It seems to be taken as fact: FX is superior to DX for wide angle. Where does that come from?

Nikon makes a 14-24mm f2.8 FX zoom. It's terrific. It is also a BIG and expensive lens.

Sigma makes a 10-20mm f4 DX (15-30mm equiv). Tokina makes a 11-16mm f2.8 DX (16.5-24mm equiv). Both are terrific. Both are significantly smaller and less than half the price of the Nikon FX equivalent. With correction software, like DxO, all can be distortion-free.

So where is the clear FX advantage for wide angle? You can argue the general differences between FX and DX formats. But assuming you can get past that, it would appear that DX actually has more wide angle alternatives than FX.

Hi.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but consider sensor sizes, ok? Now imagine the image projection from the lens onto the sensor (consider that DX and FX start the projection pretty much at the same location, if not exactly at the same location). First it's easy to see that since the FX sensor is larger, you can create lenses that take advantage of the extra sensor area, giving more space for a larger field of view (FOV). This will allow FX cameras to go wider using current optics technology.

Another aspect is that on FX sensors the photo-sites are larger (up to 4x the area of a DX sensor with the same pixel count). Again, imagine the image projection of a wide angle lens: the light will enter the photosite in an angle that is more parallel to the sensor. The light will have a harder time getting into the photo-site of a DX sensor.

If you also consider chromatic aberration, it's much more controlled on FX sensors with larger photo-sites (again, with the same pixel count on FX and DX). The pixel span of the CA will be lower.

Finally, FX lenses are larger and don't have to couple with problems related to the smaller elements of a DX lens.

I'm sure there are some guys on the forum with a better explanation!

Luis

Luis Balbinot
http://luisbalbinot.com/

Some parts of this answer contradict Nikonians article on DX Vs FX sensors, as read here
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/full-frame/review.html


eMac

There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary code and those who don't.

My Gallery




Visit my Nikonians gallery.

As long as you don't need to go wider than 15mm, then you are probably correct re the (dis)advantages of FX vs DX. However, to go wider, as I do, then one needs the FX format. For several years I have been using my FX format Kodak SLRN on which is mounted the full frame Sigma 12-24mm lens. I find that a very large percentage of my shooting is wider than 15mm, with many of the shots at 12mm.

Most of my shooting is travel photography which necessarily implies a lot of interior and exterior architectural shooting. At, for example, 12mm I normally do not have to tilt the camera up to get even very tall building in the frame. Not having falling over buildings minimizes post processing. Of course, at 12mm one has to take more care re the accentuated perspective distortion of the very super wide angle lenses.

Also, a lot of photographers own a lot of still expensive legacy wide angle lenses that now have new life with the FX format.

It certainly isn't that you can't take good wide angle shots with a DX camera. But...

Imagine that you are going to shoot a wedding in a large cathedral/church with the traditional stained glass windows, etc. You would like to have a photo of the entire interior of the church, with all its grandeur, stained glass windows, etc. And,by the way, they do not allow flash photography in the church. This is a real situation which I will be confronting in a couple weeks at St. Thomas Church in NY.

Now you have your 14-24/f2.8 because you need a good low light lens and wide angle. Would you now rather shoot that scene with a D300 or D700 with its wider view and superior low light/high ISO performance?

It's an easy choice. It is a fact that FX is superior to DX for wide angle/low light performance. The question is "what is it worth to you?"

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

"Imagine that you are going to shoot a wedding in a large cathedral/church with the traditional stained glass windows, etc. You would like to have a photo of the entire interior of the church, with all its grandeur, stained glass windows, etc. And,by the way, they do not allow flash photography in the church. This is a real situation which I will be confronting in a couple weeks at St. Thomas Church in NY.

Now you have your 14-24/f2.8 because you need a good low light lens and wide angle. Would you now rather shoot that scene with a D300 or D700 with its wider view and superior low light/high ISO performance?"

Supposing don't have the 14-24 only the 12-24 dx i would only have a 6mp sensor but higher iso range still think i would have a better result with the d300.

>It certainly isn't that you can't take good wide angle shots
>...
>It's an easy choice. It is a fact that FX is superior to DX
>for wide angle/low light performance. The question is
>"what is it worth to you?"

That's a fair question (and yes it is a FACT). I have read literally hundreds of postings that exclaim the D700 is a bargain because it costs $2000 less than the D3.

To everyone who bought the D700 for whatever reason, I say: "Congratulations." I am sure it is worth it to you.

I see the D700 as $1500 more than the D300. Yet, the D300 is 95% the same as the D700. I don't believe the D700 costs $1500 more to manufacture. As such, I say to Nikon: Shame on you. I think the D700 is way overpriced.

>>It certainly isn't that you can't take good wide angle
>shots
>>...
>>It's an easy choice. It is a fact that FX is superior to
>DX
>>for wide angle/low light performance. The question is
>>"what is it worth to you?"
>
>That's a fair question (and yes it is a FACT). I have read
>literally hundreds of postings that exclaim the D700 is a
>bargain because it costs $2000 less than the D3.
>
>To everyone who bought the D700 for whatever reason, I say:
>"Congratulations." I am sure it is worth it to you.
>
>I see the D700 as $1500 more than the D300. Yet, the D300 is
>95% the same as the D700. I don't believe the D700 costs $1500
>more to manufacture. As such, I say to Nikon: Shame on you.
>I think the D700 is way overpriced.
>
>

Assuming for the sake of argument that the D300 is "95% the same as the D700" (I have no idea how you can make such a silly claim considering the D700 is a FF camera), do you think that the sensor in the D300 cost Nikon 95% of what the sensor in the D700 costs them?

Anyone knows that just because a comparable item might cost twice as much does not mean that it is twice is good. It is a case of diminishing returns.

I'm sure that most D3 owners don't think that their cameras are more than twice as good as the D300 either. But that isn't the point at all, is it? The point is whether the price of the D3 or D700 or any other camera for that matter is worth the price given what it can do for that particular person. Everyone has their own priorities, and place a certain value on those priorities. Obviously many FF Nikon owners place a high value on the features these cameras provide. The lack of a crop factor is just one of them.

The D700 is not overpriced, it's actual price point is for early adopters. They accept to pay this price so that's what it's worth, just like paintings at Sotheby's.

There is no real competitive product on the market @ the present & Nikon can't produce fast enough for the demand so why would they be stupid enough to lower their margin at this point in time?

It's early in the D700's Product Life Cycle, just wait & your price point will come. Even better, wait for the D800 then you will get a used D700 for peanuts.

well, I think if Nikon would sell them for 1$/pc, the board would be full of people searching for flaws and ask for a 25 years warranty.

>The D700 is not overpriced, it's actual price point is for
>early adopters. They accept to pay this price so that's what
>it's worth, just like paintings at Sotheby's.
>...
>It's early in the D700's Product Life Cycle, just wait &
>your price point will come. Even better, wait for the D800
>then you will get a used D700 for peanuts.

I disagree. The D700 is just a DSLR, which is a relatively mature product. The D700 is an evolution of an existing mainstream product, and not early-adopter technology. The D3 forged the early-adopter path last year.

Let me ask this: Why did the D300 cost the same as the D200 when it was introduced? The D300 had a better sensor, processor and other related features. Why was it not priced like an "early adopter" product? As is the norm for a mature technology, the D300 was introduced at the same price as it's predecessor with a set of evolutionary features.

What's the difference between a D700 and D300? Just the sensor. As such, the D700 is actually less evolutionary than the D300.

The D700 is priced at $3000 for one reason: To avoid hurting healthy and profitable D300 sales.

>There is no real competitive product on the market @ the
>present & Nikon can't produce fast enough for the demand
>so why would they be stupid enough to lower their margin at
>this point in time?

We don't know if Nikon can make enough D700's. I can buy one today, so it's not in extremely short supply.

It doesn't matter anyway. Sony or Canon will introduce an FX camera at a lower price this year. It really depends on which company is willing to cannibalize DX sales at $2000 price point. I suspect it will be Canon, who will lower the price of D40, and then go after the DX D300 with an FX 5D MkII.

"Sony or Canon will introduce an FX camera at a lower price this year..." - if you buy one, maybe you should change your user name.

"difference between a D700 and D300? Just the sensor" - I suggest reading a few reviews & look @ some product photos.

"Why did the D300 cost the same as the D200 when it was introduced?" - I suggest a marketing 101 book.

"D700 is just a DSLR" - my old D70 is also just a DSLR, do you want to trade?

very obviously, some people do no like the D700.

by the way, I think the difference between my D70 and the D700 is just a NILL.

"some people do no like the D700" - on the contrary, it's a bad case of NAS. The problem is the prices of the body & lenses for certain people.

In a society of instant gratification, the wait for a lower price can be excruciating.

I think we are getting way off topic, no?

>"difference between a D700 and D300? Just the
>sensor" - I suggest reading a few reviews & look @
>some product photos.

How does either of these variables affect cost of production? (which was the context of my statement). The D700 has a few extra components that add to the cost of production while at the same the cost to manufacture a D300 will have dropped. The D700 costs twice as much with a marginal (if any) net increase in production cost.

>"Why did the D300 cost the same as the D200 when it was
>introduced?" - I suggest a marketing 101 book.

and

>"D700 is just a DSLR" - my old D70 is also just a
>DSLR, do you want to trade?

Tisk. Tisk. You took these statements out of context. I suggest you go back to reading. Debating is not your thing.

Production cost is only one element of the marketing mix, hence the marketing 101 book suggestion. D300 is aimed at the same market niche as the D200, hence the similar price.

See Wikipedia Marketing mix: "The price is the amount a customer pays for the product. It is determined by a number of factors including market share, competition, material costs, product identity and the customer's perceived value of the product. The business may increase or decrease the price of product if other stores have the same product.".

"The D700 has a few extra components that add to the cost of production..." - I think you are just playing contrarian for the fun of debating. How about R&D costs vs. sales volume, bigger sensor/chamber/shutter/mirror/pentaprism to fit in a smaller form factor, etc, etc.

What you will not read on Wikipedia:

If FX production cost is no higher than a D300, then a competitor will offer an FX camera at that price point. At that point the D700 will be officially overpriced. You're lucky. You heard it here first.

While we are talking niche: FX is currently a niche segment. It represents a small fraction of the DSLR market. DX is mainstream.

If Wiki does not suit you, buy the book The Marketing Mix by the Harvard Business School for only $6.95. They even offer a downloadable pdf version.

Competition is one element of the mix & when a competitor will finally offer a similar product @ a lower price, Nikon will respond with a lower price or with a newer & better product or customers will keep on buying at a higher price because of their perceived value of the product/company, or the sales will go down, etc.

If the FX niche between the D300 & D700 price points becomes large enough then Nikon will probably respond with a D600 or something or will lower the D700 & introduce a D800 @ the actual D700 price point & then you will probably post a rant against the high price of the D800.

I don't have to buy a book about technology adoption curves.

I will reject $3000 cameras as over-priced like $3000 HD TVs that were not full HD, $3000 HD camcorders that could not record 1080i and $3000 Blu-ray players that will not play current disks.

The difference with FX is: It's not early adopter technology. It has been around for 4 years. For digital technology, that's a lifetime. We should not be paying a premium for it today. This is the price we have to pay for the consolidation that occurred in the camera industry over the last decade.

The majority of people in this world think that $3000 is too much to pay for a consumer-grade camera. If you don't believe me, ask your spouse.

Maybe you should check the My wife and the D700 thread instead of ranting about the introduction price which is obviously not targeted at you.

>It seems to be taken as fact: FX is superior to DX for
>wide angle. Where does that come from?
><snip>
>So where is the clear FX advantage for wide angle? You can
>argue the general differences between FX and DX formats. But
>assuming you can get past that, it would appear that DX
>actually has more wide angle alternatives than FX.
>

Assume a 1.5 crop factor on DX. Also, assume the same aspect ratio of the image in both DX and FX formats.

At any given focal length, the angle of view on FX is simply wider than on DX. A 12mm lens on FX has a wider angle of view than a 12mm lens on DX.

That angle of view of a 12mm lens on an FX camera provides but an equivalent angle of view of an 18mm lens when put on a DX camera.

Another way to look at it: a 50mm lens on a DX camera provides the same angle of view of a 75mm lens on an FX camera.

I think it depends on what we all ask for. Untill now there has been a bigger market for DX lenses but when 3 out of 4 semi-pro bodies are FX, well then there might be more FX lenses on the market.
Imho the only reason that there have been DX wideangle lenses is because there really havent been much FX bodies to choose from.
I think all that will change now.
DX users have a 12-24 and a 17-55 and that will never be updated. Only FX will.
And yes i know DX lenses are smaller and lighter but when you can get real 12mm then you dont mind the heavier lens.
I think Nikon will make a $2000 FX camera soon and then tamron and sigma will follow with more FX wides.Its only a matter of time.
Nikolaj Freiesleben

For us old(er) guys who've been shooting 35mm film cameras for years and know what a 20mm lens or a 24 or 28 or 35 should do, on FX the lenses work like they were designed to and that's great.

And a lot of us own those lenses already and really dislike how a nice wide 20 turns into a not so wide 30 on DX.

If you've grown up thinking that a 18mm-200mm looks like what you see in a DX viewfinder, then you're really seeing what was and is now again (on FX) basically a FOV equivalent to 27-300.

When I had the fantastic Nikkor 28/1.4 it became a sort of 42mm lens on the D200 -- ugh so I sold it -- and then a month later Nikon announces the D3!

Oh well, c'est la vie!

>And yes i know DX lenses are smaller and lighter but when you
>can get real 12mm then you dont mind the heavier lens.
>I think Nikon will make a $2000 FX camera soon and then
>tamron and sigma will follow with more FX wides.Its only a
>matter of time.

Excuse me... they are already making them, those wides. On FX/film, anything shorter than 28 (some will even say 35) is wide. Period... And wider than 20 is pretty rare because pretty difficult to use satisfactorily and pretty difficult to manufacture correctly (for FX), hence pretty expensive.

But then new comp-assisted designing of lenses may (repeat may) make them affordable for a wider class of population!

Olivier Rychner

Jetez un oeil à ma galerie if you feel like it!

Auta i lomë! And my Nikon's only awaiting daylight...

>It seems to be taken as fact: FX is superior to DX for
>wide angle. Where does that come from?
>

It comes from long ago and far away when DX was new. At that time there were no particularily wide lens specifically made for DX and the existing "old" film lenses, when used on the smaller DX format, weren't all that wide. That antique argument is no longer valid as you point out.

Most of what is said today is either a repitition of this old and now invalid argument or double-talk. On any given day there may be a lens that makes one format slightly better than the other, but thats a temporary thing and not an intrinsic attribute of the format itself.

-----
dwig
nikonian in paradise
-----
use: cp8400, cp990, cp950
retired: F,ELW, 21mm, 45 f/2.8 GN
used to own: S2, SP, F2, F3, 20mm f/3.5, 35mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2.8, 43-86 f/3.5, 50mm f/2, 50 f/1.4 (for S2/SP), 55mm f/3.5 Micro, 105mm f/2.5, 105mm f/4 Micro, 300mm f/4.5, 180mm f/4.5 (for 4x5)

I still don't get it.

Nikon offers no modern primes wider than 14 mm (other than fisheye). And their wide FX zoom goes down to "only" 14 mm.

There are no modern lenses made for Nikons that give FX a wide-angle advantage over DX. Both formats offer zooms down to the FX equivalent of 14 or 15 mm (at f2.8 if that's what you require).

Nikon may concentrate on primes once again. Or maybe they will make a really wide FX zoom someday. Right now, the FX wide-angle advantage is theoretical. Nikon FX cameras have no new lens that you can actually buy that is appreciably wider than a DX equivalent.

You may prefer FX over DX for several reasons, including better S/N or lower defraction when stopped-down. You may prefer DX for its smaller physical size with all lenses! Just remember: None of these tradeoffs have anything to do with wide-angle. They are FX versus DX tradeoffs.

FX is better for wide angle with traditional "wide" focal lengths.

There are more wide/fast primes for FX than for DX. The 35/2 and 24/2.8 are fairly wide on FX; on DX they are "normal" lenses. To get wide with DX you need focal lengths of 18mm and shorter, and there are fewer fast (f/2.8) options in this range.

So it has more to do with lens choices than the sensor, per se.

-Jason

Jason P. Odell
Colorado Nikonian
Author, The Photographer's Guide to Capture NX2

www.luminescentphoto.com

Listen to The Image Doctors

Fair enough. There are more FX choices in the semi-wide market at around 24 mm. But for extreme wide zooms at ~ 14mm f2.8 there is only 1 FX (Nikon 14-24) and 1 DX (Tokina 11-16) choice. That's it.

FX does have not the hugh advantage that many people imply. It's marginal at best.

I think we need to get back to the endless FX versus DX arguments and give up on the idea that "FX wide angles" are wider than DX .

NikonVito,

try shooting a Tokina 11-16 at f/2.8 on a DX body and then compare to the same picture with a Nikkor 14-24 at f/2.8 on an FX body. That will make everything clear for you. Compare everything: sharpness, contrast, chromatic aberration, etc.

Even so, the Tokina at 11mm gives you the same FOV of a 17mm lens on FX. Theres no DX lens that goes as wide as 9mm to get to the 14mm FX equivalent. Theres a huge difference between 14mm and 17mm.

Luis Balbinot
http://luisbalbinot.com/

>NikonVito,
>
>try shooting a Tokina 11-16 at f/2.8 on a DX body and then
>compare to the same picture with a Nikkor 14-24 at f/2.8 on an
>FX body. That will make everything clear for you. Compare
>everything: sharpness, contrast, chromatic aberration, etc.
>
>Even so, the Tokina at 11mm gives you the same FOV of a 17mm
>lens on FX. Theres no DX lens that goes as wide as 9mm to get
>to the 14mm FX equivalent. Theres a huge difference between
>14mm and 17mm.
>
The IQ issues you raise are legitimate. But aren't they really are FX versus DX comparisons that can be made at any focal length? With that said, sharpness and contrast just aren't an issue for me with any of my DX lenses.

Most people correct CA in software. But like you, I don't like CA. Hence, I don't own a Tokina or especially a Nikon DX 12-24 which has particularly bad CA (I had it and sold it)

If you require wide DX at f2.8, then get an 11-16 Tokina (16.5 mm FX equivalent). If want really wide DX, get a Sigma 10-20 mm f4 (15 mm FX equivalent). Personally, rarely shoot wide at f2.8 but that's just me (ultra wide @ 2.8 just has too much field curvature - why fight it?). I can hand-hold down to 1/5 sec @ 10 mm, so stopping down to f8 is rarely a concern.

Let's not forget the Nikon 14-24 FX is an extreme lens. It is really big, very heavy and does not accept filters. It may be optically better in some measures, but lugging it around is not something I would look forward to. And I would just end up scratching it. Honestly, I can't see ever buying a lens like this in any format. So in the FX world, I have no ultra-wide choice. Hmmm. This thread gets more interesting.

FX opens up whole new worlds of profit for Nikon.

What more advantage do we need?

Super FX. In a few years, we'll see sensors larger than 24X36 in a 35mm DSLR type body, and a whole new round of frenzy.

Carl E. Feather
Feather Multimedia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Super FX. In a few years, we'll see sensors larger than 24X36
>in a 35mm DSLR type body

There's no physical way a larger sensor could be squeezed into a 35mm SLR sized body. One of the same configuration as a 35mm SLR but larger is quite possible.

These aren't things of the future. They've been around for years and, after several generations the pack leaders are in the 50-60 megapixel range. TMost follow more closely the common 645 and 6x6 SLR body configurations. The sensors are generally close to 40x55mm which is slightly smaller than the actual exposed area of a 645 format image on 120 film.

Here's a review of a new back (these cameras generally have interchangable backs like 120 film SLRs)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p65-announced.shtml

-----
dwig
nikonian in paradise
-----
use: cp8400, cp990, cp950
retired: F,ELW, 21mm, 45 f/2.8 GN
used to own: S2, SP, F2, F3, 20mm f/3.5, 35mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2.8, 43-86 f/3.5, 50mm f/2, 50 f/1.4 (for S2/SP), 55mm f/3.5 Micro, 105mm f/2.5, 105mm f/4 Micro, 300mm f/4.5, 180mm f/4.5 (for 4x5)

"Super FX" is already here for a while, it's called Medium Format

Like Jason said, it's much more a matter of lenses, not sensor sizes. FX wide lenses are better, there's not question about that. If ones work demands good IQ for wide angle shots, FX is the king.

Put a 14-24mm at f/2.8 and push ISO do 3200 and you're done with your travel photographs, day or night

Luis

Luis Balbinot
http://luisbalbinot.com/

>>NikonVito,
>Let's not forget the Nikon 14-24 FX is an extreme lens. It is
>really big, very heavy and does not accept filters. It may be
>optically better in some measures, but lugging it around is
>not something I would look forward to. And I would just end
>up scratching it. Honestly, I can't see ever buying a lens
>like this in any format. So in the FX world, I have no
>ultra-wide choice. Hmmm. This thread gets more interesting.

The 14-24 is not that hard to use and in practice when using it compared to other ultra-wide zooms, it is not as bad as I thought it would be. Optically, the 14-24 on FX leaves any DX wide in a massive dust cloud and Nikon is only just getting started.

Once you get wider than 20mm, every mm wider is a big difference, especially wider than 15mm. And you have no compact wides for DX either, they all get cropped. I often like to take a small kit when I climb to reduce the "nose" on my camera. Good lenses are the 20mm, 24mm, 28mm and even a fast 35. DX kills all of that.

My Carl Zeiss primes look *much* better on the D3 than they did on the D300 by the way, the Nikkor 50mm 1.2 is outstanding on the D3 / D700 and sterilized on a DX sensor.

For what I need the Nikon system to do, there are far more disadvantages to DX than advantages, that is why I sold my D300 before I even got my D700.

I think what is going on here is that no matter what anyone tells you about DX and wides or lenses for that matter, you really only want to hear what you want to hear. It's OK. Change is scary for some, but as there are less and less pro and semi pro options for DX, I'm sure you will figure out how to adapt back to what it truly the Nikon system.

Good luck with all of that.

"Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something acutely disconcerting about it."

>I think what is going on here is that no matter what anyone
>tells you about DX and wides or lenses for that matter, you
>really only want to hear what you want to hear.
I don't think that is the case. I am trying to point out some misconceptions about FX. The statement that FX lenses are "way wider" than DX is simply false.

I can find one FX zoom lens (and only one FX zoom lens) that is wider than my Sigma DX 10-20 mm. There are no less than 4 other DX lenses from other vendors in the same approximate zoom range. That's hardly a clear advantage for FX. I understand FX should have wider lenses. But my point is simply this: FX has yet to actually deliver any lens that is significantly wider than DX.

I don't dispute that you can get better images with FX at all focal lengths. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I can confidently say: FX is better than DX.

With that said, when it comes to FX versus DX comparisons, I focus on cost. For me, $3K for a camera is too much money even if the pictures are twice as good as DX (and they are not!). I will buy FX when the camera is closer to $1000. But here is the important point related to this discussion: I will not buy FX because it has significantly wider lenses. Today, that simply is not true.

>I can find one FX zoom lens (and only one FX zoom lens) that
>is wider than my Sigma DX 10-20 mm.

There are two (in Nikon mount)...

Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G
Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

If you focus solely on zooms, that's true. But quite a few people like to shoot with primes, and for them, there simply are not many DX alternatives. Those who already have multiple older prime wide-angle lenses benefit particularly from FX.

Can you show me the DX lenses that provide the same FOV and aperture as the FX use of: 28 mm f/1.4, 35 mm f/2, 50 mm f/1.4 (or f/1.8)?

Mind you, I'm not even asking for a lens that would provide the same FOV and the same narrow DOF -- that would require a lens that is a stop faster.

It's clear this advantage doesn't match your particular needs, but not everyone shoots the same way or likes the same kind of equipment. Some people simply don't like shooting with zooms. Not because of quality issues, but because zooms don't fit their needs or perhaps just don't fit their shooting style. For those people, FX has a real wide-angle advantage, even if it doesn't not have an advantage for you. (Or me, for that matter, but I use FX for other reasons.)

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

>If you focus solely on zooms, that's true. But quite a few
>people like to shoot with primes, and for them, there simply
>are not many DX alternatives. Those who already have multiple
>older prime wide-angle lenses benefit particularly from FX.
>
>Can you show me the DX lenses that provide the same FOV and
>aperture as the FX use of: 28 mm f/1.4, 35 mm f/2, 50 mm
>f/1.4 (or f/1.8)?

OK let's agree on two things to move this discussion along.
1. FX is better than DX.
2. FX offers more specialized options like T&S and primes.
(And, for Brian's benefit, there are all of 2 FX choices in the ultra-wide zoom category).

None of these help me when I consider price and convenience:

1. I don't carry filters anymore. I especially don't bother with polarizers. I can do a better job in post with PS and Nik Viveza than I can with a polarizer; especially when you consider that polarizers don't work well on ultra wide lens (or even fit in the case of the Nikon 14-24). The same goes for a T&S lens (that Nikon seem overly fascinated with these days). I can do an excellent job correcting perspective in PS. Not as good as a T&S but good enough to avoid buying one.

2. I don't use a Point & Shoot camera. What's that got to do with FX? I can carry my D300 and 18-200 everywhere in the bottom corner of my backpack. I get better pictures with my DX because I never need to carry a P&S . Seriously, FX lens are bigger and cover less range. (or, if you consider the Tamron 28-300 FX, they become too slow). I will need a trailer to carry an set of equivalent FX lenses. And oh yes: I will need a P&S.

3. I am not a pixel peeper (can you tell?) I use primes for one thing only: speed. That means my 50mm 1.4 is a 75 mm 1.4. Now, that is a useful. But a 14mm 2.8? Why bother when a DX zoom can cover much the same range and be just as fast? I can correct distortion automatically with DxO, so what's the difference to someone who isn't a pixel peeper?

4. In 2 years, FX cameras will cost less than 1/2 of what they do now. They will not drop in price as rapidly after that. If this doesn't bother you, then you are classic early adopter who does not buy on price. That's fine with me. Just remember, the FX camera I can buy in 2 years for $1500 will be better than a current FX camera that cost up to 3 times as much. I just don't think I will want one.

>OK let's agree on two things to move this discussion along.

The discussion seemed to be moving along quite nicely anyway

You have explained why there isn't much wide-angle advantage in FX for the way you shoot. Other members have described what the benefits are (or could be) for the way they shoot. That's fine - we don't all have to agree about everything. It's rather pointless to try to convince everyone that your view is the "correct" one

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>>It's rather pointless to try to convince everyone that your view is the "correct" one

Huh? That's the whole point of discussion forums. Otherwise, we have just a "fanboy" site with everyone nodding in agreement.

So long as everyone is polite (which certainly id the case in this thread) I don't think it is right for you to curtail discussion.

>So long as everyone is polite (which certainly id the case in
>this thread) I don't think it is right for you to curtail
>discussion.

Yes, this thread has been perfectly polite, which is great!

There's no attempt to curtail discussion here; it's just that you've stated your position clearly but others seem unconvinced, so we could easily start going around in circles

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>OK let's agree on two things to move this discussion along.
>1. FX is better than DX.

Not absolutely. Birders are likely to find DX gives better results, for example.

>2. FX offers more specialized options like T&S and
>primes.

Exactly. And for some people those aren't "specialized," they are their bread-and-butter options.

>None of these help me when I consider price and convenience:

Ah, there's the rub! They don't help you; they do help others. It is not necessary to define one option, DX or FX, as the "best." Good thing, too, because it is not possible without taking specific shooting types and situations into account.

When someone says "FX is better for wide angle," what they generally mean is it's better for their own wide-angle shooting. I don't think most people expressing relief at the advent of FX for wide-angle purposes mean it's best absolutely, for everyone. Those who might mean that are guilty of over-simplification. But so are those who think there is no context in which FX is better for WA.

>1. I don't carry filters anymore. I especially don't bother
>with polarizers. I can do a better job in post with PS and
>Nik Viveza than I can with a polarizer; especially when you
>consider that polarizers don't work well on ultra wide lens

This is drifting a little off topic, but I don't agree with either of those statements. I frequently use a polarizer to remove reflections from water and glass. That's not something you can really do properly in Photoshop. And I have numerous shots at 12 mm (DX) and up with a polarizer removing water glare or sheen from leaves, so I dispute that polarizers are not useful with wide-angle lenses. (Use for sky shots is a different matter, but that's not something I usually do with a polarizer anyway.)

Which is why I don't have a 14-24 mm lens.

>The same goes
>for a T&S lens (that Nikon seem overly fascinated with
>these days). I can do an excellent job correcting perspective
>in PS. Not as good as a T&S but good enough to avoid
>buying one.

Perspective correction is only one use of T&S lenses. Some of the things a T&S lens can do simply can not be accomplished with anything short of a view camera. Those things are important to some, if not to you.

But in general, you make some good points about the usefulness of DX. I heartily agree. But, again, it's not a contest. We don't need to decide that DX is absolutely better than FX or vice versa!

>4. In 2 years, FX cameras will cost less than 1/2 of what they
>do now. They will not drop in price as rapidly after that. If
>this doesn't bother you, then you are classic early adopter
>who does not buy on price. That's fine with me.

That's right, I am -- for some technologies, at least. That doesn't mean I think you should be, too.

>Just
>remember, the FX camera I can buy in 2 years for $1500 will be
>better than a current FX camera that cost up to 3 times as
>much. I just don't think I will want one.

I long ago came to terms with the fact that buying "bleeding edge" stuff means paying premium prices. That doesn't bother me one bit. It's worth it to me because I get to use those technologies for the period before the price drops. For example, I got basketball shots this winter that I simply could not have gotten without the D3. Had I waited, I could have gotten a D700 for much less (or even a D3 for less as it's cheaper now) but I would never have gotten shots of those kids playing those games. Is that worth the extra I paid? Is is to me; I don't expect it to be worth it to everyone else.

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

>>1. FX is better than DX.
>Not absolutely. Birders are likely to find DX gives better
>results, for example.

It's not that DX gives better results as you go longer. It just costs significantly less. For $9500 you can get a Nikon 600 mm f4 VR and get good some good FX results. For $1000 and up, you can get a variety of 400 mm lens to use with DX and get similar results. FX is still better. It just costs way more.

FX cameras are over-priced but that will improve over time. FX will always rely on expensive glass. That is not likely to improve.

>>2. FX offers more specialized options like T&S and primes.
>.. And for some people those aren't "specialized," they are their bread-and-butter
>options.
>
Of course, some people need these lenses. I do not dispute that. What numbers are we talking about? Maybe 2% of the market?

I would argue the other 98% will be happy avoiding specialized lenses, and instead, spending a few hundred dollars on software. Software is part of the art for me. Spending less to get better results is part of the skill.

>>None of these help me when I consider price and convenience...
>Ah, there's the rub! They don't help you; they do help others...

I don't dispute that. I just want the "cost-effective" side of the argument to be heard. Nikonians.org is a dangerous place to suggest that people can easily spend too much. Reading this forum, just about everyone says FX is worth it. At today's prices for FX, I must respectfully disagree. DX is a better choice for the vast majority of photographers until the FX price becomes more reasonable.

>It is not necessary to define one option, DX or FX, as the
>"best." Good thing, too, because it is not possible
>without taking specific shooting types and situations into
>account.
I say FX better than DX to make a point. I also say it, because it is true. When no conditions are applied, and cost is no object, FX is better. Period.

When cost is considered, DX is often better. I care about only the latter. I know FX is better, but I won't pay today. Just like I won't pay $40K for a Hasselblad.

>>1. I don't carry filters anymore. I especially don't bother with polarizers...
>... I don't agree with either of those statements.

You really should try software. It can save you a ton of money. Using a polarizer on a wide angle lens rarely works. Shoot RAW with PS (or Viveza if you are in a hurry), and your results will be great every time.

I feel sorry for people with expensive digital cameras and no PS skills. They usually end up buying even more expensive equipment to compensate.

>I long ago came to terms with the fact that buying
>"bleeding edge" stuff means paying premium prices.
>That doesn't bother me one bit. It's worth it to me because I
>get to use those technologies for the period before the price
>drops.
>
We are in the earliest phase of FX adoption where price drops will be extreme. Like HDTV 3 years ago and DVD 10 years ago, FX technology is currently overpriced. If that does not bother you, then please go ahead and pay the premium prices. Thanks to earliest adopters, the price of good new technology, like DX cameras, is affordable. I can't thank you all enough. I am not suffering buying new technology like DX and avoiding the FX bleeding edge.

I do not consider the D700 to be over-prized. at least for me, it offers a package of features, size and price where I move.

there are a bit more then 2% specialized lenses on the market. Nikon did exist before the DX-aera and they have produced millions of lenses which today get a second life on FX cameras.

and now I am off to see if I can find some nice old glas to add to my collection. the D700 is quite keen on them.

have fun

>I do not consider the D700 to be over-prized. at least for
>me, it offers a package of features, size and price where I
>move.
Thank you! I appreciate you funding my future purchases


>there are a bit more then 2% specialized lenses on the market.
>Nikon did exist before the DX-aera and they have produced
>millions of lenses which today get a second life on FX
>cameras.
Sure. DX is simply a cost effective alternative. In the film days, it was Olympus that offered smaller high performance cameras. Now we have DX.

Of course the market segment can grow at the high end. But the price will have to drop for it obtain large market share. I think that will happen. Then I will consider it.

>
>and now I am off to see if I can find some nice old glas to
>add to my collection. the D700 is quite keen on them.
>
>have fun

A cost effective way to shoot FX. Way to go. Good luck.

>It's not that DX gives better results as you go longer. It
>just costs significantly less. For $9500 you can get a Nikon
>600 mm f4 VR and get good some good FX results. For $1000 and
>up, you can get a variety of 400 mm lens to use with DX and
>get similar results. FX is still better. It just costs way
>more.

But you can put that 600 f/4 on a DX body, too. (I've seen 600 f/4 lenses attached to D2X bodies. It's an amazing kit.) No matter what lens you posit, DX gives a reach advantage. Even if DX were more expensive than FX, a lot of wildlife shooters would opt for DX. Just as a lot of WA shooters opt for FX even though it is more expensive than DX. You can't usefully remove the shooting context from the discussion.

>FX cameras are over-priced but that will improve over time.

Over-priced in what way? If you mean they cost more than you are willing to pay, fine. But they clearly are not priced above what a segment of the market is willing to pay.

>FX will always rely on expensive glass. That is not likely to
>improve.

Serious DX users are buying expensive glass, too. The only thing I've changed to go primarily to FX is to swap my expensive 17-55 for an expensive 24-70. The expense of the long lenses I have dominates the total amount I've spent on glass, and I can (and do) still use that glass on DX as well as FX.

>Of course, some people need these lenses. I do not dispute
>that. What numbers are we talking about? Maybe 2% of the
>market?

Maybe. I don't know what the numbers are. Small, for sure, but so what? Should Nikon make products only for the mass market?

>I would argue the other 98% will be happy avoiding specialized
>lenses, and instead, spending a few hundred dollars on
>software. Software is part of the art for me. Spending less
>to get better results is part of the skill.

I have no problem with that, although I reiterate that software is only a partial replacement for T&S lenses. I firmly believe that we should each make our own choices, and I revel in the fact that more choices are available all the time.

>I just want the
>"cost-effective" side of the argument to be heard.
>Nikonians.org is a dangerous place to suggest that people can
>easily spend too much. Reading this forum, just about
>everyone says FX is worth it.

You're reading an FX equipment forum. Take that into account. But even here, it is not the case that the discussion has been one-sided. Again, posters are generally speaking to their own needs, not for the vast majority of photographers. I think the discussion overall on the site is well balanced. People (including you) do tend to get passionate about their views, but I've seen both sides of the discussion well argued. As long as the discussion is grounded in particulars, it's good.

>At today's prices for FX, I
>must respectfully disagree. DX is a better choice for the
>vast majority of photographers until the FX price becomes more
>reasonable.

And maybe even after that. I don't think there is much disagreement on that point. Just because someone says FX is much better for their use doesn't mean they are arguing that everyone should run out and buy FX. It's a red herring to suggest that they are so arguing.

>I say FX better than DX to make a point. I also say it,
>because it is true. When no conditions are applied, and cost
>is no object, FX is better. Period.

When no conditions are applied and cost is no object, the discussion has entered the realm of the purely theoretical -- and pointless.

>When cost is considered, DX is often better. I care about
>only the latter. I know FX is better, but I won't pay today.
> Just like I won't pay $40K for a Hasselblad.

So? You seem to be conflating what you would do with what everyone else should do. No doubt most people will reach the same conclusion as you. Some won't. That's only a problem if you insist on developing a consensus view of what's "best" irrespective of circumstances. My argument is that's impossible and foolish to attempt.

>You really should try software. It can save you a ton of
>money. Using a polarizer on a wide angle lens rarely works.
>Shoot RAW with PS (or Viveza if you are in a hurry), and your
>results will be great every time.

I'm not going to argue the point. I know what works and what doesn't. And since I used to write image-processing software, I have a pretty good idea what its real limitations are.

>I feel sorry for people with expensive digital cameras and no
>PS skills. They usually end up buying even more expensive
>equipment to compensate.

Now you are skirting into the ad hominem. Please don't. Believe me, there are plenty of people who have both the expensive equipment and the PS skills.

>I am not suffering buying new technology like DX and avoiding
>the FX bleeding edge.

And I'm not suffering buying both DX and FX technology. Nor do I feel it necessary to convince anyone else that they should make the same choices I do. But I do think people should be fully and correctly informed as to the choices available, and that means taking specific needs, abilities, desires and economic circumstances into account. Any discussion that ignores those factors in an attempt to generalize what's "best" is doomed to mislead.

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

>But you can put that 600 f/4 on a DX body, too.
Sure. DX has a reach advantage at the long end. But once again, stretching a $9,500 600 mm lens into a 900 mm for DX is a relatively rare occurrence. 99% of photographers will never do this. It's not a real advantage for DX.

But like I said, turning a $1500 400 mm FX lens into a 600 mm DX lens is a very cost effective answer. That is the real strength of DX.

>Over-priced in what way? If you mean they cost more than
>you are willing to pay, fine. But they clearly are not
>priced above what a segment of the market is willing to pay.

It's a classic technology adoption curve. Nikon's price is highest now as they try to recover some of their FX R&D cost. Early adopters are willing to pay, so Nikon is happy to oblige. As soon as FX demand levels out, the price will come down. Do you really think a D700 costs twice as much to manufacture as a D300? It is over priced.

>>FX will always rely on expensive glass. That is not likely to i mprove.
>
>Serious DX users are buying expensive glass, too.
>
Serious people photographers do buy expensive glass. I consider myself serious, but I don't think $3K for a camera or lens is worth it. I am willing to spend more for lenses than cameras. Camera remain a bad investment. The become obsolete too fast. FX is not the end. We have a lot of dynamic ranges issues to solve yet.

I own a Nikon 70-200 VR 2.8 which is sold as FX but it now appears to closer to a DX lens thanks to vignetting and softness around the edges. Yep. Even Nikon lenses lens aren't the long term investments they used to be.

>Maybe. I don't know what the numbers are. Small, for sure, but
>so what? Should Nikon make products only for the mass market?
>
That's what DX is all about.

>You're reading an FX equipment forum. Take that into account.
>But even here, it is not the case that the discussion has been
>one-sided. Again, posters are generally speaking to their own
>needs, not for the vast majority of photographers. I think the
>discussion overall on the site is well balanced. People
>(including you) do tend to get passionate about their views,
>but I've seen both sides of the discussion well argued. As
>long as the discussion is grounded in particulars, it's good.

Nikonians is getting better in terms of tolerance. I hope it continues

>Sure. DX has a reach advantage at the long end. But once
>again, stretching a $9,500 600 mm lens into a 900 mm for DX is
>a relatively rare occurrence. 99% of photographers will never
>do this. It's not a real advantage for DX.

It is if you choose to make use of it. You can do that with a <$1000 lens or with a $10,000 lens.

>But like I said, turning a $1500 400 mm FX lens into a 600 mm
>DX lens is a very cost effective answer. That is the real
>strength of DX.

People using a $5000 200-400 f/4 for wildlife, which is pretty common, also like DX. And quite a few such people paid $5,000 for a DX camera (D2X) not so long ago, so the price/performance decisions are not limited to FX vs DX choices.

>As soon as FX demand levels out, the price will come
>down. Do you really think a D700 costs twice as much to
>manufacture as a D300? It is over priced.

I gather that your definition of "over priced" is any price before that classic curve has reached its bottom. I don't find that a compelling definition. In any market, timing matters, not just production cost. Yes, early adopters pay a disproportionate amount of the non-recurring costs. What they get for that is earlier access to the technology. What they are paying is not "over price," it is the market price at the time they pay it. Were it not, the product wouldn't sell.

Besides, in the technology field, almost everything is over priced if you compare it to what will be available a year or two later. If that's your standard, you'll never buy anything!

>Nikonians is getting better in terms of tolerance. I hope it
>continues

It has always been good in terms of tolerance. That was the basis for its founding, after all. On Nikonians, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

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

>I gather that your definition of "over priced" is
>any price before that classic curve has reached its bottom...
>Yes, early adopters pay a
>disproportionate amount of the non-recurring costs...

I just don't like funding R&D by paying early adopter prices. I buy technology when it is at, or is approaching, mainstream acceptance (that's actually the top of adoption curve or immediately after what Geoffrey Moore calls the "chasm"). That's when I get the best return on my investment.

HDTVs were over priced 4 years ago. I you bought one then, not only did you pay too much, but it's obsolete today since it doesn't have HDMI and isn't even full-resolution HD (sure, it is still usable - but not with 1080p blu ray). If you buy an HDTV TV today, it will be more reasonably priced and it will likely be good for 10 years (Here's a pop quiz: How many blu ray disks do you think I own? .

FX is over priced today. Sony could fuel the tornado by releasing Nikon's FX sensor in one of their $1500 cameras. Suddenly FX will drop to half its current price. Nothing will have changed relative to the cost of production. Nikon will lower their price to compete (maybe not to $1500 but close). That's sounds like good definition of "over priced" to me.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this system. I simply choose to invest a little more carefully. And, of course, I always encourage early adopters to do their thing. They help get us past version 1.0 and make new products affordable for cheapskates like me.

>I buy technology when it is at, or is approaching,
>mainstream acceptance (that's actually the top of adoption
>curve or immediately after what Geoffrey Moore calls the
>"chasm"). That's when I get the best return on my
>investment.

I guess that's the key difference. To me, camera equipment is not an investment, it's a tool. The fact remains that I have photos from the past nine months that I never would have gotten without being an early adopter. Twenty years from now I'll be able to enjoy those images, whereas if I had saved the money by waiting I probably wouldn't be able to say twenty years from now what I had spent that money on instead.

It's about the photos.

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

>It's about the photos...

... at a reasonable price

>
>4. In 2 years, FX cameras will cost less than 1/2 of what they
>do now. They will not drop in price as rapidly after that. If
>this doesn't bother you, then you are classic early adopter
>who does not buy on price. That's fine with me. Just
>remember, the FX camera I can buy in 2 years for $1500 will be
>better than a current FX camera that cost up to 3 times as
>much. I just don't think I will want one.
>

And while you are waiting....and waiting for the FX cameras to come down in price, I will be shooting FX NOW, and won't be wishing 2 years from now that all those images that I made were with a FX camera.

It's worth it to some of us. We all get that it isn't for you. Thank goodness we all have choices.

Really really pointless argument you have there. Who care if fx isn't wider then dx? If width is all you care about then get a cheap fish eye.

Surely the advantage in quality of image is the key factor. You seem to care more about how wide a lens is, than the quality of the image. Sure your Sigma can go nearly as wide as the 14-24 on a d700 but the image you are getting will be a long way behind in terms of quality. Sure you can post process every shot, but you sill won't come close.

Focus on which set up gives you the best end product and you won't go far wrong. The answer to that, for those of us who are interested in wide angle photography, is by general consensus, FX. Argue with that and I suspect you are just playing devils advocate.

There's only one reason to choose FX for wide angle shooting - the widest selection of the best fixed focal length and zoom lenses are for the larger format. Nikon hasn't fully fleshed out the DX lens selection and almost surely won't. There's nothing preventing the design of great DX wides that's inherent to the format.

Keep in mind that in the film-only days 18mm was considered extremely wide and a lens like the 14-24mm would be a rare exotic that few people would add to even a robust collection of lenses. It's startling that such an expensive and limited zoom as the 14-24mm is seemingly in such high demand. It's not easy to effectively use a superwide lens and with 14mm you have to watch out for your feet and your tripod.

It's not the zoom alternatives that count, it's the high quality fixed focal lengths and for architectural work it's the perspective correction lenses. Yes, you can do perspective correction in software but not with the same end quality as you get doing with the lens so you don't have to interpolate as much or at all.

BJ

Zenfolio gallery

Yes, it's not just a matter of how wide a lens can get, but how it will behave. And I don't think anything beyond 14mm would be very useful. Bellow 14mm we're getting into the realm of fish-eye lenses I'd say, at that level of distortion. Theres a huge distortion already at 14mm and it's very well pointed: watch out for your feet

Don't forget the primes! I'd love to see a 24mm prime (lower than f/2.8!) with better quality than the 14-24 zoom!

Luis Balbinot
http://luisbalbinot.com/

Don't get me wrong, I have had a D3 since the first week of release and am not missing my DX gear a whit.

FX has advantages and disadvantages just as DX does just as every format and every camera and every lens ever made does. There are no perfect imaging devices.

As for FX's WA advantage, it has to do with IQ, lens quality and variety.

And actually a 10mm rectilinear lens on DX is FOV equiv of 15mm not 14mm and at that width there is a difference. A slight difference, but a difference.

The question isn't whether or not one is better than the other IMO -- FX offers more flexibility at the wide end and DX is more flexible at the long end. This is why I think there is room in the market for both and why DX isn't going away!

Lots of people like their 18-200DX zooms! They don't really want a bigger heavier, more expensive FX camera.

IMO DX is still and solidly the future of low and mid-space dSLRs. FX is now and will remain essentially a niche product in the dSLR space, just as MF is.

JMO.

>Don't get me wrong, I have had a D3 since the first week of
>release and am not missing my DX gear a whit ....
>IMO DX is still and solidly the future of low and mid-space
>dSLRs. FX is now and will remain essentially a niche product
>in the dSLR space, just as MF is.
>
Thank you! FX is about IQ. DX has marginally lower IQ but other advantages that actually result more mainstream appeal.

It is refreshing to hear from FX owners who have some IQ!

I don't want to get into a Fx/Dx debate. I just wanted to show(off) these two architectural type images I took earlier in the week with a fisheye and D300. As some may or may not know, fisheye handles certain types of straight lines differently than regular wide angle lenses. For example, if you are in a forest with a group of straight trees and decide to lay on your back and shoot straight up, then a regular wide angle lens (on Dx or Fx) will yield converging lines in the center. A fisheye, somewhat ironically, captures the lines going straight up. Very different effect.

Anyway, this is my super-wide solution on DX using my fisheye (aka, the fun lens). These two shots have too much detail to compress to post here so I must use links. Note: always keep the grid lines on in your viewfinder, for captures like below, this is critical

D300 Handhled (tripod not allowed here)
10.5 fisheye @ f5.6, ISO 280
3 images for each picture captured by bracketing while handholding in high speed burst mode and combined to make a HDR

http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/image/101063760
http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/image/101065245

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

If your subject(s) require medium to long telephoto lenses, then DX is great. The D300 is a superb tool for action photography.

However if your subject(s) benefit from larger angles-of-view, then the FX format is best. This has to do with the physics of building high-quality short focal-length lenses. The shorter the focal length, the more difficult it is to minimize:

o barrel distortions
o flair
o chromatic aberration
o vignetting.

The sorter the focal length, the larger the lens diameter and weight (more elements too) required to produce a faster and higher quality lens.

So,the shorter the focal length, the more expensive the lens will be (to keep image quality the same in both formats).

Finally, with the FX format the depth of field will be narrower compared to DX because of the difference in the circle of confusion.

For all these reasons, I would rather use a 35mm lens on a FX camera than a 24mm lens on a DX camera when my subject(s) require that angle of view.

My D300 is absolutely wonderful. But if I had the $$$, I would buy a D700 in a millisecond and relegate my D300 for sports and backup duty.

Some day...

>However if your subject(s) benefit from larger angles-of-view,
>then the FX format is best. This has to do with the physics of
>building high-quality short focal-length lenses. The shorter
>the focal length, the more difficult it is to minimize:
>
>o barrel distortions
>o flair
>o chromatic aberration
>o vignetting.
>


This, folks is the REAL answer to the question about the wide-angle advantage of FX.

I'd rather use a high-quality, relatively low-cost 28mm lens on FX than a mediocre quality or possibly very expensive, 18mm lens on DX.

It's easier to make a high quality 20mm lens for FX than a high-quality 14mm lens for DX.

I doubt that those aspects of physics will change anytime soon.

>I'd rather use a high-quality, relatively low-cost 28mm lens
>on FX than a mediocre quality or possibly very expensive, 18mm
>lens on DX.
>
>It's easier to make a high quality 20mm lens for FX than a
>high-quality 14mm lens for DX.
>

Then why are wide angle FX lenses so much more expensive than DX lenses that cover essentially the same range?

My guess is: FX lens are produced in such small quantities they never reach a low price point. DX wide angle lens have wider appeal (pun intended ) so they can actually cost less.

>
>>I'd rather use a high-quality, relatively low-cost 28mm
>lens
>>on FX than a mediocre quality or possibly very expensive,
>18mm
>>lens on DX.
>>
>>It's easier to make a high quality 20mm lens for FX than
>a
>>high-quality 14mm lens for DX.
>>
>
>Then why are wide angle FX lenses so much more expensive than
>DX lenses that cover essentially the same range?
>
>My guess is: FX lens are produced in such small quantities
>they never reach a low price point. DX wide angle lens have
>wider appeal (pun intended ) so they can actually cost
>less.
>

What examples are you speaking of? I don't know of any DX wide angles up to the quality of their equivalant FX range lenses. Their must be a reason why almost no one seems to even be bothering to manufacture prime lenses for DX with focal lengths in any area that you'd call wide. We have tons of mediocre DX "wide" zooms though. And I wouldn't buy a prime lens that behaves like any of those zooms of which I speak ,especially at the short end. The 10.5 fisheye is rife with CA at the edges, and it's FX equivalent is only 15mm! I think that the dx wide angles that exist are of the mediocre quality that they are and the price point that they are because they can't be made good enough to warrant higher prices. FX lenses of the same field of view will be longer, plus the larger sensor area allows light to enter differently, as the previous poster said, thus more quality is possible, and higher quality demands a higher price.

>What examples are you speaking of? I don't know of any DX wide
>angles up to the quality of their equivalant FX range lenses.

Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, Canon - and Nikon - sell their DX wide lens for half - and in some cases much less than half - the Nikon 14-24.

The Sigma 10-20 mm goes down to the equivalent of 15 mm FX. The Tokina 11-16 is a 16.5 mm FX equivalent. The Canon 10-20 mm would go down to 15 mm on a Nikon too These are not subjective metrics. DX wide costs less than FX across the board. The focal range is similar. If you think the extra 1 to 1.5 mm will give you significantly better images, I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

But quality is subjective - and variable. With minor amounts of software, you can certainly close the quality gap between DX and FX. Using DxO you can correct distortion to lower than the Nikon 14-24 mm. Any good RAW convertor will remove CA. I will argue that these improvements can be applied to DX images at any focal length

And if you must have sharpness, the Tokina 11-16 mm DX is comparable to the Nikon 14-24 mm.

>Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, Canon - and Nikon - sell their DX wide
>lens for half - and in some cases much less than half - the
>Nikon 14-24.

I don't think that is a only a DX/FX difference; it's also a Nikon/3rd Party difference and a lens quality difference. The Sigma 12-24mm and 15-30mm "FX" lenses also sell for less than half the price of the 14-24mm or 17-35mm "FX" Nikkors.

To support your contention, you'd need to be quoting lenses of similar range, quality, speed and brand. That's quite difficult in practice.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>To support your contention, you'd need to be quoting lenses of
>similar range, quality, speed and brand. That's quite
>difficult in practice.

I am saying DX wide lenses are less expensive than FX wide lenses at all quality levels. If you consider only Nikon, you won't have enough alternatives to make a reasonable comparison. And if you consider only Nikon wide angle DX lenses you can end up with lower quality alternatives.

For example: the 12-24 was Nikon's first DX wide lens six years ago. It is not their best effort by today's standards. They could better. I hope they will.

>I am saying DX wide lenses are less expensive than FX wide
>lenses at all quality levels. If you consider only
>Nikon, you won't have enough alternatives to make a reasonable
>comparison. And if you consider only Nikon wide angle DX
>lenses you can end up with lower quality alternatives.

That's not really what I meant. Let me try to be clearer...

In order to prove that DX is always cheaper at the wide end, you'd need to eliminate as many other variables as possible. If your chosen "FX" standard is the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor, then you would need a very-high-quality f/2.8 DX lens with a focal length range of 9.6-16mm. The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX is closest, and yes, it's cheaper. But there are other factors contributing to its lower price - it's a 3rd Party lens (Tokina lenses are generally cheaper than comparable Nikkors), it has a lesser zoom range and likely lower build and image quality.

So, all I'm saying is that you are probably right that DX tends to be cheaper than FX when it comes to wide zooms, but it's difficult to prove it one way or the other. As has been pointed out already, if DX wide primes like a 16mm f/2.8 existed the boot may be on the other foot, but that's even more difficult to prove...

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>Then why are wide angle FX lenses so much more expensive than
>DX lenses that cover essentially the same range?

You have a point, but in practice it is difficult to think of too many cases where a direct DX equivalent exists for a particular FX lens, particularly if we are talking primes. One example is the 24-120mm VR and the 16-85mm DX VR - the DX lens is currently around 15% cheaper in the UK. There is a similar difference between the 16mm and 10.5mm DX fisheye Nikkors.

Could you quote some more examples?

>My guess is: FX lens are produced in such small quantities they
>never reach a low price point.

Remember that a large number of "FX" lenses are sold to those using DX format cameras

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>Remember that a large number of "FX" lenses are sold to those using DX format cameras

But we are talking wide-angle. Using a ultra-wide FX lens on a DX camera is... well.. let's see... not wide.

>Then why are wide angle FX lenses so much more expensive than
>DX lenses that cover essentially the same range?

>My guess is: FX lens are produced in such small quantities
>they never reach a low price point. DX wide angle lens have
>wider appeal (pun intended ) so they can actually cost
>less.

There is no foundation in fact for either of your statements.

If you ever shot 35mm film, then you would have full frame lenses that are now called FX. For example I have a Nikkor 20-35mm F2.8D ED IF (a real beaut that's extremely sharp with very little distortion or bending) that I used up until 20 months ago on my Nikon F100 film bod before I bought my first digi cam, the D200. At the time I paid $1800 for it new.

With the purchase of my D200, and now D300, this relegated the 20-35 to at best a 30-52mm zoom - not so good for wides in the DX format. So off I went and bought the Nikkor 12-24mm f4.0 new when it came out, for about that same $1800. Its a nice sharp lens, but to get the same coverage in the DX format as my 20-35 full frame, meant Nikon had to focus the image into a smaller area, and with that came more distortion than the full frame. This is why FX in wide is better than DX.

As to your second point, FX or full frame lenses were never made in small quantities until the advent of digital and the DX format killed demand for the larger glass. People wanted smaller and lighter and thought it to be a waste to use the FX lenses on a DX format. For myself, I never stopped using them.

Today you can buy many excellent quality Nikkor full frame (FX) lenses on the used market, and of course some pricey new ones, which will drop in time once competition between dealers heats up and Nikon drops its prices.

Eventually I will go with a full frame digital once the cost for the bodies comes down. For now though, I shoot full frame in film with my F100 when I need it, then scan my Fuji Provia 100asa chromes with a Nikon LS 5000-4000dpi scanner. That way I get the best of both worlds!

Cheers,
Frederic in Montréal