If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 11/04/2013 22:20, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.04.11 06:30 , David Taylor wrote: [] http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...24_3p5-5p6_n15 Passed it on but I don't thing he'll go for a zoom, and the review in that link is not exactly praise for sharpness. Yes, you can pay more and get better performance, but does your friend need that? I find the versatility of the 10-24 mm more than justifies its price, but others may have different priorities. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 12/04/2013 4:06 p.m., David Taylor wrote:
On 11/04/2013 22:20, Alan Browne wrote: On 2013.04.11 06:30 , David Taylor wrote: [] http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...24_3p5-5p6_n15 Passed it on but I don't thing he'll go for a zoom, and the review in that link is not exactly praise for sharpness. Yes, you can pay more and get better performance, but does your friend need that? I find the versatility of the 10-24 mm more than justifies its price, but others may have different priorities. I use a Sigma 10-20 on DX. It's actually pin sharp, even at widest 10mm end it's still pretty good. But at 10mm it has a lot of moustache pattern distortion. At 12-14mm it's at it's best. When it matters, you need to remember to set zoom at or above 12mm, and then no correction is generally needed. It produces nice "sun star" flares too (if a flaw can be a feature): http://static.panoramio.com/photos/o...l/65739526.jpg I don't believe that there's /significantly/ better UWA zoom in DX or FX format until you get to the Nikkor 14-24 on an FX camera. (the Sigma 8-16 looks interesting and a good sample is undoubtedly better than the only equivalent f/l zoom for FX, the Sigma 12-24 which is optically very weak) I use UWA a lot - and wouldn't bother with a fixed focal length UWA lens, except perhaps a tilt/shift. From a compositional POV, you can't really blur out backgrounds, and with the need to have a foreground subject, you can't "zoom with your feet" either, so (far more than at normal focal lengths) the ability to zoom is usually critical for composition. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 2013.04.12 00:06 , David Taylor wrote:
On 11/04/2013 22:20, Alan Browne wrote: On 2013.04.11 06:30 , David Taylor wrote: [] http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...24_3p5-5p6_n15 Passed it on but I don't thing he'll go for a zoom, and the review in that link is not exactly praise for sharpness. Yes, you can pay more and get better performance, but does your friend need that? I find the versatility of the 10-24 mm more than justifies its price, but others may have different priorities. I wasn't up to date. Turns out he had already bought the Canon 14mm f/2.8 lens. So he's covered if he goes FF as well. -- "There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office." -Sir John A. Macdonald |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton wrote: I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens. Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens. First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting. do all DSLRs have auto ISO. -- PeterN |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 4/10/2013 9:08 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec wrote: : On 10 Apr 2013 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Nige Danton wrote: : : I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an : 18-105 lens. Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a : decade of using digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with : D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light : (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens. : : I have a D7000, and I've found that I can get acceptable to very good : results up to about ISO 1600, so try shooting at a higher ISO. : : snip : My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX : format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then : find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body. : snip : Appreciate any feedback. : : What is the ultimate destination of the pictures? If you're printing and : blowing up your pictures substantially, there might be some merit to an : FX camera. If you're going mainly to screen, and not taking small crops : out of the center of the image, DX should work fine. Building on Joe's point ... A DX camera can be advantageous for event photography (where you may be trying to capture faces from across the room), because it amplifies the effect of a telephoto lens. But not so much for landscapes, where you may need the wider view of FX. Bob One can alwyas shoot an fx in dx mode. -- PeterN |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 2013-04-17 13:48:18 -0700, PeterN said:
On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote: On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton wrote: I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens. Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens. First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting. do all DSLRs have auto ISO. Well your D300 & D800 both have it. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_196.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 4/11/2013 8:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-04-11 14:20:28 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2013.04.11 06:30 , David Taylor wrote: On 10/04/2013 22:03, Alan Browne wrote: [] A friend has stuck to DX and now is in a quandary because the price of a 14mm lens is so high. Had he gone with FX he would have been able to use his existing 20mm kit. The friend might care to look at the Tamron 10-24 mm zoom - quite good for the price: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...24_3p5-5p6_n15 Passed it on but I don't thing he'll go for a zoom, and the review in that link is not exactly praise for sharpness. The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 FF does better than both the Tamron and Sigma in the dpreview conclusion. I use the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, that is a DX lens and I am more than happy with that. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tokina_12-24_4_n15 The distance between the I and the F is much greater than the distance between the 9 and the 0. ;-) -- PeterN |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 4/17/2013 5:15 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-04-17 13:48:18 -0700, PeterN said: On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote: On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton wrote: I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens. Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens. First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting. do all DSLRs have auto ISO. Well your D300 & D800 both have it. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_196.jpg Yup! But not all do. -- PeterN |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 2013-04-17 14:31:20 -0700, PeterN said:
On 4/17/2013 5:15 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-04-17 13:48:18 -0700, PeterN said: On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote: On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton wrote: I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens. Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens. First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting. do all DSLRs have auto ISO. Well your D300 & D800 both have it. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_196.jpg Yup! But not all do. Most Nikon DSLRs do, and most importantly with regard to this particular discussion the D7000 mentioned above does: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_197.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 4/17/2013 6:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-04-17 14:31:20 -0700, PeterN said: On 4/17/2013 5:15 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-04-17 13:48:18 -0700, PeterN said: On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote: On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton wrote: I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens. Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens. First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting. do all DSLRs have auto ISO. Well your D300 & D800 both have it. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_196.jpg Yup! But not all do. Most Nikon DSLRs do, and most importantly with regard to this particular discussion the D7000 mentioned above does: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_197.jpg True, but minimum shutter speeds can limit its usefulness. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon Quandary: D60 or D200? | SteveG | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | January 22nd 09 02:28 PM |
Nikon Quandary: D60 or D200? | nospam | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | January 21st 09 10:16 AM |
Compression quandary / question | Earl Misanchuk | Digital Photography | 4 | September 15th 06 07:52 PM |
Tele-extender quandary: 1.4x or 2x | Norm Dresner | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | June 12th 05 06:41 AM |