I up you to 20% :sweatsm:
The next thing to go would be 6x7 FF.:lovegrin:
Why so many people are selling their 17-55 DX at Buy/Sell Now?
- Thread starter Little_Zeus
- Start date
- Status
I up you to 20% :sweatsm:
The next thing to go would be 6x7 FF.:lovegrin:
during film days, pro shoot medium format and most amatuer shoot 35mm. very few amatuer will go medium format due to cost.
now DX produces very very good result for even A2 prints...how many actually print it so big?
if one needs to sell there 17-55 in anticipation of using the money to get a 17-35 or the full frame cam, he probably will have a hard time getting enough money to get the FF body alone...let alone other glass to compliment it.
i am sure the bulk who complain about the FF and DX useless issue are those who eventually will never buy into it.
it is good to strife for perfection....in the final prints.
then again, it is always good to have ppl sellling off their DX stuff at low price...let the community benefit from it.
now DX produces very very good result for even A2 prints...how many actually print it so big?
if one needs to sell there 17-55 in anticipation of using the money to get a 17-35 or the full frame cam, he probably will have a hard time getting enough money to get the FF body alone...let alone other glass to compliment it.
i am sure the bulk who complain about the FF and DX useless issue are those who eventually will never buy into it.
it is good to strife for perfection....in the final prints.
then again, it is always good to have ppl sellling off their DX stuff at low price...let the community benefit from it.
film camera le??
quite cheap these days...
:bsmilie: haha....yeah....good la. stay w film better...do have to worry about new camera got banding or not, colour reproduction good or not.
:thumbsup:
when i have my 90x don have to wory about value dropping even when i have no time to shoot. NOw eveyday my D200 is depreciating like crazy sitting in the dry cabinet.....together w 17-55 and 70-200...
zac08
Senior Member
You only have to worry about the labs processing power and speed...
And worry if the film you like will be discontinued or not....
Only time will tell if the DX format will be made redundant. Perhaps sooner rather than later if rumours in the many photo forums are to be believed.
Should Nikon come out with a FF camera, and should it become popular, the days of the DX format will be numbered. With the flow on effect of all technology, FF cameras will (like the early APS format dSLRs) come down in price.
The history of photography is littered with many a format failure and demise. Just ask Kodak - they've suffered more failures than any other in this regard. Remember APS and Disc film?
The following is my opinion only:
It is my belief that the DX format was a hasty attempt to get into the consumer dSLR market by Nikon as was Canon's EFS format in the latter part of the 20th Century. Both companies were trying hard not to let each other get a foothold in the market over each other.
The fact that Canon introduced the 1V and Nikon the F6 well into the digital revolution attest to the fact that both companies had not anticipated the quick adoption of digital photography by the masses and were taken unaware. They thought that digital photography would remain in the domain of pros for a few years to come yet.
So when dSLRs were being bought by advanced amateurs, they had to think of a way to to put out dSLR cameras cheap enough (at that time) for the mass market was to keep the size of the sensors small - hence, the promotion of the DX and EFS formats.
The irony is that the APS/DX format failed as a film format(under Kodak) but succeed as a digital format under Nikon's marketing efforts.
Should Nikon come out with a FF camera, and should it become popular, the days of the DX format will be numbered. With the flow on effect of all technology, FF cameras will (like the early APS format dSLRs) come down in price.
The history of photography is littered with many a format failure and demise. Just ask Kodak - they've suffered more failures than any other in this regard. Remember APS and Disc film?
The following is my opinion only:
It is my belief that the DX format was a hasty attempt to get into the consumer dSLR market by Nikon as was Canon's EFS format in the latter part of the 20th Century. Both companies were trying hard not to let each other get a foothold in the market over each other.
The fact that Canon introduced the 1V and Nikon the F6 well into the digital revolution attest to the fact that both companies had not anticipated the quick adoption of digital photography by the masses and were taken unaware. They thought that digital photography would remain in the domain of pros for a few years to come yet.
So when dSLRs were being bought by advanced amateurs, they had to think of a way to to put out dSLR cameras cheap enough (at that time) for the mass market was to keep the size of the sensors small - hence, the promotion of the DX and EFS formats.
The irony is that the APS/DX format failed as a film format(under Kodak) but succeed as a digital format under Nikon's marketing efforts.
zoossh
Senior Member
i didn't really asked about that. it is a rephrase of your statement.
correct. that is exactly what i'm saying. A new lens with "nothing fascinating and worst features" is still a new lens.
actually i dun regard DX as a feature, which to me, refers to functions and abilities. but that is just personal interpretation of words. of cos, full frame can be a feature, and DX a lack of that.
however, i feel that 20mm is important, all the more when it is almost half of the entire range. the difference between 480mm and 500mm may be little, but not for 10mm and 30mm, or for our instance 35mm and 55mm. i reckon that you tend to shoot birds a lot, so i'm not sure if you can understand how that 20mm affects the travel photographers in the wide to street zoom range. hence 10g for an extra 20mm is real good.
the fact that DX lens cannot be used on film bodies or extremely high end digital bodies is not a concern for more than 90 percent of us. but of cos, it does matter if within the next 5 years, there would be an entry or mid range DSLR that cost less $1500 with a full frame sensor, then in that case, i think it wil become a very important consideration.
hence i thought it can only be considered heavier if the zoom range is similar, and the same with regards to pricing and length.
and frankly i'm not familiar with these expensive lens. i haven't have hands on any f/2.8 zoom lens.
zoossh
Senior Member
cropped factor depends only on the sensor size, not the lens. hence the comparison of using multiplication refers to DX/FF lens on APS-C sensor v.s. FF lens on FF sensor.
zoossh
Senior Member
that is where i dun really understand.
by how much is the image circle reduce in a DX lens?
by the above reasoning, if reducing a sensor size to a APS-C size sensor with a full sized lens helps to avoid the light on the periphery.... won't the change of the full sized lens to a DX lens hit it back to square one?
won't the DX sensor with a DX lens face the same problem of a FF sensor with a FF lens?
ya..even remember this samurai camera from yashica that doubles your 35mm to 72 by using only half the frame instead of the whole frame!
guess thats life la...everything also a gamble...kodak came out w full frame also died, contax full frame also died.
maybe as we speak DX also died liao....well...will continue to use it until such a time when full frame becomes really affrodable....no point waiting for something that dunno take how long to come and forgo the good things right in front of our eyes.
DX lens are design to solve DX problem mah. so the light falling onto the sensor from the lens even at the corner still hit the sensor straight enough to be captured. maybe thats why 17-55 still big compared to 28-70AFS
if a new 28-70 were to be design for a FF sensor, to optimise the light rays hitting at good angle there might even bigger 28-70/2.8 ( as compared to the 17-55 or current 28-70) just to get the light rays at the corner to hit the good angle....likewise there might be a 17-35 optimse for FF that is much bigger then 17-55 too......then the whole system becomes like medium format already w all the big and chunky lens that produces beautiful wall size prints...but do you print so big or not:dunno:
zoossh
Senior Member
from what i understand, DX sensor is designed to solved the problem from FF sensor using FF lens that is not of very high quality, as the light will not fall perpendicular to the FF sensor at its periphery. hence by cutting out those portion of the FF sensor which received non-perpendicular light from the FF lens, a FF sensor becomes cropped off into a DX sensor still using a FF lens, thus already solving the problem.
hence what i meant in short forms is
FF sensor + FF lens = problem
DX sensor + FF lens = problem solved
DX sensor + DX lens = ?
Let me rephrase...
Old FF lens + FF sensor = problem
Old FF lens + DX sensor = problem solved
DX lens + DX sensor = no problem
Newly designed digital FF lens + FF sensor = Expensive!!!
I disagree. FF sensors do not need specially designed digital FF lenses. Kodak has already proven that with their Kodak SLRpro and 14n dSLRs. These cameras don't even have those whatyoumacallit micro lenses in front of the sensor to refocus the light rays onto the sensor. In fact the cameras don't even have an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor like most dSLRs do.
You can use 'ordinary' FF Nikkors on them with no vignetting. The pics used to suffer a bit of CA but Kodak solved that in their later firmware updates. And we are talking abt cameras that were introduced 3-4 yrs ago.
So all those naysayers saying that a FF Nikon is not possible bec you'll need microlenses lah or new FF lenses lah; are wrong bec Kodak has already done it (even with out needing corrective gadgetry).
Nikon is just sitting on their FF SLR till it's time to release it or it may not if it thinks it can carry on selling APS sized sensor cameras to people.
DX wasnt design to solved FF problems. it was decided due to cos of manuafacturing of sensors and it is more profitable to produce smaller sensors as this results to lesser rejected sensor in production.
DX lens was design to get wide angle to the DX sensors so that DX cameras not handicapped by lack of wide angles.. 12-24 and 10.5 was design give DX wide angle. a 12-24 full frame at even f4 is definitely much bigger an ddifficult to design $$$ again
call it anything you want....the fact is right in front of our eyes is a very comprehensive DX system that can already produce excellent photos....
you can either choose to take advantage and make full use of the system, continue to wait for a full frame system or simply ditch nikon and go for some other system that already have full frame.
i have the 12-24, 17-55 and 70-200 as well as the 10.5mm. i have never felt that the system restrict me in anyway to create any photos...the only restriction is my job that doesnt give me enough time to go shooting more often!:cry:
King Tiger
Active Member
- Status
Similar threads
