View Poll Results: Which option?
Option 1
0
0%
Option 2
14
100.00%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll
One last poll...help a guy out
07-21-2008, 03:02 PM
#41
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by dom
I should add this to the FAQ thread. 
A: No. (Please don't feed the Sarlacc)
Glass vs bodies is always an interesting argument.
Good glass is (almost) forever. My 70-200 and 24-70 aren't going anywhere,
no matter how many bodies I go through.
But when you're on a budget, the best way to go is get a good body, and
a budget lens. Even cheap lenses can do quite well for themselves if
you shoot in their sweet spot.
Then you get 'lens fever' and you're screwed.
- Frank
07-21-2008, 11:03 PM
#42
So....I just ordered the D300 this afternoon.....
.....now I'm not so sure I made the right decision. After realizing the bargain and the ability to have full frame with a 5D, I kind of want to kick myself
PSYCH!!!!!!!
Sorry jupity.....and stogie...and all you other haters! haha, jk
I can't be happier that I went with Nikon.
Should be coming in Wednesday!!!
.....now I'm not so sure I made the right decision. After realizing the bargain and the ability to have full frame with a 5D, I kind of want to kick myself
PSYCH!!!!!!!
Sorry jupity.....and stogie...and all you other haters! haha, jk
I can't be happier that I went with Nikon.
Should be coming in Wednesday!!!
Last edited by TS_eXpeed; 07-21-2008 at 11:07 PM.
07-21-2008, 11:05 PM
#43
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,420
Received 5,079 Likes
on
2,696 Posts
07-21-2008, 11:13 PM
#44
Needs more Lemon Pledge
07-21-2008, 11:14 PM
#47
Earth-bound misfit
Originally Posted by Sarlacc
Dont be a fucking retard.
A 40D is better than what? A D40x? Yeah, It is. A D300...no, perhaps on par...a D700/D3, you're on crack.
Get the bias bullshit out of your head. There is always Leica to reign supreme over all, and none of here are Leica shooters.
Take glass out of the equation. Which is usually the most important element in photography. Canon Vs Nikon has always been debatable. I've talking to lens technicians who find Nikon to be the best constant testing. I've others who say Canon. Its a preference.
Bodies. Its now technology. Nikon trumps Canon, who comes out to Trump Nikon, who comes to Trump Canon. That is going to be the pattern of things for a LONG time if not ever for these two companies.
So, what then, does it all really boil down to? Same shit we've been telling everyone...the system the user prefers. Whose menus do you like better, which feels better to hold, do you likea thumbstick or a scroll wheel?
Find the system you like.
Really, its stupid of you to make such a blanket statement of that nature. Hopefully, you were just having a moment and your head really isn't that far up your ass.
The one thing Canon does better than Nikon, better than anyone, is point and shoot cameras. Thats the one area where they are leaps and bounds above everyone.
A 40D is better than what? A D40x? Yeah, It is. A D300...no, perhaps on par...a D700/D3, you're on crack.
Get the bias bullshit out of your head. There is always Leica to reign supreme over all, and none of here are Leica shooters.
Take glass out of the equation. Which is usually the most important element in photography. Canon Vs Nikon has always been debatable. I've talking to lens technicians who find Nikon to be the best constant testing. I've others who say Canon. Its a preference.
Bodies. Its now technology. Nikon trumps Canon, who comes out to Trump Nikon, who comes to Trump Canon. That is going to be the pattern of things for a LONG time if not ever for these two companies.
So, what then, does it all really boil down to? Same shit we've been telling everyone...the system the user prefers. Whose menus do you like better, which feels better to hold, do you likea thumbstick or a scroll wheel?
Find the system you like.
Really, its stupid of you to make such a blanket statement of that nature. Hopefully, you were just having a moment and your head really isn't that far up your ass.
The one thing Canon does better than Nikon, better than anyone, is point and shoot cameras. Thats the one area where they are leaps and bounds above everyone.
I couldn't agree more.
07-21-2008, 11:16 PM
#48
CL9 ABP
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Commack, Long Island -> Queens NY
Age: 37
Posts: 4,528
Received 245 Likes
on
112 Posts
Your going to hate your 18-200 after awhile =P
and want a 50mm 1.4
and then a 17-55 2.8
then a 70-200 2.8
haha...
damnit i only have the first two...
but want and starting to build a collection.
and want a 50mm 1.4
and then a 17-55 2.8
then a 70-200 2.8
haha...
damnit i only have the first two...
but want and starting to build a collection.
07-21-2008, 11:19 PM
#49
Originally Posted by lcrazyaznl
Your going to hate your 18-200 after awhile =P
and want a 50mm 1.4
and then a 17-55 2.8
then a 70-200 2.8
haha...
damnit i only have the first two...
but want and starting to build a collection.
and want a 50mm 1.4
and then a 17-55 2.8
then a 70-200 2.8
haha...
damnit i only have the first two...
but want and starting to build a collection.
Why so???
Quality at the far ends???
I figure it was the best thing for me at the time...I pretty much spent right up to my limit on this investment (Just under $2400 for camera, lens, bag, and book) , and for me to get anything else other than the 18-200 would've been limiting my capabilities to start off. If nothing else, I figure a fairly large range lens as this will give me a better idea of what I would like to focus my photography skills on, and then I can start buying more lenses accordingly.
07-21-2008, 11:57 PM
#50
Question for you though Sarlacc....
Buying non-DX lenses for a DX camera won't hurt the image will it???
As in, it doesn't cause funky crops or anything right??? It in theory sort of acts like a DX lens on a DX body, correct???
Buying non-DX lenses for a DX camera won't hurt the image will it???
As in, it doesn't cause funky crops or anything right??? It in theory sort of acts like a DX lens on a DX body, correct???
07-22-2008, 10:43 AM
#51
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by TS_eXpeed
If nothing else, I figure a fairly large range lens as this will give me a better idea of what I would like to focus my photography skills on, and then I can start buying more lenses accordingly.
It's pretty much a waste of money to buy a nice lens, and then rarely if ever use it.
If you rarely use it, you're not even going to want to carry it around.
I've done that twice already, with my 50mm F1.8 and 100mm Macro.
They're nice lenses, but I just don't USE them.
- Frank
07-22-2008, 10:51 AM
#52
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by TS_eXpeed
Buying non-DX lenses for a DX camera won't hurt the image will it???
As in, it doesn't cause funky crops or anything right??? It in theory sort of acts like a DX lens on a DX body, correct???
As in, it doesn't cause funky crops or anything right??? It in theory sort of acts like a DX lens on a DX body, correct???
between a high quality 50mm DX lens, and a high quality 50mm non-dx lens.
The amount of image captured by the sensor is the same and is 'covered'
by both lenses. The non-dx lens is projecting a lot more image that is not
covered, however, so I suppose technically it is a 'funky crop'.
The reverse is not true, a Full frame sensor is covered by a non-dx lens,
but is NOT covered by the DX lens, so you will end up with a black image
with a circular image in the center of it. ( Like those cheesy 'look through
the binocular' scenes from old movies)
- Frank
07-22-2008, 11:51 AM
#53
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,420
Received 5,079 Likes
on
2,696 Posts
Originally Posted by ChodTheWacko
The reverse is not true, a Full frame sensor is covered by a non-dx lens,
but is NOT covered by the DX lens, so you will end up with a black image
with a circular image in the center of it. ( Like those cheesy 'look through
the binocular' scenes from old movies)
- Frank
but is NOT covered by the DX lens, so you will end up with a black image
with a circular image in the center of it. ( Like those cheesy 'look through
the binocular' scenes from old movies)
- Frank
When you put a DX lens on a Full frame (FX) body, D3/D700, the camera will detect as such and you get a 1.5x enhancement to the focal length. The D3/D700 automatically resets the viewfinder to show you the cropped area...which is inside of the portion of the chip that is within the viewing area.
With that said...I still dont plan on owning any DX lenses.
07-22-2008, 12:17 PM
#54
Originally Posted by Sarlacc
The DX lenses work just fine on full frame Nikons. But the enhancement works the same way non-dx lens do on a smaller sensor.
When you put a DX lens on a Full frame (FX) body, D3/D700, the camera will detect as such and you get a 1.5x enhancement to the focal length. The D3/D700 automatically resets the viewfinder to show you the cropped area...which is inside of the portion of the chip that is within the viewing area.
With that said...I still dont plan on owning any DX lenses.
When you put a DX lens on a Full frame (FX) body, D3/D700, the camera will detect as such and you get a 1.5x enhancement to the focal length. The D3/D700 automatically resets the viewfinder to show you the cropped area...which is inside of the portion of the chip that is within the viewing area.
With that said...I still dont plan on owning any DX lenses.
Hmmm....so what is the difference between a high quality DX vs a identical high quality non-DX??? Price???
That's the only thing I could think of that would deter someone from wanted to buy a non-DX lens in the slight chance they would ever upgrade....
07-22-2008, 12:20 PM
#55
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,420
Received 5,079 Likes
on
2,696 Posts
Originally Posted by TS_eXpeed
Hmmm....so what is the difference between a high quality DX vs a identical high quality non-DX??? Price???
That's the only thing I could think of that would deter someone from wanted to buy a non-DX lens in the slight chance they would ever upgrade....
That's the only thing I could think of that would deter someone from wanted to buy a non-DX lens in the slight chance they would ever upgrade....
Basically if a DX lens says its a 10mm-24mm zoom...its supposed to effectively be just that.
Where as if you put a 14-24mm non-DX lens on a small ship camera, you now have a 21-36mm zoom.
follow?
07-22-2008, 12:34 PM
#56
Originally Posted by Sarlacc
DX lenses were made for non-full chip cameras.
Basically if a DX lens says its a 10mm-24mm zoom...its supposed to effectively be just that.
Where as if you put a 14-24mm non-DX lens on a small ship camera, you now have a 21-36mm zoom.
follow?
Basically if a DX lens says its a 10mm-24mm zoom...its supposed to effectively be just that.
Where as if you put a 14-24mm non-DX lens on a small ship camera, you now have a 21-36mm zoom.
follow?
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, really?
Ok. I knew about the whole 'crop' issue, if you can call it an issue, but I thought a lens such as the 18-200mm that I am getting with the D300 would have that same crop issue, just like all lenses with a smaller than full chip camera would. I was just guessing that I would in essence be getting a 27-300mm lens, and I thought the DX/non-dx classifications were just there to show compatibility.
Alright, I got it now.
But it wouldn't go the other way around as I think you were saying, correct?
A 18-200mm DX lens on a FX sensor camera wouldn't read as 12mm-134mm lens...it would be an 18-200 with a crop to the FX lens, yes??? I think I got it now.
Thanks!
07-22-2008, 12:49 PM
#57
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,420
Received 5,079 Likes
on
2,696 Posts
Originally Posted by TS_eXpeed
But it wouldn't go the other way around as I think you were saying, correct?
A 18-200mm DX lens on a FX sensor camera wouldn't read as 12mm-134mm lens...it would be an 18-200 with a crop to the FX lens, yes??? I think I got it now.
Thanks!18-200mm DX lens on a FX camera = 27-300mm
You get 1.5x enhancement on the focal length when you put FX lenses on DX cameras...OR DX lenses on FX cameras.
07-22-2008, 12:53 PM
#58
Originally Posted by Sarlacc
18-200mm DX lens on a DX camera = 18-200 (more or less)
18-200mm DX lens on a FX camera = 27-300mm
You get 1.5x enhancement on the focal length when you put FX lenses on DX cameras...OR DX lenses on FX cameras.
18-200mm DX lens on a FX camera = 27-300mm
You get 1.5x enhancement on the focal length when you put FX lenses on DX cameras...OR DX lenses on FX cameras.
Got it!
Thanks!
07-22-2008, 12:57 PM
#59
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,306
Received 2,811 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
the 40D is a great camera and so is the D300, but there is a reason why the 40D costs around 700 dollars less than a D300.
and imo, there are some things that the 40D does better than the D300 but in general the D300 > 40D.
and imo, there are some things that the 40D does better than the D300 but in general the D300 > 40D.
07-22-2008, 01:04 PM
#60
Originally Posted by Mizouse
the 40D is a great camera and so is the D300, but there is a reason why the 40D costs around 700 dollars less than a D300.
and imo, there are some things that the 40D does better than the D300 but in general the D300 > 40D.
and imo, there are some things that the 40D does better than the D300 but in general the D300 > 40D.
That's the premise under which I bought the camera.
I figured that if I kept on finding things on one system that another system didn't have, I could never find something that I would really be satisfied with (price/options/features/etc.) I just thought, 'You know what, this is a really good system....sure other things are out there and this camera may not have EVERYTHING there is to offer, but it's still one hell of a good camera.'
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
OculiAquilae
3G TL (2004-2008)
62
11-19-2018 02:24 PM