King Tiger
Active Member
D200 would be an impressive camera.
Trust me.
Waiting for the 2nd roars.
Trust me.
Waiting for the 2nd roars.
Here comes Nikon D200... finally a reality
- Thread starter shutterbug
- Start date
- Status
you buy then sell me your D2X cheap cheap, hor!!! :bsmilie:King Tiger said:D200 would be an impressive camera.
Trust me.
Waiting for the 2nd roars.
King Tiger
Active Member
Cactus jACK said:
OK, sell you half price.
3000 British pound, ok ?
KT runaway.........
Watcher said:
Let me state at the outset that the Nikon DX solutions are highly competent ones and should satisfy many people
However, having said that, I do feel that there is a place for FF. Besides the perspective and DOF issues, many of the best lenses have originally been designed for FF. Take the 28-70 F2.8 as an example - with a 1.5 crop, it's no longer what it's designed for, the range after the crop factor isn't quite as useful anymore.
There may be other "cropped lenses alternatives", but nothing beats the quality of this lens - and I would really have preferred this lens to be 28-70mm and not (28-70)*1.5
Ditto for some primes, such as the 50mm f1.8 which isn't that useful on a 1.5X body. In the case of the Canon, the TSE 24mm after 1.6X is a pain especially for architectural purposes. And for these lenses, there will be no DX/EFS alternatives
It's unfortunate that Canon does not have a competent wide angle, but a FF camera with a 21mm Zeiss is amazing stuff, far better than the mushy corners with the 17-40L samples that you all have been referring to
goering said:
I believe it has been discussed enough in another thread regarding the merits of FF. One point that I have pointed out again and again is that its a misconception on the crop affecting the focal length as well as DOF. It doesn't work that way. A 300 f/2.8 will not become a super fast telephoto 450 f/2.8 lens. It is a 300 f/2.8 on a small focal plane with the border removed. As the border is removed you will have a "tighter" frame that is seemingly equivalent FOV of a 450mm on FF. On the DX and FF, its still the same depth generated by 300mm with the aperture set on the lens.
Sometimes it is hard to put a view across in words. You have to experience yourself how both DX and FF influenced the area of photography that you are in. Some may see me as an old stubborn block head. To a certain extend I will not deny that as I am not ready YET to compromise my investment with any DX WA which currently only ONE f/4 zoom in the Nikkor range. That being said, you still have to get the foundamentals right, which is important as you may be insisting on certain belief that is fundamentally flawed to start with due to misunderstanding of basic concept.
litefoot said:
agree, i can crop from an image from a FF and get the same affect as APS.
If u have lots of MP (12.8MP) to play with at the first place, the resolution still more than enough for most pple needs even after cropping
However, if u want a super wide perspective or fish eye effect, only FF will give u the intended effect.
that's why it is better to have soft corners than NO corners at all
Wai said:agree, i can crop from an image from a FF and get the same affect as APS.
If u have lots of MP (12.8MP) to play with at the first place, the resolution still more than enough for most pple needs even after cropping
However, if u want a super wide perspective or fish eye effect, only FF will give u the intended effect.
that's why it is better to have soft corners than NO corners at all
i think i read something like that before from here
actually.. i think it's quite true about having soft corners than no corners, because ppl hardly look at corners, and the main subject is in the centre most of the time like what the link said.
Nikon! Give us the FF! ( not Film Format hor.. )
yanyewkay said:
Oh ho so that is where that stupid propaganda came from!
Please! I don't care frankly how much is "thrown away"; who care how much chicken intestines or how big the chicken head are thrown away from a chick when they eat chicken rice?
Let's put this into practical view: On 35mm, the widest rectilinear zoom from Canon was 16-35, prime was 14mm, FE on EF mount was the 15mm. On Nikon, current available lenses (sorry, I'm not a walking Nikon encyclopedia
)are 17-35, 14 and 16 respectively. Third parties include Sigma 12-24 and 14 mm prime, 15 mm FE.Now, on DX format, I get 12-24 which gives 18-36, prime which is 21 and FE 10.5. The only lacking I see is the prime DX. So do tell how much does a crop factor not capture at all? 1 degree or 2 degrees?
Worry more about the Canon's (professional) DSLRs like 1D and 1DMkII that has the widest prime at 17, zoom at 21 and totally no FE. Or the consumer DSLR that has a 16 equivalent zoom, but prime at 22, and no FE as well.
Mind you, I'm calculating from the effective FOV, which is what the sensor or film will record.
So, what corners am I missing? The ones that the sensor does not capture? O the ones that were never available to be captured in the first place? What give anyone an impression that the circle of light on a non-DX lens fits exactly onto 24x36 (thus no alleged wastage)? What about all those who used Zeiss or Leica lenses? Missing more corners? Sacre Bleu! Sacriligeous!
From the above listing, which digital photographic system is missing the corners of images that can be taken now?
It sounds to me a case of mental projection, trying to redirect their unsatisfied desires onto others As for the "ppl hardly look at corners" line, it is just because they can't deliver and need to make up some excuse, after the fact to cover up the weakness of the first-party lens+body. Sounds just like the type of excuses used in the FD-EF move.
Caveat: this does not cover the specialized, professional usage of special lenses like PC lenses.
Edit: The two main reaons for high MP are 1) so that the image can be cropped severly to focus on the subject in lieu of a longer lens and 2)can print large prints without sever drop in quality. This then contradicts the current digital FF. Why? For 1) because of higher pixel density, a camera with crop factor gives you for the same FOV, more resolution. 2) when this combines with wide, it is the corners that becomes the weakest link. Either you crop and end up like 1) with fewer pixels (see example below) or don't crop and everyone can see the weakness blown up
Excuses. Say I crop away 20% of length (10% from the left, 10% from the right) and breath of a FF image just to get rid of the softness, it would give me a dimension of 3494 x 2335=8.13 MP (from 4368 x 2912). Now, the FOV has been reduced to something from 16 mm to closer to 21mm. You might have instead taken a 1DMkII or 1DMkIIN which has much better performance, reliability and durability than the 5D, still give the same output!Wai said:agree, i can crop from an image from a FF and get the same affect as APS.
If u have lots of MP (12.8MP) to play with at the first place, the resolution still more than enough for most pple needs even after cropping
However, if u want a super wide perspective or fish eye effect, only FF will give u the intended effect.
that's why it is better to have soft corners than NO corners at all
OTOH, if I have a 1.5x crop camera that requires no cropping since I'm using a DX lens say a 12-24 DX, I will have an effective 12.4MP (say on a D2X) and FOV of 18mm. So who has the wider effective FOV now?
If you had wanted FE, the 10.5DX is a true FE. It has been release around 2003, quite a while ago before even 300D came out. Wai, it seems you have been shooting with the wrong system all this time :bsmilie:
Do tell me how much wider does a FF on Canon zoom lens give you verses the 12-24? If you don't like the 12-24DX, there is always the 10-20 mm from Sigma that give you 15mm FOV at the widest, wider than even 16-35L!icarus said:
Edit: The only exception is the Sigma 12-24, which does give significantly wider image. However, on digital (to a lesser extent on film), the corners are poor in quality as well. After cropping (if you want to mantain quality for the image), the FOV might end up like a 15mm lens
Two comments here:
1) Does anyone know how to calculate anymore!?!
2a) One one hand, wide landscape shooters go for hyperfocal distances. Shorter focal length (not FOV) give you longer DOF which in turns give you a shorter hyperfocal distance. So why do wide landscape shooters paradoxically, want longer focal length?
2b) Long shooters wants shallower DOF, sometimes (more than a "longer" view?). However, unless $$$ is less important than DOF (ie the DOF actually earns you the difference in dough), a shorter lens is cheaper than a longer lens. Yes, a 200/f2.8 gives you a FOV of a 300mm lens, but only the DOF of 200/2.8. However, does this DOF worth the difference in $$$? Even a 200/2 lens which gives roughly the same amount of DOF as a 300/2.8 lens is still cheaper. Try this: add the price of a 1DsMkII + 300/2.8 and compared that to D2X + 200/2 or when D200 comes out, D200 + 200/2 and compared to 5D + 300/2.8
1) Does anyone know how to calculate anymore!?!
2a) One one hand, wide landscape shooters go for hyperfocal distances. Shorter focal length (not FOV) give you longer DOF which in turns give you a shorter hyperfocal distance. So why do wide landscape shooters paradoxically, want longer focal length?
2b) Long shooters wants shallower DOF, sometimes (more than a "longer" view?). However, unless $$$ is less important than DOF (ie the DOF actually earns you the difference in dough), a shorter lens is cheaper than a longer lens. Yes, a 200/f2.8 gives you a FOV of a 300mm lens, but only the DOF of 200/2.8. However, does this DOF worth the difference in $$$? Even a 200/2 lens which gives roughly the same amount of DOF as a 300/2.8 lens is still cheaper. Try this: add the price of a 1DsMkII + 300/2.8 and compared that to D2X + 200/2 or when D200 comes out, D200 + 200/2 and compared to 5D + 300/2.8
Errr..... Totally pointless talking about such things...
Just let people be lah and let them find out for themselves. In the end, does it matter if either party is right or wrong?
In eiher case, someone is going to loose money.
In the case of Wai, aiya just let him cut off the soft corners or spend countless time on DIing the images.
For my case, well either I regret moving over to Nikon or I am damn happy coming over. Either way it is my loss or gain.
So bottom line.... aiya just save your engery and thought patterns lah. Just enjoy what we all own and use them to their fullest potential.
Just let people be lah and let them find out for themselves. In the end, does it matter if either party is right or wrong?
In eiher case, someone is going to loose money.
In the case of Wai, aiya just let him cut off the soft corners or spend countless time on DIing the images.
For my case, well either I regret moving over to Nikon or I am damn happy coming over. Either way it is my loss or gain.
So bottom line.... aiya just save your engery and thought patterns lah. Just enjoy what we all own and use them to their fullest potential.
- Status