anuragagnihotri

<p>honestly, i find this lens too big for me.<br>

Not comparing this to any other lens.</p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Expect the 300mm/f4 AF-S and 80-400mm zoom to get VR III, hopefully within 2013.</p>

 

 

 

 

Shun, does it look like to you that Nikon will update their 135 and 180mm lenses in future?

</blockquote>

<p>Hi guys,<br>

reviving this thread: <br>

I figured 80-200 af-d ed is also in the similar price ballpark. Apparently, there are two tele zooms that Nikon sells, one is 70-200 VR, the newest and more expensive...but there's another tele zoom which they are still producing...80-200 2.8 af-d ed.<br>

Yet another lens is Sigma 150 2.8 OS<br>

These, coupled with 180 2.8...they are all similarly priced. <br>

If any of you have experience with these, let me know...</p>

<p>Wouter, that's interesting...zoom(s) for the DX and primes for the FX. That balances the size a bit. Also, one can't think of a prime only solution for DX when it comes to wide.<br>

Others noted that FX is good for wide and DX is good for tele. While the later is true, the former is a bit complicated for me. None of the FX wides are small enough. They are big huge bulky lenses. DX wide zooms, the Tokina 11-16 for example, are lighter and smaller. So far, i am thinking of this: <br>

28/50/85 for FX<br>

11-16/35/180 (270) for DX<br>

Don't want to buy DX only lenses. But i am told 11-16 will work flawlessly on FX at 15 to 16mm. And 35 is cheap and i already have it. Not sure about the quality of 180 2.8 as it is an old lens, but surely don't want bulky zooms for that range. So 180 is the only 'suspect' lens here...and for that i am also looking at Sigma 150 2.8, which is not big, but very heavy (1100 grams). </p>

 

<p>Hi, <br>

Will be going for a D800 soon. That will make me a FX+DX owner. <br>

Those of you who also own a FX+DX body, what do you do with your DX body?<br>

Has it become a back up body? Then how do you distribute your lenses on them, if you're going out with both the cameras...<br>

Has it become redundant? Lying unused?<br>

I must think about a vocation for my D7000 when i get a D800. Irony is, i bought it only couple of months back. (Though i have been regularly shooting with it, and in fact the money i'm expecting to spend on the purchase of D800 is likely going to be made by using my D7000 :) <br>

I guess, the D800 will love having its father around, but the fact remains, there's a D7000 inside a D800 as well. But then, you can only mount one lens on a camera at a time. <br>

regards,</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If D800 is anything to go by, future dslr's will have huge megapixels. Like a 96 megapixel full frame dslr. When you downsample them to a usable size, you will get astounding performance. They might custom-make the downsampling bit for us, so total pixels = 96mp, effective pixels = 54mp.</p>

<p>Also, while this thread has escalated to become a DSLR vs. Mirror less thread, originally i was just talking about the 16 megapixel cameras, so many of them on the market now...i was saying that if someone is buying a camera today, its difficult to ignore the mirror less offerings...DX format seems to be the first and easiest victim of the onslaught of these cameras, because it has lost its edge/competitiveness vis a vis these compact cameras...few years back, DX had its own niche in terms of sensor size and everything else, but that seems to be getting diluted by the day. Nikon's attitude towards DX is not helping (as pointed out by Thom), so someone foraying into DSLRs, the full frame seems to be the deal, a unique offering, especially now when affordable FF has become a reality.</p>

<p><em>Which Sony camera can focus a lens like 200/2 virtually instantly? </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>Sorry, i had Sony SLT in mind when i wrote that, but i realise that even those use phase detect. Actually the thing that i had in mind was the fact that on those cameras, you can do live view as fast as the normal shooting. </em></p>

<p><em>most DX owners own 1.5 lenses on average, which is not a lot to keep them tied to that format. </em><br>

<br /> <em>Eric, well said</em></p>

<p>Moderater, please delete my earlier entry, here's the edited one:</p>

<p>Hi,<br />I didn't start this thread to sing praises of mirror less cameras. I have shot with many cameras and most of them were SLRs, and my take is that no camera ever could limit my photography, as one always finds work arounds.<br /> <br />I am also not in love with any brands or formats but i do love tech, and that's where i was coming from. My impressions were strictly about 'post photokina' scene, so citing examples of old mirror less tech like GF1 or GF3 is not allowed :) <br /> <br />I agree that different people have different needs so size and bulk is a subjective decision, as many of us actually like bigger stuff. I also agree that right now, for overall shooting experience, mirror less cameras can't beat a DSLR. Some shoot birds, others shoot sports, and obviously mirror less can't match DSLRs in proven ergonomics and speed. But, having said that, here's my thing:<br /> <br />I feel newer cams have better and modern tech. The technology there is promising, forward looking and actually trying to innovate and solve few problems (like why should we have a mirror?)<br /> <br />For instance,<strong> contrast detect</strong> is a more accurate focussing tech. This has been widely documented and even accepted by manufacturers, and landscape shooters with a DSLR do use its live-view contrast detect for accuracy. Now live view is quite lame on DSLR, don't we know that? Still, we take all the trouble and use it. Won't it be great if the live view could be as fast as the phase detect AF? Enter, Sony :) <br /> <br />Now, CDAF isn't quite as fast as PDAF, but how much time it will take to catch up? If you've used latest Panasonic mirror less like GX1 and GH2, they're already very fast. With NEX5R and NEX6 this will be even faster because they are also using PDAF. Think about it: No micro adjust feature needed, no AF fiasco warranted (like in D800), and questions like, "should i use a Sigma/Tamron lens on my DXXX?" will be redundant.<br /> <br />Coming to the presence or rather absence of a <strong>mirror</strong>. Now, this also is a tech of the future. Cameras can be smaller (subjective), they can be steadier (no slap) and they can be somewhat silent. I feel that lot of people are heavily invested in DSLRs, and they will not accept it, but Nikon and Canon's transition into a digital era has not been about innovation. They are still making the same stuff they had been making and which they are so good at. But the mirror less is a digital kid and its for the future markets. 10/20 years down the line, when todays 25 year old has a 20 year old kid, what will that kid buy?<br /> <br /><strong>The finder:</strong> what is a 20 year old shooting? Cameras with LCDs on the back. I find it very uncomfortable, but these people are grown up on those. They don't find anything wrong with that. So, weather EVF will rule in the future or not, is anybody's guess. Personally, i shot with A57, a Sony SLT camera, and i liked the way i could cook the image even before taking the picture. On that camera, it was possible to see the final image, not in a detailed way, but yes, quite there. Now who will not like it? Though I agree that this stuff is not for action photography just yet.<br>

<strong>Which </strong>brings me to my original post: I said, DX looks like going nowhere, not all DSLRs.<br /> <br /><strong>DX:</strong> In manufacturers head, DX has never been a pro format, its quite clear if you look at the available lenses (that doesn't stop pro's from buying DX though). So if i am Nikon, or Canon, and i know that this format is for enthusiasts, then I will try to stay competitive and offer something which is not offered by compact cameras. The very edge that i had few years back, in the form of a bigger sensor, and lenses and speed, is slowly being hijacked by the mirror less pirates. Why should a DSLR exist if its not a notch above the compacts? Hasn't that always been the case? Mirror less cameras have similar sized sensor, there's no particular DOF advantage that DX enjoys over them, lenses keep coming all the time (including a 150/2.8 due next year by Panasonic), and speed is getting fixed. So that market of amateurs will leave me one day. So why should i invest in DX lenses or D400? I will doubt whether a market for a pro DX camera even exists in significant numbers? If someone can spend 16 to 1700 bucks on a D400, they can rather buy a not-so-pro but quite alright D600. How many customers i will have who want a pro DX for tele needs, are the numbers good enough?<br /> <br />If i am Nikon, i will up the game by offering 24 megapixels to distance myself from compacts. But for how long?<br /> <br />This has to be the longest piece of prose i have written after college :) Consider it rant, because, picture making has never been dependent on the type of camera one has.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I didn't start this thread to sing praises of mirror less cameras. I have shot with many cameras and most of them were SLRs, and my take is that no camera ever could limit my photography, as one always finds work arounds.<br>

I am also not in love with any brands or formats but i do love tech, and that's where i was coming from. My impressions were strictly about 'post photokina' scene, so citing examples of old mirror less tech is wrong, eg, GF1, GF3, Nex7 etc.<br>

I agree that different people have different needs so size and bulk is a subjective decision, as many of us actually like bigger stuff. I also agree that right now, for overall shooting experience, mirror less cameras can't beat a DSLR. Some shoot birds, others shoot sports, and obviously mirror less can't match DSLRs in proven ergonomics and speed. But, having said that, here's my thing:<br>

I feel newer cams have better and modern tech.<br>

For instance,<strong> contrast detect</strong> is a more accurate focussing tech. This has been widely documented and even accepted by manufacturers, and landscape shooters with a DSLR do use its live-view contrast detect for accuracy. Now live view is quite lame on DSLR, don't we know that? Still, we take all the trouble and use it. <br>

Now, CDAF isn't as fast as PDAF, but how much time it will take to catch up? If you've used latest Panasonic mirror less like GX1 and GH2, they're already very fast. With NEX5R and NEX6 this will be even faster because they are also using PDAF. Think about it: No micro adjust feature needed, no AF fiasco warranted (like in D800), and questions like, "should i use a Sigma/Tamron lens on my DXXX?" will be redundant. <br>

Coming to the presence or rather absence of a <strong>mirror</strong>. Now, this also is a tech of the future. Cameras can be smaller (subjective), they can be steadier (no slap) and they can be somewhat silent.<br>

I feel that lot of people are heavily invested in DSLRs, and they will not accept it, but Nikon and Canon's transition into a digital era has not been about innovation. They are still making the same stuff they had been making and which they are so good at. But the mirror less is a digital kid and its for the future markets. 10/20 years down the line, when todays 25 year old has a 20 year old kid, what will that kid buy?<br>

<strong>The finder:</strong> what is a 20 year old shooting? Cameras with LCDs on the back. I find it very uncomfortable, but these people are grown up on those. They don't find anything wrong with that. So, weather EVF will rule in the future or not, is anybody's guess. Personally, i shot with A57, a Sony SLT camera, and i liked the way i could cook the image even before taking the picture. On that camera, it was possible to see the final image, not in a detailed way, but yes, quite there. Now who will not like it? Though I agree that this stuff is not for action photography just yet. <strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>Which </strong>brings me to my original post: I said, DX looks like going nowhere, not all DSLRs.<br>

<strong>DX:</strong> In manufacturers head, DX has never been a pro format, its quite clear if you look at the lenses available (that doesn't stop pro's to buy them though). So if i am Nikon, or Canon, and i know that this format is for enthusiasts, then I will try to stay competitive and offer something which is not offered by compact cameras. The very edge that i had few years back, in the form of a bigger sensor, and lenses and speed, is slowly being hijacked by the mirror less pirates. Why should a DSLR exist if its not a notch above the compacts? Hasn't that always been the case? Mirror less cameras have similar sensor, lenses keep coming all the time, and speed is getting fixed. So that market of amateurs will leave me one day. So why should i invest in DX lenses or D400? I will doubt whether a market for a pro DX camera even exists in significant numbers? If someone can spend 16 to 1700 bucks on a D400, they can rather buy a not-so-pro but quite alright D600. How many customers i will have who want a pro DX for tele needs, are the numbers good enough?<br>

If i am Nikon, i will up the game by offering 24 megapixels to distance myself from compacts. But for how long?<br>

This has to be the longest piece of prose i have written after college :) Consider it rant, because, picture making has never been dependent on the type of camera one has. </p>

<p><em>But your post evokes another response, one that is much less kind to you. </em><br>

<em><br /></em>Hector, :) trust me, D5100 is a great camera to recommend, even with one's eyes closed. <br>

She isn't someone interested in fine nuances of image quality and system debates. <br>

She wouldn't ask me again if i took so long for such a simple question :)</p>

<p><strong>Last week, </strong>a friend asked me which camera she should buy, and i told her she should buy a D5100, which she did. But that set me thinking about this and i'm just curious of your views, and how many of you think that a 16 mp mirror less camera equals or beats a bulkier purchase of a 16 mp DSLR?<br>

Why do you think someone who is going to purchase a 16mp camera should opt for a DX model like D5100 or D7000? Does it make any sense, or do you think D-SLR purchase should ONLY be considered if one is going to buy a full frame format, like D600.<br>

<strong>Post photokina:</strong> Now we know that there are many mature and niggle-free mirror less products available, unlike in the past where either the focus was slow, or the lenses were absent or the resolution was lacking....NEX6, GH3, OM-D, EX1...all these are mature products now...<br>

In favor of mirror less cameras: they have more accurate AF, now also fast enough as manufacturers are using phase detect in unison with contrast detect to speed things up. They have no mirror so there's no mirror slap induced blur. Some of them have in body image stabilization, OM-D's IS is remarkable at that. They are smaller. Have similar DR, as the DXO mark ratings of OM-D indicate. Micro Four Thirds has super lenses. They also have capable EVF's which let you see the exact shot even before you've taken it, with all your settings implemented. DX also doesn't have any meaning-full DOF advantages over them.<br>

I figure that something like a D600 or D800 will give you larger finders, better image quality, better low light shots, bigger sensor, DOF advantages, BUT, why will someone buy a DX camera over a equally capable smaller alternative. <br>

As for me, i have a D7000 and an OM-D, and i find them to be equally capable. But all things being equal, just the absence of a mirror and in body stabilization cost me how much...1 stop? I shoot with D7000 with a 35 1.8 and my low light pictures are un-mistakably sharper on my OM-D, because of a terrific IS. <br>

What are the areas you still think a DSLR can add more value vis a vis a DSLR?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Shun. <br>

Looking forward to your D800 type tests on this camera also. <br>

With such huge resolutions, looks like there's no escape from down-sampling to compare noise nowadays. Gone are the days of pixel level crispness and comparisons. <br>

Someone should open a DP2 Merrill file to appreciate what i'm saying. </p>

<p>So what's the deal?<br>

When you downsample a D800 image to DXO standard, 8mp, it looks as clean as a similarly downsampled D600 image...<br>

What happens when you downsample a D800 image to D600 size...which looks cleaner?</p>

 

<p>what it means:<br>

D600 will be better at low light at 100%<br>

It will be better at pixel level sharpness and noise. <br>

D800 will be better at low light when printed large.</p>

<p>Second highest overall score after D800. High ISO score is better than D800, especially true for a non 'normalized for print' shot.</p>

<p>http://www.DXOMARK.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D600-sets-high-bar-for-sensor-image-quality/Measurement</p>

<p>Is this a D3x sensor?</p>

<p>Thanks Peter</p>

<p>Being a first time 'complicated' AF module user, i am also struggling...<br>

Can someone point to a learning resource?</p>

<p>i understand that lens properties don't change...and sensor size plays a role...<br>

But you still get a more magnified image with DX...isn't it?<br>

Lets say, i'm using a 180 2.8 on both formats, at minimum focussing distance: <br>

On FX: I will get a head and shoulder shot<br>

On DX: I will get a tight headshot<br>

When we print this picture 8x10, we see that the DX shot has a magnified view with the same lens. <br>

In macro, the same thing will happen...<br>

Weather its sensor crop, or whatever, but the fact is, i can get NEARER at MFD with the same lens on DX....<br>

??</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Many of you know that i'm collecting lenses for my D7000 and a future FX purchase. <br>

This is about a macro lens purchase, but might be true for all lenses...<br>

Lets say 60mm G macro has .15 meters MFD on a FX camera...when you mount it on a DX camera, the MFD remains same but you get a 1.5 crop factor...does this mean that it will go higher than 1:1, or conversely, does the minimum focussing distance increases for the 1:1 results? In simple terms, do you need to stand a little far than the stated MFD for 1:1 magnification?<br>

I am deciding between this, tamron 60/2 or 85 3.5 VR...<br>

regards,<br>

anurag</p>

<p>Thanks guys. <br>

No clarity yet, but i will see both of them in the shop...<br>

One nice thing about 1.4 is the filter size of 52, will match many of my other lenses: 35 1.8, Oly 12-50...<br>

As you said, can't go wrong with either..</p>

 

<p>does 1.4 allow 50% more light?</p>

<p>Both are similarly priced here, in Mumbai.<br>

The camera is D7000.<br>

Any consensus on which to go for?<br>

regards,<br>

anurag<br>

PS: You also have a 1.4G, double the price, and 1.8D, half the price of 1.8G.</p>