CX DX FX

[CS]

Hi Carl,

I am sure you are quite right. On the other hand, I am not a professional or making money with photographs. I do not know where the "upper limit" of resolution is or if it even exists. Rod Laver (tennis great) could likely beat most anyone with a broom stick. I am sure that any talented photographer can make great printable images with most any camera. I am certainly not one of them.

Ken

My point, Ken, was that you should not rely solely on images seen on the web to determine what gear to buy.

[KenP]

Carl, your point is taken and a valid one as well. My choice had more to do with cost and local availability. I figure I am better off trying to learn digital and post production with smaller files. I tend to gravitate toward telephoto shots and my kids sports in particular. The idea of a D500 or D7200 is perhaps in my future. For now….the D2h and V1 with a few lenses was less than $350. It will be a good introduction and provide some time to work on a skill set of sorts.

Ken

[Akira]

Ken, my personal choice of the format of digital cameras is different from that of film cameras.

I'm not as particular about the sensor size.  I just like 20mm, 50mm and 300mm primes (or their equivalents).  Currently the FX is the only format that can offer all three genuine lenses.  Yes, Fuji offers a 20mm (more precisely 21mm) equivalent, but I'm not really a big fan of those glossy black lenses that appeal their luxury.

[KenP]

Thanks Akira. Lens selection as previously mentioned by Les Olson is also a significant determining factor. I have never experimented much with anything wider than a 50. I do have that equivalent in the CX format and think it will be used quite a lot. I also have a 10mm that I am not sure I will ever use. For the D2h, I have a DX 50-135 F2.8 and a FX 180 F2.8.

Ken

[David H. Hartman]

How Much Blur: 105/1.4 v. 105/2.0 v. 135/2.8 v. 85/1.8 v. 105/2.5 v. 105/2.8 v. 70/2.8

OK, the 105/1.4 is a fantasy lens for most of us but the others are obtainable. Note that the 135/2.8 (FX) and 85/1.8 (DX) come with flatter perspective than the 105(s) on FX and the 70 on DX.

Dave Hartman

[simsurace]

For me, between the three format it comes down to lens choice. There is very little choice for CX and relatively little choice for DX, although if you rely mostly on zooms you can get covered with wide-angle, normal, and tele-zooms on CX and DX as well. For FX, there is a vast choice of lenses from old to new.

Including other formats than the three mentioned, there is also a lot of lenses to choose from in micro 4/3, and Fuji has a small, but very reasonable line-up. If size and weight is high on the list of priorities, those two systems should be considered as well.

[Les Olson]

How Much Blur: 105/1.4 v. 105/2.0 v. 135/2.8 v. 85/1.8 v. 105/2.5 v. 105/2.8 v. 70/2.8

OK, the 105/1.4 is a fantasy lens for most of us but the others are obtainable. Note that the 135/2.8 (FX) and 85/1.8 (DX) come with flatter perspective than the 105(s) on FX and the 70 on DX.

Dave Hartman

I have added a Hasselblad 150mm f/4 Sonnar and a Rolleiflex 80mm f/2.8 to your graph (http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-0.54x-150mm-f4-and-0.54x-80mm-f2.8-and-1x-135mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-85mm-f1.8-and-1x-105mm-f2.5-and-1x-105mm-f1.4-and-1.5x-105mm-f1.4-and-1.5x-85mm-f1.41-and-1.5x-50mm-f1.4-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject).  Both are "worse" than nearly everything else.  I guess they can't have been used for some of the best portraits ever made after all.

The 85mm at f/1.8 on DX, the 135mm at f/2.8, the 105mm at f/2.5 are all very close - exactly superimposed in the case of the first two.  The 80mm Rolleiflex at f/2.8 is a little below and to the right, but close enough.  The 105mm at f/1.4 on DX is about the same distance from the 105mm at f/1.4 on FX.  So, any blur you can produce on FX can be reproduced, near enough as makes no difference (maximum difference less than 1% of image width), on DX or 6 x 6.  (Differences are larger way over on the right, at very long subject-to-background distances, but all that is needed photographically is blur large enough to obscure the outlines of objects, and more contributes no additional pictorial effect).

Sure, your perspective with a 105mm lens on FX will not be the same as Irving Penn's and Richard Avedon's and David Bailey's when they used an 80mm Rolleiflex for portraits.  You don't have to feel inferior for that reason.  You go ahead and use the framing and perspective you like.  So will I, of course, and mine won't be the same as yours either.  So what? 
 
Even the difference between the 105mm at f/1.4 on FX and the rest is only 1.5m more distance between the subject and the background, or 1m for the 85mm at f/1.4 on DX and a shade less than 1m for the 105mm at f/1.4 on DX (is there are a law that says people who own DX cameras can't buy f/1.4 lenses, or lenses longer than 85mm?).  Why is moving the subject a step or two further away from the background a problem? 

[David H. Hartman]

Why is moving the subject a step or two further away from the background a problem?

When you change the distance from the subject to the lens you change the perspective.

http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-1x-105mm-f2-and-0.64x-180mm-f4-and-1x-105mm-f2.5-and-0.64x-150mm-f4-and-1x-105mm-f2.8-and-1x-105mm-f4-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-0.64x-80mm-f2.8-and-1x-50mm-f1.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

The slower Hasselblad lenses do well against the 105/2.5 and 105/2.8 because the larger format uses longer lenses to achieve the same perspective. The same is seen with the 80/2.8 v. 50/1.8.

Dave

[Les Olson]

When you change the distance from the subject to the lens you change the perspective.

The slower Hasselblad lenses do well against the 105/2.5 and 105/2.8 because the larger format uses longer lenses to achieve the same perspective. The same is seen with the 80/2.8 v. 50/1.8.

I think we can be confident that Irving Penn, Richard Avedon and David Bailey did not waste time asking themselves how to achieve the perspective of 105mm on FX with that lens.  Why should I? 

The fact is that you can make outstanding portraits - or anything else - with a whole range of perspectives. There is nothing magic about any one perspective. 

The problem is your inability to see past the FX-normative assumption.  It is the same as with gender and sexuality: progress cannot be made by people who cannot stop treating one of the options as "normal" or "the standard" and the alternatives as more or less deviant. 

[David H. Hartman]

Larger format, longer lenses for the same perspective and framing, more background blurring. This isn't about Irving Penn, Richard Avedon and David Bailey and arguments about them is loose logic. A list of famous photographers has nothing to do with the way optics work. You forgot to mention Yousuf Karsh and many others.

Dave

[David H. Hartman]

You don't have to feel inferior for that reason.

The problem is your inability to see past the FX-normative assumption.  It is the same as with gender and sexuality: progress cannot be made by people who cannot stop treating one of the options as "normal" or "the standard" and the alternatives as more or less deviant.

This is personal and has nothing to do with me. Again it's loose logic.

Dave

I'm sure this isn't helping Ken so I'm finished with this exchange.

[Frank Fremerey]

How Much Blur: 105/1.4 v. 105/2.0 v. 135/2.8 v. 85/1.8 v. 105/2.5 v. 105/2.8 v. 70/2.8

OK, the 105/1.4 is a fantasy lens for most of us but the others are obtainable. Note that the 135/2.8 (FX) and 85/1.8 (DX) come with flatter perspective than the 105(s) on FX and the 70 on DX.

Dave Hartman

The 1.4/105E is one of the reasons I wait for the 850 body. I hope to achieve never seen before resolution. Not that I need that kind of resolution for any particular purpose. It is just nice to have. We figure out uses for it.

I feel with good light and glass I can take a head to toe portrait today that doubles as an iris scan....

[Les Olson]

I'm sure this isn't helping Ken [...].

One of the things Ken said was that you could use any camera for any purpose if you were willing to accept some compromises.  The point is that "adapt" is a better word than compromise, and in the case of DX and FX, even where the adaptation needed is greatest - ie, portraits - it is frequently over-stated and is in fact very minor: asking a portrait subject to take a step away from the background, eg. 

Of course we all know that "for the same framing, perspective and output size you need one stop larger aperture to get the same DoF with DX as with FX".  There are two problems with this.  The important one is that if you don't want to copy photographs - whether your own or others' - the same framing and perspective is not just irrelevant, it is exactly what you do not want.  The other problem is that people keep talking about how DX has to be enlarged 10 times to make an 8 x 10 print while FX only has to be enlarged seven times - as if digital files were like film negatives.  They aren't: high pixel-count cameras allow output resolution to be the same, and optimal, over a very wide range of print sizes, so that a photographer can print larger to change DoF, or crop to change framing without compromising output resolution.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

An illustration that 'DoF' is a subjective illusion, not a physical and tangible entity. People should ponder the ramifications instead of building theories.

As long as the photographer learns the gear and what it can or cannot be relied upon to do, any format is OK. In the end that is what counts.

[golunvolo]

Your question can easily turn into a very technical discussion like in another thread here on Equivalence.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5905.0.html

So I will just offer you very practical advice.
I use camera's with all 3 sensor sizes but in your case coming from 135 film I would suggest you look at an FX camera first as lens focal length will behave the same way as you were used to in the film days.
An affordable and good option to start and try would be a secondhand Nikon D700. You could then also use old Nikkors in case you have those in your possession.

  I vouch for this as well. You can figure out more about your personal preferences down the road while making images with a very capable high quality machine.