dumped the dx

<p>dumped all my dx gear, now am lugging a big heavily used d3 around -- i love being able to carry one set of lenses for both film and digital --- my backpack weighs a ton with the f4, the f5, the d3, and all my glass - but that's ok --- so... the first thing i do is put my old 50/1.4 ais lens on it, switch it to monochrome and went out shooting skateboarders.... </p>

<p>the b/w results can be seen here:<br>

https://www.facebook.com/blakebillingsphoto</p>

<p>this seems to be a good fit for me</p>

<p>The advantages of full frame are well documented, and the results for all to see. Nice to hear someone make a decision they're happy with. </p>

<p>Good for you! Being able to use the same lenses on either digital or film is the main reason I didn't buy any DX camera.</p>

<p>Not to disappoint you folks, but any lens that you can use on an Fx can be used just fine on a Dx. One of the better marketing moves of the last 10 years was the creation of "Dx" lenses... <br>

Fx lenses work on both, Dx lenses will work on both, but result in a vignetting or forcing the camera to "Dx" mode. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

I bet these guys already know that. With DX cameras the lenses don't give the same field of view, so if you want to use

the same lenses for the same shots you need FX.

<p>the d60 i had wouldn't use many of the older nikon lenses -=== still --- it's a nice change and works well --- the in camera monochrome doesn't suck, it's a nice rig -- </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not to disappoint you folks, but any lens that you can use on an Fx can be used just fine on a Dx. One of the better marketing moves of the last 10 years was the creation of "Dx" lenses... <br />Fx lenses work on both, Dx lenses will work on both, but result in a vignetting or forcing the camera to "Dx" mode.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not in the way the lens is intended. If I am shooting a scene with film and using a lens that is right for the scene and if I shoot the same scene with a DX camera the same lens isn't right for the scene. Not that it won't work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the d60 i had wouldn't use many of the older nikon lenses -=== still --- it's a nice change and works well </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually the D60 would work with just about any Nikkor lenses. Including AI and Pre-AI lenses. Wihout AF-S it won't AF but you can focus it manually. Without a CPU it won't meter but then you can use it without the meter. Since it has no AI coupling you can mount Pre-AI lenses on it without damaging it. </p>

<p>Congratulations! D3 is one of my all time favorite cameras. </p>

<p>No doubt this will be controversial but Cameta has D3 Demos for $1995.00. Comes with a one year warranty.</p>

<p>I have had three Nikon factory refurbs from them before and they were all spotless, up-to-date, and low shutter counts. Never a problem with them. I know that the D3 is getting up there but it is still a wonderful camera, especially for photojournalists, and at the price a heck of a deal. </p>

<p><<I bet these guys already know that. With DX cameras the lenses don't give the same field of view, so if you want to use the same lenses for the same shots you need FX.>></p>

<p>For me, the idea of lenses having a different field of view is just a given. I have lenses 90mm/180mm/300mm. On my 4x5, the lenses show a different field of view than they do on my my half plate camera (roughly 5x7,) and when I shot 8x10 they were different still. Not a big deal and to be expected. I have returned to shooting a fair amount of film, although mostly it is 4x5 and 120. I sometimes still shoot 35mm but only because the camera is a Leica. I have no desire at all to shoot Nikon lenses on the Leica or vice versa. I shoot film for an entirely different reason than I shoot digital. There is nothing at all magical or special about the 35mm format.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I just adapt like Kent. I don't shoot super high ISO, or need WA primes. At the end of the day it's the picture and the audience that counts. I also don't take a film and a digital camera out the same time. The latest and greatest more of that are FX stuff, I guess are better but the audience probably cannot tell. </p>

<p>I use both FX and DX. I usually carry an FX body and a DX body on assignment. I like the D3/4 and love the D7100. I think the advantages of FX, such as they are, are somewhat over rated. A few years ago megapixels were all the rage. When I bought my D2H I was roundly criticized because it "did not have enough resolution". Then I got the D2X and everyone said that 12 MP was a lot and asked I didn't appreciate the difference. I didn't see much difference. As an old film guy I was used to taking a lens that was of the appropriate focal length for the job.<br>

Now it is all about low light performance. I have friends who are agonizing about the difference between ISO 6400 and 12,800. They would not use either but one in 10,000 shots. That kind of ISO is like putting a pistol in your pocket. Costs money and you rarely need it but the one time you do it will either save the day or get you deeper in trouble......</p>

<p>I'm happy for Blake though. From the look of his skateboard shots the D3 will be a perfect match for what he wants to do. It is, after all, still a world-class camera. Among the best sports and photojournalism cameras ever. I love mine and use it frequently. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>"Not to disappoint you folks, but any lens that you can use on an Fx can be used just fine on a Dx. One of the better marketing moves of the last 10 years was the creation of "Dx" lenses..."</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>I agree. Maybe buy one DX lens for the ultra wide shots that aren't possible with FF lenses on DX bodies, but everything above that should be FF unless you plan on sticking with DX for life. I can see the crop difference being problematic if you only shoot primes, but for zooms there is really no reason to buy DX. The cost of upgrading to FF is high enough and stings even more when you have to replace your entire lens lineup.</p>

Good to hear that your are happy with your choice Blake!

 

 

Like many, I went from 36*24mm colour slides (..F3/4) to

DX (..D200/300) using my old (some as old as myself)

lenses. The 12-24 zoom was necessary to go wide angle -

the only DX lens I own. Now after 7+ years of DX I am

happily mixing the formats (..with an adfitional FX D800 )

and probably will into the future.

<p>...and there i was thinking this was a Nikon Announcement...:-)</p>

<p>DX only ever happened because CCDs were initially too expensive to make in FX format....like the advent of B/W photography only happened due to initial limitations in chemistry.</p>

<p>The DX bodies and lenses are not <em>that much</em> smaller and cheaper than FX equivalents..... but it's hard to find good lens 'equivalents' because Nikon have stopped (never really started) making Pro DX glass and have now stopped making Pro DX cameras too.</p>

<p>N ikon have made it very clear from their product line-up that if you <em>need</em> robust, to go fast, either in fps or high ISO, you've got very little choice but go FX.</p>

<p>Nikon do not use the term Pro in relation to DX. </p>

<p>Anyone remember APS film cameras?, that was a shocking con between the camera and film makers at the dawn of digital cameras. They might say they could never have predicted the speed of digi take-up, but they're the ones who pushed it!</p>

<p>I'm not predicting DX's demise, but unless Nikon make some better glass it's going to stagnate. I guess the independents can spread the cost of R&D by making lenses for different mounts and thus sell more lenses....but when the maker doesn't make good glass for it's cameras, what does that tell the market?</p>

<p>using a crop lens on a full frame sensored camera or using a full frame lens on a crop camera IMHO does not alter the field of view but the crop lens on full frame may exhibit vignetting because of narrowed coverage not "field of view".</p>

<p>As Kent wrote... I just look through the viewfinder and then I'll understand what I get. When I carry my D700 or a filmcamera, I look at a scene and think "ah, that'll be 35mm"... and when I carry my D300, I think 24mm instead. I never quite got what's the big issue in that respect. In the end it doesn't matter whether the angle of view, field of view or however you want to call it changes, it's about understanding which result you get, no?</p>

<p>That said, I like FX for the much better viewfinder which makes using those old MF lenses a whole lot easier; plus I never mind the extra bit depth of field I have less with FX.... Enjoy!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>switch it to monochrome and went out shooting skateboarders....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Blake, I also like monochrome but except for some initial experimentation in 2006 I only shoot colour and do the conversion in Photoshop. My understanding is that the monochrome setting on a DSLR simply desaturates the photo whereas you will have much more control of your monochrome result if you capture all of the information first.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My understanding is that the monochrome setting on a DSLR simply desaturates the photo</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the results I've seen on recent Nikons, it does a bit better than that, but...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>whereas you will have much more control of your monochrome result if you capture all of the information first</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fully agreed. However, if you shoot raw, only the preview in the raw-file will be monochrome, all data will be there. If you shoot JPEG only, you throw out data anyway (also in colour); from my D700 I can often see there is a lot more information in shadows and highlights than the in-camera JPEGs show (and Active-D lightning doesn't come close to showing how much play there is). The D3 will be not much different, as it's the same sensor and same age camera. Unless you need to shoot etremely long series or must publish immediately, I cannot think of reasons to shoot JPEG with these cameras.</p>

<p>have a few non chipped lenses -- will have to add the profile for my 300 and my 55 2.8 micro -=-- </p>

<p>also need to figure out a profile for my tamron adaptall 500 lens</p>

<p>I can't begin to imagine why, but somehow this thread reminded me of the line in the film Gettysburg:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You certainly do have a talent for trivializing the momentous.....and complicating the obvious. Have you ever considered running for Congress?</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>"Anyone remember APS film cameras?, that was a shocking con between the camera and film makers at the dawn of digital cameras."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It wasn't a con. It was poor timing.<br>

<br>

If Kodak had introduced APS a decade earlier, particularly to coincide with increasing camera automation and autofocus, it could have dominated the miniature film format market, become the default camera of consumers and casual photographers, and eclipsed the 24x36 format for all but a few professionals and demanding amateurs. It was potentially superior in every way other than the slight benefits that only gearheads notice. The APS cartridge was well designed, almost foolproof, and offered impressive potential for pre-recorded and recordable data. <br>

<br>

Keep in mind this was long before anyone in the US had heard the term "bokeh" or even gave a second thought to the notion of shallow depth of field as the normal way to take portraits. The more demanding photographers would have chosen medium format, even the 645 format, over 35mm for significant advantages in enlargement capabilities, DOF and perceived image quality.<br>

<br>

The APS sensor format will be around a long while because it's cost effective and increasingly capable of being squeezed inside small cameras, including for video. It may be relegated to "merely" the consumer grade P&S and enthusiast compact camera class, but that's good enough for most folks who want something a bit more than their mobile device cameras can offer.<br>

<br>

And the digital "full frame" 24x36 format still won't permanently dominate the market. Eventually (probably sooner than we expect) Sony will make a medium format sensor and possibly even a camera system the go-to format for professionals and serious photographers who don't necessarily need the speed advantages of FX in framerates, AF, etc. It'll just be a return to the same paradigms as 20 years ago, with 35mm and MF each finding their niches.</p>

<p>The APS is possibly superior to 135 format in almost every aspects but the most important one. Image quality. Smaller size means less quality. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The APS is possibly superior to 135 format in almost every aspects but the most important one. Image quality. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I think you meant "technical image quality." Very different than "image quality." Image quality comes from what photos convey, not technical parameters. Photography is about a lot more than eye charts, which is why people can share a photo taken with a phone and show far more image quality than people who don't seem to have anything to show.</p>

<p>Yeah APS could have had more potential. Not sure film SLRs b/c they might be more knowledgeable and wanting more theory quality. But at the time I had a APS point and shoot and it was great, many others liked it too, it was a very light, stylish small camera. For the pint sizes, it was never an issue. With dSLRs, I'm not sure if they will get rid of DX. Esp with the low end dSLRs and with the general users. I might pickup a used D5200. As a holiday camera they're pretty good and they're cheaper than high end point and shoots like the X100s / RX100 / Coolpix A. A kit lens does pretty much everything for a holiday with maybe a 24mm F2.8 for low light and its pop up flash or a SB400.</p>

<p>I got a D600 but I still have a workable D70. I sold a few lenses. But I kept my Sigma 10-20 and my Nikon 35mm F1.8 DX. Even things like landscapes with a nice lens on it. Or macro with its tilt screen or outdoor portraits. But for many general people, with a fast lens, a DX camera might be sufficient for dark churches too. </p>