Older film zooms, DX or FX?

[glenncadman]

<p>I have a old Nikon F5 and a collection of quality older non VR, Nikon 2.8 ED zooms and an 300mm ED F2.8 prime. To make the best of this old but good glass would the FX format be the best path forward eg (D610) or is DX good enough eg (D7100)? </p>

<p><em>Yep I am sure this questions has been asked before, but missed the answer.</em></p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I still own a 300mm/f2.8 AF-S that I bought back in 1998. That is the first-generation AF-S lens. It is still among the sharpest lenses I own today. Generally speaking, older long telephoto lenses will likely perform better than older wide angles on modern DSLRs. Old wide angles will likely show a lot of chromatic aberration and edge quality drop.</p>

<p>However, for AF lenses that depend on the AF motor on the camera body, the motors on the D610 and D7100 are probably a lot weaker than that on your F5, thus affecting AF speed.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I clean used D3 would be a very good choice.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>There will be differing opinions, as there are advantages and disadvantages either way. To me, the main point would be the focal lengths, and what you want to use the lenses for - is the 'crop factor' a benefit to you, or not?</p>

[glenncadman]

<p>I do ( or more correctly; did) a lot of nature photography; slow Velvia with tripods, monoballs , not much interest in the high speed sports side of the art. Cropping of images is important though today with computerization/digitization the ease of cropping is light years away from the limits of 35mm images. <br /><br /><br /></p>

[glenncadman]

<p>The D3 idea does have merit, something I didn't consider.</p>

[lwg]

<p>Nikon's DX side is really lacking on wide angle lenses, both primes and fast zooms. Plus the prime choices in the normal to telephoto range aren't going to line up with the traditional focal length choices. My guess is you will not like a 24-70 zoom as much on DX as FX. That was a deciding factor for me to switching to an FX camera. The downside is my 300mm lens suddenly had much less reach. There's nothing wrong with the DX cameras, but the lens choices make it unappealing to me.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>It sounds as though you want reach, and possibly dynamic range in good light. The D3 (and, more so, D3s) is a sports camera - better than you'd think for its generation in autofocus and low light, but not very high resolution and you don't get the dynamic range of the newer sensors if recovering shadows is your thing. It sounds to me like you might want a D7100 (or D7200 if you want the buffer) for the reach and autofocus, so long as the lenses keep up. If you want F5 handling, a D3x gets you resolution while having the same depth of field and light capture area as the FX bodies (unlike DX), but even used a D750 or D800(e) are likely a better choice and have a more modern sensor.<br />

<br />

If anything's going to show up the autofocus performance of the motor, it's something like a 300 f/2.8 AF - but the algorithms and sensors are a huge step forward from the F5. If you're not hugely out of range, it might balance out a bit.<br />

<br />

Good luck. I still have, and occasionally shoot, my F5; scary autofocus motor, very historical autofocus sensors!</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>If you're used to using film Glenn, then full-frame would be the no-brain choice. No crop factor to consider and your lenses will be completely compatible with an FX camera.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I have a number of lenses bought for my film camera so when I went digital I went for the FX so all the lenses work the same with my new camera.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>FX and given your subject matter one of the 24 Megapixel cameras, not the D3.</p>

<p>With FX you have 24 megapixels covering your entire 24x36mm frame. That equals a maximum resolution of 83 lpm.</p>

<p>With DX the 24 megapixels covering the smaller16x24mm frame equals a maximum resolution of 125 lpm.</p>

<p>Thing is that with DX you have just as many pixels but they are going to be of lower quality, a lot more blurry, since your lenses can't resolve as high contrast at 126 lpm as they can at 83 lpm.</p>

<p>Many people experienced that their lenses got worse as they upgraded their cameras to more megapixels. A 24 megapixel FX camera is equally forgiving on your lenses as the old 10 megapixel D200 camera was. The FX sensor will of capture the entire frame though.</p>

<p>The reason to not pick the D3 is because your subject matter requires a lot of detail and in this regard I believe that a D3 with it's 12 megapixels is close but not as capable as velvia in good hands. A D610 on the other hand is more capable than what you could obtain with 35mm film. The 24 megapixel sensors are also better when it comes to dynamic range at low iso compared to the older D3.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Just to expand on RJ's point: if anything, FX bodies have a crop factor slightly less than 1 compared with 135 film: 35mm film is usually a bit smaller than 36x24mm because of the area covered by the slide mount, whereas the sensor area really is 35.9x24mm on the 24MP and 36MP FX Nikons (the 12 and 16MP are 36x23.9mm for some reason).</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>The reason to pick the D3 is AF performance on his 300/2.8D-AF Nikkor, which will be substantially better than a D610.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The reason to pick the D3 is AF performance on his 300/2.8D-AF Nikkor, which will be substantially better than a D610.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think Dan is making the same point I was making earlier. The OP has some old, long teles that were from the era before AF-S. Therefore, those pro SLRs such as the F5, D3 and D4 with a more-powerful AF motor inside the body will drive those old lenses to focus faster.</p>

<p>The D3 is still an fine camera, but its electronics are about 8 years old now. The pixel count and electronics are not going to be as good as those on the D610; however, besides a weaker AF motor, the D610 also has a slighter weaker AF module. Those are the trade offs the OP needs to decide.</p>

<p>Moreover, if the OP can afford it, maybe it is time to upgrade to some AF-S lenses for faster AF. I think the first-version 300mm/f2.8 AF-S I have is now in the $2000+ range in the used market. Those old lenses the OP has are no longer all that expensive.</p>

[glenncadman]

<p>Hi lets just say I am not all that keen to "refresh" my stock of pro level F2.8 glass, maybe they are not that expensive now, but the sell price on the used market vs the buy price of VR equivalents would cost most of a small car. They are from a golden time of IT when I got paid for weekends and overtime, so I saved my overtime money and purchased a lens every so often as a little treat, the Nikon F5 was a long cutover and the 300mm F2.8 was from an particularly nasty few months. I am also in Australia so there is not really abundant stock on the used market.<br /><br /><br /> Those days are long dead, the work is just as hard, but no more overtime money and a I have now a pair of expensive teenage daughters, so believe me a D610 is a luxury.</p>

[glenncadman]

<p>I saw used ex pro D3 with an almost 350,000 shutter count for AUD$1950 (US$1520), looked good condition , but decided not to go down that path. I ended up buying a new D610 for AUD$1465 (US$1140). I must admit there seemed quite a difference in the quality feel of the semi pro D810 or real deal D4 (or even my F5) and the D610. However I just had to calm down and consider that I make my living talking IT, not image creation. <br /><br />BTW Can anyone recommend a good (doesnt have to be Nikon branded) macro lens ? </p>

<p> </p>