NikonD3/D300 Long Term lens issues

As anextremely hapy D200 owner, the new technology is fascinating and fun to

kick around in discuss, let alone purchase and use! One thing I see ahead as

a question is, viewing lenses as more long-term investments than camera

bodies, whether or not it will make sense in the near future to buy an

expensive DX format lens...

 

I would hazard a guess that within 3 years all Nikon high-end pro/consumer

DSLRs will be full frame. Nikon is touting the new D300 as "the ultimate in

DX", which could also mean, "the last high end DX camera we're going to

make..." If that wild guess holds up, then, even presently owning a DX format

camera, if i were going for some really pricey glass, I'd be biased toward a

FF lens purchase. Just an opinion...

If that's the way you feel, I would base your buying decisions on that.

I doubt they will ditch the APS-C sensor anytime soon. The advantage it gives you on the long end is helpful to sports/wildlife guys. As long as they continue to improve the tech in these sensors, they will be around.

I share that opinion. I have a good selection of Nikkor 2.8 AF/S&D glass that I am glad to be able you use again soon. Question; Will new full frame "FX" glass be superior to current film lenses?

The D3 automatically switches to the DX format when a DX lens is attached.

Ellis, isn't that DX cropped though? Giving you only like a 6 mp (I am too lazy to figure the math to get the right number) image? Wouldn't having a 12mp DX sensor make sense for when you are using either DX lenses or film lenses.

 

(oh yeah, and aside from the fish and wides, why buy a DX specific lens?)

5.5 mp

I'm not sure why this topic keeps coming up.

 

There are only really one or two expensive DX lenses, the 12-24 and the 17-55 and Nikon made them fully usable in the new FF bodies. You get more MP and FPS than a D2H and like Shun keeps pointing out, many FF lenses that were good in the film or early DX digital days may not be good enough for use in a future 16mp so you might have to buy new lenses anyways.

 

There is still lot to complain about in the Nikon lineup, the lack of fast af-s primes is one of them.

ROTFLOL. As impressed as I am with the new bodies I cannot help laughing about giving the almost 100 yr old film format the FX designation.

Zach,

 

Some people already own DX lenese and may not be immediately ready to buy new lenses.

 

Also as the D3 is targeted towards sports/ photojournalists, if you're at a newspaper or a

magzine or shooting for a web based publication, 5.5mp is more than fine for 98% (I'm

making that number up but I'll bet it's pretty accurate sizes and dpi your images will be

reproduced at.

DX is around to stay. Simply because of the economics of sensor production as smaller sensors are massively cheaper to produce (Sensor cost goes up by sensor area, so it's a geometric increase, not a linear one).

 

Also a lot of sports shooters and wildlife shooters prefer cropped bodies for pixel-density reasons, as it allows them to get more pixels on a subject than cropping down from a larger sensor will allow. This is why Canon has kept the otherwise silly 1.3x crop around on the 1D (Canon could easily make a FF 1D, but that would annoy most of the market who want higher pixel density).

 

So expect to see DX format live on in the consumer market (where it allows for cheaper bodies) and in sports/wildlife oriented cameras like the D300 (where it has higher pixel density)

"There is still lot to complain about in the Nikon lineup, the lack of fast af-s primes is one of

them."

 

Reading between the lines of comments and smiles various Nikon execs gave me when I

asked them this question, I think we are gonna see several new primes in the near future.

"I think we are gonna see several new primes in the near future."

 

Please help me understanding this statement. Does this mean the AF-D prime lens that I've been using so far on my film cameras will not perform as well on DSLR?

To Bill Keane, the following article by Dave Etchells has already been quoted a couple of times. Etchells was there in Tokyo along with Ellis and Bjorn:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1187901361.html

 

Towards the bottom of that page, there is a section on "DX lenses aren't going away." Dave Etchells writes: "Nikon feels that both DX and FX products make sense for different groups of users, and so will continue to very aggressivel develop products in both realms .... DX and FX cameras and lenses will continue to complement each other 'for a very long time.'"

Manh, that would depend on the specific lens. From what I understand any prime of FL 50mm or over is going to perform really well on FF DSLR. Shorter lenses may or may not. However, there is the issue of AF-S. I guess Nikon will fix eventually the entire line to be AF-S.

<p>

There are also Zeiss manual focus lenses to choose from. Remember: on a FF camera you <i> can </i> manual focus!

I see the D300 and D3 as complimentary of one another, a perfect pair as it were. I can put the new 14-24/2.8 on a D3 and go super wide and I can put my older 70-200/2.8 on the D300 and getting more widely spaced AF sensors and get 12 MP out of the cropped image. Therefore, since I hope to have both cameras, having a DX lens that works on both is just as important as having 35FF lenses, plus it seems clear that many users will simply prefer DX format and will need some wide angle lenses for their cameras.

 

Ironically, with the introduction of the new lenses from Nikon yesterday; not one DX lenses was made obsolete or devalued, but the value of several 35FF lenses will be adversely effected. Specifically the 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and the telephoto exotics will all lose value in the next few years, and the zooms on that list were previously considered the "wiser" investment over the 17-55/2.8 DX. There is no lens in your bag that isn't likely to be eclipsed by some future new camera that reveals a hidden weakness or by some future lens that is simply better; that's why it doesn't make sense to think of lenses as investments, they are tools.

"oh yeah, and aside from the fish and wides, why buy a DX specific lens?"

 

DX lenses are smaller and lightweight. Something like the Nikon 18-200 vr would be much, much much bigger and more expensive. 28-300 from Canon is more the 2k.

Ilkka: You can manual focus on a DX sized sensor also. Do it all the time on a D200.

 

Ellis, if you are still there, do you know if you are capable of zooming in the live preview? Like I said in a different thread, I miss the ground glass of a 4 x 5, and hope that I can use this in much the same way.

Sam, good point.

Thanks Ilkka for the explanation. Can you elaborate a bit more about AF-S versus AF-D lens? Or, point me to the direction on this subject?

"ROTFLOL. As impressed as I am with the new bodies I cannot help laughing about giving the almost 100 yr old film format the FX designation."

 

Movie camera 35mm film is actually smaller than print film format.

The Academy format is 22 mm by 16 mm.

 

Since Nikon lenses are used in film industry along with 2/3 sensors used in the video industry. It makes sense that Nikon will give their larger format film cameras a different name. FX means 24x36 format.

"Can you elaborate a bit more about AF-S versus AF-D lens?"

 

AF-S doesn't make the lens any more better optically as adding the D designation to AF lenses. But with newer designs in mechanical parts it is hoped that optics would improve.

 

Cameras like the Nikon D40 series do not autofocus with non AF-S lenses and supposedly AF-S is quicker to focus and much quieter than their in body counterparts.

Thanks Sam for the explanation. This makes me less worry about lens upgrade, because I don't use the AF feature.

Nature and sports photographers can use use long tele lenses on DSLRs with full frame sensors or smaller sensors. They seem to prefer the smaller sensors because of the 1.3 or 1.5 resulting mag factor magnification factor without any noticable negative impact on image quality. They are not going to want only a full frame DSLR. With my D 200 I can produce really good large prints. There will be a segment of the digital market that will not need full frame semsors for their work and my guess is that this segment will be larger than the full frame segment. Joe Smith

Does anyone think that the middle market can afford a FF sensor camera within the next 10 years?

We're talkin selling sub-$1500 camera with FF.

 

If that's not possible, there'll be DX lenses and DX bodies around for years to come.