I think I just got DX

[glenndavyphoto]

It's funny to watch us older "film" guys as we convert to digital, isn't it   .  We are so used to doing things a certain way, and now things are changing all around us.  It takes a while sometimes, but suddenly light bulbs start going off everywhere in our heads, and we find out that we are far better equipped than we thought   .  One lens to think about also Bob, is the Nikon 24-120.  It's a little slower than you were thinking of at 3.5-5.6, so that may not work for you, but it's reasonably priced and apparently quite a good lens.  It might do in the interim.  I'm considering it for my D2H (that I'm keeping after the D2X comes in) to do more hand-held, town/village type shots, while the D2X will do my prime landscape and nature stuff (tripod work).  That will give me every range from 17 (film equiv) to 450 (film equiv), plus macro and if I get the 24-120, that range for hand-helds as well.  Gotta love it   .


Glenn

[Lisa Nikodym]

There's another thread that's been going on recently here discussing lenses for Nikon DSLRs.  I've been wanting something to complement my D70's 18-70 kit lens at the long end, and ended up deciding (based on various people's comments and advice here) on the 70-300 ED lens as a good compromise of quality and light weight.  Not as good as the "monster lenses" in the 70/80 to 200/300 range, but tolerably decent quality and weighing barely more than the 18-70.

At least until Nikon comes out with a 70+ DX zoom with the quality of the 18-70, which I'd buy in a minute.  Does anyone out there have any info or intelligent speculation as to whether they wil be making a DX lens longer than 70mm any time soon?  I'm surprised they don't have one already; the DX lenses (other than the kit lens) all appear to be wide-angle.

Lisa

[BJL]

I'm now ready for the 50-140DX-VR to replace this monster [70-200/2.8].

Bingo! I have been speculating for several years about a Nikon 50-150mm DX VR zoom, to pair with the 17-55/2.8 DX. And maybe not *so* fast, since with fast sensors and VR, weight saving could be a higher priority than speed.

Maybe the 24-120 already does a decent job if high speed is not critical?

I guess DX (reduced image circle) for this lense because even 50mm is still at the threshold where a reduced image circle design can help, though zooming much beyond 50mm would probably enlarge the image circle to cover 35mm (the 12-24 covers 35mm at its longer focal lengths.) The new Pentax 50-200 is only usable with their smaller digital formats; that is the longest minimum focal length I have seen in a "digital only" lens.

However, beyond about 50mm, you raise a subtle issue with zoom lenses; 35mm format lenses give fine image quality with DX format, but FOV wishes probably means that the ranges of zoom focal lengths that people want are different for different formats. Some special purpose primes might need downsizing too, such as macros and defocus control portrait lenses.

This could be a small reason why Canon has till now tried to cover its professional level market mostly with one format (24x36mm), and conversely why Nikon is trying to cover most or all of its DSLR market with a single format (16x24mm).

[BobMcCarthy]

I guess DX (reduced image circle) for this lense because even 50mm is still at the threshold where a reduced image circle design can help, though zooming much beyond 50mm would probably enlarge the image circle to cover 35mm (the 12-24 covers 35mm at its longer focal lengths.) ).

Actually, when I think about it, I see very little benefit to making a 50-140 DX only. It could cover FF and not only DX. Its the zoom range with the associated light weight and bulk that rings my bell. I could be wrong, but will having a lens in the tele range, cover both FF and DX, add to the cost/size equation. I thought not or insignificantly so. If it were an f2.0, it would sell to the F6 guys too.

Its ironic, but maybe Oly was right all along, just too early (technology was early stage) and without the resources to fight the big two.

bob

[BJL]

Thom Hogan's sales number on Canon and Nikon vs the rest are unsurprising, but also probably seriously out of date. The arrival of the far more "mass market" E-300 has substantially increased Olympus DSLR sales, maybe five-fold, to about 15-20% of the DSLR total I believe. Secondly, it is an obvious fallacy to equate "smaller sales volume than the market leader" with inferiority or failure. It can just reflect a smaller product range, or targetting sectors other than the highest volume ones; that was certainly the case when the E-1 was the only Olympus DSLR. After all, Nikon is not in the top four for total camera sales, yet ...

Maybe my attitude comes from being a Macintosh user by choice!

[BJL]

Bob,

    putting aside that little diversion, I have just gone through a very similar experience to yours. When my Olympus 50-200 "so called 100-400mm equivalent" arrived and I attached the lens and hood to my E-1 and picked the whole kit up, my reaction was "darned good thing it is not as big and heavy as a real 100-400!"

[BobMcCarthy]

Lisa,

I have the 70-300ED and I recommended it to you in the thread you mention. Perfect for hiking and pretty good image quality at an amazing low price. You did well in your choice.

I left it home as i wanted the wider aperature to be able to isolate some of my subjects from the background . An 85mm 1.4 was probably the right choice with most flexibility (other than F.L.), but with zooms so good (and heavy!!) my primes are largely gone. In fact, the 50mm/1.4 is the only one I own at present.

For most of my "photographic" life, I been a still shooter.  For personnal gratification, I hiked the American West and brought home "Trophys". Thats why you'll find me at LL.

I really admire those folks that work fashion, and other forms of people photography. Its real time shooting at its best.

What brought that up?

The wide only DX offerings at present is due to the reduced sensor size and the lack of really wide lenses from FF that would work. It was a "must do" to get the reduced size sensor in the market. With tele's, the biggest advantage is weight and size only. Will people pay to buy DX when long lenses worked well for both film and digital. They probably wouldn't as long as film was viable. Things may be changing as film looks mostly dead.

Bob

[BobMcCarthy]

I'm now ready for the 50-140DX-VR to replace this monster [70-200/2.8].

Bingo! I have been speculating for several years about a Nikon 50-150mm DX VR zoom, to pair with the 17-55/2.8 DX. And maybe not *so* fast, since with fast sensors and VR, weight saving could be a higher priority than speed.

Speed in the short tele range has merits of its own. With the greater depth of field on DX it's nice to have the additional aperture in this range. But I'd take a 2.8 if I must <G>.

I do agree that the DX format offers the opportunity to release a complete suite of speciality lenses to fill the gaps. I'd like to see a very high quality 12mm or 13mm superwide prime and a hmmm 60mm/F1.4 (1.2?) myself. T/S lenses seem redundant with the enormous DF they offer in these short FL we're talking about. Well maybe a Shift for the architectural guys. I see a whole new battle coming with Canon releasing DX sensor lenses now. All of our shoulders will be relieved.

Bob

[BobMcCarthy]

You hit the nail on the head.

Another thing that hit me was, I've always believed that one should use the full frame and crop minimally for best quality. These new high pixel camera are "so" good that cropping becomes more useful and less compromising of the final output quality.

Its like ISO, I grew up on tri-X and anything over 400 was pretty trashy unless that was the look I was going for. Even 400 in my mind is grainy. That is obviously no longer true. It somewhat mitigates the "need for speed".

I have looked into other lenses, including the 24-120. I get mixed reviews. Moose calls it a "sweety", but others have reported mixed results.  Do you have any input on the 24-85 F 2.8/4.0? The slower version 3.5/? gets pretty good press. Odd filter size of the slower lens offsets the lower cost of the 3.5 lens.

I like the VR/IS features of the new lenses, but its pretty much a non event at the wider end of the range.

Bob

[BobMcCarthy]

Until now, I've viewed Dx from a technical viewpoint. I've enjoyed observing the ever higher quality of output. But my interest was watching the progression of cameras from barely capable (D1) to superior (D2X).

That changed last saturday.

I was asked to do a charity shoot on Saturday and as always I require the charity to hire a photographer to do the general photo duties (I want to have fun with my friends and associates). I still show up with a camera in tow and do a secondary shoot of the many personalities there. I am involved with the charity and know many of the attendees so have unique insight into the dynamics of the people attending. I like to use a slightly long and somewhat candid approach of catching people in those special personnal moments with friends. This year I brought the d2x with the 70-200 2.8 as primary along with my 17-55DX.

To the point, I was really tired of dragging the monster around by the middle of the event. It then "dawned" on me that I was really carrying the equivalent of a 100-300 2.8 and it was far more lens than I wanted. I was primarily using the short end of the range anyway. Last year I used a D70 with the 18-70 kit and it worked well enough, only occasionally did I want any more on the long end.

I then saw Nikons strategy. The 12-24DX is the equivalent of the film 17-35 , the 17-55 Dx is the remake of the film 28-70, and I'm now ready for the 50-140DX-VR to replace this monster. All are lighter and smaller than its film equivalent. The D2x allows significant cropping when one is in temporary need of a little extra length. Thats how I kept going on Saturday. I used the 55 end of the 17-55 and grabbed a little more length in the crop. Not the best solution but workable. Don't get me wrong I love the 70-210 but it is a "heavy" lens and now realisticly a 100-300 as my F5 just got retired.

I'm first in line for the 50-140/F2.0 when Nikon makes it. Also I just want a smaller version of the 800 flash (smaller than 600) for a little fill light. The built in one on the D-70 works well enough for outdoor events.

[BJL]

Actually, when I think about it, I see very little benefit to making a 50-140 DX only. It could cover FF and not only DX. ...

Its ironic, but maybe Oly was right all along, just too early (technology was early stage) and without the resources to fight the big two.

The optical reasons may not be obvious, but I believe they are there; in order to getting good "digital friendly" near-telecentric design (which Nikon does with all its DX lenses, though they do not talk about it the way Olympus does), any focal length below about 60mm benefits from not having to cover the extra angular FOV of 35mm format. Or at least according to one optical designer who I have read discussing this. If you do not believe me, maybe you will believe the lens designers at Pentax; as I said, their new 50-200 is DA (Pentax speak for DX), not 35mm format.

And to be contentious, what advantage is there for Nikon making even modest sacrifices in quality for the sake of making a new lens suitable for 35mm format, since they are abandoning that format in favor of DX?


I fail to understand your comment about Olympus; you speak as if they have failed: do you define failure as not jumping from number five film SLR maker to being one of the top two DSLR makers in less than two years? Olympus is apparently a quite reasonable number three in DSLR sales, ahead of Pentax, Konica-Minolta, Kodak and Fuji, and have recently announced just the sort of lens you want, except for 4/3 format: a 35-100 f/2 (along with a 14-35mm f/2).

[BobMcCarthy]

BJL, If I struck a nerve, I certainly did not intend to do so. It was how I read your post.

It seemed to me that from reading posts of yours and others well versed in the technology of optics, that the benefit of DX in normal to long lenses was insignificant as far as sensor/film coverage area. In other words, one couldn't save weight  or size building a 200mm lens that covered the dx format only vs. FF. Performance, I don't know from beans. Nikon/Canon optical wizards have to solve that one to the customers satisfaction.

The real benefit, as you also pointed out in your post, was the use of shorter FL lenses to achieve the same end result. As the length (size) and weight grow almost exponentially with FL, this difference could be huge and very beneficial to the DX user.

As for Oly, well they are a force in P&S. I usually recommend the XXXX, don't remember the number offhand, but it has a wider end to the zoom lens and has an optical viewfinder rather that the LCD which I personally find useless. I think it was Tom Hogan who posted a list of DSLR sales a few months ago. It pointed out that other than Nikon and Canon, the others barely exist. I have a warm spot for the OM-1 series of camera. Still use one on my telescope. I thought their small sensor idea was brilliant. Still do, but it tough to compete with the big two with all their legacy (old and new) lenses for the changeover from 35mm.

We need as many companies  to succeed as possible. Competition always works to the customers benefit. I don't think Oly has failed, they just have a lot of work to do and their sensor needs to deliver the goods. Nikon was handicapped in the same way for the past few years. They rose back up with their latest release which can become a springboard to the future where sensors are now so good, they might be good enough. The battle shifts to other features like price/performance, lenses, model gaps. I think its a good thing that Nikon did well with the D2x. I suspect the pixel war is over and ended with a draw. Gotta admit, Canon won the majority of battles.

The second phase of the battle should bring, slower tech growth, faster and more varied model introduction, and price pressure. The other will catch up. If their is a loser, I see Minolta being the most challenged to catch up. Hand me down sensors after Nikon gets them. Great lenses, but no pro level bodies, for the stars in their lens lineup. High dollar lenses, it seems to me, end up on a expensive body and visa-versa.

I am guessing that Canon is about to explode on the DX front. Smart guys they are. I'm still pi%%$d at them over FD but oh well.

bob

[BobMcCarthy]

I now understand you better, with the Mac comment. As an ex user, due entirely to business reasons only, I feel the connection. Just being light, BTW.

As for the other camera companies, I find it somewhat interesting to speculate, but I have cast my lot and do hope the other companies catch up in the next round. Whatever happens, happens.

As I said in the beginning of the thread, is I now see better what DX is all about. I read the words that describe a lighter, more capable future being the case with downsized lenses, but I was attributing the downsizing to building smaller lenses due to the reduced coverage requirement allowing smaller glass. I now see that its the reduced focal range required to accomplish the same result, no matter what coverage is within the FF/DX envelope. That seemed intuitive in the longer tele range, I now see its also true in the working range of most of my shooting.

I was thinking of trying to find a 75-150 Nikkor but its been so long out of circulation, plus the manual focus/chip issues make it less attractive. I guess I'll wait for now.

Maybe everyone else got it (DX), I finally did.

Bob