She's Dead, Jim. DX with a fork in it:

ThomasMiller said:

Even if were dead, the 17-55 still works great on a D3.

So why would you throw it away?

Click to expand...

Because we didn't spend $5000 to capture 5MP images.

Seriously, why in the world would you keep a 17-55mm DX and shoot 5MP images? That focal length range is probably the most commonly used range by a majority of photographers unless you only shoot a specific genre of photos.

Why would you not sell it and buy a proper FX lens to cover the range and get your full 12 MP?

--
Mike Dawson

The problrm with people like you is not that they don't have a clue, the problem is that they don't have a clue that they don't have a clue...

Oh my god - whom dou think you can impress with this little sailing boat?

Oh my Gosh! Now all of the beautiful images from my D70 are now obsolete!
--
'Some things I say are trvial, and some are quadrivial.'

Oh my god - whom dou think you can impress with this little sailing boat?> > >

You're right! A 35.5 foot sailboat with Kevlar sails just isn't that impressive!

That's why we're flying out to meet with Tartan Yachts to order a far larger sailing yacht for 2009.
Jeepers, we hope that impresses you!

Cheers!

Thomas

Because we didn't spend $5000 to capture 5MP images. > > >

Who's "we?"

I've ordered a D3 along with a D300 and the new 24-70. But I'll certainly give my DX lenses a go before selling them. I preferred the D2Hs greatly over the higher MP D200, so why would I be automatically worried about 5 MP images.
Have you seen poor results from the D3 and the DX lenses? Let's hear about it.

Thomas

Some pros NEVER shoot 35mm framed cameras. The 1D MKIII is a crop camera. How do you reconcile that with your statement?

On this link, the pros think that "full frame" has limited appeal:

http://photogeek.tv/Pages/2007/10/11/photogeek-week-24/

--
Chris, Broussard, LA

Kerry Pierce said:

That doesn't address the true advantage of the crop factor though. It
would demonstrate the telephoto cost, weight, usability advantages,
if you used a 200mm f/2.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 comparison. The d3 system
would be heavier, less portable/usable and significantly more
expensive.

Click to expand...

Ah, but that's not a valid comparison. To truly achieve the closest image possible on a DX camera as an FX camera would with a 300/2.8, you'd need a 200/2 on the DX camera. Problem is, the 200/2 is the same weight, only 2 inches shorter and only $500 cheaper, so there's not much of an advantage there at all. This takes us back to the issue of qualifiers. "Better" is meaningless without a qualifier. To you, perhaps the 200/2.8 is the DX equivalent of a 300/2.8 on FX. But it's not. And just because you say "I don't need the same DoF" doesn't mean no one else does either. Now if there actually WAS a DX-only 200/2, then we might have something, but the list of pro DX lenses is about 1 lens long (17-55), and I don't have much confidence that that will be changing.

michaeladawson said:

Because we didn't spend $5000 to capture 5MP images.

Click to expand...

People spent as much as $5500 to capture 5mp images on DX in 2001. The D3 will look even better, at the same res. But yeah, it's 2007...

Even with the D200-D300 transition, we're hardly seeing the previous model (D200) become obsolete at all. Not to mention the fact that both cameras will always get the job done very well, at a more and more affordable price.

At some point though you gotta give up arguing with DX doomsday prophets, and just sit back quietly and wait for the day when you can pick up a mint condition D300 for $750 on KEH...

Bring on the affordable FF I say. Killing the prices of today's "last generation of DX equipment" can only be a good thing for me!

Oh and Nikon, please make a 50-135 2.8 DX VR before you give up on DX altogether, I could REALLY use one!

--
Take care!

http://www.matthewsaville.com

Nah, I don't care about that FF equivalent DOF propaganda nonsense.

When you guys can show me that all of the photography text books regard 1 stop of DOF as a super critical element, rather than an insignificant aspect, of any photo and that 1 stop of DOF is equal to or higher in importance than subject matter, proper exposure, lighting and composition, then I'll reconsider the issue.

Regardless, it doesn't alter the benefits of the crop factor that can be had with sensors of similar MP's.

kevm14 said:

Kerry Pierce said:

That doesn't address the true advantage of the crop factor though. It
would demonstrate the telephoto cost, weight, usability advantages,
if you used a 200mm f/2.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 comparison. The d3 system
would be heavier, less portable/usable and significantly more
expensive.

Click to expand...

Ah, but that's not a valid comparison. To truly achieve the closest
image possible on a DX camera as an FX camera would with a 300/2.8,
you'd need a 200/2 on the DX camera. Problem is, the 200/2 is the
same weight, only 2 inches shorter and only $500 cheaper, so there's
not much of an advantage there at all. This takes us back to the
issue of qualifiers. "Better" is meaningless without a qualifier.
To you, perhaps the 200/2.8 is the DX equivalent of a 300/2.8 on FX.
But it's not. And just because you say "I don't need the same DoF"
doesn't mean no one else does either. Now if there actually WAS a
DX-only 200/2, then we might have something, but the list of pro DX
lenses is about 1 lens long (17-55), and I don't have much confidence
that that will be changing.

Click to expand...

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

Any posters that think DX is dead don't do Wildlife Photography and while it may be true for them in their personal capacities there are many types of photography where the DX format is going to be prefered. I think to say DX is dead is to take an insular approach on what general photography is all about.

ThomasMiller said:

Oh my god - whom dou think you can impress with this little sailing
boat?> > >

You're right! A 35.5 foot sailboat with Kevlar sails just isn't that
impressive!

Click to expand...

Besides that it is not impressive - it is totally unimportant to this thread. Plus it is totally stupid to try to impress people with things one owns - that only people try who fail to impress otherwise, e.g. with knowledge...

ThomasMiller said:

That's why we're flying out to meet with Tartan Yachts to order a far
larger sailing yacht for 2009.
Jeepers, we hope that impresses you!

Click to expand...

No, the only thing which - negatively - impresses me with you is that despite starting this thread you don't have a clue about the topic of this thread and that you seem proud of it: That's the Ken Rockwell league...
Or as I said before:

The problem with people like you is not that they don't have a clue, the problem is that they don't have a clue that they don't have a clue...

Kerry Pierce said:

Nah, I don't care about that FF equivalent DOF propaganda nonsense.

When you guys can show me that all of the photography text books
regard 1 stop of DOF as a super critical element, rather than an
insignificant aspect, of any photo and that 1 stop of DOF is equal
to or higher in importance than subject matter, proper exposure,
lighting and composition, then I'll reconsider the issue.

Click to expand...

I'll take that as you qualifying exactly what "better" means to you. And I have no problem with that. Neither should anyone else. Just don't pretend 1 stop of DoF is useless for everyone else. It all depends what you shoot. Some people would rather have the larger DoF, as moving to FX will mean for them that the lens gets stopped down a bit more because of their shooting style. That's ok, too. Everybody's different.

You just rehashed an argument that has cycled through DPR 5,000 times.

Here is my argument: DX isn't dead! So, there!

--
http://srpluta.zenfolio.com/

The truth is rarely black and white.

"Oh and Nikon, please make a 50-135 2.8 DX VR before you give up on DX altogether, I could REALLY use one!"

Ditto! My main lens for candid street photography is an older Nikon 35-135 AF. Could sure use a fast updated version
--
Gene in Deep South Texas
http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/

Soooooooo did you think about the investment that MOST people have and most camera companys have in DX?

Obviously not.....most manufacturers have more NON FF offerings in their lineup than not....Canon Included.

Of all the sales out there.....there are more DX cameras out there than FF.

Since there are more DX cameras out there....there are more loyal followers out there that they would PI$$ off if they stopped supporting DX....(and were talking more than casual shooters here too).

No matter HOW cheap they make a FF sensor to make......DX will always be cheaper....and while camera companys are passionate about having the best stuff....they still are a business....and they STILL have profits to make.....and those profits are in the lower end DSLR and mid range DSLR markets. (Those would be DX markets)

Now....lets throw in the DSLR customers that use long lenses. Some acutally LIKE DX sensors and the advantage given by the crop factor. Inexpensive cameras (compared to the top of the line price of entry) High quality images, and long glass advantage.....Yeah....I can see these people getting pretty ticked off if DX goes bye bye.

I see both formats growing side by side.....as there is value in BOTH sides....but then I am not short sighted enough to only see my side of what I LIKE.

Roman
--
'Miles to go before I sleep.'
--Robert Frost
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

Soooooooo did you think about the investment that MOST people have and most camera companys have in DX?> > >

Please see my DX DOA thread as this one has been trolled too much.

I appreciate your comments, but if you read that thread it covers this. It costs more to support to sensor systems than to just use the better sensor for all models.

Thomas

DigitalJay said:

There is no new reach, and here is why:

Click to expand...

Maybe I don't understand this as well as you. If I need the 200mm f2.0 lens for some special work I do, and I'm using a D200 or D80 or whatever, its getting me the equilalent reach of a 300mm lens. It's an expensive lens but maybe it's worth it to me because I need f2.0 and that much reach.

Now imagine if nikon had gone with FF and abandoned DX 5 years ago, this lens would get me less reach. What lens would I have bought? The 300mm lens is more expensive and heavy. It's not f2.0. And maybe a woman or smaller person cant handhold it well. I could buy a 300mm f2.8 VR but maybe I wouldnt be as happy with that lens. Maybe its too heavy for me to travel with. Maybe I need to buy a new sturdier tripod to use it. You could say that I could use 200mm lens and just crop in computer on an FF camera, but how would that give me all 6 or ten mp of the senser used?

Also DX sized sensor uses the center of a FF lens image circle, which means it uses the least distorted, clearest, brightest part of a FF lens for its image.

So many of us win with DX (just not the lovers of wide angle shooting) and the people who crave low noise. But look at how the sensor in D300 gets less noise than the sensor in D70 - YET the photosites are smaller in the D300! So theres got to be other ways to reduce noise.