Longevity of DX lenses

[alex_ostapenko]

Hi,

the opinion is the DX-lenses will stay for long time.

As soon as I see Nikon DX-lenses with aperture from 1.4 to 2.0 I will believe it.

I will gladly accept this standard if its lenses preserve creativity in terms of depth of view. These lenses must not be more expensive than the 35-mm 2.8-analogs.

(In my opinion it is not going to happen.)

Alex.

[eric friedemann]

"If I was a Nikon marketing genious I would think it 'great' that my customers were buying new lenses for hundreds of dollars each."

 

What customers? A number of my customers who have owned Nikon for years are exasperated with the concept of DX lenses and with Nikon's weak-assed line of DSLRs:

 

1. I've seen some pros simply switch to Canon, which has a full line of DSLRs, motors in all lenses and a larger offering of lenses that are 35mm-compatible.

 

2. As to ametuers, with all-in-one cameras, like the Sony 828 and the Konica-Minolta A2, a number of them are bypassing DSLRs altogether. They figure why pay $800-1,000 for a plasticy body with awful through-the-lens viewing, like the Digital Rebel or the D70, when they can get all-in-one convenience.

 

I expect to see a DSLR backlash. Largely through advertising, people are being sold on 800-$3,500 DSLRs that cost as much as three times more than comparable film cameras, require more expensive lenses to shoot wide angle and are- at best- not capable of better resolution than 35mm film. In Nikon, you have had to buy new DX flashes for the first wave of mediocre DSLRs (SB-50DX, SB-80DX)- and now you will have to buy new flashes again for the second wave of cameras (SB-600 and SB-800 for the D70 and D2h). I expect that sooner or later, the bottom will drop out of the DSLR market.

[ShunCheung]

Eric, I think you know better than that. Dealers are having a hard time keeping the D70 on the shelf, as we frequently see threads complaining about the availability of the D70. Meanwhile, you see a lot D Rebels and D70 when you go out. However, it is pretty obvious that Nikon is falling behind on the high end. It has been over 3 years since the D1X was introduced. The D2X had better be excellent, but even so it may be too little too late.

 

The simple reason that the small sensor will stay is that it is cheaper and delivers more than sufficient image quality for most DSLR users. In fact, for news, sports, PJ type, the small sensor is a major advantage because they can get by with shorter and smaller lenses. For example, instead of a huge 600mm/4, a smaller 200-400mm/f4 can get the job done with more flexability.

[eric friedemann]

"Dealers are having a hard time keeping the D70 on the shelf, as we frequently see threads complaining about the availability of the D70."

 

Well, I don't know that a few threads on p.net represent a scientific sampling. My store has no shortage of D70 bodies and kits to sell and the B&H and Adorama websites indicate the same. If you are in the U.S. and you want a D70, there is no reason why you can't have one in your hands within 24 hours.

 

At some point, though, people are going to start realizing that cameras like the D70 cost 3x the price of their film counterparts, are not, on balance, easier to make photographs from, and have as many physical drawbacks as advantages (e.g. the D70's remarkably bad viewfinder). At that point, I would expect to see DSLR sales stumble.

 

The current generation of DSLRs remind me of the first generation of crappy autofocus bodies and the mostly-forgetable lenses that went with them (e.g. the crappy 4004/F-401 or the plasticy 28mm f/2.8 AF Nikkor). People were paying more money to get worse products, with autofocus being the only advantage.

 

Currently, people are paying up to triple the cost of film cameras to get digital cameras that will not make better photographs for most people than film cameras. Adding to the problem, you have to buy new lenses and new flashes. This cannot continue indefinitely.

[ShunCheung]

Eric, I just went back to check B&H's web site. The D70 is currently out of stock as I "write." Recall that business article we went over a few weeks back. Nikon is rapidly increasing the D70's production to over 1 million units a year.

[ilkka_nissila]

Huh? I get quite a bit better photographs (in terms of print quality) in a variety of photographic situations which I couldn't get good results in with film. The D70 paid for itself as far as I'm concerned, and I've only started to explore the possibilities.

 

Despite it's crappy viewfinder and questionable AF, I still get much better quality photographs with the D70 than my F5 or F100 in many situations that interest me. Not all cases, but in many. It is perhaps the best photographic investment I've made ever.

[eric friedemann]

Ilkka:

 

1. I've been shooting two D100s for months. With ISO 100 print or slide film, a 35mm camera is simply able to record more detail than a 6MP Nikon DSLR- by a long shot.

 

At this point, if I know I'm going to make prints larger than 8x12 inches, the D100s sit at home. Further, if I'm going to shoot at a friend's party and know I'll need a bunch of 4x6 prints, I'll grab my F100 and shoot print film. It's nuts to do post-camera processing on 100 or more images.

 

For grab shots, its easier to carry an Oly 5060. If I'm just shooting to send an email, the 5060 is the go-to camera.

 

2. I don't know what "variety of photographic situations" you have problems capturing with film in which the D70 excels. With the white balancing and post-camera noise reduction, I get better results in low light with the D100s. But that's it. In any other conditions, I get as good or better results with film.

 

I've found that the D100s have at least a 1 stop shorter tonal range than color print film. The D100s are more like shooting slide film- a little tricky and bitchy.

 

3. In terms of printing, unless I'm going to do significant post-camera processing with digital images, I get better results with regular 35mm color print film (e.g. Fuji Reala). For enlarging over 8x12, 35mm print film has significantly better resoultion than 6 puny megapixels- regardless of how well I rez an image up.

 

But the point of my post was that the vast majority of people who are buying Digital Rebels and D70s are going to do all their processing in the camera and have 4x6 prints made. Currently, the vast majority of these people would be better off with 35mm SLRs.

 

Regards, E<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

Eric, I feel the same way as you do with respect to the D100. A friend of mine has one and I've spent some time printing the images. I'm unable to get results that I like from that camera even with significant photoshop time. The images have less detail, flatter colours and the default tone curve is unnatural (linear). The D70 is a very different camera. I would of course like more megapixels and a better viewfinder but the prints from that camera are in general much better than those I can get with film and my LS-4000. And it isn't because I don't know my films. I'm very particular about which film I choose for each situation.

 

I've invested about 5 times as much money in 35 mm specific equipment than the D70 and I'm not saying this lightly or to make an uproar. It's just how I feel.

 

I do recognize that prints from slow negative film (such as Reala or Royal Supra 200) do produce a sharper image and more detail than those images taken with the D70 but the quality of colours, smoothness of tones, and grain-free rendering of coarse detail make me prefer the D70 in most situations. These include all outdoor colour people photography (more natural colours, better definition of coarse detail, narrower angle of view in teles), all photography in sunlight (it matches the contrast automatically to the lighting situation and that works really well; however I should add that in Finland the sun shines at a lower angle and problems might occur at lower latitudes), all photography of animals (the added reach and ability to adjust to changes in color temp - most wildlife here is easiest to photograph late or really early), much of my concert photography (because iso 400 is grain-free unless I add contrast significantly, also because the odds in low-light concerts are low, I prefer it costwise), plant photography (it renders the colours of forest and flowers truthfully (unlike any slide film) yet with high saturation), much of my tele architectural photography (added reach, superb colours, no worries about colour temp of light source in natural light), and the list could go on.

 

I use film for 1) black and white photography (film is much better in this area in my opinion), 2) indoor portraits (I don't like the look of I get from the D70 at all for this subject), 3) when I need really wide angles, 4) when I don't need a long hand-holdable lens but still the subject is moving and needs to be in focus, 5) just when I want to enjoy photography instead of worrying about focus. The last point is quite often actually, but I can't justify it by looking at the end result (prints).

 

But print quality wise, I'm afraid that the D70 has won the contest by such a wide margin (due to mainly the more accurate colours) that I feel a little ashamed in not realizing that this was going to happen so soon. I'm only waiting that Nikon improves the viewfinder and AF sufficiently for my needs and then I'm likely to take the batteries out of my film cameras. I won't sell them since it's nice to get some variety in a while in my photography but certainly at this point I wouldn't buy a film camera for general photography. I'll unfortunately need to get a separate landscape camera for high res (since Nikon doesn't want to compete in that area) but that was expected. I just don't want to do that yet because the situation is so unpredictable.

[ShunCheung]

I don't know about your guys, but I am pretty happy with the 13x19" prints from my D100. Therefore, I can care less whether 35mm film does a better or worse job. As I have mentioned a few times, I finally used a few rolls of film during a wedding shoot a few days ago. Otherwise, my F5 has been sitting on the shelf in the entire first half of 2004.

 

One of the main advantage of digital (DSLR or digicam) is instant feedback. I went to that wedding rehearsal too and took some pictures, and the bride and groom wanted to see the results immediately. I studied the results such that I could adjust things in the following day during the actual wedding. There was no one-hour processing, etc.

 

dpreview.com had a news article several weeks ago about usage pattern of digital. Most images are not even printed at all; people simply store them on computers and e-mail one another. My usage certainly fit that patters: only a small fraction of my digital images ever get printed. Therefore, printing cost and editing time are not major issues. I spend time on PhotoShop only because I choose to.

 

In any case, whether David, Eric, Ilkka or Shun likes or doesn't like the D70 is pretty much a non issue. Nikon is making 1 million of them a year because there is a huge market for them. If prices for low-end DSLRs can drop to $600, $700, sales will only go further up.

[Carl Stone]

"Sierra, Belgian Malinois with Oly 5060

 

 

Nice looking Malinois, but I don't see the Oly. In fact I don't see any beer at all.

 

The Malinois is my fave of the lot, out of Tervurens, GSD's, etc. Loyal, intense, agile,

SMART, and way

better than what the current GSD is in this country, as they don't walk like Groucho

Marx. That one takes a nice photo too. But to be fair, I insist that you post photos of

that dog using a D70. We may not end the controversy, but I'll get to see some nice

dog pics. A friend of mine has a brindle bullmastiff that measures 36" around his

head, BEAUTIFUL boy. Here's a pic of the big guy. :o)

 

A. Dog Lover

[Carl Stone]

The lousy exposure of a really good looking bully is credited to the combo of a CP

990 and SB 22s, not to mention that I cannot get that duo to keep from

overexposing. TTL is only a rumor with those two. As the idiot behind the setup, the

blame is mine, and I accept it.

 

A. dog lover

[david_h._hartman]

Has anyone tested the image circle of various DX lenses like

one would test a view camera lens? For example a 210/5.6 Nikkor-W

has a useable image circle of 243mm at f/5.6 and 295mm at f/22.<br>

<br>

My question is will the 12~24/2.8 DX offer say a 33.5mm image

circle at f/2.8 and 12mm? Will it offer a 33.5mm image circle or

more at f/5.6 and 12mm? That is will it cover an 18.5x27.7mm

format?<br>

<br>

Im just thinking out loud so dont scold me, OK?<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ives]

Whether Nikon sticks with DX for five or fifteen years is beyond anyone's guess, but I am all for DX (as supposed to a full-frame counterpart) if:

 

1) DX makes it easier for Nikon to make smaller, lighter camera bodies because of smaller power requirements and physical constraints, as well as smaller, lighter lenses (esp. wide angles);

 

2) Nikon releases some reasonably-priced wide DX primes with 52mm filter threads, esp. the DX equivalent of 24mm or 28mm primes;

 

In this sense, the DX sensor and F mount go hand in hand; the smaller sensor size is a blessing in disguise for the F mount, which was heavily criticized by many as being too limiting in diameter for producing exotically fast lenses for 35mm film (like Kwanon's EF mount). My guess is with DX, the F mount gets a new lease in life.

 

So to really answer your question, I think the only thing you can assume longevity (or immortality?) with Nikon is the F mount. But enjoy its DX variation while you can.

[eric friedemann]

"Nice looking Malinois"

 

Carl, what's funny is that my neighbors got the dog through a pet adoption place for nothing thinking it was a German Shepard/Chow Chow mix. (It has the looks of a Shepard, but the coat of a Chow- and check out the pink and purple-spotted tounge- purple tounges being indicative of Chows.) So they got a very cool obscure-breed dog that they would have paid tall coin for through a breeder.

[Carl Stone]

An animal behaviorist that I know in LA had a Malinios bitch that ruled the roost, and

set the agenda for the other dogs, bullmastiffs, etc.. When arriving home, the

Malinios was sent into the yard and house to check it out for unwanted

visitors, then she would return with an all clear for the owner. Unfortuantely the bitch

finally succembed, but was well versed in tracking, and obedience, as well as very

strong social skills.

 

Your neighbor got a genuine bargain, and I sincerely hope that they've been through

some degree of obedience training ALONG WITH the dog. In conclusion, there are no

bad dogs, just bad owners. :o)

[Carl Stone]

"Unfortuantely the bitch finally succembed,"

 

Right before she succumbed.

[alex_ostapenko]

Question to Eric Friedemann:

 

You mentioned above that you use the Oly 5060 to take pictures for e-mail purposes.

It seems to me this camera can do a lot better. What do you think can the Olympus 5060 (or 5050) substitute the D70+kit 18-70 in the limits of P&S use?

 

Why I ask this question: I am just opposed to the idea of buying the kit lens as far as this lens cannot provide enough creativity (particularly in monitoring DOF). So, my idea is just to skip this lens in favour of the Oly 5060 or something similar because the small P&S cameras more suitable for P&S using even despite all the advantages of quality and speed of the D70+kit.

I also have Nikon 80-200/2.8 and macro lens, which with no doubts I will be using with the D70. I also plan to buy the Nikon 35/2.0 for the same purposes as carry out the famous 50/1.8 with 35-mm bodies.

I hope I explained my hesitations clear enough.

 

Thank you.

Alex.

[eric friedemann]

"You mentioned above that you use the Oly 5060 to take pictures for e-mail purposes. It seems to me this camera can do a lot better."

 

Alex, shooting at ISO 80-100 in RAW, without cropping and with good post-camera prep, I can make very good (not great) 11x14s. And I'm pretty fussy about print quality.

 

"What do you think can the Olympus 5060 (or 5050) substitute the D70+kit 18-70 in the limits of P&S use?"

 

The D70 has a much bigger sensor than the 5060 and is capable of generating significantly more resolution. With a D100 (similar resolution) shooting at ISO 200 in RAW, without cropping and with good post-camera prep, I can make very good (not great) 12x18s.

 

There are three other potential drawbacks to the Oly C-5060:

 

1. The optical finder is so inacurate as to be worthless and the video screen is hard to see in bright sunlight and is no great shakes in a dimly-lit bar, either.

 

2. There is no buffer of the sort you get in a DSLR like the D70. As such, when you shoot a high-rez image with the 5060, the camera locks up for a number of seconds while it digests the image.

 

3. There is a lag of several seconds for the 5060 to focus and take an image after you press the shutter release. I don't often shoot moving subjects, so this doesn't bother me. However, if you are going to be taking photos of children at play, the lag time may really harsh your mellow.

[alex_ostapenko]

Thank you, Eric.

Your answer was very helpful for me because at last I managed to throw away my doubts.

 

As I wrote in my post the idea was not to buy the kit lens and substitute it with a good p&s camera such as Oly 5050/5060 or CanonG5. I came across this idea exclusively because both the kit lens and the class of top p&s cameras cannot produce pictures with blurred background.

It doesn?t seem right to me to use the D70+the kit lens for P&S purposes but after your answer and checking test pictures at www.dpreview.com I realized something important.

All the pictures from the cameras I mentioned don?t have pronounced out-of-focus areas and in general are sharp but the quality that gives the D70 is taller by a head.

 

So I give up the idea with a p&s.

 

Could you do me a favour and publish here (or give a link to) pictures taken with the D70 with the kit lens. I am particularly interested in what this lens can do with throwing background in blur. I could be a portray or a picture with sharp subject in front and out-of-focus background.

 

Hope for your help.

Thanks again. Alex.

[Carl Stone]

Alex, you are in need of some basic photographic information and principles. Perhaps

you can take a class in beginning photography at a local school.

[eric friedemann]

"Could you do me a favour and publish here (or give a link to) pictures taken with the D70 with the kit lens. I am particularly interested in what this lens can do with throwing background in blur. I could be a portray or a picture with sharp subject in front and out-of-focus background."

 

Alex, that is a whole different kettle of fish. Understand that the sensor on the D70 is 1/3rd smaller than a 35mm frame and that the sensor on a C-5060 is considerably smaller than that.

 

As such, the lenses get shorter and shorter. The D70's kit zoom is an 18-70mm (equal to 27-105mm in 35mm format). The C-5060's lens is a 5.7-22.8mm (equal to 27-110mm in 35mm format).

 

Long story short, as focal lengths go lower and lower, depth of field at a given aperture increases dramatically. So, if you like images with out-of-focus backgrounds, the C-5060 is not your camera. Even with the D70, particularly at wider angle settings, you may have to work to get backgrounds that are acceptable to your tastes.

[alex_ostapenko]

To Carl Stone: Is there a ground under your statement?

 

To Eric: First of all I would like to emphasize that my questions and doubts are related to this topic about longevity of DX-lenses. I don?t believe in its long life that?s why I try all ways to avoid buying the kit lens even it is affordable and sharp. The reason is known ? its lack of ability to monitor dof by opening aperture wide (I wrote about in my postings above).

I attached a picture that illustrates what I look for (not in terms of sharpness but in terms of ability to monitor dof). There are no doubts the kit lens would make the image very sharp with slight touch of out-of-focus effect behind the head of the cat (I know the theory and understand it). The sharpness is not the only parameter I am concerned about.

 

Please guys don?t send me into a class in beginning photography at a local school. If you want to help me to understand how well the kit lens can manage blurring backgrounds just upload here a picture or two.

 

Ok, I can ask in different way.

If you have pictures taken with the D70 with clear-cut distinction of sharpness of subject and background please post them here. Please don?t forget to mention the main parameters of shooting (aperture etc) and what kind of lens was used.

 

Thank you.

Alex

Look at the picture with out-of-focus background.

[Carl Stone]

"To Carl Stone: Is there a ground under your statement?"

 

Well I hope so, but then if not I'd have the ability to walk on water, something that I've

admittedly not attempted due to a long held belief that it would result in a miserable

failure.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your question, and your last response hasn't done anything

to improve that understanding. So, as a guess, is it DOF preview that you are

complaing about? The posted photo doesn't help either, because I don't really know

what YOUR problem is with it.

[alex_ostapenko]

To Carl Stone: I try to understand the limits that apply the 1.5x factor to ability to get pictures with sharp subjects and blurred backgrounds i.e. influence on depth of field.

 

I am almost there. I know that DOF is inversely proportional to format size and that I virtually need to an extra stop to all my lenses to be able to get backgrounds as blurred as I am used to make with a film camera.

 

At this point I do not need explanations or math. I just would like to see some examples illustrating how far the D70 can go in creating out-of-focus backgrounds. I would like to make sure this camera can do this and see what lenses should be used to achieve the depth of field as it was with film cameras.

 

All the pictures I managed to find in the Internet (taken by D70 with different lenses) are boastful about its sharpness and elaborate details but not about shallow dof.

Could you help me to find such samples?

 

Thank you.

Alex

[Carl Stone]

"All the pictures I managed to find in the Internet (taken by D70 with different lenses)

are boastful about its sharpness and elaborate details but not about shallow dof.

Could you help me to find such samples?

 

Thank you. Alex

 

Actually no, as I think it would be a waste of my time to do that, if I would even be

successful at it. This is something for YOU to decide, and for YOU to research. Relying

on online pics to determine the capacity of equipment is folly, IMO. Why not rent, or

borrow, a D70 and various lenses so that you can test them? If you can't do that, then

you'll just have to figure out what will satisfy you. You still haven't said what's wrong

with the pic that you posted, the one that obviously had a narrow DOF. Before you

can find an answer to your problem, you first have to be able to recognize the

answer. Unless you can find someone who has run EXHAUSTIVE tests, with a GREAT

MANY different lenses, mounted on that D70, you are NOT going to be able to

determine the full capabilities of it with regard to any particular function.

 

In closing, I personally doubt your need for the level of DOF control that you imagine

you need. And, if there was such a need, you'd be better served looking in to DC

lenses for any camera. That is where the rubber meets the road when you want to do

critical DOF work. Unless you are talking about macro work, but you didn't mention

macro, DC lenses are going to meet your needs.