Digital newbie: question about DX lenses

[Les Hartzman]

Hi,

I'm finally expanding from film to digital. One topic that has probably been discussed to death is the use of DX vs. non-DX lenses. I understand that using a non-DX lens on a digital results in a 1.5x magnification. My question is does the focal length on a DX lens equate to the same focal length of a non-DX lens?

Does a 12-24 DX zoom equate to a 12-24 non-DX focal length, or does it equate to a 18-36 zoom?

Thanks.

Les

       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nikonusers.com/pipermail/nikon_nikonusers.com/attachments/20080514/9030ae57/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Brian McCarthy]

Hi Les

The focal length ascribed to a DX lens is the same as that ascribed to a non
DX lens, but there is a 1.5x or so magnification factor to take into
consideration. So, as you say below, a 12-24mm DX lens is effectively an
18-36mm lens. On a full-frame camera such as the Nikon D3, the same lens would
be 12-24mm but would show bad vignetting all around.

Brian McCarthy

> Hi,
>
> I'm finally expanding from film to digital. One topic that has probably been
> discussed to death is the use of DX vs. non-DX lenses. I understand that
using
> a non-DX lens on a digital results in a 1.5x magnification. My question is
does
> the focal length on a DX lens equate to the same focal length of a non-DX
lens?
>
> Does a 12-24 DX zoom equate to a 12-24 non-DX focal length, or does it
equate

> to a 18-36 zoom?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Les
>
>        
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>

http://nikonusers.com/pipermail/nikon_nikonusers.com/attachments/20080514/9030ae57/attachment.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nikon mailing list
> Nikon@...
> http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
>




_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Stephen Barrett]

There is a common idea that DX means magnification, however it does  
not. More precisely what it does is crop the image. The 12-24 is still  
a 12-24 using a DX camera only means that your are seeing the middle  
of the print.  The focal length is still the same as regards  
distortion like barrel distortion, and at the other end the effect of  
tele's making things look flatter.

Many people use much wider lenses on DX due to the cropping. I have a  
17-55DX which is great. In former times my widest lens when I was on  
Canon back in the 80's was a 28mm prime. It gave a decent amount of a  
bubble look too and I could see no need at all to go wider than that.  
These days I can see the attraction of a 14-24 on my D2H would never  
have said that in the past.

If you add 50% onto your shooting distance photos with the same lens  
will look exactly the same on DX as they do on 35mm or FX

Stephen

On 15/05/2008, at 4:03 PM, Les Hartzman wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm finally expanding from film to digital. One topic that has  
> probably been discussed to death is the use of DX vs. non-DX lenses.  
> I understand that using a non-DX lens on a digital results in a 1.5x  
> magnification. My question is does the focal length on a DX lens  
> equate to the same focal length of a non-DX lens?
>
> Does a 12-24 DX zoom equate to a 12-24 non-DX focal length, or does  
> it equate to a 18-36 zoom?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Les

_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Peter Oksen]

Stephen is absolutely correct, and I might add that an advantage of DX
lenses is that they in principle could be smaller and hence also cheaper,
although I'm not sure the latter has manifested itself. A further advantage
is that some less-than-perfect-quality full-frame lenses may now actually
become useful on a DX camera, as only the center and assumingly better part
of the lens is used. Furthermore, if you buy a full-frame extreme wide angle
lens like the 12-24mm which will be a very good wide angle on a DX camera,
you might actually have a lot of fun using it on a full-frame (film) body
for rather extreme effects as the angle of view increases dramatically.
Using a DX lens on a full-frame body will, however, not work.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-bounces@...]
> On Behalf Of Stephen Barrett
> Sent: 15. maj 2008 12:09
> To: Nikon Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
>
> There is a common idea that DX means magnification, however it does
> not. More precisely what it does is crop the image. The 12-24 is still
> a 12-24 using a DX camera only means that your are seeing the middle
> of the print.  The focal length is still the same as regards
> distortion like barrel distortion, and at the other end the effect of
> tele's making things look flatter.
>
> Many people use much wider lenses on DX due to the cropping. I have a
> 17-55DX which is great. In former times my widest lens when I was on
> Canon back in the 80's was a 28mm prime. It gave a decent amount of a
> bubble look too and I could see no need at all to go wider than that.
> These days I can see the attraction of a 14-24 on my D2H would never
> have said that in the past.
>
> If you add 50% onto your shooting distance photos with the same lens
> will look exactly the same on DX as they do on 35mm or FX
>
> Stephen
>
> On 15/05/2008, at 4:03 PM, Les Hartzman wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm finally expanding from film to digital. One topic that has
> > probably been discussed to death is the use of DX vs. non-DX lenses.
> > I understand that using a non-DX lens on a digital results in a 1.5x
> > magnification. My question is does the focal length on a DX lens
> > equate to the same focal length of a non-DX lens?
> >
> > Does a 12-24 DX zoom equate to a 12-24 non-DX focal length, or does
> > it equate to a 18-36 zoom?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Les
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nikon mailing list
> Nikon@...
> http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Stephen Barrett]

Cheers Peter

Actually I thought the 12-24 was a DX lens.

I did try my 17-55 on my F100 and it will cover the frame until you  
get to 25 mm or thereabouts. It can be used but give really savage  
vignetting when you take it to 17mm.

Could use it if you like the vignette.

Stephen

On 15/05/2008, at 8:08 PM, Peter Oksen wrote:

> Stephen is absolutely correct, and I might add that an advantage of DX
> lenses is that they in principle could be smaller and hence also  
> cheaper,
> although I'm not sure the latter has manifested itself. A further  
> advantage
> is that some less-than-perfect-quality full-frame lenses may now  
> actually
> become useful on a DX camera, as only the center and assumingly  
> better part
> of the lens is used. Furthermore, if you buy a full-frame extreme  
> wide angle
> lens like the 12-24mm which will be a very good wide angle on a DX  
> camera,
> you might actually have a lot of fun using it on a full-frame (film)  
> body
> for rather extreme effects as the angle of view increases  
> dramatically.
> Using a DX lens on a full-frame body will, however, not work.
>
> Peter
>

_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Adam Maas]

I suspect he was referring to Sigma's Full-frame 12-24, not the DX crop Nikkor.

-Adam

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Stephen Barrett
<stephen.barrett@...> wrote:

> Cheers Peter
>
>  Actually I thought the 12-24 was a DX lens.
>
>  I did try my 17-55 on my F100 and it will cover the frame until you
>  get to 25 mm or thereabouts. It can be used but give really savage
>  vignetting when you take it to 17mm.
>
>  Could use it if you like the vignette.
>
>  Stephen
>
>
>  On 15/05/2008, at 8:08 PM, Peter Oksen wrote:
>
>  > Stephen is absolutely correct, and I might add that an advantage of DX
>  > lenses is that they in principle could be smaller and hence also
>  > cheaper,
>  > although I'm not sure the latter has manifested itself. A further
>  > advantage
>  > is that some less-than-perfect-quality full-frame lenses may now
>  > actually
>  > become useful on a DX camera, as only the center and assumingly
>  > better part
>  > of the lens is used. Furthermore, if you buy a full-frame extreme
>  > wide angle
>  > lens like the 12-24mm which will be a very good wide angle on a DX
>  > camera,
>  > you might actually have a lot of fun using it on a full-frame (film)
>  > body
>  > for rather extreme effects as the angle of view increases
>  > dramatically.
>  > Using a DX lens on a full-frame body will, however, not work.
>  >
>  > Peter
>  >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Nikon mailing list
>  Nikon@...
>  http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
>

--
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Adam Maas]

DX lenses have a reduced image circle which makes wider range zooms
with wide ends in the 16-18mm range possible and ultra-wide zooms
smaller. That's the sole difference. An 18mm DX lens and an 18mm lens
for 35mm will deliver the same image when mounted on a DX camera, the
DX lens will hard vignette badly on 35mm at some/all focal lengths.

_Adam

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Les Hartzman <les_hartzman@...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>  I'm finally expanding from film to digital. One topic that has probably been discussed to death is the use of DX vs. non-DX lenses. I understand that using a non-DX lens on a digital results in a 1.5x magnification. My question is does the focal length on a DX lens equate to the same focal length of a non-DX lens?
>
>  Does a 12-24 DX zoom equate to a 12-24 non-DX focal length, or does it equate to a 18-36 zoom?
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Les
>
>
>  -------------- next part --------------
>  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>  URL: http://nikonusers.com/pipermail/nikon_nikonusers.com/attachments/20080514/9030ae57/attachment.html
>  _______________________________________________
>  Nikon mailing list
>  Nikon@...
>  http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
>

--
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Peter Oksen]

Hi Stephen,
I was thinking about 12-24 in general. I have the Sigma 12-24 which is a
(quite good) full-frame and really gives you a new perspective on things
when on a film body. More fun than useful, actually, but for this reason I
still prefer full-frame lenses to DX.
Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-bounces@...]
> On Behalf Of Stephen Barrett
> Sent: 15. maj 2008 12:48
> To: Nikon Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
>
> Cheers Peter
>
> Actually I thought the 12-24 was a DX lens.
>
> I did try my 17-55 on my F100 and it will cover the frame until you
> get to 25 mm or thereabouts. It can be used but give really savage
> vignetting when you take it to 17mm.
>
> Could use it if you like the vignette.
>
> Stephen
>
> On 15/05/2008, at 8:08 PM, Peter Oksen wrote:
>
> > Stephen is absolutely correct, and I might add that an advantage of
> DX
> > lenses is that they in principle could be smaller and hence also
> > cheaper,
> > although I'm not sure the latter has manifested itself. A further
> > advantage
> > is that some less-than-perfect-quality full-frame lenses may now
> > actually
> > become useful on a DX camera, as only the center and assumingly
> > better part
> > of the lens is used. Furthermore, if you buy a full-frame extreme
> > wide angle
> > lens like the 12-24mm which will be a very good wide angle on a DX
> > camera,
> > you might actually have a lot of fun using it on a full-frame (film)
> > body
> > for rather extreme effects as the angle of view increases
> > dramatically.
> > Using a DX lens on a full-frame body will, however, not work.
> >
> > Peter
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nikon mailing list
> Nikon@...
> http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Stephen Barrett]

I got my 17-55 a couple of years ago now Peter but now that there is  
the FX sized D3 I would only be buying lenses that cover the 36x24mm  
size sensor. I hate saying full frame because what is a frame? For  
sure I would have bought the 17-35 rather then the 17-55 if I were  
buying now because while I shoot DX right now an FX camera might well  
be in my future, one day at least!

Stephen

On 15/05/2008, at 11:21 PM, Peter Oksen wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
> I was thinking about 12-24 in general. I have the Sigma 12-24 which  
> is a
> (quite good) full-frame and really gives you a new perspective on  
> things
> when on a film body. More fun than useful, actually, but for this  
> reason I
> still prefer full-frame lenses to DX.
> Peter
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-bounces@...
>> ]
>> On Behalf Of Stephen Barrett
>> Sent: 15. maj 2008 12:48
>> To: Nikon Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
>>
>> Cheers Peter
>>
>> Actually I thought the 12-24 was a DX lens.
>>
>> I did try my 17-55 on my F100 and it will cover the frame until you
>> get to 25 mm or thereabouts. It can be used but give really savage
>> vignetting when you take it to 17mm.
>>
>> Could use it if you like the vignette.
>>
>> Stephen

_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Peter Oksen]

Stephen,
Yeah, that's the old discussion of whether DX is here to stay and what are
the actual advantages of the FX format in digital cameras. I saw that Nikon
argues that the FX censor in D3 allows for bigger light-receiving-units
(forgot what they are called) and hence better image quality - less noise.
If it's true, then I suppose that DX will be on its way out within let's say
the next 10 years or so, at least in the high end series like D and DX00.
Was a bit disappointed that the D300 is still DX. Wonder if the D400 will be
FX? I am still shooting happily with the D100 and as D3 is a bit out of my
league, I suppose my next will be the D300. But not yet, the D100 is still a
great camera (except for the limited flash system). Anyway, I would still
prefer FX lenses unless the DX is considerably less expensive.
Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-bounces@...]
> On Behalf Of Stephen Barrett
> Sent: 16. maj 2008 09:08
> To: Nikon Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
>
> I got my 17-55 a couple of years ago now Peter but now that there is
> the FX sized D3 I would only be buying lenses that cover the 36x24mm
> size sensor. I hate saying full frame because what is a frame? For
> sure I would have bought the 17-35 rather then the 17-55 if I were
> buying now because while I shoot DX right now an FX camera might well
> be in my future, one day at least!
>
> Stephen
>
> On 15/05/2008, at 11:21 PM, Peter Oksen wrote:
>
> > Hi Stephen,
> > I was thinking about 12-24 in general. I have the Sigma 12-24 which
> > is a
> > (quite good) full-frame and really gives you a new perspective on
> > things
> > when on a film body. More fun than useful, actually, but for this
> > reason I
> > still prefer full-frame lenses to DX.
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-
> bounces@...
> >> ]
> >> On Behalf Of Stephen Barrett
> >> Sent: 15. maj 2008 12:48
> >> To: Nikon Mailing List
> >> Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
> >>
> >> Cheers Peter
> >>
> >> Actually I thought the 12-24 was a DX lens.
> >>
> >> I did try my 17-55 on my F100 and it will cover the frame until you
> >> get to 25 mm or thereabouts. It can be used but give really savage
> >> vignetting when you take it to 17mm.
> >>
> >> Could use it if you like the vignette.
> >>
> >> Stephen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nikon mailing list
> Nikon@...
> http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Adam Maas]

DX is here to stay. FX for the most part is a replacement for medium
format, most of the shooters shooting FX right now would have been
shooting Hassy's and Mamiyas 10 years ago (With the sole exception of
D3-shooting sports shooters). DX has distinct cost advantages and
quality that's good enough for most people. It also has some distinct
advantages over FX if you need long lenses, being able to deliver a
given pixel density at a high FPS for much less cost. Note that you
can get a D300 AND 300/2.8 for around the cost of a D3, and get more
reach than a D3 with a 400/2.8, if you need the reach of a 600+TC the
equation is even more in the D300's favour.

Expect a D300-like DX body to be around for the forseeable future, for
the reasons of reach+pixel density for the long-lens guys (who in
Canon land are stuck with 40D's right now) and to offer consumer DX
shooters an upgrade path with full support for their lenses. Expect FX
to get no lower in the range than a D300-alike for quite a while as
well.

-Adam

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Peter Oksen <oksen@...> wrote:

> Stephen,
>  Yeah, that's the old discussion of whether DX is here to stay and what are
>  the actual advantages of the FX format in digital cameras. I saw that Nikon
>  argues that the FX censor in D3 allows for bigger light-receiving-units
>  (forgot what they are called) and hence better image quality - less noise.
>  If it's true, then I suppose that DX will be on its way out within let's say
>  the next 10 years or so, at least in the high end series like D and DX00.
>  Was a bit disappointed that the D300 is still DX. Wonder if the D400 will be
>  FX? I am still shooting happily with the D100 and as D3 is a bit out of my
>  league, I suppose my next will be the D300. But not yet, the D100 is still a
>  great camera (except for the limited flash system). Anyway, I would still
>  prefer FX lenses unless the DX is considerably less expensive.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-bounces@...]
>  > On Behalf Of Stephen Barrett
>
>
> > Sent: 16. maj 2008 09:08
>  > To: Nikon Mailing List
>  > Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
>  >
>  > I got my 17-55 a couple of years ago now Peter but now that there is
>  > the FX sized D3 I would only be buying lenses that cover the 36x24mm
>  > size sensor. I hate saying full frame because what is a frame? For
>  > sure I would have bought the 17-35 rather then the 17-55 if I were
>  > buying now because while I shoot DX right now an FX camera might well
>  > be in my future, one day at least!
>  >
>  > Stephen
>  >
>  > On 15/05/2008, at 11:21 PM, Peter Oksen wrote:
>  >
>  > > Hi Stephen,
>  > > I was thinking about 12-24 in general. I have the Sigma 12-24 which
>  > > is a
>  > > (quite good) full-frame and really gives you a new perspective on
>  > > things
>  > > when on a film body. More fun than useful, actually, but for this
>  > > reason I
>  > > still prefer full-frame lenses to DX.
>  > > Peter
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >> -----Original Message-----
>  > >> From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-
>  > bounces@...
>  > >> ]
>  > >> On Behalf Of Stephen Barrett
>  > >> Sent: 15. maj 2008 12:48
>  > >> To: Nikon Mailing List
>  > >> Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
>  > >>
>  > >> Cheers Peter
>  > >>
>  > >> Actually I thought the 12-24 was a DX lens.
>  > >>
>  > >> I did try my 17-55 on my F100 and it will cover the frame until you
>  > >> get to 25 mm or thereabouts. It can be used but give really savage
>  > >> vignetting when you take it to 17mm.
>  > >>
>  > >> Could use it if you like the vignette.
>  > >>
>  > >> Stephen
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > Nikon mailing list
>  > Nikon@...
>  > http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Nikon mailing list
>  Nikon@...
>  http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
>

--
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Peter Oksen]

Adam,
Could you elaborate on the improved reach of DX using long lenses. I don't
quite understand why DX would be better than FX here?
Your cost argument I follow, but then again, costs are not static and may
soon make FX bodies affordable to high-end consumers also, that is, on the
price level of the D300 which btw is almost 1/3 cheaper than my D100 was.
Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-bounces@...]
> On Behalf Of Adam Maas
> Sent: 16. maj 2008 14:37
> To: Nikon Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
>
> DX is here to stay. FX for the most part is a replacement for medium
> format, most of the shooters shooting FX right now would have been
> shooting Hassy's and Mamiyas 10 years ago (With the sole exception of
> D3-shooting sports shooters). DX has distinct cost advantages and
> quality that's good enough for most people. It also has some distinct
> advantages over FX if you need long lenses, being able to deliver a
> given pixel density at a high FPS for much less cost. Note that you
> can get a D300 AND 300/2.8 for around the cost of a D3, and get more
> reach than a D3 with a 400/2.8, if you need the reach of a 600+TC the
> equation is even more in the D300's favour.
>
> Expect a D300-like DX body to be around for the forseeable future, for
> the reasons of reach+pixel density for the long-lens guys (who in
> Canon land are stuck with 40D's right now) and to offer consumer DX
> shooters an upgrade path with full support for their lenses. Expect FX
> to get no lower in the range than a D300-alike for quite a while as
> well.
>
> -Adam
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Peter Oksen <oksen@...> wrote:
> > Stephen,
> >  Yeah, that's the old discussion of whether DX is here to stay and
> what are
> >  the actual advantages of the FX format in digital cameras. I saw
> that Nikon
> >  argues that the FX censor in D3 allows for bigger light-receiving-
> units
> >  (forgot what they are called) and hence better image quality - less
> noise.
> >  If it's true, then I suppose that DX will be on its way out within
> let's say
> >  the next 10 years or so, at least in the high end series like D and
> DX00.
> >  Was a bit disappointed that the D300 is still DX. Wonder if the D400
> will be
> >  FX? I am still shooting happily with the D100 and as D3 is a bit out
> of my
> >  league, I suppose my next will be the D300. But not yet, the D100 is
> still a
> >  great camera (except for the limited flash system). Anyway, I would
> still
> >  prefer FX lenses unless the DX is considerably less expensive.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-
> bounces@...]
> >  > On Behalf Of Stephen Barrett
> >
> >
> > > Sent: 16. maj 2008 09:08
> >  > To: Nikon Mailing List
> >  > Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
> >  >
> >  > I got my 17-55 a couple of years ago now Peter but now that there
> is
> >  > the FX sized D3 I would only be buying lenses that cover the
> 36x24mm
> >  > size sensor. I hate saying full frame because what is a frame? For
> >  > sure I would have bought the 17-35 rather then the 17-55 if I were
> >  > buying now because while I shoot DX right now an FX camera might
> well
> >  > be in my future, one day at least!
> >  >
> >  > Stephen
> >  >
> >  > On 15/05/2008, at 11:21 PM, Peter Oksen wrote:
> >  >
> >  > > Hi Stephen,
> >  > > I was thinking about 12-24 in general. I have the Sigma 12-24
> which
> >  > > is a
> >  > > (quite good) full-frame and really gives you a new perspective
> on
> >  > > things
> >  > > when on a film body. More fun than useful, actually, but for
> this
> >  > > reason I
> >  > > still prefer full-frame lenses to DX.
> >  > > Peter
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >> -----Original Message-----
> >  > >> From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-
> >  > bounces@...
> >  > >> ]
> >  > >> On Behalf Of Stephen Barrett
> >  > >> Sent: 15. maj 2008 12:48
> >  > >> To: Nikon Mailing List
> >  > >> Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
> >  > >>
> >  > >> Cheers Peter
> >  > >>
> >  > >> Actually I thought the 12-24 was a DX lens.
> >  > >>
> >  > >> I did try my 17-55 on my F100 and it will cover the frame until
> you
> >  > >> get to 25 mm or thereabouts. It can be used but give really
> savage
> >  > >> vignetting when you take it to 17mm.
> >  > >>
> >  > >> Could use it if you like the vignette.
> >  > >>
> >  > >> Stephen
> >  >
> >  > _______________________________________________
> >  > Nikon mailing list
> >  > Nikon@...
> >  > http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Nikon mailing list
> >  Nikon@...
> >  http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> M. Adam Maas
> http://www.mawz.ca
> Explorations of the City Around Us.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nikon mailing list
> Nikon@...
> http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com

[Adam Maas]

The 'reach' advantage of DX is pixel density, ie more pixels in a
given area. Note that the D3 in DX crop mode is 5.4MP to the D300's
12MP. This gives you a lot more detail from the DX camera when you're
at the long end of the lens lineup and still need more reach (like
many birders do). While you could in theory make a ultra-high MP FX
sensor with similar pixel density, it will have 2 problems, the first
is the massive amount of data that needs to be moved every second to
reach the 6-8fps range that fast-moving subjects often require and the
second is lens performance, those ultra-high MP FX camera are brutal
on corner performance of lenses while DX sweetspots the
high-performing centre, giving higher quality images from the same
lens when you reach lens-limited resolution (the larger pixels of a
lower-density FX sensor will give better IQ when sensor resolution is
the limiting factor though). And those ultra-high MP bodies are going
to be costly. So a DX pro-level body like the D300 will be around for
a long, long time.

I do expect a FX body in the $2k range in the next couple of years,
but due to how sensors are manufactured, DX sensors will always be
significantly cheaper, so the DX equivalent body will always be
somewhat cheaper. I don't expect a FX consumer body although someone
might do one intended as a light carry camera for pros.

-Adam

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Peter Oksen <oksen@...> wrote:

> Adam,
> Could you elaborate on the improved reach of DX using long lenses. I don't
> quite understand why DX would be better than FX here?
> Your cost argument I follow, but then again, costs are not static and may
> soon make FX bodies affordable to high-end consumers also, that is, on the
> price level of the D300 which btw is almost 1/3 cheaper than my D100 was.
> Peter
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-bounces@...]
>> On Behalf Of Adam Maas
>> Sent: 16. maj 2008 14:37
>> To: Nikon Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
>>
>> DX is here to stay. FX for the most part is a replacement for medium
>> format, most of the shooters shooting FX right now would have been
>> shooting Hassy's and Mamiyas 10 years ago (With the sole exception of
>> D3-shooting sports shooters). DX has distinct cost advantages and
>> quality that's good enough for most people. It also has some distinct
>> advantages over FX if you need long lenses, being able to deliver a
>> given pixel density at a high FPS for much less cost. Note that you
>> can get a D300 AND 300/2.8 for around the cost of a D3, and get more
>> reach than a D3 with a 400/2.8, if you need the reach of a 600+TC the
>> equation is even more in the D300's favour.
>>
>> Expect a D300-like DX body to be around for the forseeable future, for
>> the reasons of reach+pixel density for the long-lens guys (who in
>> Canon land are stuck with 40D's right now) and to offer consumer DX
>> shooters an upgrade path with full support for their lenses. Expect FX
>> to get no lower in the range than a D300-alike for quite a while as
>> well.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Peter Oksen <oksen@...> wrote:
>> > Stephen,
>> >  Yeah, that's the old discussion of whether DX is here to stay and
>> what are
>> >  the actual advantages of the FX format in digital cameras. I saw
>> that Nikon
>> >  argues that the FX censor in D3 allows for bigger light-receiving-
>> units
>> >  (forgot what they are called) and hence better image quality - less
>> noise.
>> >  If it's true, then I suppose that DX will be on its way out within
>> let's say
>> >  the next 10 years or so, at least in the high end series like D and
>> DX00.
>> >  Was a bit disappointed that the D300 is still DX. Wonder if the D400
>> will be
>> >  FX? I am still shooting happily with the D100 and as D3 is a bit out
>> of my
>> >  league, I suppose my next will be the D300. But not yet, the D100 is
>> still a
>> >  great camera (except for the limited flash system). Anyway, I would
>> still
>> >  prefer FX lenses unless the DX is considerably less expensive.
>> >
>> > Peter
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  > -----Original Message-----
>> >  > From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-
>> bounces@...]
>> >  > On Behalf Of Stephen Barrett
>> >
>> >
>> > > Sent: 16. maj 2008 09:08
>> >  > To: Nikon Mailing List
>> >  > Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
>> >  >
>> >  > I got my 17-55 a couple of years ago now Peter but now that there
>> is
>> >  > the FX sized D3 I would only be buying lenses that cover the
>> 36x24mm
>> >  > size sensor. I hate saying full frame because what is a frame? For
>> >  > sure I would have bought the 17-35 rather then the 17-55 if I were
>> >  > buying now because while I shoot DX right now an FX camera might
>> well
>> >  > be in my future, one day at least!
>> >  >
>> >  > Stephen
>> >  >
>> >  > On 15/05/2008, at 11:21 PM, Peter Oksen wrote:
>> >  >
>> >  > > Hi Stephen,
>> >  > > I was thinking about 12-24 in general. I have the Sigma 12-24
>> which
>> >  > > is a
>> >  > > (quite good) full-frame and really gives you a new perspective
>> on
>> >  > > things
>> >  > > when on a film body. More fun than useful, actually, but for
>> this
>> >  > > reason I
>> >  > > still prefer full-frame lenses to DX.
>> >  > > Peter
>> >  > >
>> >  > >
>> >  > >
>> >  > >> -----Original Message-----
>> >  > >> From: nikon-bounces@... [mailto:nikon-
>> >  > bounces@...
>> >  > >> ]
>> >  > >> On Behalf Of Stephen Barrett
>> >  > >> Sent: 15. maj 2008 12:48
>> >  > >> To: Nikon Mailing List
>> >  > >> Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital newbie: question about DX lenses
>> >  > >>
>> >  > >> Cheers Peter
>> >  > >>
>> >  > >> Actually I thought the 12-24 was a DX lens.
>> >  > >>
>> >  > >> I did try my 17-55 on my F100 and it will cover the frame until
>> you
>> >  > >> get to 25 mm or thereabouts. It can be used but give really
>> savage
>> >  > >> vignetting when you take it to 17mm.
>> >  > >>
>> >  > >> Could use it if you like the vignette.
>> >  > >>
>> >  > >> Stephen
>> >  >
>> >  > _______________________________________________
>> >  > Nikon mailing list
>> >  > Nikon@...
>> >  > http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
>> >
>> >
>> >  _______________________________________________
>> >  Nikon mailing list
>> >  Nikon@...
>> >  http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> M. Adam Maas
>> http://www.mawz.ca
>> Explorations of the City Around Us.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nikon mailing list
>> Nikon@...
>> http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nikon mailing list
> Nikon@...
> http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
>

--
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
Nikon@...
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com