[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuarreg /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuarreg /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuarreg /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuarreg /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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?