| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2012 |
| Location: | Denham, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 293 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
amazing50 wrote:I am fairly convinced that shooting with a DX camera and no tele-converter will produce a technically better image than shooting the same scene with an FX camera and the same lens with a tele-converter. However, I don't know whether the difference is noticeable at normal viewing distances.
I tested TC's with a Tamron 150-600 mm a while ago and found that a comparable crop was better than a full frame shot with a TC. For birding and nature work I use a Nikon D5300 which has 25mp and no aliasing filters for 225-900mm eq. As a bonus it has a built in GPS, unlike the D850 which requires a dangle.
Dangle ??
That answers the question that Eric has been asking for a while.
DX using ccd derived x1.5 is better than FX with TCx1.4.
Logically 20-24MP DX is equivalent to 40-45MP FX. But there is a potential difference due to S/N on smaller photosites.
Additionally, if one is limited to either DX or FX my preference would be for an FX body over a DX simply because of the greater range of high-end lenses available for FX. There being only one f2.8 "standard" zoom in the Nikon range designed for DX. Given that my choice is FX that would rather necessitate the use of a converter to achieve the same angle of view. My Nikon TC17 11 was markedly cheaper than a D500 body and the amount of use it gets suggests that the latter would have been a waste of money. Others will have a different view based on their circumstances.