The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by milkpowder

Well I've never used a D3 so I wouldn't know I don't want to know either. Ignorance is bliss

My mistake. I did mean the camera you had though, the D300.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by stuartr

This is not the case for me, I assure you. The Leica stuff going up is small consolation for the past 8 disastrous years. The collapse of the dollar has hit me a lot harder than most because I make most of my money in the US, but live most of the year in Europe.

Oh, reading what you wrote before made me think about the current state of the US economy. I was commenting on how inflation is killing the lower and middle class. Nothing directed to you.
The rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.

[milkpowder]

Originally Posted by stuartr

Also, for what it's worth, you can get a nice Leica and lens for a lot less than the cost of a D300. They have made Leicas for 80 years, and the present M7 is extremely close to the M3 which came out in 1954...lots of people still use M3's every day.

I can't be bothered to mess around with film to be honest. My poor consistency means that I'll be going through rolls of film like there's no tomorrow.

For technically difficult work (i.e. dodgy lighting, fast moving people/objects), I use the D3 most. For travel and landscape photography, I mostly use a Mamiya 7II. I use the Leica for daily carry, street photography and everything else. I mix it up a lot.

Cool. Would a D700 be able to partially replace the Leica (iirc you have the M8) for daily carry? It's considerably smaller than the D3, but probably wouldn't fit in a trenchcoat jacket pocket. It's also cheaper to replace if it gets stolen/lost

[stuartr]

Probably not. It looks like it is about the same size as a D300 or an F6. Both of those are still considerably larger than the M8...mostly with respect to lenses and body width. Also, the M8 still has better image quality than the D3 at base ISO and ISO 320 (it has no AA filter, so despite being fewer megapixels, it is still sharper)...and at 10mp+, the lenses are the most important part of the imaging chain. So no, the D700 would not replace the M8, but it would mean that I could bring it to more situations than the D3, which is really a beast. The D3 is bigger and heavier than most medium format cameras I have used...but it does not cease to amaze me with respect to how well-designed and capable it is. Everything is laid-out superbly and it really just gets the job done in a way that no other camera I have used can do. The AF speed and accuracy, the metering, the frame rate, battery life, white balance...everything just works perfectly. I cannot say as much for the Leica.

[milkpowder]

Fair enough. If anything the D700 will be a bit taller than the D300 because of the larger viewfinder.

I do a lot of shooting indoors and in low-light so I rarely use the base ISO. I crave the D700 because of its low-light performance: practically noise free up to around 3600 (vs 1600 max on the D300) and AF sensitivity/accuracy in the dark.

[Tuarreg]

I am old school Nikon/Hasselblad film photographer who recently decided to get back in by purchasing the D300. Wonderful camera indeed! One of the reasons I did was because I was able to maintain the older lenses like the AF lenses which includes: 300 f4, 80-200 f2.8, 35-70 f2.8, 24 f2.8 and manual lenses like: 18mm f3.5, 105 uv f4.5. All of these seem to work well with the D300, but now I am reading about the DX/FX lenses that are designed for Nikon dslrs and how you can't fully take advantages of the D300, D3 and D700 unless you use the new DX/FX lenses. Is this true and if so, why?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Tuarreg

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by Tuarreg

I am old school Nikon/Hasselblad film photographer who recently decided to get back in by purchasing the D300. Wonderful camera indeed! One of the reasons I did was because I was able to maintain the older lenses like the AF lenses which includes: 300 f4, 80-200 f2.8, 35-70 f2.8, 24 f2.8 and manual lenses like: 18mm f3.5, 105 uv f4.5. All of these seem to work well with the D300, but now I am reading about the DX/FX lenses that are designed for Nikon dslrs and how you can't fully take advantages of the D300, D3 and D700 unless you use the new DX/FX lenses. Is this true and if so, why?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Tuarreg

All of Nikon's DSLR's and the more recent film SLR's take advantage of distance information provided by D and G type lenses to assist in exposure and better gauge flash performance; although there might be additional benefits as well. All DX lenses are type-G, and all new FF lenses are type-G as well.

There are many versions of the lenses you have, but it's easy enough to check whether or not you have a D lens: it'll be printed after the aperture value (i.e. f/2.8D). For what it's worth, I've used many non-D and G type lenses with my D200 and can't discern any ill-effects in terms of flash and non-flash exposure - I wouldn't fret as long as you're satisfied by the results you're getting.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by Tuarreg

I am old school Nikon/Hasselblad film photographer who recently decided to get back in by purchasing the D300. Wonderful camera indeed! One of the reasons I did was because I was able to maintain the older lenses like the AF lenses which includes: 300 f4, 80-200 f2.8, 35-70 f2.8, 24 f2.8 and manual lenses like: 18mm f3.5, 105 uv f4.5. All of these seem to work well with the D300, but now I am reading about the DX/FX lenses that are designed for Nikon dslrs and how you can't fully take advantages of the D300, D3 and D700 unless you use the new DX/FX lenses. Is this true and if so, why?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Tuarreg

There is no 'FX' type lens. There are however DX lenses, which are designed for the 1.5 crop APS sensors in most nikon D-SLR's. Your D300 is a 1.5 crop sensor, so DX lenses were designed to work with your camera, though to be honest they are perhaps not nikon's best efforts. You will get iffy results if you use a DX lens on a full frame DSLR sensor, such as with the film bodies.

Your D300 can use all of the older 'non-DX' lenses.
More info to read: Crop Factor

[Tuarreg]

There is no 'FX' type lens.

I meant FF?

My question is whether there are any inherent advantages of the DX lens and the FF lenses to the PRE-Digital lenses that Nikon made. So, to take full advantage of what a D300, D700 or D3 can do in terms of image quality, should I buy DX lenses and FF digital lenses?

Thanks,

Tuarreg

[bigshot]

Nikon's DSLRs will automatically adjust to DX lenses. The older film bodies will undercrop, but the digital ones won't. DX lenses are compatible with all the Nikon cameras made since the introduction of DX, and they likely always will be.

Tuarreg, It's hard to generalize, because just about all Nikon lenses are good. But when it comes to the quality of zoom lenses, the more modern ones will likely be a bit better than the older ones. The main difference between new and old lenses involves features like VR and automatic focusing.

See ya
Steve