The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Edwood]

Originally Posted by mbriant

AF-S lenses have an internal motor which is faster and quieter than the camera's motor. D lenses don't have their own motor, so rely on the motor in the camera. I believe the pro Nikon bodies have better ( stronger ) internal motors than the consumer versions, so are a little quicker, but AF-S lenses are always the fastest. The ability of the camera's autofocus sensors also come into play, as the better the sensor, the less searching the lens does while focussing ... making it also focus faster.

The D300 and D3 (and probably the upcoming D700) have a more powerful autofocus motor, so it racks the autofocus faster apparently.

Argh! I'm so tempted by the D700. Good thing it's going to be $3K. If it was closer to $2K it would be much easier for me to justify. Just maybe.

But I think I'll be happier spending that much on some headphone gear in the near future. I've been quite negligent in the Headphone spending lately. I must make amends. Heheh.

-Ed

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by 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

With all else equal, an older pre-digital lens won't yield a loss of image quality compared to a modern, DX or recent FF lens. With all else equal, of course.

As Towert has stated, in other words, most of the current DX lenses are tailored to the consumer market, and while the D300 isn't exactly a boutique item it's certainly a cut above the D40 and D60 in terms of image quality. In that sense, it's almost an advantage to have older, film optimized lenses - as the crop factor on modern DSLR's eliminates some of the resolution deterioration that occurs at the lens's borders, and DX lenses, afterall, are designed to be cheaply manufactured and packaged.

On the other hand, most of Nikon's recently announced FF zoom lenses are indeed better than comparable lenses of the film era. In this case, modern technology does play a role in creating a more consistent performance - especially in areas of resolution.

However, you've built up a good assortment of zoom and prime lenses, and I see no reason to go out and purchase a whole new lineup when most comparable DX items are actually worse in many areas.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by Tuarreg

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

The one thing you should try and avoid is using a 'DX' lens on a film camera body, or the new FX camera bodies (D3, D700).

Your D300 is a DX camera body, so you can use DX lenses on it. The DX lenses were designed for the DX camera body, but that does not mean they will be better than your typical lenses.

The way I see it, the only thing the DX lenses have going for them is the fact that they are new, and Nikon has been improving things like ghosting, or chromatic aberration. Some things, like image quality and build quality, are not so good.

Features like VR are NOT specific to DX lenses.

So, bottom line, your D300 can take both types of lenses, the typical and 'DX' lenses. The better lens will produce better images with your D300, and you may find the older lenses produce much better images than the DX lenses.

Your D300 is a 1.5 crop sensor, so your 300mm F/4 will have the field of view of a 450mm F/4 lens on the older Nikon cameras (or the new D3 or D700 FF). Just a heads up.

By the way, you have some nice Nikkors to start off with!

[Tuarreg]

Ok, so if I stick with the D300, my film lenses are just fine, but if I want to step up to D700 or D3, I might want to pickup some of the new FF lenses.
Got it! Thanks guys. I'm glad I didn't sell my Nikon gear! Anyone need a F4s, FM2 or 8008s body?

Tuarreg

[Iron_Dreamer]

Originally Posted by Edwood

The D300 and D3 (and probably the upcoming D700) have a more powerful autofocus motor, so it racks the autofocus faster apparently.

Argh! I'm so tempted by the D700. Good thing it's going to be $3K. If it was closer to $2K it would be much easier for me to justify. Just maybe.

But I think I'll be happier spending that much on some headphone gear in the near future. I've been quite negligent in the Headphone spending lately. I must make amends. Heheh.

-Ed

Yeah the D700 looks reeaallly nice. Of course, to get the most out of it, I'd want a 14-24 2.8.

Outside of the Smyth system, what could you possible be going after headphone wise these days?

[Braver]

Originally Posted by Tuarreg

Ok, so if I stick with the D300, my film lenses are just fine, but if I want to step up to D700 or D3, I might want to pickup some of the new FF lenses.

No, those film lenses will be fine on a D3 or D700 as well, more than fine even. It's the DX lenses that'll only work on the D300 as they create an image that's smaller than you'd need on film or the FX (FX=FF) sensors of the D3/700 as they have the same size as film. I get the feeling the marketing-speak is confusing you New or old really shouldn't matter that much. Just buy the lenses you think you need, but if you ever want to use them on film or FX (D3/700), don't buy DX lenses.

[Edwood]

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer

Yeah the D700 looks reeaallly nice. Of course, to get the most out of it, I'd want a 14-24 2.8.

Outside of the Smyth system, what could you possible be going after headphone wise these days?

That would pretty much be it. Well, along with a better front end for the home theater. And perhaps that vibration platform.

-Ed

[milkpowder]

Originally Posted by Braver

No, those film lenses will be fine on a D3 or D700 as well, more than fine even. It's the DX lenses that'll only work on the D300 as they create an image that's smaller than you'd need on film or the FX (FX=FF) sensors of the D3/700 as they have the same size as film. I get the feeling the marketing-speak is confusing you New or old really shouldn't matter that much. Just buy the lenses you think you need, but if you ever want to use them on film or FX (D3/700), don't buy DX lenses.

Couldn't you just crop the image you get from using a DX lens on a FX sensor? The pixel density will be lower than say the image from a DX sensor, but wouild it be noticeable for internet viewing purposes (eg 1920x1200 max)? The D3/700 do have better S/N ratio so maybe it wouldn't be totally silly to use DX lenses however unlikely this may be...

[lan]

Originally Posted by milkpowder

Couldn't you just crop the image you get from using a DX lens on a FX sensor? The pixel density will be lower than say the image from a DX sensor, but wouild it be noticeable for internet viewing purposes (eg 1920x1200 max)? The D3/700 do have better S/N ratio so maybe it wouldn't be totally silly to use DX lenses however unlikely this may be...

This crop is actually done automatically on D3. For internet purposes, it doesn't matter much as it's still higher resolution if that's all you were considering.

It would take me a while to get FX lenses so I'd use the DX mode still.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by milkpowder

Couldn't you just crop the image you get from using a DX lens on a FX sensor? The pixel density will be lower than say the image from a DX sensor, but wouild it be noticeable for internet viewing purposes (eg 1920x1200 max)? The D3/700 do have better S/N ratio so maybe it wouldn't be totally silly to use DX lenses however unlikely this may be...

The D3 and D700 do that already. But, lets be honest, you got the D300 to take the best pictures you could. To crop off 50% of the image seems like a waste.