Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
SpotTheCat wrote:How bad of an investment do you guys think DX/APS lenses are? How long until a cameras in the D90/40D arena are built with full-frame sensors?
SpotTheCat wrote:How bad of an investment do you guys think DX/APS lenses are? How long until a cameras in the D90/40D arena are built with full-frame sensors?
mattsteg wrote:On the Nikon side, the DX lenses at least mount and work on the FX bodies, with the option to auto-crop (or not, if you want to use more f the image circle).
Usacomp2k3 wrote:mattsteg wrote:On the Nikon side, the DX lenses at least mount and work on the FX bodies, with the option to auto-crop (or not, if you want to use more f the image circle).
Cool. I didn't know that.
SPOOFE wrote:The APS/DX size is "good enough" for "most people", and when it comes to providing DSLR's for those same "most people" the smaller, cheaper piece of silicon is just the thing. Make no mistake, DSLR's have gotten really affordable in the past few years, but there's still a long way to go. In five years (give or take), I anticipate the entry-level camera bodies to cost just two or three hundred dollars, and there's no way any DSLR manufacturer can do that with full frame.
SpotTheCat wrote:I was wondering if anybody was speculating with some kind of evidence that FX cameras will trickle down the line to the point where the $1,000 body has an FX sensor.
danny e. wrote:SpotTheCat wrote:I was wondering if anybody was speculating with some kind of evidence that FX cameras will trickle down the line to the point where the $1,000 body has an FX sensor.
i really have no idea what an FX sensor would be... some Nikon marketing title for their FF line?
edh wrote:That's my thought. However painful the thought of using part of your sensor may be to some people...they should still mount and work well into the future. They won't be state of the art, but they'll work.Considering that by the time the cost of the sensor for FF drops to the point of supporting an under $1500 FF DSLR, the cost of the sensor for a DX DSLR will have dropped to the point that its price will be in the $300 range, I seriously doubt that DX lenses' usefulness are in jeopardy. Plus, Nikon, at least, seems to be incorporating DX compatibility with all its FX sensors. Considering how conservative Nikon is about camera design and its long-lived F-mount, I'd expect that practice to continue indefinitely.
edh wrote:Can the D90 mount pre-AI lenses? The D80 couldn't (well, unless you modified them to AI, of course) and other than the 40/60 line I didn't think any of the current or recent cameras were pre-ai lens compatible. It's worth mentioning that the motor omission on the d40/60 bodies is a bit less conservative than normal, considering that it makes much of their current lens lineup less functional.You do know that the current D40, D60 and D90 models can use lenses made for the original, mechanical, film-based Nikon F released way back in 1959, don't you? You have to focus manually and use the histogram to figure exposure, but the lenses work just fine. That's one heck of a commitment to maintaining system integrity on Nikon's part.
edh wrote:Yeah, in a lot of cases they're essentially identical in functionality and a lot more economical. In others they're ahead.One other note that may have some bearing on the issue: Even with the choice of FF versus DX, many professional photographers and advanced amateurs are choosing to continue using DX bodies over their FF counterparts for many situations.
SpotTheCat wrote:Yes, it will happen eventually. However, by the time it does, a functionally equivalent DX format camera will be priced under $250.I was wondering if anybody was speculating with some kind of evidence that FX cameras will trickle down the line to the point where the $1,000 body has an FX sensor.
mattsteg wrote:edh wrote:Can the D90 mount pre-AI lenses? The D80 couldn't (well, unless you modified them to AI, of course) and other than the 40/60 line I didn't think any of the current or recent cameras were pre-ai lens compatible. It's worth mentioning that the motor omission on the d40/60 bodies is a bit less conservative than normal, considering that it makes much of their current lens lineup less functionalYou do know that the current D40, D60 and D90 models can use lenses made for the original, mechanical, film-based Nikon F released way back in 1959, don't you? You have to focus manually and use the histogram to figure exposure, but the lenses work just fine. That's one heck of a commitment to maintaining system integrity on Nikon's part.
Nikon ceased production of the D40x in December 2007, shortly before they introduced its successor, the Nikon D60.
SpotTheCat wrote:I went to bestbuy today and looked at their slew of Nikon Cameras (I don't intend to buy there, but they're the only place in town the the D90 on display!)
the D90 is a lot like the D80 in feel. It's top ISO is the same as the D40, but I would need to see how it actually performs at high ISO to judge it. The added resolution is meaningless to me if everything gets distorted. I'm leaning more and more toward the D40, which is so much better feeling than any canon below the 40D.
The lens that comes with the D90 seems pretty nice though. I'm thinking I'll get a D40 now, by preference. Hopefully if Nikon replaces the D40 before I buy, they do so with a camera with another low resolution, high sensitivity sensor. I'll then be able to more easily afford that freaking sweet 18-200mm VR DX lens.
SpotTheCat wrote:D40 is $450 on amazon with the kit lens. It's a freaking steal.
The D40's ISO performance isn't monstrous, but it is better than the D40x, D60, and, perhaps, D80.
How on earth do you think the D90's high-ISO is better than the D40's base? Did you look at the images? The D90 there looks about on-par with a handheld. Very impressive for ISO3200, but nowhere near the D40's base. Look at the black and darker blue test square, and the black bottle and cup. There is a lot of lost quality on the D90 compared to the D40.
I'm still thinking D40 because the lens to me is more important than the body. Only needing the 18-200mm for almost anything I would ever want to do is really tempting.
mattsteg wrote:SpotTheCat wrote:D40 is $450 on amazon with the kit lens. It's a freaking steal.
The D40's ISO performance isn't monstrous, but it is better than the D40x, D60, and, perhaps, D80.
How on earth do you think the D90's high-ISO is better than the D40's base? Did you look at the images? The D90 there looks about on-par with a handheld. Very impressive for ISO3200, but nowhere near the D40's base. Look at the black and darker blue test square, and the black bottle and cup. There is a lot of lost quality on the D90 compared to the D40.
I'm still thinking D40 because the lens to me is more important than the body. Only needing the 18-200mm for almost anything I would ever want to do is really tempting.
I didn't say better, I said that more detail was present. For example, you can read parts of the bottles and make out detail in the lighter green square that aren't legible on the D40 sample. There's obviously some shadow contrast that's gone, of course, but it's not pure smear either. No, it's not a better quality image, but there's a fair bit of detail left (other than shadows which clearly get smudged there).
I consider lens way more important than body as well - the D40 wouldn't autofocus most of my lenses and being unable to use those and similar lenses to their fullest would be a significant drawback to me. If you're looking into sticking with the 18-200 and other new afs glass that's clearly not the big deal that it is for me, though.
SpotTheCat wrote:Now that canon has a 18-200mm IS lens, I'll look into them too. I just can't see myself with a rebel though-I hate cycling through their menus.
SpotTheCat wrote:Ahh. I am starting from scratch, so things are different. Other than the 18-200mm I would probably want a wide angle and a really fast normal prime.
Now that canon has a 18-200mm IS lens, I'll look into them too. I just can't see myself with a rebel though-I hate cycling through their menus.
mattsteg wrote:SpotTheCat wrote:Ahh. I am starting from scratch, so things are different. Other than the 18-200mm I would probably want a wide angle and a really fast normal prime.
Now that canon has a 18-200mm IS lens, I'll look into them too. I just can't see myself with a rebel though-I hate cycling through their menus.
Well, then they're not so different after all. If you want a fast prime, hope the rumored new afs primes make good, plan on manual focusing or getting a body with a motor, or plan on going third-party with a sigma 30/1.4 or something. Wide angle? Assuming you're talking ultrawide zooms the Nikon and Sigma will AF on the d40, the rest (including the excellent new tokina 11-16) won't. The cost of the nikon isn't proportional to its quality, so realistically you're looking at the sigma. It's a fine choice, but at the same time it's not really a "choice" when you haven't much else to select from. I guess there's the phenomenal 14-24 budget-breaker too.
When you start to step away from buying new zooms, having an in-body motor becomes awfully handy on nikon. The price difference between what I've purchased and otherwise pretty much equivalent af-s alternatives is multiple times the value of my body. 2 control wheels instead of 1 is a big boost when shooting manual as well.