New Nikon 35 1.4, 200 2.0 VRII, D7000, SB-700

D.P. said:
I will definitely move to FX but I will always keep at least 1 DX body. There are many things that DX bodies are just better for, and If you ever shoot wildlife without the budget for a 400 2.6/600 f/4 then the D300 type camera is a necessity.
Click to expand...

One potential argument against that is that the D3x is 10.5MP in DX crop mode, 7fps and better high ISO performance - while it's still pricey today, there's likely going to be a D700 with a variation of that sensor in a year or two at most.
 
Mud said:
I was under the impression there's not much point in making long DX lenses, the weight saving would be negligible.
Click to expand...

My impression too - that being the reason there isn't a DX 70-300, there's no point - I don't know where I picked that up but it makes sense somewhat in my head thinking about the mechanics of the lens construction...
 
bigredshark said:
My impression too - that being the reason there isn't a DX 70-300, there's no point - I don't know where I picked that up but it makes sense somewhat in my head thinking about the mechanics of the lens construction...
Click to expand...

Think it might've been KRock...and whilst opinionated and generally delusional, I think he's pretty good on the technical aspects. However, there is now a 55-300 DX for what that's worth.
 
No, there is no technical reason why you would save less, if anything it is easier with telephoto lenses (it is certainly harder to make a wide-angle lens for a smaller sensors). I think the point most people make is that if you want a 300 2.8 FX equivalent lens on a DX camera, just buy the 70-200 2.8.
There is also the point that if you pay serious money for a lens you want it to work on FX!.

anyway, even ignoring this fact DX camera are evidently nice for wildlife photographers on a budget who value portability. Enough Pro photographers and sports togs use crop cameras to prove this point-
 
bigredshark said:
No, he's got a point, the crop factor affects depth of field too, so a 200mm f/2.8 gets roughly the same field of view and depth of field as a 300mm f/4 - to get the equivilent of a 300mm f/2.8 on DX you'd need a 200mm f2...
Click to expand...

Which is why some use f4 on the FX 300mm to get both the primary and tackling players in focus, so it evens out in that particular case.
 
Rojin said:
Which is why some use f4 on the FX 300mm to get both the primary and tackling players in focus, so it evens out in that particular case.
Click to expand...

Well, in that use case - but you can use an f/2.8 lens at f/4, if you've got an f/4 lens then your flexibility is reduced. The best choice there is always going to be FX and a 300mm f/2.8 prime - the only downside is cost (though that said D300s+70-200f/2.8 vs D700+300f/4 would produce the same results basically at a very similar price point - which would you choose). That's obviously only one usage scenario though...
 
Rojin said:
Which is why some use f4 on the FX 300mm to get both the primary and tackling players in focus, so it evens out in that particular case.
Click to expand...

Indeed. TBH for the 300mm most use f/2.8 at all distances except when the player is 80% of the frame then most roll the wheel to f/3.2/3.5

With the 400 most use f/2.8 untill player is about 60%, then they roll it down slowly untill f/3.5.

Background pop is key.

Of course you can use a 300mm f/2.8 on full-frame and a 300mm f/2.8 on the crop camera. Then the pop is the same. You can just shoot when things are closer with the full-frame. ;)
 
bigredshark said:
No, he's got a point, the crop factor affects depth of field too, so a 200mm f/2.8 gets roughly the same field of view and depth of field as a 300mm f/4 - to get the equivilent of a 300mm f/2.8 on DX you'd need a 200mm f2...
Click to expand...

It will slightly reduce it, but he said "will have almost no background separation" which is patently false. I shoot with a 70-200 f/2.8 (Sigma EX) on a D200 and there is quite a lot of background separation. :p
 
bigredshark said:
Well, in that use case - but you can use an f/2.8 lens at f/4, if you've got an f/4 lens then your flexibility is reduced. The best choice there is always going to be FX and a 300mm f/2.8 prime - the only downside is cost (though that said D300s+70-200f/2.8 vs D700+300f/4 would produce the same results basically at a very similar price point - which would you choose). That's obviously only one usage scenario though...
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I was talking about a 300mm f2.8 lens being used at f4. Basically as P0ss3s3d has described. Obviously he has more experience of this than myself, I've found it quite common with people using crop bodies, so I guess it would pass down to full frame as well.
 
Can't decide whether to pre-order a d7000 or get a macro lens and a nifty 50, gah! Got a d3000 at the moment.
 
Beasty said:
Can't decide whether to pre-order a d7000 or get a macro lens and a nifty 50, gah! Got a d3000 at the moment.
Click to expand...

Save yourself some cash and get the macro now. It won't rely on or need an AF motor, unlike the 50mm...unless you were going for the more expensive 1.4G. The D7000 will drop in price in the coming months so you'll effectively get the macro for almost nothing compared to paying the pre order price of the 7000 now. As Mud points out though...there's quite a difference in expenditure unless you were thinking of getting the Nikkor Micro 200mm and the 50mm.

Have a look here at the high ISO samples with downloadable .NEF files. Quite handy if you're considering the D7000. Some of the samples look quite impressive considering they're raw and before any NR.

downloadable high ISO samples in RAW
 
I have had the pleasure of 45 minutes with a demo D7000 this morning. Thoughts (bad first):

- It's still D90 sized and feels a little small in my hands, certainly with the 17-55 and 70-200 I tried on it (my lenses) it doesn't balance terribly well, I think the grip will sort that though (but I didn't get to try it)

- Magnesium alloy chassis or not it doesn't feel like it's made out of rock like the D300s or D700. Solid though.

- Which does mean it's appreciable smaller and lighter

- AF is seriously good, maybe better than the D300s in my view, no hesitation right across any of the points.

- Handling is very good, despite the lack of physical controls compared to the higher end bodies it handles really naturally, much better than the D90 in my view

- IQ in general is very good, I didn't have the time or means to seriously scientifically test so I didn't bother too much but it's good.

- Video is good, AF in video is reasonably good.

Summary - It's a real winner, you won't regret buying one in any shape or form that I can see, just be aware it isn't huge in the hand and serious glass will result in interesting balance...
 
My wife's landing at Heathrow at 8 tonight and has picked up a D7000 in Hong Kong and tells me she spent the last day or so shooting with it. I shoot Canon, Minolta and Bronica but am excited to have a play when it gets here sounds good and solid.
 
AtticusFinch said:
My wife's landing at Heathrow at 8 tonight and has picked up a D7000 in Hong Kong and tells me she spent the last day or so shooting with it. I shoot Canon, Minolta and Bronica but am excited to have a play when it gets here sounds good and solid.
Click to expand...

Nice! All my wife has brought home lately is gastric flu!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom