View Poll Results: Would you choose more megapixels or better dynamic range?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Megapixels! The more the merrier!!!

    3 4.00%
  • Dynamic Range! Picture quality is No. 1!!!

    72 96.00%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: More megapixels vs. better dynamic range

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default Re: Re: Re: More megapixels vs. better dynamic range

    Originally posted by Larry
    simple reason - cos i don't own a bank, nor do i have the guts to go rob one...
    Heh heh, you're right! That combo will set you back oh S$45k I think... or was it US$?

    But hey, many have very high demands here...

  2. #42

    Default

    Originally posted by Watcher
    Again, I have to do the comparison. I spend an additional $ just to get the DX lenses, but when I switch between film and digital, ONLY the DX lenses are the ones that I need to buy. It is totally unlike when Canon switched to current mount, requiring all the old mount lenses totally discarded if they want to use on the "from-then-on" cameras. All the Canon cameras had to use the new mount and so anyone who wants to use the camera, will now have to buy all the lenses. This is totally different here, where even the 12-24DX lens can be used even on film at the 24mm range; no vignetting seen. Buy the DX ONLY for the digital but the existing Nikon lenses and new non-DX lenses can be used for both. What is wrong with that?
    correct me if i'm wrong, but the Nikon F-mount has it's own fair share of problems. how many times have we heard Nikon users complaining about the latest lenses being not compatible with older camera bodies. For example, G-lenses with no aperture ring. Yeah, you can mount it on a FM2, so what? Not every Nikon user owns both DSLRs AND the latest film bodies that can make full use the capabilities of DX lenses

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    453

    Default

    After reading the review provided by watcher, I finally see some sense getting the 12-24DX lens. If the lens can be use down to 16mm on a 35mm body, then at least it have some use when the APS sized DSLR turn history. However, S$1970 is some price to pay for a F4 lense
    Last edited by jasonpgc; 23rd July 2003 at 11:32 AM.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Originally posted by munfai
    correct me if i'm wrong, but the Nikon F-mount has it's own fair share of problems. how many times have we heard Nikon users complaining about the latest lenses being not compatible with older camera bodies. For example, G-lenses with no aperture ring. Yeah, you can mount it on a FM2, so what? Not every Nikon user owns both DSLRs AND the latest film bodies that can make full use the capabilities of DX lenses
    Sigh. The G lenses debate has been talked over and over and over. These lenses are those that mostly need a newer body to operate, like AF-S and VR. Can the FM-2 support that kind of power demands or feature?

    The non-G lenses still work right? So, what is the issue here? Must you use the latest lens to get a great photo on the FM2?

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Originally posted by jasonpgc
    After reading the review provided by watcher, I finally see some sense getting the 12-24DX lens. If the lens can be use down to 16mm on a 35mm body, then at least it have some use when the APS sized DSLR turn history. However, S$1970 is some price to pay for a F4 lense
    The S$1970 is list price; the street price should be around S$1.6k

    This too has been debated, I can't find it at the moment off DPReivew. Many agreed that the need for a faster version is not needed. Why? 1) With such a short focal length, your shutter speed can be lower to achieve a non shaky image. 2) Many use it in situations like architecture shots which needs to use a tripod anyway. 3) a faster lens means a much bigger lens which increase the weight and size

    Edit: Found it! Read it here. In the same thread, near the bottom, someone compared the US price of the 12-24DX vs the 16-35 L lenses: US$1080 vs US$1400. So, to use the DX is still cheaper than to get the almost equivalent on the Canon.
    Last edited by Watcher; 23rd July 2003 at 12:49 PM.

  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    453

    Default

    I think a better Lens to compare with 12-24DX should be the EF 17-40mm F4 L USM

  7. #47

    Default

    Originally posted by Watcher
    Sigh. The G lenses debate has been talked over and over and over. These lenses are those that mostly need a newer body to operate, like AF-S and VR. Can the FM-2 support that kind of power demands or feature?

    The non-G lenses still work right? So, what is the issue here? Must you use the latest lens to get a great photo on the FM2?
    i'm not questioning the necessity of latest lenses to get a great photo. my point here is that don't fault Canon for their decision to move to the new EF mount.

    if Canon users felt disgusted when they realized that EF lenses couldn't be used on their older film bodies, how would Nikon users be feeling now? a lot of Nikonians love their manual bodies, btw.

    anyway, this is getting OT, and i vote for greater dynamic range. learning to cope with a FOV crop is like learning to use a prime lens, so I'm not complaining.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •