D300s or D700
- Thread starter blackchua
- Start date
- Status
But not many exists. Unfortunately, Nikon was right that many film lenses were not made to be used with FF sensors because the corners are quite degraded because the oblique rays don't go well with the AA filters. So film lenses work much better with DX. So, FF bodies demands the newly designed FF lenses..
You want an all-in-one solution? Tamron has a 28-300mm VC.
Within Nikon's arsenal, there's the AF-S 24-120mm VR, AF 24-85mm and perhaps the AF-S 24-70mm.
Within Nikon's arsenal, there's the AF-S 24-120mm VR, AF 24-85mm and perhaps the AF-S 24-70mm.
Yeah, Ebay, Peninsula Plaza area second hand dealers, our own Clubsnap BnS and I remember there was just a gent selling his copy a few days ago. Maybe still have.
There's no end to the 'pros' and 'cons' between DX and FX choices. Much depends on personal preferences too. However, I'd like to offer some personal views.
In the old days, we shot 35mm format film mostly. So I used the Nikon F bodies. And I bought mostly 'pro' lenses (similar to FX lenses today). The film image size were 36mmX24mm. These work fine and we bought different ISO films to adjust to light conditions (the higher the ISO, the grainier the film gets). Yet, we also shot with medium format cameras and lenses (which naturally are larger, heavier and more expensive to buy). However, the film image size on my Hasselbalds were 56mmX56mm (3.6 times the surface area of a 35mm image). THE KEY DIFFERENCE IS BETTER DETAILS, BETTER COLOUR RENDITIONS. But the downside is that medium format equipment is also heavier to carry around.
Now back to the DX/FX debate, if you choose to go DX (with it's inherent pros and cons) then stay with DX lenses and benefit from the lighter body, lighter and smaller lenses, and cheaper to buy. Main tradeoff vs FX is that FX has much better high ISO performance, and pixel for pixel, FX will deliver better colour rendition simply due to the larger sensor size (just like 35mm and medium format) in the old days.
I have used the D200/D300 but on lenses that I acquired since the film days (and they are all FX lenses). So it's only natural for me to move to FX (D3/D700) so I can use my whole lens collection (from AIS, AFD, AFS). I don't 'grumble' about the weight since we have been shoot with full FX lenses since the film days.
If you are owning FX lenses, then it doesn't make sense to continue buying a new DX body. This misguided thinking that you get 1.5X more focal length when using a DX body is a something worth taking time to understand. A 200mm lens does not become a 300m when fitted on a DX body. It's just that because the DX sensor is smaller, the narrower picture angle makes the image LOOK LIKE it was taken with a 300mm lens using the FX format. It's no different from taking a 200mm picture using a FX body, and then use Photoshop to crop the image, making it smaller so it looks like it was taken with a 300mm lens picture angle.
Hope this helps.
In the old days, we shot 35mm format film mostly. So I used the Nikon F bodies. And I bought mostly 'pro' lenses (similar to FX lenses today). The film image size were 36mmX24mm. These work fine and we bought different ISO films to adjust to light conditions (the higher the ISO, the grainier the film gets). Yet, we also shot with medium format cameras and lenses (which naturally are larger, heavier and more expensive to buy). However, the film image size on my Hasselbalds were 56mmX56mm (3.6 times the surface area of a 35mm image). THE KEY DIFFERENCE IS BETTER DETAILS, BETTER COLOUR RENDITIONS. But the downside is that medium format equipment is also heavier to carry around.
Now back to the DX/FX debate, if you choose to go DX (with it's inherent pros and cons) then stay with DX lenses and benefit from the lighter body, lighter and smaller lenses, and cheaper to buy. Main tradeoff vs FX is that FX has much better high ISO performance, and pixel for pixel, FX will deliver better colour rendition simply due to the larger sensor size (just like 35mm and medium format) in the old days.
I have used the D200/D300 but on lenses that I acquired since the film days (and they are all FX lenses). So it's only natural for me to move to FX (D3/D700) so I can use my whole lens collection (from AIS, AFD, AFS). I don't 'grumble' about the weight since we have been shoot with full FX lenses since the film days.
If you are owning FX lenses, then it doesn't make sense to continue buying a new DX body. This misguided thinking that you get 1.5X more focal length when using a DX body is a something worth taking time to understand. A 200mm lens does not become a 300m when fitted on a DX body. It's just that because the DX sensor is smaller, the narrower picture angle makes the image LOOK LIKE it was taken with a 300mm lens using the FX format. It's no different from taking a 200mm picture using a FX body, and then use Photoshop to crop the image, making it smaller so it looks like it was taken with a 300mm lens picture angle.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
hmm..
do u use flash when its low-light.
If you haven't got the hang of flash, I suggest to buy a SB-600 and learn
Forget about FF if you havent master flash
do u use flash when its low-light.
If you haven't got the hang of flash, I suggest to buy a SB-600 and learn
Forget about FF if you havent master flash
not sure whether MP comes into the picture anot. both hv abt the same MP, and when cropped the FX to match the DX size, shldn't one lose the sharpness(is that the term?). my thinking, it's like enlarging a small photo, resulting pixelation. maybe a 24.5MP D3X photo when cropped will have the "same sharpness"(again is this the term?) as a DX?
btw i hv nv used a FX b4 even though most of lenses are FX, so what i wrote is based on "logic".
Last edited:
Except for Tamron 28-300, the rest are all no where near the coverage of 18-200DX on the long end, although 24-xx cover wide angle better. And many said that the current 24-120VR and 24-85/2.8-4 have poor IQ. Not sure about the IQ of Tammy 28-300, but I would stay clear of it.
Go FX you'll need to pay the penalty on lenses. Watch the weight of your bag grows, the cost of your lenses increase. Benefit high ISO capabilities. DX benefit smaller lighter cheaper lenses, better reach.
Dr Spock's advise is valuable - keep both DX and FX and use them to their strength.
No quite the case - if you take a D700 200mm shot and crop it to look 300mm you'll have 5mp, but a crop sensor shot on 200mm with FOV 300mm has 12mp.
It is different - 12mp vs 5mp.
Your argument works if you use a D3x and crop = D90.
So call clearing a misconception is making more misconception. Cropping FX to DX results in loss of pixels, you will lose details. :nono:
wohoho... u summarized what i rubbishly written where i dun even know what i'm written. :sticktong
No lah, what you said is simply another way of saying what I said, just that mine said with Mp, yours said with feeling. Exactly the same. Really.:thumbsup:
I've shot with FX film cameras for some time and have resisted digital as I was not convinced about the "picture quality" of digital images back then, plus they were DX.
My mindset changed when I saw some images shot with digital cameras in the mid-2000's. So I took the plunge and spent on a D200 almost at the end of its run and just before the D300 was launched. What could I say? Well, the image quality was impressive and the workflow was fast. I could review the shots right after my shoot on my computer, which was a huge benefit as I would not have to wait for 1 day before I could collect my prints from the photo developer.
One thing though, I missed the wide angle on my film FX. Suddenly, my 24mm became a 36mm FX-equivalent on my D200.
Having said that, and reading what the others have said about both cameras, I would recommend the D700 (plus, most of your lenses are FX).
Do let us know when you do make your purchase.
Happy shooting!
- Status
Similar threads
