Need for "Reach"

[Marco Lanciani]

Sorry but I don't see any point in cropping FX in camera for "reach". Just like cropping DX in camera.
You spend a lot of money to buy a 40-50Mp camera and then you reduce it 15-20Mp?

Why don't just shoot the full frame (I think this time the term full frame is properly used) and then take the decision in postproduction:
you might find, if nothing more, at least a better composition.
I can't believe you crop in camera to save space on the card. Just buy another card if that's the reason.

You don't get more reach, you're just cropping, that is losing resolution, or better, pixels.

Shooting DX, yet again the full frame of the DX format, on the other end, makes a bit more sense:
at least you're not going to lose pixels.
But must be considered still a crop if you're using an FX lens, in the sense that the image will have the perspective of an FX lens.
Ok, this is irrelevant with tele lenses but might be visible using wide angle lenses.

In my opinion, if you need more "reach", buying DX or CX is a better practice then cropping. 

[Somnath Goswami]

All those megapixels are not required all the time. The 1.2X top mode instantly makes the body churning out "lighter" files "faster", with the stress on "faster", specially with grip. So it has it's uses.

regards
Somnath

[MILLIREHM]

I am frequently using the D800E in DX mode when using Superteles to get "more reach". If its appropriate I do not need to crop during postprocessing, HDD does not fill that fast and I get 6fps instead of 4 fps when using the MB-12. Sometimes DX frame inside the full frame finder is an advantage to see what is around and anticipate whats going to happen (BIF situations).
having the AE-L button configured for  switching  format (just 2 options) i can toggle to full frame when it is appropriate - "on the fly"
I see this advantageous compared to a pure DX body
A CX Camera is giving you even more range, and thats why i have bought A 1V1 my worst investment ever. It has its merits for static situationt and when a camera that works absolutely quietis required but rather useless for fast action (due to AF and hi FPS limitations)

[Andrea B.]

A narrower field of view does not give you more "reach" in the sense of magnification. You don't get automatically get closer to your subject or get more detail after flipping to DX from FX. So I've never quite understood the comments about DX "reach" being a desireable thing.

That said, I sometimes flip to DX from my FX cam because I just want tighter framing without having to move. With 24-36 megapixels we can afford to waste a few from time to time. I don't always manage to compose perfectly while on scene, but like to try rather than have to face the dreaded, time-consuming editor.

Just for compositional reasons, I would love to have a square crop within my FX camera. It is not always easy to see square through a 3x2 ratio.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The "reach" thing is quite confusing as several concepts and facts tend to be mashed together and make a mess of the idea.

It is correct you don't get more *detail magnification* as this is controlled by focal length not format. Note we're talking the real focal length here, not the fake and misleading concept of "equivalent" focal length.

Likewise it is true one does put more pixels over the same area of the scene, given one has DX and FX format cameras with a comparable pixel number of the respective sensors.

Thus you might get more pixels (however usually of lower quality) covering your subject. In turn, this might provide more detail.

The best solution for more details is always getting closer either by being able to move in on the subject, or using a longer focal length the latter in itself making a bigger magnification.

[Tristin]

Who cares, do what you like.  Even for those of us that do like to print large, I doubt many print a siginificant portion of their keepers in large formats.  While I certainly enjoying having 24mp, I wouldn't lose anything 95% of the time if I had 8mp. 

I'm sure the DX croppers have their reasons.  Which, for them, are more important than yours or mine! 

[MILLIREHM]

A narrower field of view does not give you more "reach" in the sense of magnification. You don't get automatically get closer to your subject or get more detail after flipping to DX from FX. So I've never quite understood the comments about DX "reach" being a desireable thing.

That's why i had put "reach" under quotational mark. In fact i get a more narrow crop on the same lens giving me the same effect as a longer lens without the need to carry a longer lens.
If I already use my longest lens (a 600/4) and photographing animals where I can't get closer (because they are shy, because it is restricted area because there are other obstacles in between - such aswater) this crop effect is preferrable. Usually this is the better approach compared to using a Teleconverter to get the same frame.

I also see the process different (composing in a DX camera viewfinder, in a FX camera viewfinder set on DX mode or making a full format shot and cropping in post processing - it affects the result

[Frank Fremerey]

There was a time when Nikon knew the HighSpeedCrop HSC.

You could shoot DX or you could shoot a 2x Crop that was not called 4/3.

You won more frames per second.

I think this would be attractive to many. To have a D850 with 43MP and a HSC with DX and 21MP with double fps.

Kindof D500 builtin to the D850.

If Nikon knew the trick in the past .... did they forget?

[Marco Lanciani]

I can understand the need for speed and the gain of 2-3 fps.

I still don't understand in camera cropping if speed is not in question.
Isn't it better to leave more room to the subject and then take any decision, with even more freedom of cropping? Think about BIF: they move fast and it's not always easy to have them centered as wanted. Shooting the full frame (FX or DX) it's possible to have the same in camera crop (that is, the same pixel count) in post processing and slightly off-center as needed.
I hope you understand what I mean.

About compositional cropping I do with grid in the viewfinder.
If square and panoramic crop were available I'd still go with the full frame.