Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 13, 2010, 10:19 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

I still have a Hitachi 32" HDTV that uses a CRT. It's a beast, and I'm reluctant to move it around at all, but it still works well and I have no immediate plans to replace it.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2010, 11:06 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,327
Default

From Nikon's website, currently they have 15 lenses that are designated DX, of which the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 10.5 FE appear to me to be what I'd consider "pro glass". The other lenses (IMHO) are consumer grade. Everything else that they have introduced recently in the pro-glass category appears once again to be FX.For. e.g. the new 70-200 f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8, etc. Now if FX is the new medium format, don't tell that to the folks from Pentax that has just introduced the Pentax 645D!

If FX clearly provides better IQ, the question is if FX will become more affordable (like in the Sony), lighter, etc and therfore become the mainsteam while DX fades away like polaroid instant cameras. Then again, Betamax even though a technically superior product yielded to VHS...does anyone still even own a VCR???
Wingman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2010, 11:57 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I think that APS-C has integrated into the market so much that I do not see any of the makes getting rid of it. It will remain in the market. Even if they have lower price FF DSLR, the more compact dslr line up will still employ a aps-c sensor to maintain the compact size for a market's demand of smaller dslr's.

I would love to see canon and nikon come out with a sub 1500 dollar FF dslr. It would give non pro high end photo shooter more options. The 7D and D300s users a nice upgrade option.

I would not mind getting a canon FF in that price range.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2010, 1:34 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

jelpee,

What you're not seeing is that all those "pro glass" FX lenses can be used on DX cameras as well. The "pro glass" DX lenses are just there to fill the gaps in the coverage as a result of the smaller DX image sensor. DX bodies don't have fewer options, they have more! A large aperture is still a large aperture, even if the image sensor is smaller. The DX bodies benefit from having those larger apertures at longer (35mm equivalent) focal lengths! That's something that FX bodies can't do, "pro glass" not.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Mar 13, 2010 at 1:38 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2010, 4:02 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelpee View Post

If FX clearly provides better IQ, the question is if FX will become more affordable (like in the Sony), lighter, etc and therfore become the mainsteam while DX fades away like polaroid instant cameras. Then again, Betamax even though a technically superior product yielded to VHS...does anyone still even own a VCR???
For most uses, FX doesn't clearly provide better IQ. Yes you get better high ISO performance, but the current crop of DX cameras are markedly better than high iso film ever was. You also can't get around the fact that larger sensors will always translate into larger cameras, and most of the non pro's I know are always looking to get smaller, not bigger.

I won't guarantee DX will last forever (or FX for that matter). Who would have thought film would be just about dead 15 years ago. Technology is moving so quickly, I'm sure all of us will be shooting something different 7-10 years from now.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2010, 4:07 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

Having moved from a D2X with 17/55 to a D3 with 24/70 personally, and this is just a personal viewpoint, I find pictures sharper and much easier to produce superb photos after cropping. I shoot marriages and motor racing and the ISO quality difference alone must make it worth having the FX as opposed to the DX sensor. We don't just shoot in bright sunlight, do we? While obviously the bigger sensor takes more space the D700 isn't that much heavier than a D300 is it? I haven't looked but I would guess not.

No, just like when Fuji introduced the ASA800 Pro film and changed our lives when shooting in poor light, so the FX sensor has changed mine. I recently bought a new P&S camera and read all the reviews as to which was the best in low light. It is still pretty poor and grainy though with its APS sensor.
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2010, 7:40 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cameranserai View Post
Having moved from a D2X with 17/55 to a D3 with 24/70 personally, and this is just a personal viewpoint, I find pictures sharper and much easier to produce superb photos after cropping. I shoot marriages and motor racing and the ISO quality difference alone must make it worth having the FX as opposed to the DX sensor. We don't just shoot in bright sunlight, do we? While obviously the bigger sensor takes more space the D700 isn't that much heavier than a D300 is it? I haven't looked but I would guess not.

No, just like when Fuji introduced the ASA800 Pro film and changed our lives when shooting in poor light, so the FX sensor has changed mine. I recently bought a new P&S camera and read all the reviews as to which was the best in low light. It is still pretty poor and grainy though with its APS sensor.
FX is a clear winner for you. I'd still argue, most don't need the extra size and weight, not mention the extra expense of the lenses that come with FX.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 12:51 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
jelpee,

What you're not seeing is that all those "pro glass" FX lenses can be used on DX cameras as well. The "pro glass" DX lenses are just there to fill the gaps in the coverage as a result of the smaller DX image sensor. DX bodies don't have fewer options, they have more! A large aperture is still a large aperture, even if the image sensor is smaller. The DX bodies benefit from having those larger apertures at longer (35mm equivalent) focal lengths! That's something that FX bodies can't do, "pro glass" not.
And the debate rages on

Tcav: Based on your comments above, are you recommending that getting the DX lenses over FX lenses..i.e. 24-70 f/2.8 over the 17-55 f/2.8 for my D300s?
Wingman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 12:57 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelpee View Post
And the debate rages on

Tcav: Based on your comments above, are you recommending that getting the DX lenses over FX lenses..i.e. 24-70 f/2.8 over the 17-55 f/2.8 for my D300s?
No. I'm suggesting that you have a choice. That's something you don't have with an FX body.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 1:06 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

But if you see yourself going to a FX body in the future, you may want to invest in the FX over the DX. The debate ranges on.

For me, I have film still, getting less and less uses. But getting FF lens over crop lens still drives my purchases.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:57 AM.