FX or DX for Landscapes?
Then there is the question of FX or DX for landscapes. I don’t get that email. Why? Perhaps because on the other end of the extreme the answer seems more obvious. The ultra wide and wide angle are forever pigeon holed as “the” landscape lens. With that thought, then the crop factor of DX is not as attractive. But perhaps the answer is not as obvious now though with the introduction of the 10-24DX lens. I do know the 12-24DX wasn’t the sharpest pencil in the box so shooting it at 12mm with the subject somewhat physically close didn’t provide the best results. And that’s really where the ultra wide is at its best, when the subject is close to the camera.
Tre here is a great example of what I’m talking about. While her arm is accentuated from being so close and shooting at 14mm, that’s the only “distortion” so including the reflection while using a SB-900 as the main light was no-brainer. But then so is using the FX format. For a guy who always loved shooting with the 13f5.6 and 15f3.5, this stuff just falls into place with little thought, photographic technical thought that is. That’s really the goal, that it’s all just second nature so you then have to do only one thing, concentrate on the subject.
Photos captured by D3, 14-24AFS on Lexar UDMA digital film