Here comes Nikon D200... finally a reality

[espn]

Wow... words of wisdom from Aguppy. PRO!

Must learn from him :thumbsup:

 

[icarus]

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!

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

I don't know about u, but for wide angle shooters like myself, having poor quality corners is better than having NO corners at all. btw, who will frame their subjects right at the corners anyway?? :bsmilie:

 

[scanner]

Err.. no flaming please, but as what ESPN had mentioned before, how many people can or are willing to afford a FF DSLR? You tell me.... :think:

No point debating this or that, if you are unhappy, jump ship loh...:devil:

 

[mpenza]

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.

I like calculations ;p Instead of focussing on one particular range, let's look at the full range.

Original Zooms
On the DX format, the widest rectilinear zoom from Nikon is the 12-24 which gives 18-36 (at F4).

For Canon, there're 3 different possibilities:
1. 1.6xcrop DSLR - 10-22 which gives 16-35 (from F3.5-4.5, average faster than F4)
2. 1.3xcrop DSLR - 16-35 which gives 21-46 (at F2.8)
3. FF crop DSLR - 16-35 which gives 16-35 (at F2.8)

Two of the Canon formats offer wider FOV (using original lenses) and one offer less wide. All the wide angle zooms are faster though and do not require purchase of additional lenses for the 1.3x and FF DSLR (the bodies are more expensive though) and the 16-35 worked the full range on film cameras.

Original Primes
On the DX format, the widest rectilinear prime from Nikon is the 14 which gives 21mm.

For Canon, there're 3 different possibilities:
1. 1.6xcrop DSLR - 14 which gives 22.4
2. 1.3xcrop DSLR - 14 which gives 18.2
3. FF DSLR - 14 which gives 14

Two of the Canon formats offer wider FOV (using original lenses) and one offer less wide.

3rd party zooms
On the DX format, the widest 3rd party rectilinear zooms from Nikon is the Sigma 10-20 which gives 15mm.

For Canon, there're 3 different possibilities:
1. 1.6xcrop DSLR - 10-20 which gives 16-32
2. 1.3xcrop DSLR - 12-24 which gives 15.6-31.2
3. FF DSLR - 12-24 which gives 12-24

Nikon using 3rd party zooms offers wider FOV than 2 of Canon formats and is less wide than 1.

Olympus
Olympus has a 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko ED Zoom Lens which gives 14-28mm FOV, wider than what's available for Nikon and Canon (except for Sigma 12-24 on FF).

Conclusion for rectilinear
In terms of "wideness",
1. 12 Canon FF (with Sigma 12-24)
2. 14 Canon FF (with Canon 14) and Olympus (with Olympus 7-14)
3. 15 Nikon (with Sigma 10-20)
4. 15.6 Canon 1.3x Crop (with Sigma 12-24)
5. 16 Canon 1.6x Crop (with Canon 10-22) and Canon FF (with Canon 16-35)

For those interested only in "originals",
1. 14 Canon FF (with Canon 14) and Olympus (with Olympus 7-14)
2. 16 Canon 1.6x Crop (with Canon 10-22) and Canon FF (with Canon 16-35)
3. 18 Nikon (with Nikon 12-24)
4. 18.2 Canon 1.3x Crop (with Canon 14)
5. 21 Nikon (with Nikon 14) and Canon 1.3x Crop (with Canon 16-35)

Fish eye
Nikon would have the edge for fish eye (entire frame) vs 2 of Canon's formats but is less wide than one of the format (FF with 15FE).

 

[Watcher]

I like calculations ;p Instead of focussing on one particular range, let's look at the full range.

Original Zooms
On the DX format, the widest rectilinear zoom from Nikon is the 12-24 which gives 18-36 (at F4).

For Canon, there're 3 different possibilities:
1. 1.6xcrop DSLR - 10-22 which gives 16-35 (from F3.5-4.5, average faster than F4)
2. 1.3xcrop DSLR - 16-35 which gives 21-46 (at F2.8)
3. FF crop DSLR - 16-35 which gives 16-35 (at F2.8)

You comparing the 10-22 and 16-35 to 12-24 quality on quality?

Original Primes
On the DX format, the widest rectilinear prime from Nikon is the 14 which gives 21mm.

For Canon, there're 3 different possibilities:
1. 1.6xcrop DSLR - 14 which gives 22.4
2. 1.3xcrop DSLR - 14 which gives 18.2
3. FF DSLR - 14 which gives 14

Two of the Canon formats offer wider FOV (using original lenses) and one offer less wide.

I did comment that a 9mm DX prime is missing.

3rd party zooms
On the DX format, the widest 3rd party rectilinear zooms from Nikon is the Sigma 10-20 which gives 15mm.

For Canon, there're 3 different possibilities:
1. 1.6xcrop DSLR - 10-20 which gives 16-32
2. 1.3xcrop DSLR - 12-24 which gives 15.6-31.2
3. FF DSLR - 12-24 which gives 12-24

Nikon using 3rd party zooms offers wider FOV than 2 of Canon formats and is less wide than 1.

With just the 10-20, It gives 15-30 on 1.5x cam. So for Nikon DSLR, it is wider than 1.6x and 1.3x crop DSLR. Only the 12-24 + FF combo is wider. However, those using it will tell you on FF, the corner is rather poor. Crop, crop, crop if you wish to maintain quality

Olympus
Olympus has a 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko ED Zoom Lens which gives 14-28mm FOV, wider than what's available for Nikon and Canon (except for Sigma 12-24 on FF).

Fish eye
Nikon would have the edge for fish eye (entire frame) vs 2 of Canon's formats but is less wide than one of the format (FF with 15FE).

Eh for FE, 15mm or 16mm does not matter; the diagonals still 180 degrees, no such thing as less wide.

 

[Watcher]

Let me summarize:

Canon 1st party lenses only:

FF (5D, 1Ds, 1DsMkII): 16mm zoom, 14mm prime, 15mm FE
1.3x crop: (1D, 1DMkII): 21mm zoom 18mm prime, no FE
1.6x crop: (D30, D60, 10D, 300D, 20D, 350D): 16mm zoom, 22mm prime, no FE

Canon including 3rd party lenses:
FF: 12mm zoom, 14mm prime, 15mm FE
1.3x crop: 16mm zoom, 18 prime, no FE
1.6 crop: 16mm zoom, 22 prime, no FE

Nikon (all DSLRs since D1) 1st party lenses: 18mm zoom, 21mm prime, 10.5FE

Nikon including 3rd party lenses: 15mm, 21 prime, 10.5FE

How much money is it worth to get the extra angle on zoom, prime and FE (and easier to summarize )? Which one provides a clear upgrade path that does not render lenses useless?

For the cheapest combo:
Canon: 350D + 10-22 or 10-20: 1.3-1.4k + $900-1100 give 16mm zoom, 22mm prime no need to mention, no FE
Nikon: D50 +10-20: 1.1k + $900 give 15mm, 21 mm prime no need to mention, +1.1k for FE
3-0

For mid-range pricing (body <S$3k):
Canon: 20D + 10-22 or 10-20: 2.8k + $900-1100 gives 16mm zoom, 22mm prime no need to mention, no FE
Nikon: D70: 1.3k + 900 give 15mm, 21 mm prime no need to mention, +1.1k for FE
or D200: ???k (<3k by the latest rumours) + 900 give 15mm, 21 mm prime no need to mention, +1.1k for FE
3-0

For high end (body <$8k):
Canon: 5D: 5k + 1.3k give 12mm, 14mm prime, 1.6k for FE
Nikon: D2X: 7k + 900 give 15 mm, 21mm prime, 1.1k for FE
1-2

From the above, is the price for 19 degrees more FOV of dubious quality worth the extra $? From my post #197, just cropping 10% of pixels in each direction (20% for each dimension) or of just 870 pixels off the length of an image from 5D for example will give you a 1.3x crop already. If you crop just 300 pixels total, 150 on each side of the length, you will get around 16mm FOV for zooms by my estimation. So what does that give you in the end?

So for the majority of people who doesn't want to spend an arm or a leg or their first born, Nikon seems to have a complete solution. For those keeping scores: 7-2 :bsmilie:

 

[erwinx]

i think it's nice to have a choice. I like FLM for shooting distant nature subjects, but a sports photographer shooting certain indoor sports may think that FF with a 200 f/1.8 is more than enough (take Badminton and Gymnastics for example). And if FF gives better ISO 3200 performance (see dpreview 5D ISO 3200 samples), why not.

Similarly, the sports photographer may want to take some wide-angled low light shots with his 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 because no flash allowed during competition. If he shoots another sport where FLM is useful, then he can use a camera with FLM (or maybe a FF with auto-crop mode). When i shoot in low light with fast lenses at high ISO, corner softness is the least of my worries.

Choose a system, whether Nikon or Canon, not a camera body. The body is going to be obsolete in a couple of years anyway (for Canon, probably obsolete in 1 year )

 

[mpenza]

How much money is it worth to get the extra angle on zoom, prime and FE (and easier to summarize )? Which one provides a clear upgrade path that does not render lenses useless?

Existing Nikon film users who wants to replicate 16-35 and 28-70 on a DSLR needs to buy a 12-24 (slower by one stop) and 17-55DX. Total costs of ~$4k more in new lenses?

Existing Canon film users who wants to replicate 16-35 and 28-70 on a DSLR has more choices.... either expensive body or new lenses.

 

[mpenza]

For the cheapest combo:
Nikon: D50 +10-20: 1.1k + 900 give 15mm, 21 mm prime no need to mention, +1.1k for FE
3-0

For mid-range pricing (body <S$3k):
Nikon: D70: 1.3k + 900 give 15mm, 21 mm prime no need to mention, +1.1k for FE
or D200: ???k (<3k by the latest rumours) + 900 give 15mm, 21 mm prime no need to mention, +1.1k for FE
3-0

For high end (body <$8k):
Nikon: D2X: 7k + 900 give 15 mm, 21mm prime, 1.1k for FE
1-2

Of course it's cheaper to get 3rd party (which has a wider but slower zoom compared to the original lenses). Might as well get a Kodak nikon mount body which offers full-frame ;p

Canon 10-22 is as good as the Nikon 12-24DX in terms of image quality and performance. Sigma's 10-20 probably can't compare to the two.

D70 is not a mid range body and is better compared with 350D. Substituting 12-24 and 10-22 for mid-range and 12-24 and 17-40F4L for top end.

For the cheapest combo:
Canon: 350D + 10-20: 1.3-1.4k + 0.9k give 16mm zoom, 22mm prime no need to mention, no FE
Nikon: D50 +10-20: 1.1k + 0.9k give 15mm, 21 mm prime no need to mention, +1.1k for FE

For mid-range pricing (body <S$3k):
Canon: 20D + 10-22: 2.8k + 1.1k gives 16mm zoom, 22mm prime no need to mention, no FE
D200: ???k (<3k by the latest rumours) + 1.6k give 18mm, 21 mm prime no need to mention, +1.1k for FE

For high end (body <$8k):
Canon: 5D: 5k + 1.2k give 17mm, 14mm prime, 1.6k for FE
Nikon: D2X: 7k + 1.6k give 18 mm, 21mm prime, 1.1k for FE

For those who want the widest autofocus lens irregardless of money using Canon, Nikon or Olympus
1. 12 Canon FF (with Sigma 12-24)
2. 14 Canon FF (with Canon 14) and Olympus (with Olympus 7-14)
3. 15 Nikon (with Sigma 10-20)
4. 15.6 Canon 1.3x Crop (with Sigma 12-24)
5. 16 Canon 1.6x Crop (with Canon 10-22) and Canon FF (with Canon 16-35)

 

[Watcher]

Existing Nikon film users who wants to replicate 16-35 and 28-70 on a DSLR needs to buy a 12-24 (slower by one stop) and 17-55DX. Total costs of ~$4k more in new lenses?

Existing Canon film users who wants to replicate 16-35 and 28-70 on a DSLR has more choices.... either expensive body or new lenses.

Non-pro (1.6x crop) Canon users with existing lenses 16-35, 28-70:
Buys 10-22 (non L lens with variable aperture 3.5-4.5 2/3 to 1 1/3 fstop slower) $1.1k
or Buy 10-20 (1-2 fstop slower): $900
Most working pro (1.3x crop) Canon users with existing lenses 16-35, 28-70:
Buys 12-24 (aperture 4.5-5.6, 1 1/3 to 2 fstop slower): $1.3k
High-end pros (1x crop) Canon users with existing lenses 16-35, 28-70:
Spends nothing

Non-pro Nikon users with existing lens 17-35, 28-70:
Buys 12-24 ("pro" lens though 1 f-stop lower) $1.6k
or Buy 10-20 (1-2 fstop slower): $900
Pro Nikon users with existing lens 17-35, 28-70:
Buys 12-24 ("pro" lens though 1 f-stop lower) $1.6k
or Buy 10-20 (1-2 fstop slower): $900

Hmmm comparing a pro (1DsMkII vs D2x) prices: $14k + 0 verses $7k + $900 :think:

 

[Watcher]

Canon 10-22 is as good as the Nikon 12-24DX in terms of image quality and performance. Sigma's 10-20 probably can't compare to the two.

If you continue to think so... Just like some who still thinks the EF-S 18-55 is just as good as the 18-70 DX

 

[mpenza]

If you continue to think so... Just like some who still thinks the EF-S 18-55 is just as good as the 18-70 DX

nope, the EF-S 18-55 is to be compared with AF-S 18-55, while the better comparison for 18-70DX is EF-S 17-85 IS.

 

[Watcher]

Substituting 12-24 and 10-22 for mid-range and 12-24 and 17-40F4L for top end:

Why? Since a few here said that "it is better to have soft corners than NO corners".

For those who want the widest autofocus lens irregardless of money

Irregardless of money? I would get a scanning digital with Schneider Super-Angulon XL (6x17 anyone?) :lovegrin: :sweat: Who would be foolish to do wides on 35 mm if money is not an issue

 

[Watcher]

nope, the EF-S 18-55 is to be compared with AF-S 18-55, while the better comparison for 18-70DX is EF-S 17-85 IS.

:bsmilie:
Oh boy... Try and really compare the lenses first...

 

[mpenza]

Why? Since a few here said that "it is better to have soft corners than NO corners".

I have my own views. You could always follow what others said :dunno: Anyway, what I have put is the more likely scenario. Would buyers of Nikon topend/mid range bodies that rely on lenses for a living go for Nikon 12-24DX or Sigma 10-20?

Irregardless of money? I would get a scanning digital with Schneider Super-Angulon XL (6x17 anyone?) :lovegrin: :sweat: Who would be foolish to do wides on 35 mm if money is not an issue

Within the context here.

 

[mpenza]

:bsmilie:
Oh boy... Try and really compare the lenses first...

Yup, you could do one if you're interested. I'm not really interested in comparing glasses ;p

 

[Watcher]

I have my own views. You could always follow what others said :dunno: Anyway, what I have put is the more likely scenario. Would buyers of Nikon topend/mid range bodies that rely on lenses for a living go for Nikon 12-24DX or Sigma 10-20?

Well, if you can compare the 10-22 EF-S with 12-24DX, why can't the 10-20 be a substitute ? :sticktong What can reach 16mm FOV on 1D/1DMkII top pro cameras? Non from Canon. It seems that even you are leaving out the 1.3x crop cameras from comparison... :think:

Within the context here.

A home-made camera, using 6x17 film, with the Super Angulon XL has been made costing < $3.5k of material... Quite a few here has seen, touch the camera and the results of it

 

[mpenza]

Well, if you can compare the 10-22 EF-S with 12-24DX, why can't the 10-20 be a substitute ? :sticktong

if you feel 10-20 is a substitute for Nikon 12-24DX, so be it ;p To me, it's a substitute for 10-22 in terms of focal length but not performance :sticktong

 

[litefoot]

I know what I am saying ... and I am well aware of the crop issues, the FOV, etc. My main point is just to point (pardon the pun) out that while the DX setups are very competent, there is still a place for FF

I am not thrashing DX, I am using a DX sensor SLR perhaps not by choice. Like I have said, I have no prior experience with any DX lens to comment on its quality but chances are they are good, especially the higher range ones as I have faith in Nikkor in their design, mass production as well as QC.

What I am saying is that do not take what you see here as gospel truth and yes including mine. There are simply too many people here are being led to believe DX has an impact on DOF which I am very surprised. Sorry if it may sound targetting particularly at you.

I am not targetting my views of FF on any particular make because its is never meant to. Its just a simple discussion on a personal preference sleeping on a king size bed vs a single bed which the brand of the mattress is secondary. I love king size cos I can roll around the bed as I sleep while some may say why do you need one when you dun occupy it fully and a particular brand makes nice mattress to provide different level of comfort so that you dun need to roll around and suffer the risk of landing onto the floor. Fact is I still need to roll around dispite the fact that sleeping at the edge isn't comfortable and that's my sleeping pattern.

 

[litefoot]

Existing Nikon film users who wants to replicate 16-35 and 28-70 on a DSLR needs to buy a 12-24 (slower by one stop) and 17-55DX. Total costs of ~$4k more in new lenses?

Existing Canon film users who wants to replicate 16-35 and 28-70 on a DSLR has more choices.... either expensive body or new lenses.

Thank you.