Nikon's move

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

DX cropping is nothing new, it already exists in the D2x ... only difference is it crops DX into a smaller than DX format.

 

The reason why there is a DX crop format?

 

1. to make those who have bought the DX lenses happy

2. to make those who believe a smaller FOV will extend the focal length of their lenses happy.

 

The D3 has 12 read out channels, when in Auto DX mode, it turns off the peripheral portion of the sensor and channels and only captures and reads out from the center portion.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[marknorton]

HC, DX lenses are nothing more than lenses with a reduced image circle so that when you use them on a FF camera, the image had to be croppped to the central 2/3 in each direction, 4/9 of the total or 5.1 MP instead of 12.

 

All taping over the lens contacts would show is how bad in image is outside the DX image circle. Mount a 10.5mm DX lens on a FF camera and it's like looking out through a port-hole.

 

Seems likely there will be a higher resolution version of the camera at some point, say, a D3x which will rival the EOS 1Ds III.

[ho_co]

Thanks, Simon and Mark.

 

My D200 is my first SLR in 40 years, so I'm just beginning to get a handle on a few of the brand's capabilities.

 

It would certainly make things easier if they didn't need a meaningless moniker for each new "feature," like 'Color matrix metering II' or 'FX format' for crying out loud. They should just call it "Barnack Format" so everyone could understand.

 

Seriously, I had no idea a full-frame camera could recognize APS-C lenses and adapt itself to them. Canons don't do that, do they?

 

--HC

[sdai]

Canons don't do that, do they?

 

Canon also has their own DX format lenses which is called the EF-S series in which S stands for short back focus, you can;t mount these lenses on a full frame body because the increased reach of the lens to the film plane/sensor will obstruct the mirror movement and cause damage to the camera.

[guywalder]

I would have thought that the D3 used downsampling to achieve DX format--that's why it's only available in JPG.

 

In other words, the sensor would take all the data fed it and reduce them to the listed dimensions, just as it takes all the data but can output them in high or low resolution.

 

But then the question would be, why a DX format option anyway?

 

The camera sounds more and more interesting!!!

 

Where did you get the information on there being an auto-DX function? Do the current top-end Nikons do this?

 

Thanks!

 

--HC

 

Howard,

what makes you think that the cropped formats are only available when shooting jpg?

The D2x produces RAW, (or jpg, or tiff, or raw+jpg) when in crop mode, so I am assuming that the D3 will as well, for all 3 'crops'.

Guy

[carstenw]

The DX support of the D3 is really a gimmick, IMO. 5MP is really very little in this day and age. If it was 8MP or something, okay, but 5 is just silly.

[johnjs]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with that, it looks like (with Mark's clear explanation) that the DX lenses are best suited to the DX-format cameras, and standard lenses on the D3.

[harmsr]

If you notice what lenses that Nikon has introduced over the last year. It appears that no more Pro level lenses like the 17-55 will be introduced for the DX format. They have only introduced cheaper plastic consumer lenses in this format for quite a while. All of the better glass has been coming out in a full-frame format.

 

I agree that the DX format on the D3 is probably more of a marketing ploy than really useable.

 

My bet is still on a higher resolution version of the D3 for next year.

 

Best,

 

Ray

[ho_co]

what makes you think that the cropped formats are only available when shooting jpg?

The D2x produces RAW, (or jpg, or tiff, or raw+jpg) when in crop mode, so I am assuming that the D3 will as well, for all 3 'crops'.

Thanks for calling me on that, Guy! I'm very unfamiliar with non-Leica brands and clearly showing it here. I read the spec sheet inattentively and conflated a couple descriptions.

 

Do I read correctly (in the dpreview spec list) that they've got a different pair of RAW versions compared to the D200? Apparently, the D3 will offer a 12-bit lossy compressed NEF (same as the current 'virtually lossless' compression, I assume?), and a 14-bit lossless compressed NEF.

 

 

If you notice what lenses that Nikon has introduced over the last year. It appears that no more Pro level lenses like the 17-55 will be introduced for the DX format.

Ray--

As I said, I'm very unfamiliar with the Nikon line, but interested in getting a lens or two for my D200, and I'm having a hard time making sense of some of the online reviews.

 

I know the 17-55 has a good reputation; how are the 12-24 and possibly the 10.5 regarded?

 

 

And while I'm exhibiting my ignorance (what's new?) I guess I ought to ask, is the D200 generally frowned on as an inadequate box, or is it accepted as a less-featured, lower-price alternative to the D2 series?

 

Thanks!

 

--HC

[mjh]

Apparently, the D3 will offer a 12-bit lossy compressed NEF (same as the current 'virtually lossless' compression, I assume?), and a 14-bit lossless compressed NEF.

The way I read the specs, it’s actually four versions of NEF now: 14 bit lossless, 14 bit lossy, 12 bit lossless, and 12 bit lossy.

[mjh]

The DX support of the D3 is really a gimmick, IMO. 5MP is really very little in this day and age. If it was 8MP or something, okay, but 5 is just silly.

It is still one million pixels more than the D2Hs had to offer …

[guywalder]

Do I read correctly (in the dpreview spec list) that they've got a different pair of RAW versions compared to the D200? Apparently, the D3 will offer a 12-bit lossy compressed NEF (same as the current 'virtually lossless' compression, I assume?), and a 14-bit lossless compressed NEF.

 

--HC

 

according to the Nikon pdf you can save 12 or 14 bit, uncompressed or compressed. However, according to Rob Galbraith, you can Also choose between lossless compression and virtually lossless compression!

[jrc]

 

I know the 17-55 has a good reputation; how are the 12-24 and possibly the 10.5 regarded?

 

 

And while I'm exhibiting my ignorance (what's new?) I guess I ought to ask, is the D200 generally frowned on as an inadequate box, or is it accepted as a less-featured, lower-price alternative to the D2 series?

 

--HC

 

The 12-24 got excellent reviews for quality. I have one, and I like it. there's a guy named Bjorn Rorslett who does reviews of the entire Nikon system from a users viewpoint, and you may find his website useful for questions on lenses. It's here:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/

 

Another Nikon review site, with a specific review of the 12-24, is here:

 

http://www.bythom.com/1224lens.htm

 

The D200 has actually taken on some of the aspects of a "classic." Although the technology now may be considered somewhat "old," (2-3 years?) it's a great camera. I have a D2x, but probably would have bought a D200 if I hadn't been shooting in some awful conditions at the time, where I needed all the weather-proofing I could get.

 

JC

[doctorlol]

It looks likely that the D3 has made any propect of a R10 a 'busted flush'. The scenario reminds me of the case of the radio valve. Murphy the world's best manufacturer, did not consider that the advent of the transistor should concern their company. When it was put into production, the transistor radio put Murphy's our of business over-night. The little red dot should watch for the white dot in the tunnel, the N train is about to squash you. Be afraid, be very afraid!

 

Laurence

[mjh]

It looks likely that the D3 has made any propect of a R10 a 'busted flush'. The scenario reminds me of the case of the radio valve. Murphy the world's best manufacturer, did not consider that the advent of the transistor should concern their company. When it was put into production, the transistor radio put Murphy's our of business over-night. The little red dot should watch for the white dot in the tunnel, the N train is about to squash you. Be afraid, be very afraid!

What do you think the Nikon D3 has got to do with Leica? If you wanted a DSLR that offered a higher resolution than the R9/DMR combo, a bigger sensor, and autofocus to boot – well, you could get that for years. So what’s new?

[sdai]

What do you think the Nikon D3 has got to do with Leica? If you wanted a DSLR that offered a higher resolution than the R9/DMR combo, a bigger sensor, and autofocus to boot – well, you could get that for years. So what’s new?

 

Exactly.

 

If Doc has read the "ball game" thread from the first post, it's not difficult to understand that the DMR has already trumped the D3 for more than two years in terms of sheer image quality. Nikon is only playing a catchup ... and I have no doubt the R10 will be another great leap forward.

[mgcd]

It looks likely that the D3 has made any propect of a R10 a 'busted flush'. The scenario reminds me of the case of the radio valve. Murphy the world's best manufacturer, did not consider that the advent of the transistor should concern their company. When it was put into production, the transistor radio put Murphy's our of business over-night. The little red dot should watch for the white dot in the tunnel, the N train is about to squash you. Be afraid, be very afraid!

 

Laurence

 

Now that kind of rubbish is utterly hilarious! lol

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Geez now we have a Nikon troll what's next a Sony. LOL

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ho_co]

Geez now we have a Nikon troll what's next a Sony. LOL

 

Now don't get crude, Guy--Leica has never produced anything like a Trinitron!

 

 

John--Thanks for the response & links!

 

--HC

[harmsr]

Howard,

 

The D200 is a great box and depending on your use can be better than the D2x. Noise and color were better with the D200 than the D2x in my opinion. The size of the D200 body was also much preferred by me. It has less features than the D2x and is a little slower on focusing or frame rate for sports, but that was not my use. I use the D200 for Macro, Product/Catalog work, and then casual telephoto. The D200 with some of the better Nikon glass or most recently with the Zeiss 50/2.0 Macro got me the cover of two major firearms magazines this year.

 

Unfortunately, I can't answer you on the specific two lenses that you asked about.

 

I have owned and sold the 17-55/2.8 DX which is a very good lens, but just could not hold a candle to the Zeiss glass. On the SLR, I normally don't shoot wide angle stuff. That is when I use the M8, which has more ability to manipulate the file.

 

The older 28-70/2.8 is a great lens.

The new 100/2.8 Macro is a great lens.

The 70-200/2.8 VR is a great lens.

The 200/2.0 VR is a great lens.

 

My lens lineup for the Nikon is:

 

Zeiss 35/2.0

Zeiss 50/1.4

Zeiss 50/2.0 Macro

Zeiss 85/1.4

Nikon 28-70/2.8 - I am interested in trying the new 24-70/2.8 (smaller size)

Nikon 100/2.8 Macro

Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR

Nikon 200/2.0 VR

 

My D200 has the 13mm microprism BrightScreen focusing screen in it for ease of use with the manual focus lenses. This is really a major improvement. It also allows all the normal autofocus brackets or grids to work normally.

 

If you are interested in a D200, PM me as I will be selling mine to upgrade to the D300. I will probably also consider the D3, when it comes out in the rumored higher resolution version next year.

 

Best,

 

Ray

 

PS. The D200 is fully weatherproofed as are the pro lenses.