D90 users can confirm this - but pictures seem to be whited-out in terms of colour tone, hence dynamic range. When I shoot on D90, no matter what kind of lens I use or how expensive the lenses are that are paired with the D90, the colour rendering from the D90 seems to be a shade or two brighter than expected. So I'm banking my hopes on D600 to resolve this - or am I hoping for too much with the D600?

As for pricing wise, no issues with coughing up the money. I'm currently in NUS studying, semester's gonna end soon. Probably gonna find temp jobs to do during the summer break. And if I manage to sell off my D90+18-105mm + supplied accessories for ard 1k, that would mean my nett expenditure is reduced to abt 2k, also taking into account the possibility of price reductions of D600 due to depreciation. So that means abt 2 months of work to upgrade to D600, money no issue here.
And just as u mentioned FX lens is expensive, so I hope i can find the best one lens to cover the wide angle range. Since I have been on DX all the time, I dun noe how wide is wide (18-105mm DX lens at 18mm is only 27mm equivalent for FX). Is 24mm justificably wide enough to take landscape/cityscape shots with the typical barrel distortions that wide-angled shots are famous for? Or do I need to go down to 16-18mm rnage on FX to get that effect?

Dun be surprise to see noise using d600 video mode, especially if u r planning to use 'kit len 24-85'.

Just buy d600 and try it .. different ppl different expectation. Only u can decide if its worth the money spent.

For landscape, go for the new 18-35 , u can go wrong. Personally I would get this wide angle len to start off with. Plus a cheapo afd 50mm or 85mm . . F1.8 ... u are ready to enjoy ur cam. Lastly get a 24-85 if u decide u need a mid range zoom

 

[wolfton]

Seems like you are doing videos quite often. D600 does an ok job, will be a step up from your D90 but don't expect it to produce saliva drooling footages, it is meant more for shooting stills and not videos.

You may want to take a look at the D7100 and pair with a Samyang 14mm wide angle, which will not burn your pocket as much, if main purpose is for video. The video function and output beats that of the D600. In pitch dark condition, your videos should look pretty good, even at ISO3200. It is a lil strange but the noise in video vs stills at that ISO looks totally different on the screen for that camera :what:

On the other hand if you shoot stills more, you will not regret the decision to upgrade, just bear in mind may need to make a trip to NSC for some changes due to the dust issue.

Finally, before you sell your D90, upgrade your lenses first. Camera be the last to go. After you have build up your lenses then buy FX. Don't short change yourself. As to whether how wide is enough, it is a difficult question to answer. All I can say is that I find the 16-35 not wide enough sometimes too on my D600 :sweat: So I adjust myself whenever needed, cos that's what I have with me. 24mm is just not wide enough, at least for me, especially when you do big events and go on travel. I also highly recommend you to change the 70-300G to the 70-300 VR, it is a huge step up from the non-VR version, crazy sharp and reasonably priced. For what I do, I skipped the standard zoom, and only opted for the UWA zooms and Telezooms. It won't hurt to add some primes too, just need to determine what are your favoured FL.

 

[Zaknafein]

And the 11-point AF (+1 crosstype) is seriously unnerving when I slap on my Raynox DCR-250, the D90 just cant seem to find a single AF point! The continued AF hunting really turns me off when I try macro with the Raynox.

And the dynamic range - hopefully fellow D90 users can confirm this - but pictures seem to be whited-out in terms of colour tone, hence dynamic range.

... I dun noe how wide is wide (18-105mm DX lens at 18mm is only 27mm equivalent for FX). Is 24mm justificably wide enough to take landscape/cityscape shots ...

Use single point AF, u shud decide which AF point to use, not let the camera decide for u. U shud get more accurate results. If u r shooting macro, use manual focus. Faster and more accurate. And u dun even need 1 point of AF

About ur dynamic range qn, i dun really understand what u r asking. Dynamic range is the range between the darkest and brightest areas of an image. Do u need this?

Is 27mm (18mm dx) wide enough for u when usin dx? Have u wished to go wider?

If u can answer the above, u should have the answer if u need d600. And btw for macro, dx might be better for macro as u have deeper DOF

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Your photography concepts a bit 'here and there', so I'd advise you to invest some time on learning the fundamentals first. You seem a bit 'itchy backside' to upgrade, which is certainly fine! Just don't expect an equipment upgrade to solve all the issues you seem to be facing.

D600's low-light noise performance is arguably far improved compared with D90. AF performance (accuracy/speed) better too, though typically MF would be better when using close-up adapters.

If you find 18-105 wide enough, then 24mm (24-85) should be all right w D600. 18mm (18-35) is noticeably wider.
You actually WANT the barrel distortions from using UWA lens?

Thx for replying so fast.

Actually I thought thru. I kinda feel 'outdated' shooting with D90. Coz 720p@24fps, plus high noise levels at low light during video mode, regardless of ISO set (I observe digital noise even at ISO 200 shooting video in low light conditions, quite pathetic when it comes to video-editing). And the 11-point AF (+1 crosstype) is seriously unnerving when I slap on my Raynox DCR-250, the D90 just cant seem to find a single AF point! The continued AF hunting really turns me off when I try macro with the Raynox. I'm hoping that D600 with 39-point AF can be much better at this. And the dynamic range - hopefully fellow D90 users can confirm this - but pictures seem to be whited-out in terms of colour tone, hence dynamic range. When I shoot on D90, no matter what kind of lens I use or how expensive the lenses are that are paired with the D90, the colour rendering from the D90 seems to be a shade or two brighter than expected. So I'm banking my hopes on D600 to resolve this - or am I hoping for too much with the D600?

As for pricing wise, no issues with coughing up the money. I'm currently in NUS studying, semester's gonna end soon. Probably gonna find temp jobs to do during the summer break. And if I manage to sell off my D90+18-105mm + supplied accessories for ard 1k, that would mean my nett expenditure is reduced to abt 2k, also taking into account the possibility of price reductions of D600 due to depreciation. So that means abt 2 months of work to upgrade to D600, money no issue here.
And just as u mentioned FX lens is expensive, so I hope i can find the best one lens to cover the wide angle range. Since I have been on DX all the time, I dun noe how wide is wide (18-105mm DX lens at 18mm is only 27mm equivalent for FX). Is 24mm justificably wide enough to take landscape/cityscape shots with the typical barrel distortions that wide-angled shots are famous for? Or do I need to go down to 16-18mm rnage on FX to get that effect?

 

[enenyi]

Your photography concepts a bit 'here and there', so I'd advise you to invest some time on learning the fundamentals first. You seem a bit 'itchy backside' to upgrade, which is certainly fine! Just don't expect an equipment upgrade to solve all the issues you seem to be facing.

D600's low-light noise performance is arguably far improved compared with D90. AF performance (accuracy/speed) better too, though typically MF would be better when using close-up adapters.

If you find 18-105 wide enough, then 24mm (24-85) should be all right w D600. 18mm (18-35) is noticeably wider.
You actually WANT the barrel distortions from using UWA lens?

I get wad u mean. But coming from a DX user's perspective, sometimes DX formats reduces creativity in shooting. 18mm on DX has significant barrel distortions, but lacks that extra perspective to the image that wide-angle FX lenses give. On the DX, it feels like a zoomed-out portrait photography of the entire landscape, instead or the 'real-life' view of the landscape from our human eyes (admit that, we dun see things in portrait mode. There is a sense of depth and convergence/divergence of lines running towards the horizon when we look at landscape with our naked eyes). I find my self having to post-process this when i shoot at 18mm on DX, and as u noe, no matter how well u post-process an image, it just cant match up to the feel of an unedited image. Hence my decision to wanna jump to FX, partly due to the limitations of DX on wide-angles.

 

[ageha]

I get wad u mean. But coming from a DX user's perspective, sometimes DX formats reduces creativity in shooting. 18mm on DX has significant barrel distortions, but lacks that extra perspective to the image that wide-angle FX lenses give. On the DX, it feels like a zoomed-out portrait photography of the entire landscape, instead or the 'real-life' view of the landscape from our human eyes (admit that, we dun see things in portrait mode. There is a sense of depth and convergence/divergence of lines running towards the horizon when we look at landscape with our naked eyes). I find my self having to post-process this when i shoot at 18mm on DX, and as u noe, no matter how well u post-process an image, it just cant match up to the feel of an unedited image. Hence my decision to wanna jump to FX, partly due to the limitations of DX on wide-angles.

Smaller sensors only reduce creativity if the photographer isn't creative.

 

[wolfton]

I get wad u mean. But coming from a DX user's perspective, sometimes DX formats reduces creativity in shooting. 18mm on DX has significant barrel distortions, but lacks that extra perspective to the image that wide-angle FX lenses give. On the DX, it feels like a zoomed-out portrait photography of the entire landscape, instead or the 'real-life' view of the landscape from our human eyes (admit that, we dun see things in portrait mode. There is a sense of depth and convergence/divergence of lines running towards the horizon when we look at landscape with our naked eyes). I find my self having to post-process this when i shoot at 18mm on DX, and as u noe, no matter how well u post-process an image, it just cant match up to the feel of an unedited image. Hence my decision to wanna jump to FX, partly due to the limitations of DX on wide-angles.

Bro you know there are many good and affordable UWA lenses for DX? Tokina 11-16, Nikon 10-24 etc. Have you tried them before? These are excellent lenses and many people swear by them.

If 18mm is limiting to u on DX, get one of those UWA. Quite frankly, if you put 2 landscape shots taken with DX UWA and FX UWA, you will most likely be unable to tell the difference.

If you feel you have outgrown the kit lens, get that changed if you can. Kit lens does decent job when you are starting out, but as you progress, it really can't match up to most other lenses if you wanna nit pick on sharpness, colours and distortions. You can still get away, IF, you are very good in composition, and that alone will take your viewers off the imperfection in the 3 items I mentioned. For me, light and composition are the 2 most important aspect of photography, regardless of what gear I have.

As for your last point on PP image vs non PP image, I have to say it is 90% untrue. Maybe you can show us a few examples on the "feel" of non-pp image that you are talking about. IMO an excellent photo SOOC if add in some PP will make it shine even more. I love to see what u mean by better "feel" on a non pp image

 

[ijnek]

well said ageha.
it's not the camera, it's the photographer

 

[Zaknafein]

Yes an edited image should always look better tha a SOOC image

 

[lenslust]

Bro you know there are many good and affordable UWA lenses for DX? Tokina 11-16, Nikon 10-24 etc. Have you tried them before? These are excellent lenses and many people swear by them.

If 18mm is limiting to u on DX, get one of those UWA. Quite frankly, if you put 2 landscape shots taken with DX UWA and FX UWA, you will most likely be unable to tell the difference.

If you feel you have outgrown the kit lens, get that changed if you can. Kit lens does decent job when you are starting out, but as you progress, it really can't match up to most other lenses if you wanna nit pick on sharpness, colours and distortions. You can still get away, IF, you are very good in composition, and that alone will take your viewers off the imperfection in the 3 items I mentioned. For me, light and composition are the 2 most important aspect of photography, regardless of what gear I have.

As for your last point on PP image vs non PP image, I have to say it is 90% untrue. Maybe you can show us a few examples on the "feel" of non-pp image that you are talking about. IMO an excellent photo SOOC if add in some PP will make it shine even more. I love to see what u mean by better "feel" on a non pp image

One thing is different is the circle of confusion on FX vs DX when using the sensor.

PP of images is almost a sure thing except that perhaps when comparing the D90 vs D600, you're looking at lesser work involved due to the evolvement of technology on sensor, AWB accuracy and DR within JPEG.

I would perhaps think bro enenyi is meaning, the need to do less, rather than no PS.

The AWB almost always, on the D2X/D2HS gives me problem. AWB on the D3S was *much* better. Till I fell in love with the AWB on D4 and D600. Frankly, I haven't touched the NEF from D4 and D600 for quite a while. D4 has been with me over a year, and the D600 - one (1) month.

I've been editing JPEGs out of camera directly and since have not been touching RAWs except when I really want to carefully do editing. Is this a good enough finding for bro enenyi?

Some people hates my enhanced images that shows the dynamic range of the D4/D600 but yet they cannot help but to agree edited images look wonderful (sharpness, details, shadows, colors). They just feel an image should be the representation of the actual scene itself, well, to an extent. Even if you send film in to print, the printer does make adjustments too, y'know?

That said, I personally would prefer to stick with FX lenses all the way, only glass I did not go FX was the 10.5 FE. I have been using all my older FX lenses on a DX body and I think I know where bro enenyi is coming from.

Nikon once, did say 'FX' is not the way to go, well, D3 came, D3S, D700, D3X, D4, D800, D600....

Sure DX would not die off, but FX would and likely be dominating the 'world' soon, to me, I'm glad I did not invest heavily in DX lenses. If asked, I'll do the same all over again. FX on DX then progressing to FX on FX.

That said, the D600's noise control is and confirmed significantly much better then D90 I'm sure. I've pushed it up to 6400 in SEA Aquarium at RWS, and we all know the dark surrounding conditions inside. Let's just say I feel it's acceptable. Though compared with the D4's 12800, the D600's 6400 still has a long way to go.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

I get wad u mean. But coming from a DX user's perspective, sometimes DX formats reduces creativity in shooting. 18mm on DX has significant barrel distortions, but lacks that extra perspective to the image that wide-angle FX lenses give. On the DX, it feels like a zoomed-out portrait photography of the entire landscape, instead or the 'real-life' view of the landscape from our human eyes (admit that, we dun see things in portrait mode. There is a sense of depth and convergence/divergence of lines running towards the horizon when we look at landscape with our naked eyes). I find my self having to post-process this when i shoot at 18mm on DX, and as u noe, no matter how well u post-process an image, it just cant match up to the feel of an unedited image. Hence my decision to wanna jump to FX, partly due to the limitations of DX on wide-angles.

I think you're referring to exaggerated perspectives when using ultra-wide angle lenses, rather than barrel distortions.
You'd probably be doing your wallet a favour by purchasing a DX UWA lens rather than switching to FX.

Honestly, it'd be pretty darn tough to tell apart a DX UWA (e.g. 10mm) shot vs an FX UWA (15 or 16mm) shot.

 

[nemesis32]

Hihi... I'm a long time member of clubsnap... 10 years? Mostly shoot on Nikon over the years, just upgraded to D600.

Just a quick question or wanted some advice. I noticed that the Dial has two user setting U1/U2, what would you guys recommend to set it?

I'm thinking of using U1 as portrait... maybe U2 as landscape shots setting?

 

[lenslust]

Hihi... I'm a long time member of clubsnap... 10 years? Mostly shoot on Nikon over the years, just upgraded to D600.

Just a quick question or wanted some advice. I noticed that the Dial has two user setting U1/U2, what would you guys recommend to set it?

I'm thinking of using U1 as portrait... maybe U2 as landscape shots setting?

Frankly, I don't know how to use it and am too lazy to find out. The online information looks intimidating and after trying out I still don't know how it works, so gave it up.

It would have been better to provide multiple profiles like the D4.

 

[enenyi]

One thing is different is the circle of confusion on FX vs DX when using the sensor.

PP of images is almost a sure thing except that perhaps when comparing the D90 vs D600, you're looking at lesser work involved due to the evolvement of technology on sensor, AWB accuracy and DR within JPEG.

I would perhaps think bro enenyi is meaning, the need to do less, rather than no PS.

The AWB almost always, on the D2X/D2HS gives me problem. AWB on the D3S was *much* better. Till I fell in love with the AWB on D4 and D600. Frankly, I haven't touched the NEF from D4 and D600 for quite a while. D4 has been with me over a year, and the D600 - one (1) month.

I've been editing JPEGs out of camera directly and since have not been touching RAWs except when I really want to carefully do editing. Is this a good enough finding for bro enenyi?

Some people hates my enhanced images that shows the dynamic range of the D4/D600 but yet they cannot help but to agree edited images look wonderful (sharpness, details, shadows, colors). They just feel an image should be the representation of the actual scene itself, well, to an extent. Even if you send film in to print, the printer does make adjustments too, y'know?

That said, I personally would prefer to stick with FX lenses all the way, only glass I did not go FX was the 10.5 FE. I have been using all my older FX lenses on a DX body and I think I know where bro enenyi is coming from.

Nikon once, did say 'FX' is not the way to go, well, D3 came, D3S, D700, D3X, D4, D800, D600....

Sure DX would not die off, but FX would and likely be dominating the 'world' soon, to me, I'm glad I did not invest heavily in DX lenses. If asked, I'll do the same all over again. FX on DX then progressing to FX on FX.

That said, the D600's noise control is and confirmed significantly much better then D90 I'm sure. I've pushed it up to 6400 in SEA Aquarium at RWS, and we all know the dark surrounding conditions inside. Let's just say I feel it's acceptable. Though compared with the D4's 12800, the D600's 6400 still has a long way to go.

Hi bro, thx for helping me express wad i wanted to say! Prob coz of me being a HWZer, dun really noe how to express this technically here at clubsnap. Yeah I actually was trying to say that photos I took using D90 were quite plain. No distortion, feels like any ordinary shot from a distance away. Cant really get into the 'groove' of wide-angle photography where minor barrel distortion is beautified instead of being frowned upon. I tried this on my DX shots at 18mm, but they look so faked that I decided to delete away. Quite hard to think out of the box with such technical limitations, coz whatever angle I take or how I frame my shots, the results feel the same: plain, flat, portrait.

Hence my decision to jump to FX, partly due to the desire to try wide-angle photography, partly due to the weakness of D90 in video mode under low-light or artificial light settings. Even under a flourescent-lit room, using my kit lens and shooting at ISO 400, I still get noise! I get these noisy horizontal lines, dunno whether D90's fault or just that my 3-year old camera is ageing, enough for me to see the 720p progression lines (grating). So I believe changing to a D600 may solve part of the problem, a least I can reuse my DSLR to shoot short video clips (I'm currently using my Galaxy S3 to shoot videos coz my D90 is producing really bad quality at 720p). So I decide to get FX lens, since DX UWA lens suffer from vignetting when shooting at FX modes.

But given the discussion here, seems that it is better for me to stick to my D90 and buy a UWA to cover wide-angle?

 

[lenslust]

Hi bro, thx for helping me express wad i wanted to say! Prob coz of me being a HWZer, dun really noe how to express this technically here at clubsnap. Yeah I actually was trying to say that photos I took using D90 were quite plain. No distortion, feels like any ordinary shot from a distance away. Cant really get into the 'groove' of wide-angle photography where minor barrel distortion is beautified instead of being frowned upon. I tried this on my DX shots at 18mm, but they look so faked that I decided to delete away. Quite hard to think out of the box with such technical limitations, coz whatever angle I take or how I frame my shots, the results feel the same: plain, flat, portrait.

Hence my decision to jump to FX, partly due to the desire to try wide-angle photography, partly due to the weakness of D90 in video mode under low-light or artificial light settings. Even under a flourescent-lit room, using my kit lens and shooting at ISO 400, I still get noise! I get these noisy horizontal lines, dunno whether D90's fault or just that my 3-year old camera is ageing, enough for me to see the 720p progression lines (grating). So I believe changing to a D600 may solve part of the problem, a least I can reuse my DSLR to shoot short video clips (I'm currently using my Galaxy S3 to shoot videos coz my D90 is producing really bad quality at 720p). So I decide to get FX lens, since DX UWA lens suffer from vignetting when shooting at FX modes.

But given the discussion here, seems that it is better for me to stick to my D90 and buy a UWA to cover wide-angle?

I don't know about you, but I certainly love FX UWA on FX rather than FX UWA on DX or DX UWA on DX, it just feels different to the photographer, and it's only the photographer who will know what is the difference, it won't be so much of worrying what others will feel different or knows the equipment used.

DX users who are serious into photography or slightly above hobby levels would very much probable wanna move in to FX (I speak for myself). I do not take videos so am not aware of 'lines' or 'noise' in videography. Your DX UWA prob will go into cold-storage when one day you finally do upgrade to FX, this is what I'm trying to avoid here, so I don't really advocate people buying DX lenses.

Some will disagree vehemently on my above remark, but that's just how I see it will move forward and is it really wise to spend a lot of DX UWAs or Zooms? Maybe some will think otherwise. I speak for myself and my experience in using FX on DX the past years. Moving to FX body has been no pain to me.

Your call.

 

[Zaknafein]

Being ultra wide is not about taking in more into ur shots, but rather, u have the ability to go in extremely close with ur subject and distorting the proportions of the subject in ur composition, and with a unique perspective that the human eye cannot see.

I have been using tokina 11-16 for a few years and it is a darn sharp lens with darn good distortion control (perspective is not distortion, they are 2 diff things). And with f/2.8 too! With tat said, i tot i would get great pictures but instead i was struggling with the lens (esp in the beginning). Every picture i took looked plain terrible. I was taking in so much with the UWA tat every shot i took looked like it had no composition. It takes practise to "see" with an UWA and im still learning, but i do like the perspective it gives.

One have to be very careful with UWA. U have to be careful of the background and the elements to include/exclude. becareful of the edges of the frame and not include any unwanted foreign object. Becafeful not to include ur own foot at the bottom. And any slight tilt of the camera may result in a significantly different feel of the final outcome.

If u have not used an UWA before, I think u can borrow or rent 1 and give it a try. If u try the 11-16, 11mm on dx is 16.5mm on fx and its prolly wide enough for a start. The tokina also focuses very close at 30cm so u can really snift ur subject. Try uwa for a while before deciding if u like uwa. U can always sell it away if u dun like it without much lose, rather than buy a camera with depreciating value. U got not much to lose

 

[Zaknafein]

Yeah I actually was trying to say that photos I took using D90 were quite plain. No distortion, feels like any ordinary shot from a distance away. Cant really get into the 'groove' of wide-angle photography where minor barrel distortion is beautified instead of being frowned upon. I tried this on my DX shots at 18mm, but they look so faked that I decided to delete away. Quite hard to think out of the box with such technical limitations, coz whatever angle I take or how I frame my shots, the results feel the same: plain, flat, portrait.

...So I decide to get FX lens, since DX UWA lens suffer from vignetting when shooting at FX modes.

I think ur getting confused with distortion and perspecive. Perspective is what makes UWA interesting, and distortion is usually a bad thing (i said usually becos distortion CAN be be interesting if used properly). 18mm on dx is definately not wide enough to get the perspective tat ur looking for. 11 or 12 mm on dx can give u tat perspective.

Also, becareful if u shoot portraits with uwa, it may look unpleasantly disporportionate.

Ur not supposed to use dx lens on fx, (i also dun think tats called vignetting in this case). However, i have tried using the 11-16 at 16mm on fx and it is quite usable.

 

[Zaknafein]

...I don't know about you, but I certainly love FX UWA on FX rather than FX UWA on DX or DX UWA on DX, it just feels different to the photographer, and it's only the photographer who will know what is the difference...

I haven used uwa in my d600 yet as i haven gotten a uwa lens to replace my 11-16... Care to share whats the diff?

 

[Zaknafein]

Frankly, I don't know how to use it and am too lazy to find out. The online information looks intimidating and after trying out I still don't know how it works, so gave it up.

It would have been better to provide multiple profiles like the D4.

For me, when i need help from others to help me take a picture, i switch it to U1. So for u1, i configure it with settings like auto exposure, auto focus with face detection, etc... To make it as idiot-proof as possible so tat my face will come out focused and sharp lol.

Tats about the only use i can think of. And its actually pretty useful haha

 

[enenyi]

I think ur getting confused with distortion and perspecive. Perspective is what makes UWA interesting, and distortion is usually a bad thing (i said usually becos distortion CAN be be interesting if used properly). 18mm on dx is definately not wide enough to get the perspective tat ur looking for. 11 or 12 mm on dx can give u tat perspective.

Also, becareful if u shoot portraits with uwa, it may look unpleasantly disporportionate.

Ur not supposed to use dx lens on fx, (i also dun think tats called vignetting in this case). However, i have tried using the 11-16 at 16mm on fx and it is quite usable.

Yeah, i admit i got confused. I was talking about WA/UWA perspective, the one that makes wide-angle photography so different from other types of photography. Wad I want to get out of a lens of this focal length range is the curvature to add perspective to my shots. Else i would definitely stick to my 50mm f1.8, which is an excellent all-rounder lens for portraits. Actually wad i hoped to get out of this is for someone to really take the same pic using UWA DX lens and WA FX lens and show them side-by-side for comparison, since there have been quite a number of pple claiming UWA DX and WA FX are very similar, cant tell the difference. My current opinion is that UWA on DX cannot match the curvature of the shot compared to WA on FX, but i just cant google out such results for comparison. Also, I was hoping that someone would be able to show me comparisons of the same shot at different focal lengths (12mm, 18mm, 24mm), since everyone has their take on how wide is wide and i cant really get opinion on this. Hopefully someone can help me out here. Thx.