The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[dj_mocok]

Originally Posted by uppis

Oh those blades are sweet..! Whats the name of this beauty?

Kinoptik. I took it from this eBay sale.

[Old Pa]

Originally Posted by Towert7

Why would someone want a full frame (35mm) CCD sensor like that found in the Nikon D3, compared to a ~1.5x crop factor CCD like that found in the D300. What are the benefits? What are the detractors?

Same old question as when the 4x5 view camera people labeled the "new" 35mm format as "miniature"; the smaller the format, the more the image has to be enlarged to get to finished viewing size. And with enlargement, all the flaws and defects are enlarged as well.

Coming into DSLRs with DX size sensors brought back especially the need for me to limit camera motion during exposure. Holding out at arm's length a point-and-shoot camera (with an even smaller sensor) to use the view screen as a viewfinder even further exacerbates the camera motion problem. If you don't have enough shutter speed/ISO speed dialed in, motion blurring is almost guaranteed. And since automatic exposure is the credo of the point-and-shoot crew, there you go. Forget, also, the depth of field benefits of a high f-stop.

Fight camera motion when handheld with braced camera position and smooth shutter release. Better yet, put the camera on a sturdy tripod and use a shutter release. Some folks go so far as to lock up the mirror before final exposure to avoid the vibration of its flop. But even a monopod or bracing against a tree, post or other stable object will help sharpness.

Down side to larger sensors? Not many, unless you're already stocked with good DX lenses. I've always been kind of a "telephoto guy" anyway, and have looked at the 1.5X magnification bump as a boon. Right now, I'm waiting for Nikon to introduce the D300s with a full size sensor so I can score an "old" D300.

[Arainach]

Down side to larger sensors?.........I've always been kind of a "telephoto guy" anyway

You're a telephoto guy and you missed the most obvious disadvantage to large sensors?

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR: $1600
Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR: $4500

You have to spend a LOT more to get the same field of view on the larger sensor. Comparatively speaking, the cost of repurchasing an ultrawide (say the Sigma 10-20mm) for DX isn't nearly as bad.

[Old Pa]

Originally Posted by Arainach

You're a telephoto guy and you missed the most obvious disadvantage to large sensors?

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR: $1600
Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR: $4500

You have to spend a LOT more to get the same field of view on the larger sensor.

I didn't miss the expense point, I just didn't mention it with the other points I was making. BTW, I've owned the Nikon ED AF-S VR-Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8G for a couple of years and it's a very nice lense. Great boka and the VR is like picking up two or three stops. And it's a 105-300mm equivalent on my D200.

[Towert7]

Thanks for the info Old Pa and Haibane!

[lan]

Originally Posted by Arainach

I disagree. The 14-24 in my hands is so heavy that it's considerably more unstable than the 12-24 or 17-35. It's heavy enough that I wouldn't want it on a body around my neck all day long.

I'm used to carrying large weights so it's fine for me. I'm sure for most people, they don't carry heavier glass, flash, or grips.

Originally Posted by dj_mocok

It's almost a kilo right?

That sounds about right.

I got me a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It seems pretty solid so far.

[CLum]

I just won a good condition 50mm f/1.8 ai (long nose) off ebay. Am I correct in assuming that this is one of the better 50mm models? Also what would be a good used price for one of these in good condition? I won it for $75.

[dj_mocok]

Originally Posted by CLum

I just won a good condition 50mm f/1.8 ai (long nose) off ebay. Am I correct in assuming that this is one of the better 50mm models? Also what would be a good used price for one of these in good condition? I won it for $75.

Actually there are many different versions of 50mm 1.8 Ai/Ai-s, so many I can't even bother to remember which one is the so called 'better' one.

I got the Ai-s version - not the earliest one, but I'm sure according the serial # mine is not the one that is reported to be the best, but heck, the picture is so darn sharp and contrasty, I can't ask for anything more.

So basically don't worry so much about different serial numbers and all that. As long as it's clean, free from fungus, and very important - the focusing ring still moves fluidly, that's it, you're set.

I paid mine for AUS$75 in pretty much mint condition with box and paper, but I think that was a steal. $75 is about right for a good copy that's still in great condition IMO. Have fun, it's a great lens!

[Arainach]

I wouldn't have paid more than $40. 50 max. You can get used 50 f/1.8D AF lenses in the 80-90 range.

[dj_mocok]

It all depends on the condition of the lens itself. I'm a bit of collector, and I appreciate a nicely built lens. That's why I'm still using 50mm AI-s over the AF version even though the AF version it's dirt cheap. Because to me the Ai-S is very fun to use, and the smooth focusing beats the manual focusing even using the likes of 17-35mm AFS. The AF one is a bit too plasticky for me.

Basically just paying for the built, optical result, and the satisfaction of doing everything manually. Although at times it can be a pain in terms of metering (eg. fast moving clouds that keep changing the light).

If it's showing signs of usage, yes, 40-50 bucks is about right. But a near mint sample, I believe it will go more than that especially on eBay.