Please clarify: DX lenses with a D300

[alex_p.2]

<p>I'm just beginning my switch from film to digital so your help is much needed and appreciated. My question: if I buy a D300 and DX lenses, will there be a focal length multiplier? For example, if I had a 17-55 f/2.8 AF-S DX lens, would it become a 25-82mm in practice? Or does the multiplication only occur when using non-DX lenses on a DX sensored camera? Also, I can't really afford the D700 but am worried that Nikon's future is moving towards the full-frame sensor. Will this make the D300 or any DX sensor camera obsolete in the near future? Thanks in advance for you help.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Alex... the focal lens of the lens is based on 35 mm format or FX. Therefore a 17-55 is always a 17-55 on a DX or FX model. In short, you have to multiply x 1.5</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I'm not sure Rene's answer clarified things for you.</p>

<p>1. DX and FX lenses that have same focal length will work in the same way on DX cameras.</p>

<p>2. The focal length doesn't change for DX versus FX, but the field of view is smaller for DX. The sensor is smaller, and that gives you an apparent telephoto effect. It is like looking out of your house through a smaller window.</p>

<p>3. DX lenses won't work in the best way on FX cameras -- they are only able to deliver a quality image to the central portion of the sensor.</p>

[rayyeager]

<p>Any lens (DX or FX) on the D300 will have a 1.5 multiplier to convert to 35mm equivalent.</p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

<p>Sorry René,<br>

But you are not using the proper description of the things :<br>

A focal length is a focal length and will remain the same whatever the format used. What changes is the angle of view captured. The coefficient x 1.5 is just an easy way to figure out this angle on a cropped sensor for people used to figure out immediately the necessary focal length used on a FF camera to obyain a corresponding field of view... For example to obtain on a Nikon DX format the field of view of a 50mm on an FX camera, the focal length is 50/1.5 = 33,333 mm (for comon use a 30mm). Conversly a 200mm focal legth will give on a DX format the equivelent field of a 200 x 1.5 = 300mm. But a 30mm is still a 30mm on an FX or DX camera as is a 200mm a 200mm.<br>

The problem with DX lens is they are designed to give a maximum circle of shaprness on the sensor which is smaller to the one necessary for a full format (FX) camera. Hence, only part of the FX sensor will be useable. On a D3 or a D700 this part of the sensor gives you an image which only uses 5Mpx due to the bigger pixels.<br>

As to your worry, Alex, IMHO you are right to be worried as far as the semi-pro and pro-line Nikon DSLR's are concerned. I would be very surprised if the next generation will retain DX format in these lines.<br>

The D300 is a mighty fine camera and as one day or another you will certainly upgrade, its DX format is not a real liability. But to buy DX lenses is IMHO not a good choice as any FX lens will be useable on a DX format and the opposite is not true and if you one day upgrade to FX format you won't be able to use all the available pixels with a DX lens.<br>

As I often put here, the total cost of a D700 gear, when taking into consideration both the exceptional retro-compatibility of lenses offered on Nikon semi-pro and pro DSLR and the capability to use older lenses at their nominal angle of view bought second hand won't be much higher than a D300 with a new good DX zoom. So to say, I don't think the D300 is the right choice at the present time for anyone who have not already secured a bunch of DX lenses and don't want to sell them at a loss.<br>

FPW</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>My Turn........</p>

<p>That's all correct, any Nikkor lens be it DX or full frame is the same focal length irrespective of it's designation. </p>

<p>The multiplying factor occurs only on DX bodies as they carry a 1.5 x smaller sensor irrespective of which designation / type of lens is attached. </p>

<p>The 'DX' branded lenses are specifically designed to throw light only on the smaller DX sensors and thus do not cover the entire FX sensor's surface area with light causing severe vignetting.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>>am worried that Nikon's future is moving towards the full-frame sensor. Will this make the D300 or any DX sensor camera obsolete in the near future?<</p>

<p>No</p>

[alvin_lim5]

<p>While technology may render the D300 "obsolete" in about two to three years. All cameras will become obsolete with time, once the D4 comes out, the D3 and D3X will be obsolete. However, it will still not take away the fact that the D300 is a great camera; the technology itself will not diminish over time. Take the film era for example, when the F5 came out, the F3, F2 and F were all considered obsolete, but today, these cameras are still highly regarded and are still very capable.</p>

<p>If you already have lenses from the frame era, there is no problem getting the D300. If you have concerns about going FX in future, then invest in one decent DX lens and get more FX lenses.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>I think a simple answer is easier to understand than a complex one. Specially when you are beginning.</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p><em>"My question: if I buy a D300 and DX lenses, will there be a focal length multiplier? For example, if I had a 17-55 f/2.8 AF-S DX lens, would it become a 25-82mm in practice?"</em></p>

<p>Yes.</p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

 

<p>Ralph<br>

<em>>> "My question: if I buy a D300 and DX lenses, will there be a focal length multiplier? For example, if I had a 17-55 f/2.8 AF-S DX lens, would it become a 25-82mm in practice?" <br /> </em><br>

Yes. <<<br>

NO, it will cover an equivalent range of field of view as a 25-82 on a full format. But it will stay nonetheless a 17-55mm.<br>

This is not without practical consequence as far as the depth of field is concerned.<br>

FPW</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>The confusing part is that a lens produces a narrower angle of view (the lens "becomes longer" so to speak) on a DX body because the DX sensor is smaller than the FX sensor. It has nothing to do with the lens being DX or non-DX. If there were a 17-55 non-DX lens, it too would be like a "25-82mm FX-equivalent" on a DX body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Also, I can't really afford the D700 but am worried that Nikon's future is moving towards the full-frame sensor."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>DX bodies and lenses will continue be around for a long time precisely for that reason. You are not the only person who finds FX expensive and unnecessary.</p>

[edchambers]

<p>It never ceases to amaze me how much time was spent in 2006 -2007 begging for a FF NIKON as in the D700; then almost immediately came the naysayers prognosticating the demise of the DX format. We are photographers, enjoy the moment, use what talents and equipment you have and enjoy the moment.<br /><br />In the food chain of what Nikon will be bringing out we are pawns in the game of life.<br />Pawns, like plankton are on the forefront of life; and Nikon will not ignore such a strong user base.<br /><br />Tomato - TOWmaaato just call a DX camera an ultra 1.5 TCE that can be used as a back up.<br /><br />Shun the wise SAGE, your thoughs?<br />PS As I was typing Shun posted before me. :-)</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>FRAN.... You are 100% correct! But for ignorant people like me who doesn't want to be too technical it is easy to say that the lens will become 25-82! </p>

[tri-x1]

<p>It could easily turn out just the opposite of what the forecasters are saying. Sensors are so good the majority of users may well descide it's not woth paying a premium for the larger FX bodies and the primary focus will be in DX because<br>

1.Cameras and lenses are smaller<br>

2. Cameras and lenses are less expensive.<br>

The only people who really can use the lower noise at high ISO of the FX bodies are the pros. The average viewer isn't going to be able to tell the difference in a 16x20 print from a D700 and a D300. IMO if someone is shooting FX for fun and not for money it's more for bragging rights than for practical reasons.</p>

[rossb]

<p>The good part of the DX sensor is that you can use the DX or FX lens on your D300 camera..The smaller sensor does not cause more magnification but rather is just a smaller sensor. I like the idea posted above about looking through a smaller window. If you did view something through a bigger window and then a smaller window the smaller would give you a smaller FOV..If you couldd put those two views on a very large print (larger then either window), you would have to enlarge the smaller window view to a greater degree then the larger window. Let's say 1.5x more for fun so that both views were on the same sized large print.. This post processing or enlarging is what gives more telephoto type effect with the Dx sensor...This is occuring each time you make a print or digital file..Both files must be enlarged to fit the file size you selected..The DX sensor is smaller so it stands to reason it must be enlarged more then the FX sensor and more then the medium format sensor and so on. </p>

[rossb]

<p>Will the DX sensor be obsolete in the future?....Nobody knows what Nikon is going to do or what will happen in the future of photography due to technology..I think the DX sensor makes a lot of sense and it will be around for a long time..It's less expensive to make and allows smaller camera's which many people want. The D300 is not that small or light but the D60 is very small I think and it is a great fit for many..So we just have to wait and see. Even if the industry changes everything about in some way the DX sensor will still be useful for many years. I do not agree that things are "obsolete" just because a newer technology has arrived. I believe that is a shoppers mentality. Probably true in space exploration photography and such things but not for a hobbyist and most pro's. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I should also point out that there are already millions DX lenses out there. The 18-200 is the best selling Nikon lens ever.<br>

There is no better way to completely piss off a lot of their current customers and drive them to other brands by telling them that their existing DX lenses are all obsolote. Nikon has to be totally brain dead to do something so stupid.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>>The only people who really can use the lower noise at high ISO of the FX bodies are the pros.< </p>

<p>Wayne - people like nice things. I don't have to be a professional race car driver to own a Ferrari - I just have to be rich enough to own one (I'm not). Following your reasoning, I shouldn't have have purchased my fancy road bike, because I'm not a pro bicycle racer. It's the same with the professional caliber skis I swooshed on long ago. </p>

<p>Whether or not I'm a pro photographer, and whether or not I can afford the most expensive cameras, I still want the lowest noise possible at the highest ISOs. </p>

[ian_rose]

This is a question that is asked a lot and the size of the projected image onto the sensor / film is controled by the focal length of the lens the design of the lens dictates the size of the projected image circle so if you used the same focal length on any camer be it a 10x8, 5x4, 21/4sq (6x6) 35mm or any other format the size of the image would be the same.ie a bottle of JD taken with the same focal length lens would be the same size and with each larger format you would get a larger field of view so the crop factor is on the field of view giveing a apperant telephoto effect.

 

Ian R

[marklcooper]

<p>In response to the DX vs FX. It seems to me we've already been there in the film world. Did the medium format camera make the 35 mm obsolete? There is a market for both. I'm equating the DX with 35 mm, the FX with medium format, and something like the Mamiya 645ZD with large format.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>>This is a question that is asked a lot and the size of the projected image onto the sensor / film is controled by the focal length of the lens the design of the lens dictates the size of the projected image circle so if you used the same focal length on any camer be it a 10x8, 5x4, 21/4sq (6x6) 35mm or any other format the size of the image would be the same.<</p>

<p>Ian, short sentences good. Long sentences not necessarily good. ;-) </p>

<p>This is a complicated subject. You are correct in saying that the same lens used with any camera format will provide the same size image on the sensor or film. For example, imagine two photographers next to each other. One has a DX camera and one has an FF camera. Both photographers are far enough away from a moose so that the animal just fits within the frame of the DX camera. The 12 megapixel FF camera will show more of the landscape surrounding the moose than a 12 megapixel DX camera. The moose will be the same size on both sensors. </p>

<p>If the FF photographer wants to crop away the surrounding forest, she or he now has a photograph of a moose with less than 12 megapixels. The DX photographer, not needing to crop anything, has the full 12 megapixel image of a moose. Is one the "better" photograph, and if so, why? </p>

<p>But let's suppose that from the same position, the moose just fits, from antlers to hooves, inside the frame of the FF camera. The DX photographer will have to back up a few yards to fit the moose within the frame of the DX camera's sensor (assuming use of the same lens). At this point, the moose is the same size in each viewfinder. But the moose is smaller on the DX sensor than it would be on the FF sensor. And the perspective between the two cameras will change, as will the potential DOF. </p>

<p>Before I went digital, I loved using my 35mm cameras. They made beautifully sharp photographs. I loved using my Rolleiflex medium format cameras, because they could make sharp photographs, too. I never desired to move up to large format cameras, because of the expense, and because they would have been too heavy and complicated - for me - to use. </p>

<p>I owned DX cameras before FF cameras were available. They are less expensive than FF cameras. DX cameras make beautifully sharp photographs. And DX cameras won't become obsolete. Which is why, for now, I'm happy with my DX cameras. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>francois, you are certainly opinionated but a little offbase in your thinking about the future of DX. i'm with Shun on this one.</p>

<p>while i can see where you're coming from in theory, in practice it's a whole different story. FX and DX are different formats and nikon will continue to make lenses for both lines because, as Shun pointed out, they are not brain dead.</p>

<p>for example, the 24-70 and 17-55 cover approx. the same focal length with respect to FX and DX. if you have a d300 and want to future-proof your glass with a 24-70, you miss out on the wide end. so a 17-55 makes more sense for this format. this has been discussed many times on PN, and there are only a few pro zooms which work equally well on FX and DX from a FL perspective, like the 17-35.</p>

<p>the other obvious point is that DX gives you more reach when using long lenses, and in some cases, the crop is a good thing. so i have to respectfully but emphatically disagree with your assessment of the D300's viability. if the d700 or d3 or whatever works for you, great. but to assume that "the d300 is not the right choice" for anyone but you smacks of hubris, since you have no way of knowing what works for anyone but yourself.</p>

<p>also, FX is much more expensive than DX when you factor in the additional cost of FX-compatible lenses and the benefits of that extra expenditure are entirely debatable. you're making a case for a d700+second-hand glass as almost being the equivalent of a d300+new glass, cost-wise. not necessarily true -- the lack of FX wide-angle zoom options (compared to DX) being one liability. again, not everyone thinks like you -- and many FX purchasers will also find themselves looking at the 14-24/24-70 and quite possibly 70-200/200-400 options, as the"total cost of d700 gear" --which can get quite expensive. you simply dont save money by spending more of it and incurring more incidental costs along the way.</p>

<p>in sum, your premise is simply false, and your comments can only be taken with a modicum of granulated sodium, since by your reasoning, i could easily say the d3x is the only nikon DSLR worth having. the bottom line is both formats are here to stay and both formats require a slightly different lens strategy.</p>

[ndt_photo]

<p><strike>Here's the shortest I can come up with. Yes, FX lenses are the equivalent of 1.5x DX focal length. Any DX lens you put on the D300 will work as expected, i.e the wide end will be wide.</strike> You lose some image with an FX lens on a DX body as the image projects 1.5 times the size of the DX sensor. Look to the Nikkor fisheye's for clarity - the DX version is 10.5mm - the FX version is 16mm. Point being keep your wide angle lenses in DX format. When you step into the telephoto range you may want to take advantage of the crop factor and use an FX lens - you will be cropping out the outer edges of the usual frame, which can be blurry or have fringing anyway, so you will have a crisper image...</p>

<p>And no, Nikon would be writing their tombstone if they abandoned the DX lens format with all the D40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 200, 300 users out there. They may scale back their DX lines and expand their entry-level FX lines but seeing as how they have 5 DX cameras (D300 included) cheaper than their cheapest FX body I doubt an 'entry-level' FX body is around the corner.</p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

<p>Hello Eric</p>

<p><em>Francois, you are certainly opinionated but a little offbase in your thinking about the future of DX. i'm with Shun on this one.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>while i can see where you're coming from in theory, in practice it's a whole different story. FX and DX are different formats and nikon will continue to make lenses for both lines because, as Shun pointed out, they are not brain dead.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

There are a lot of other reasons for Nikon to delete DX format as soon as possible (which means not overnight of course). Of course they'll do it progressively. But this evolution is unavoidable : the main reason is called "scale effect", you can produce at a lower cost and consequently sell at a lower price a product you produce in increased number. This is one of the fundamentals of the industrial way of production.</p>

<p>Just have a look on the pure DX lens range : these lenses are not bad ones but they are ALMOST ALL amateur oriented, being with very few exception variable maximum aperture zooms with relatively poor maximum aperture. Nikon had ample times to produce professional grade zooms and the missing very wide aperture primes devoted to DX format and they never proceed so. Nor they bothered to produce DX dedicated super telés or super zooms.</p>

<p>My conclusion : with the appearance of still expensive but affordable FX cameras (which will certainly tend in the next generation to be even more affordable), Nikon will probably spend its lens R&D budget on FX compatible pro grade lenses (the first one in the prime category being the 50mm f/1.4 G) instead of doubling the R&D costs (at least) to issue pro grade lenses in DX format. Notice the DX range is nowadays covering almost all the needs of amateurs by the way.</p>

<p>Will they drop DX format as a whole in the next generation ? Certainly not ! DX format has still a role to play for the amateur range of bodies and I'm not sure the typical D90 buyer using such lenses in the usual spectrum of purely amateur photography has not yet about everything he or she needs...</p>

<p>But regarding the semi-pro and pro line (DXXX or DX bodies) which are concerning advanced amateurs and pros, who, generally are more discriminatory regarding the optical performance of their lenses and their maximum aperture, I don't believe the more or less mandatory use of FX lenses will be a liability.</p>

<p><em>the other obvious point is that DX gives you more reach when using long lenses, and in some cases, the crop is a good thing. so i have to respectfully but emphatically disagree with your assessment of the D300's viability. if the d700 or d3 or whatever works for you, great. but to assume that "the d300 is not the right choice" for anyone but you smacks of hubris, since you have no way of knowing what works for anyone but yourself.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

The problem of reach is apparently a far more convincing reason to keep at least one semi-pro body in DX format...</p>

<p>Unfortunately, this advantage to be fully exploited will need the use of very high resolving power glass which is only found in the FX range top of the mark. I have no time to go back to the price lists, but as far as I remember a Nikon 200mm f/2 which is a top of the mark lens and will have the same field of vision as 300mm in FX format, is far above the price of a Sigma 300mm f/2.8 which, not being as stellar as the Nikon equivalent is still considered a fairly respectable lens IQ wise. If the photographer goes with the shorter, excellent Nikon 180mm f/2.8<em> </em> instead of the 200mmf/4 (as anticipable if budget considerations dictated the choice of a D300 instead of a D700 to use a shorter, cheaper lens, I sincerly doubt the resulting equivalent of a 270mm will give the user much better result than the D700 with a Sigma 300mm lens. Just because the 180mm will probably fail a bit short in resolving power to expose all the capabilities of the sensor. Finally, notice he who accept to satisfy himself with a 18-200mm (which can provide very good imagery providing it is used within its rather tight limitations due to its very small and variable aperture) will probably find very few advantage in buying a D300 instead of a cheaper D90.</p>

<p><em>for example, the 24-70 and 17-55 cover approx. the same focal length with respect to FX and DX. if you have a d300 and want to future-proof your glass with a 24-70, you miss out on the wide end. so a 17-55 makes more sense for this format. this has been discussed many times on PN, and there are only a few pro zooms which work equally well on FX and DX from a FL perspective, like the 17-35.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

It is all right if you have already this lens in your bag. But with a D700 you can obtain the same range of focal lens much cheaper if you accept to momentarily delay the acquisition of a zoom lens.</p>

<p>I don't like the 24-70 on FX format, not because of any defect of the lens but because I consider it too limited on the tele side to beneficiate of the advantage of a trans-standard zoom. On FX format I'd rather like to a 28-85 instead.</p>

<p>But you can future proof (at a low cost) your glass buying second hand a 24mm Ai or Ai'ed manual focus lens, a 35mm AF, a 85mm AF and perhaps a cheap and very efficient 50mm f/1.8 AF.</p>

<p>I agree this option is not available for a DX format user, but I think when you want to go serious in Nikon gear these days, such a combo with a D700 won't be more expensive than your D300 with a brand new 17-55.</p>

<p>However I agree a 17-55mm DX zoom is certainly a good choice for a DX format body with true trans-standard zooming performance. But at this stage don't tell me about a difference in total cost between DX and FX with the D300 as your body.</p>

<p><em>also, FX is much more expensive than DX when you factor in the additional cost of FX-compatible lenses and the benefits of that extra expenditure are entirely debatable. you're making a case for a d700+second-hand glass as almost being the equivalent of a d300+new glass, cost-wise. not necessarily true -- the lack of FX wide-angle zoom options (compared to DX) being one liability.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

Perhaps because I'm a bit of an old hand in photography (at 54 and with a past experience in Press photography) but I don't think wide angle zooms are something I'll miss. I even don't want any AF below 35mm anyway. Scale focusing is a very fast way to operate with such very wides and you will fare better with a manual Nikon and anticipating the need for such short focal lens is easy enough. Finally, on the contrary to longer lenses, a few paces will broaden or close the field of view easily.</p>

<p>Although the D300, like any semi-pro - pro body in Nikon range has a true retro compatibility extending to almost all Ai or Ai'ed lens it is also clear that the available focal lengths - particularly when it goes to the wide side - are not especially suited to the DX format. With a D700 you can actually use them at their nominal field.</p>

<p><em> again, not everyone thinks like you -- and many FX purchasers will also find themselves looking at the 14-24/24-70 and quite possibly 70-200/200-400 options, as the"total cost of d700 gear" --which can get quite expensive. you simply dont save money by spending more of it and incurring more incidental costs along the way.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

Only when you consider the only option to be modern zooms. I bet the 24-70 standard FX zoom will be replaced not so long in the future by a zoom which is less a compromise between an FX and a DX use (equivalent to a 36-105 on a DX body, missing a bit on the wide side but perfect the other way)... In between, I'll enjoy using a D700 and will have time to save for something like a 28-85 f/2.8 AF-G, although a 35-85 f/2 will even more satisfy my taste. When I talk about the total cost of a D 700 gear I talk about something you can use most of the time. Not a complete gear with all the brand new top level lenses of course or something specially devised for sports or wildlife photography.</p>

<p><em>in sum, your premise is simply false, and your comments can only be taken with a modicum of granulated sodium, since by your reasoning, i could easily say the d3x is the only nikon DSLR worth having. the bottom line is both formats are here to stay and both formats require a slightly different lens strategy.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

Sorry my friend, but as far as I'm concerned you demonstrated absolutely nothing.<em> </em> Beside, there are a lot of factors which are independent from the customers' wishes such a brand like Nikon takes into account while Nikon is certainly one of the camera brands to respect their customers the most (see the lens compatibility problem since 1959, including the possibility to use DX lenses on FX bodies). But Canon didn't take a deep when they brutally switched from their FD lenses to the EOS system</p>

<p>Discarding the DX format (while the lenses will still remain compatible with FX bodies by the way) won't hurt Nikon when FX format sensors will allow the same retail price for an FX amateur body than the present DX one. Concentrating on a single range of lenses without the need for a redundant effort in R&D is a logical move. In the past, there was often two, sometimes three, options for a single focal length in Nikon range depending on the maximum aperture. If you need the equivalent of the 18-200 at maximum focal extension in FX format, all you need is a 300mm f/5.6, an even worst maximum aperture than the old 300mm f/4.5 which was a very affordable lens. You can also expect amateur zooms in FX with limited and variable aperture which won't be much more expensive (as they won't require the same resolving power to provide the same results an equivlent DX zoom should have).</p>

<p>Discarding DX format on semi-pro - pro range with the next generation won't hurt them either if (like it is entirely anticipable) the future "D800" is sold at the price of today's D300.</p>

<p>And YES, I think Nikon will concentrate on fewer models in the future anyway. Like they did in the old times because it makes sense to have a clear cut definition for all bodies instead of a somewhat overlapping range and play the economy of scale. Because not all people buying a reflex troday really need it as the compact themeselves will probably concentrate in a near future on the equivalent of the present DX format and offer RAW option, because it is all too probable the equivalent of an 18-200 DX zoom is more adapted to a "bridge" camera than to an interchangeable reflex and because very few lower range reflex buyer ever buy an additional lens to the kit lens (at least in France).</p>

<p>At the very end (admitting reflex systems are still the technology in use) the same FX sensor will be used by all cameras which will differ on other points like they used to in film era. Which means about three levels only : amateur (relatively low fps, fewer menu options a.s.o) no retro compatibility to manual (or DX) lenses and no weather sealing, semi-pro of D700 level and pro of D3 level, all using the same lenses as far as current production will be concerned. It is also all too probable the present dichotomy between D000x and D000 will disappear as the engineeers will solve the problem of high pixel density versus high ISO performance. And finally it is all too probable like any technology going more mature, the time interval between two generations of camera will extend to a more bearable rythm for the users.</p>

<p>FPW</p>