When reading a lot of these FX threads two two keep coming up:

1) D3 and D700 low light capabilities: This is obviouly a big truth and one of the greatest virtues of these new bodies that allow photographers to shoot thing previously impossible and thus add an entirely new dimension to their photography. Big thumbs up to FX here

Also, I have not read this but another virtue is portraits with the 85mm prime, considered by many as a ideal FL for portraits on film is now back with FX. This removes some of the flatness from being further since FX vs DX you need to get closer to your subject to achieve the same mag. Also, the DOF is smaller when closer and background blur is ever greater than on DX. Another thumbs up for FX.

2) True Wide Angle with FX: Here, I beg to differ. Dx obviously changes the FOV vs Fx for the same focal lenght but this does not in any way mean true wide angle is not posssible on Dx. Special super-wide zooms exist for this type of shooting. 12mm on DX has a diagonal FOV of 99 degrres and 10mmm has a FOV of 99 degrees. Not to mention a 10mm fisheye which is 180 degrees. These lenses are f/4 at these FL's but the new kid on the block, Tokina 11-16 is a f/2.8 and many reviews show great promise for the new kid on the block partilarly with regard to distortion.

The cost of a super-wide DX zoom is less than the difference of the best and most expensive DX body (D300) relative to the least expensive FX body (D700). Plus, the lens will likely out live, and certainly hold its value longer than the body. Compare the investment of a superwide zoom addition for DX to the cost and weight of a longer lens in Fx. Of course on Fx you can go a little wider at 14mm with the remarkable and very expensive new Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 (and if you are a landscape shooter struggle with filters or just use wonderful 17-35 lens). Plus, who knows, Nikon may design new and improved super-wide for Dx down the road -- I would love a 10-24mm f/4.

Still have your doubts about the W I D E end on Dx? Well stay tuned to the monthly WIDE angle challenge this month in the Landscape forum

Okay, I'm ready. Throw stones

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

No stones here, Albert. One minor quibble, though. The need for a longer lens on FX to achieve the same FOV is to some degree offset by the better noise performance. Adding a 1.4 TC loses you a stop of light, but for exposure purposes you can increase the ISO a stop and get about the same noise performance as the DX at one stop less ISO and sans TC. Adding glass is never ideal, of course, but the drop in lens performance is again offset by the lower pixel density (considering the current FX and DX 12-megapixel bodies). So it's pretty close to a wash, except for one factor: The AF systems are about equally sensitive, so that one stop of loss in the TC affects AF in low-light conditions.

The upshot though is that as a practical matter, you don't generally have to invest in a bigger lens when you go to FX unless you are maxed out with TCs already. And of course, if the point of going to FX is the high-ISO performance (which is why I got the D3), you don't really want to throw it away only to be back where you were. So it's a fairly complex issue. For me, the FX reality is that when shooting action sports, making the shutter speed twice as fast easily trumps having to crop a bit in post processing.

Ironically, it is at the wide end that I find myself adding glass to support FX. Coming to the Nikon party later than many, I stocked up on DX WA glass since that's what fit the bodies I had. I still shoot DX, too, and plan to do so for the indefinite future.

DX is not better than FX or vice versa. Both are good. Each is better suited to particular shooting situations. How those capabilities map onto an individual's shooting needs varies, as does how willing and able an individual is to bear the costs, which is why this debate won't die for a long time!

-- Jon
Wethersfield, CT, USA
Connecticut High School Sports Photos

I started this thread to address the wide end and prefer not to dilute with comments about the long end --- which might be better if you started a separate post addressing the pros and cons of each at the long end. But, I will address some of the above below.

You wrote: The need for a longer lens on FX to achieve the same FOV is to some degree offset by the better noise performance. Adding a 1.4 TC loses you a stop of light, but for exposure purposes you can increase the ISO a stop and get about the same noise performance as the DX at one stop less ISO and sans TC.

The need to increase ISO is only true if your subject is not moving and you are not using a tripod. If not then compensating for the 1-stop light loss of a TC by increasing ISO a stop is valid and means that FX must give just as clean results as DX at one stop higher ISO --- and it certainly does. I suspect that for many, whether you ar eusing FX or Dx, that your lenses are probably maxed out which is why you own them. I frequently am maxed out using my 1.4x TC on my 70-200 and 120-300 f/2.8 with a TC and still want more. For landscape I want to go to 300mm Dx (450 FX) or longer if I am doing landscape extractions or want to include a large fireball in my composition where I use filters and 70-200 + 1.4x TC. For wildlife, most shooters always want more, even if they had a 600mm f/4 on DX

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

>I started this thread to address the wide end and prefer not
>to dilute with comments about the long end --- which might be
>better if you started a separate post addressing the pros and
>cons of each at the long end. But, I will address some of the
>above below.

Albert, I was simply responding to your comment: "Compare the investment of a superwide zoom addition for DX to the cost and weight of a longer lens in Fx." Perhaps you should have started a separate post.

All I was trying to point out is that there are applications where the long end isn't that critical. I've had a D3 since they became available. I haven't bought any longer lenses and don't plan to. But that's me. (Of course, I still have my D2X if I really need to stretch the limits.)

But you want to talk about the wide end, so let's do that. FX does provide some real advantages there, especially considering what's available now. I'm moving from a 17-55 DX lens to a 24-70 FX lens as my main landscape and walk-around lens. Both lenses, which cover roughly similar FOV, are excellent -- best-of-class for their respective formats. But there is little question that the 24-70 is superior in several ways, most notably in flare and distortion.

To go wider, there is the 14-24. I'm not crazy about that due to the filter issues, but it's a gorgeous lens that goes really wide on FX. (Nothing short of a fisheye will get you there on DX, although you can get close with third-party lenses.) But I also have the outstanding 17-35 available to me.

Of course, you can use those FX lenses on a DX body. If it's the 24-70, you'll probably be hitting the stop at the 24 end a lot! Even the 14-24 only gets you to an 80° FOV -- wide, but not nearly as wide as on FX. And then if you want to go wider, you can go to the lesser-quality 12-24. Third-party lenses offer some relief -- I like my Tokina 12-24 -- but still aren't in the class of what's available for FX.

There's another element that should be mentioned, which is that the FX sensor does exhibit better dynamic range and lower shadow noise. Not by a lot, mind, but it is a real effect that does make a difference in some situations.

While I'm happy to shoot wide on DX, I think it really is the case that FX provides some advantages. Not necessarily deal-breaker issues, but advantages nonetheless in both lens selection and sensor performance. Nobody (that I know of) is saying WA isn't possible on DX, only that it is better on FX.

Whether those advantages are worth the money may depend on whether we are talking about my money or your money.

-- Jon
Wethersfield, CT, USA
Connecticut High School Sports Photos

Good thread - I was gonna start one up on the UWA-FX linkage myself as I am unsure of the direct benefit. (Also BTW I did start up a separate topic on DR and IQ as I wish to know more there.)

Anyhow for this thread, re. WA and FX I don't really get it unless people are actually saying:
- I already have a drawer full of WA lenses and now they will work as intended, but if I didn't have a drawerful already then no FX advantage here.
- there are better quality lenses (14-24 and 24-70 specifically) right at this moment for FX. But again there is nothing technical preventing Nikon from coming out with a DX nano-coated 16-60 VR f2.8 is there? (insert other desired DX WA range here _____ or DX WA prime here _______).

Is the linkage of FX and WA really more about the current crop of available WA lenses?

SteveK
My Nikonians gallery
'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange

I think that both Albert and Steve hit the nail on the head: FX allows 60 years worth of lenses to be used that way they were designed. I have the obvious bias that I've been shooting with some of these focal lengths — the 105, the 85, and the usual wides — for forty years, but that's my point: they work on FX the way they did on a 35mm film body — the way Nikon designed them.

That's not to say that state-of-the-art DX lens design is not excellent. But all things being equal — and DOF control critical for many shots — the DX crop really changes the game and crimps a shooter's style.

I just love having my 105 and 85 back where they ”belong.“

Jon Kandel
New York
Please visit my website and critique the images!

>Anyhow for this thread, re. WA and FX I don't really get it
>unless people are actually saying:
>- I already have a drawer full of WA lenses and now they will
>work as intended,

That's certainly part of it for some people. Not for me, because I don't have such a drawer -- only a tiny part of a drawer.

>- there are better quality lenses (14-24 and 24-70
>specifically) right at this moment for FX. But again there is
>nothing technical preventing Nikon from coming out with a DX
>nano-coated 16-60 VR f2.8 is there?

I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment about what's technically possible. But there are some pretty nice UWA DX lenses put out by third parties, and I can only assume that Nikon could produce superior lenses of equivalent focal-length and aperture ranges if they chose to.

Mostly, though, my interest is in evaluating the here-and-now because no one seems to guess very accurately what Nikon is going to do in the future with regard to lenses.

>Is the linkage of FX and WA really more about the
>current crop of available WA lenses?

To some degree I think it is. But there are also sensor differences that apply at any FOV, to a greater or lesser extent depending on your subject matter and light level.

-- Jon
Wethersfield, CT, USA
Connecticut High School Sports Photos

No question about it, the 14-24 and 24-70 are the best of the best. These are the latest and greatest designs topped off with nano coating. Lens, cameras....just keep getting better and better and I would expect at some point to see replacements for the current Nikon 12-24Dx. Of course the 14-24 is 2x the price so it better be better

...There's another element that should be mentioned, which is that the FX sensor does exhibit better dynamic range..

True. But this of course has little to do with the wide angle (I know you know this but I am just trying to stick with the posted theme). However, the extra stop of so of dynamic range is only realized in contrasty captures where the histogram on a DX sensor is spread from 0 - 255.

Nobody (that I know of) is saying WA isn't possible on DX, only that it is better on FX.

I started this thread to address the comments that I have read which state something like, "now I can finally shoot wide again" You never couldn't but you needed a wider lens

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

JonK really expressed the essence of FX for a lot of us. While I love my D1X, I've never made peace with that annoying crop factor. As a 30-year Nikon user, I want my favorite lenses back to the perspective I bought them for. My 24mm f/2, in particular, has long been one of my favorite lenses, but it's much less useful to me as a 36mm on a DX camera. It even looks funny fitted with the lens hood off my 35mm lens! But there's no equivalent lens in DX format.

> FX allows 60 years worth of lenses to be used that way they were designed

Does it matter? I commonly use a 35/f1.4 as a normal lens instead of a 50/f1.4. I seriously doubt that the lens cares, and probably neither does Nikon. Nor do I.

It's not really true, anyway. Many of the designs are actually visibly dated on the denser sensors, which is where most CA crops up, and other various optical evils appear - precisely where their designers never intended that they go.

And I know this is mostly about wide angle, but in the telephoto and macro areas, the lenses often do NOT work all that much as they were intended. I'm thinking mostly of TCs and extension tubes, where I am in the process of collecting two sets of tubes (one for AF and one for MF), and at least two and potentially even three sets of TCs (Nikkor AFS lenses, Sigma HSM lenses, and potentially something for AIS monsters).

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

One of the issues that I haven't seen raised, although implied (with the drawer full of WA lenses) is the fact that a lot of photographers, I imagine, shoot film and digital. Whether it is the new 14-24 or the older 17-35, the lenses will give different results if I use them on any of my "FX" film cameras compared to using it on a DX camera (in my case, D200). The introduction of FX DSLRs allows this difference to be resolved.

I don't want to go out and buy a WA DX lens just for my D200 which I can't effectively use on my film bodies.

For me, and this is the real issue, the new FX bodies are important. I say this is a real issue in that I read a lot of comments (on both sides) along the lines of: "this is my situation, and I will therefore extrapolate to everyone".

A problem with this argument is the fact that a lot of us out there love shooting 17mm at f/2.8 with a shallow DOF. At least I do. The 17-35mm is one of my favorite lenses and using it at its intended focal lengths is just wonderful.

Another problem with this argument is when you factor in my other favorite lens, the 70/80-200mm, the FOV and DOF just make soooooo much more sense on a full 135 frame.

My Gallery

I really do like the UWA FOV my 14mm/2.8 gave me on film, now I get that same FOV back with FX. NO DX lens could match that.

Not to mention the FOV of the 12-24 Sigma - the only lens for FF/FX with true 12mm FOV and 122° degree.

I love the image quality from my D80. Most of the time, the limiting factor is the lens IQ versus the resolution of the sensor. Since the FX sensor has larger pixels, I would think the lenses would perform better for a given magnification of the image. You would be enlarging the lens blur less with an FX sensor.

This is not a post to make or break the disussions above. Just a fun shot showing off my 10.5DX fisheye with a 180 degree field of view on my poor little, rapidly depreciating, D200 on top of Clingmans Dome, about 6,800 ft in the Great Smoky Mountains

D200 w/tripod
Nikon 10.5mm fisheye @ f/19

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Albert,

I think this is a great shot! It shows how to use a fisheye lens effectively. I think for many people they think of the fisheye lens as a novelty lens, probably because of all the novelty shots taken with fisheye lenses to which we are exposed. I'm sure we've all seen great pictures like this that were taken with fisheye lenses but never realized it.

Shots like this inspire me to be more creative with my fisheye lens.

Keep up the good work!

Randy

AJ,

I have to take issue with all this. To me the less distortion of a scene the better, and the problem with DX and going wide is that you have to use such extremely wide focal lengths to accomplish the task and are left with scenes that while you do get everything into them, stuff gets pushed too far back and shrinks into the image, contains lots of barrel distortion, and the edge distortion is pathetic when used for demanding applications such as architecture, portraiture, product shots, photo copying, etc. Especially when compared to shooting the same scene at a substantially longer focal length.

Landscapes are not the best test of all this because they are usually not nearly as demanding in the edge areas - where round tables become oval and faces become elongated.

I shoot a lot of architectural shots, in fact they are my bread and butter. 70 percent of my work has been with the D2X and the 12-24. It has been no easy task and I have waited patiently (sort of) for FX ever sense the day I went digital. The 700 and the new 24mm PC will reduce my MF/Digital back rentals easily by six grand before the end of the year. When the 24 megapixel model comes along it will get even better.

This is a serious camera and a milestone in digital photography. I can't wait to have an FX camera that will give me twelve mega pixels in DX mode. That's going to truly be sweet for my wildlife photos and fantastic for my architectural work. As it stands the D2X will fulfill my long lens needs up to that time, and the 700 will be my medium telephoto to super wide machine with my 14-24 2.8 being on it most of the time. No contest!

Regards,

Don Kesler

http://www.donaldkesler.com

Through the judicious use of adjustment layers, no pixels were actually harmed in the processing of my shots..

I certainly agree that if your work is specialized to architectural shots, or anythng else, that you should have the best tools for that job. Anything else compromises either results or takes more time to get that those results. The 14-24 is, as I mentioned, the best of the best for sharpness and distortion for both DX and FX. Also, I know how non-landscape wide angle work requires perfect alignment. A little to much up, down, left or right and distortions rapidly slip in. Also, there are times when nothing can be done with the capture to prevent problems like keystoning or perspective distortion of subjects like buildings. There are certainly ways to fix this in Dx but anything that minimizes this work in the capture stage is welcome the way to go if you do a lot of it. When I shoot architectural shots I often spend plenty of time correcting the distortions using the transform tools in phtoshop but it is rare that a different lens and body would get it right without help due to the nature of the geometry relative to my vantage point. Like the shots below...

This first shot, taken handheld with a D200 at 1/10 sec at ISO 800 @12mm. It took a bit of work to get right since the original capture had complex perspective distortion which I hand corrected in several phases using transform tools.

The second one is also handheld taken with a D200 @ 12mm. I could not get further back without getting the cars in. But in the original capture the arch looked like it was falling over backwards because I was half the distance from the bottom to the top, thus creating a perspective distortion. A 14-24 f/2.8 would still have this effect because of the relative distances and FX may help but a fix would be necessary with anything other than much longer focal lenghts where center distance and top distances are simliar to where the photographer is standing.

I am not saying Dx is better at wide angle. The message I want to send in this thread is simply, Dx can do it also to those who may think it can't And if I shot a lot of architechture then at the very least, the new 14-24 would be in my bag. Right now it would have little use and is cost prohibitive for me but that will not stop me from getting the occasional wide angle capture

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

AJ,

The 12-24 and its ilk are engineering and design marvels. Had it not been for Nikon and some of the other lens manufacturers coming up with that solution I would have had to buy a Kodak, which was not exactly a great success, gone over to the other side, or invested heavily into LF and MF Digital which, as I'm sure you know, has been an extremely expensive path to keep up with

I have enjoyed good success using the 12-24 for applications best left to other systems. A lot of that has been achieved through software manipulation and cropping to bring the scene in to a more reasonable perspective, and then maybe some more cropping to balance the composition. The net loss of pixels from this makes me cringe.

Your picture of the arch is a fine example of what can be accomplished but lets face it, It isn't exactly straight out of the camera. (It is really really nice BTW).

FWIW - I never intend to sell my 12-24. I will carry it when size and weight is a factor and either shoot with it in the DX mode or treat it like a 19-24mm zoom in FX (if the IQ works out that way). Once the 10-12mp DX mode with FX sensors becomes a reality it will become an extremely important and versatile tool once again for small kit work.

What really has me intrigued is being able to carry a 20-24mm prime, a tiny 50mm 1.8 and an 85mm 1.8 and a 200 F2 with the small body of the 700, and do most everything I now do with some seriously heavy and slower zooms hanging from a D2-3 series body, and not have heart palpitations in Europe's airports because of their minuscule carry on weight restriction. Hopefully this newfangled dust removal system will make changing lenses often less of a pittfall.

Hopefully there will be a few floating around in a few weeks and we will actually be able to talk about using the camera rather than just posture and speculate, as I am doing

Regards,

Don Kesler

http://www.donaldkesler.com

Through the judicious use of adjustment layers, no pixels were actually harmed in the processing of my shots..

Your picture of the arch is a fine example of what can be accomplished but lets face it, It isn't exactly straight out of the camera.

It is far from straight out of the camera. I remember the first time I tried to shoot this from the otherside (in Washington Square Park). I just picked up one of the first copies of the Tokina 12-24 and went their specfically to shoot that and other compositions I envisioned would lend themselves to wide angle. I immediately realized the problem with that type of shot. Because it is impossible to move further back the only way to capture it was to fix in photoshop. FX may minimize this, but that unless I could be elevated to a height around the center of the structure, it will still look like it is falling backwards. A 14-24 and D3 is not going to change that, only reduce it. Anyway, that copy was soft and I returned it for the Nikon 12-24. That is not a perfect lens either and horizon lines can have a weird distortion. I do hope that Nikon will make a 10-24 f/4 DX nano-coated DX down the road.

Below is a shot of the George Washington Bridge shot at 12mm standing at the edge of the cliff on the wrong side of the guard rail. As you can imagine, this is far from straight out of the camera since I am about the middle height so the top, bottom and middle all did different things. This one took a lot of work making many different adjustments to get it to look natural. As you know, architectural captures require the best and right equipment (your major point), perfect capture technique in composing including perfectly angling the camera to the composition (many newbies to wide angle do not get this at first), and often plenty of PP work. Anything that minimzes the process is welcome

Hopefully this newfangled dust removal system will make changing lenses often less of a pittfall.

So far I do not think I had to wet clean my D300 but I have had to so this many times with my D200 and D70. But, dust will still be a problem. My nine month old D200 has a nasty dust spec in back of the viewfinder which drives me crazy and I have not been able to blow it out. So changing lenses is a still something I try to minimize

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Albert,
What a beautiful shot!

My impression with the DX- FX controversy is that in 5 or perhaps 10 years the DX format will be obsolete. It was designed as a temporary solution to the high cost of making a full frame sensor. The cost of making a 12 mp DX vs. that of a 28 mp FX sensor is/will become less significant. That said, I can't imagine Nikon investing and developing additional Pro-DX lenses.

Jay Newmark
A Chicago Nikonian

Thanks and glad you liked the shot.

Dx and Fx each have their virtues and have co-existed in the Canon line for years yet as I understand it, FF DSLR's are still less than 10% of their line. I do agree that the cost of sensors will come down in accord with Moore's law like every other chip has doen but I cannot see any reason for Dx to fade away over time. For wildlife shooters in the Canon camp their Id Mark III has a 1.6 crop and is only 10mp and the DSLR's of choice.

As for what Nikon plans are for Dx lenses I do not know. Dx lenses are only needed for the wide end with FL starting at less than 24mm to be more telecentric for the microlenses in the sensor. Computer aided designs of lenses are allowing significant improvements in the optical fomulas of only a few years ago plus we now has nano-coating. It simple make cents (and dollars or yen) for Nikon to replace these lenses for the simple reason that people will buy them and Nikon will make money. Nikon's 12-24 is the oldest design for a superzoom. Nikon's 17-55 is a great lens but really needs nano coating since my only complaint is flare. If Nikon can engineer a 17-70 f/2.8 DX it would certainly sell since 70mm is a good portrait length for DX. I now use my 35-70 f/2.8 for that.

I don't know what they are thinking or will do in the years to come but so far, when they build it, NAS kicks in the people buy it.

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

Thank you Mr. Valentino for your poignant discussion and the example images you have posted. The images displayed in this thread demonstrate that outstanding work is produced not merely by the camera system but also by the photographer. As has been said many times before, most of the photographic process occurs four inches behind the viewfinder.

Now, I don't mean to downplay the significance of the D700. It is definately a confirmation that Nikon is in the game and ready to play hard. I think that's great! But I also will be sticking with my DX system and working to get the most out of that for the next few years. The limitations are more imagined than physical.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I like the sound of your proposed 10-24 DX (I would ask for 8 or 9 rather than 10, but perhaps this is not possible - and I would happily have it stop at 20 in compensation).

But what your excellent pictures show is the need for good architectural wide lenses, which I fear Nikon are most unlikely to make. I would like a really wideangle perspective control lens. All the new PC lenses are FX, very understandably. And with DX they are far too long. So my dream is a PC DX lens of 16mm or less. (So perhaps I have come up with another reason for a D700...)

Well Im in the camp that wants FX so my film lenses actually work the way they were designed. I will have a D300 and a 700 myself because, I want the best of both worlds. I will undoubtedly never use the DX cropping in the 700 to me it is a worthless feature. All I know is I will be glad when my lenses are their actual value again. I have sever DX lenses as well and, they will work as intended on my 300.

I shoot therefore, Iam.
http://joves.smugmug.com

Great post.

I have never been as excited with the 12-24mm on my DX as I was with my 17-35 on my film cameras. (Don't have a FX yet, D700 may be my first)

It seems to me that there is more distortion with the 12-24. Is this possible? It is supposed to be like an 18-36 which should have less distorition.

Does anyone else feel the same? Why? What am I missing?

Jim Stamates
Nikonians Academy Workshop Instructor

http://www.nikoniansacademy.com
http://stamates.com/blog
http://www.stamates.com

...It seems to me that there is more distortion with the 12-24...

There are two types of distortion. One is a result of how the lens is angled to the subject. The other is in the lens optics itself. The 12-24 is not a perfect lens optically. The 14-24 is known to be on another level.

There is software to correct specifically for the inherent flaws in the optics of specific lenses at specific focal lenghts like DxO optics and PTLens http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/ For landscape this nice, for those that do a lot of architectural work then this software is very useful. Of course the 14-24 might be even better. I cannot comment on the 12-24 vs the 17-35 for architectural captures. The best solution for those specializing this this type of work is probably 14-24 + FX. But, as I tried to show with everything above, shooting with DX does not mean you can't do this as well.

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography