D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
Maybe wide dx primes?
I personally would like a fast dx tele zoom, but sigma and tokina have tried and the market didnt seem to want them...
Nikon D600
- Thread starter Phil Young
- Start date
Maybe wide dx primes?
I personally would like a fast dx tele zoom, but sigma and tokina have tried and the market didnt seem to want them...
The 10-24 and 12-24 are great, no complaints from me about those.
There's no 16 1.4 or 1.8 (24mm equivalent).
There's no 23/24 mm 1.8/1.4 DX - most likely a 1.8, but either way would be a LOT smaller and cheaper than the 24 1.4. Even though it's one of my favourites, it shouldn't be necessary to spend or carry that much for a fairly standard FL
There's no 16 or 17mm PC-E - for this I could accept there being not a DX specific version (the desire for this FL and the image circle requirements mean people would mount the DX version on FX no matter what Nikon said, so they might as well make it cover FX) but it needs to exist.
The 17-55 needs an update (it's a great lens, but it definitely has areas where it could improve, and we know Nikon can do it)
There would ideally be a smaller 35 1.4 for DX, but I can see why Nikon wouldn't bother with one (insufficient demand for a DX specific one, especially as it wouldn't be as much cheaper/smaller than the current version as the 24s would be)
There's no 50-135 - while the 70-200s cover the range nicely and I'd get one in addition to rather than replacing it, it needs to be an option if DX is going to be more than it currently is.
Every one of those problems gets fixed by moving to FX, but there's a chunky weight penalty (less than there would be because the lenses I use now are FX anyway :bang:
)I have to say I am pretty much a prime only shooter - the only zoom I use is the 70-200, so my opinion is very coloured by that. When it comes to standard zooms DX is covered about as well as FX, which if it's to be positioned as primarily for those who like photography but don't take it super seriously is fine. I do think that DX can be for those who take it seriously. If the lineup is filled out, it offers something significant over FX portability wise, and you lose virtually nothing in IQ except in the extremes.
The idea that everyone moved a size down with digital makes a lot of sense to me - DX does a lot of what 35mm film used to, FX does what a lot of 645 did, and MFD does a lot of what 4x5 used to. The prices for things also seem to line up nicely with that. It's only in the DX case where things aren't as good as they could be, and it's deliberate neglect on Nikon's part that is the cause - see micro 4/3 for what can be done with fewer sales in a shorter time period by smaller companies (the camera divisions of those companies, at least) for evidence.
I could be wrong and the market for 'proper' DX doesn't exist because people either stick with low end DX or move to FX with noone wanting and willing to pay for good DX but I don't think I am.
Sigma's apparently worked quite well - the announced a 50-135 OS a while back but it hasn't shown up anywhere. With that said, if it's like the 70-200 OS vs the 70-200 VRs, there's still a gap Nikon can fill.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A revamped 80-400mm should have filled this gap but despite rumours, it' never emerged. An f/4 like the Sigma 100-300 or the 80-400 VR would have been a very welcome addition.
I don't understand the comments from Aussmo though about a lack of wide DX lenses - the 12-24mm f/4 is pretty much without equal and the 10.5mm fisheye is pretty unique also. Then you had the FX lenses that would work, although not all were going to AF on those cheaper bodies....
I detailed it above - that make it clearer what I'm getting at?
- Messages
- 6,428
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I suspect Nikon, through whatever means, must have come to the conclusion that market is too small. We'd be talking fairly expensive lenses and I guess the majority of people investing heavily in expensive lenses will naturally gravitate toward full frame as, rightly or wrongly, it somehow seems the right thing to do when you're chasing that last bit of IQ. There will always be exceptions of course but I guess Nikon can't please everybody and must chase maximum sales.
Back on the subject of the the D600. I wonder if Nikon have identified a bit of a niche here. There must be 'non-photographers' with big budgets who want the best camera they can possibly get but don't want to have to know how to use it. None of Nikon's pro bodies have any fool proof auto modes and are probably almost unusable unless you have at least a basic knowledge of exposure. The D600 could catch some of those sales as well the obvious enthusiast market.
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes - I'd not refreshed the thread and seen your expanded explanation
(wasn't having a go by the way
)I agree with plenty of that - especially some more f/1.8 lenses - and the idea of a 50-135mm is an interesting one. Personally, I prefer using a 70-200mm on DX than on FX (as I have on a friend's 5D2, but some of the enjoyment was lost due to a bad camera) but I can see why some folk would want direct replication of focal lengths between the two formats.
Not sure how viable a 16mm f/1.8 would be, but I'd love to see one in action. Now that would be a very, very interesting lens....
I've been banging this drum for a while now on here so I'm glad someone else agrees. DX is a fantastic format, especially for value for money. IQ from the modern crop bodies is superb and the good DX lenses out there are fantastic. Other than the lack of a body like the D2x, there's very little that FX offers that would draw me away from DX..... even the diddy D7000 that I got recently has astounded me by how accomplished it is at a multitude of tasks....
Like you say though, there just need to be more filling of key gaps in the lineup, although I have probably found my line-up in having a 14mm prime for super close-up editorial, 17-55 as a general lens, 60mm for macro, 70-200 for long stuff and then a couple of faster primes chucked in for low light or when I have the luxury of not requiring a zoom. Probably the only lens I wish I still had is the 10.5mm fisheye, just for impact.
Last edited:
Yep, that's a distinct possibility. The market could be too small, or it could be (and I think this is Nikon's opinion - I can't complain because it will end up describing me) that they consider it not worth fulfiling because those people will just buy FX anyway, netting them more income for less work (no additional product lines to design/fund/stock). What alternative is there? Other camera makers don't provide what we need, so the only available solution, however imperfect, ends up being taken.
On your second point - I thought P mode was basically a "guided automatic"?
Yes - I'd not refreshed the thread and seen your expanded explanation
(wasn't having a go by the way
I didn't think you were
. However, if I'm complaining about what Nikon is doing 'wrong' and you're all looking at me like the crazy man on the street corner, then I should accept that the market I hope exists doesn't
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,428
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm with you on that, there isn't a lot out there in terms of really high end DX lenses. But I'd guess Nikon or whoever else has carried out the market research. I'm sure they'd be doing it, if the market was there and profitable. I think part of the issue might be that people wanting genuinely compact/portable systems with high quality glass are well catered for with various m4/3's, CSC's etc. Those that want quality regardless of weight are well catered for. DX is stuck somewhere in the merky world in the middle, being not particularly compact nor particularly cheap. Just my own speculation rather than fact I hasten to add.
The 'p' mode thing isn't quite a fool proof auto. On auto mode, no matter what settings you may have farted on with, you'll get back to full auto control of white balance, iso, exposure compensation etc.. In P mode it's possible to mess all of this up. Or you might be trying to shoot landscapes at F/1.4 and portraits in dark rooms at f/11. I know I can't just hand my D700 to my wife and let her get on with it but I could do that with a D7000. I'd personally never use it but I do sometimes wish my D700 had an auto mode to address this. It surely only requires a little bit of standard software code so it seems to me that the lack of it on high end bodies is more of a macho statement than anything.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I think the wide primes question has been answered in the posts above discussing Nikon's perceived market view.
There's no 50-135 - while the 70-200s cover the range nicely and I'd get one in addition to rather than replacing it, it needs to be an option if DX is going to be more than it currently is.
Every one of those problems gets fixed by moving to FX, but there's a chunky weight penalty (less than there would be because the lenses I use now are FX anyway :bang:
The fast tele zooms. From my understanding not sure what advantages DX offers over FX in this regard. The DX 'advantage' in manufacturing has largely gone by 50 mm and completely gone by 85 mm. (The principle advantage comes in making reverse telephoto designs smaller and lighter),
You'd lose the vast majority of the advantage to the consumer (weight, cost) as a fast DX tele zoom would need to be nearly as big as an FX version
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And thats the bit that I don't understand.
I also don't understand how now we appear to be being sold a 1500 quid cut down FX body when the D700 was full on for less money.
Nearly as big, but not quite. The real issue is the same as a hypothetical 16mm PC-E - the difference between DX and FX is small enough that you gain a massive customer base by adding a little bit more, and that little bit is something no company can turn away.
The real advantage for DX at the tele end is that you can use a shorter FL for a given field of view. That particular advantage is obviously only one where light levels aren't an issue.
A D600 would be better at all ISOs than a D700, have better DR, better colour depth, maybe have slightly worse AF (if it uses an unmodified CAM4800 - if they improve it like the 3500 has been it'll be better), have better metering (both the 2016px and 91k px metering systems are better for tracking and other things, and my bet is it'll have the 91k), be smaller, lighter (these two are the most underestimated advantages IMO), cheaper (if it's $1500 it'll be between £1200 and £1400), have video, and a proper live view implementation. Plenty of reasons. The only places it might be worse are peak FPS (if there's no boost from a grip) and AF (if it's an unchanged from the CAM4800 from the D7000).
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nothing I have seen says "51 point AF", so its definitely not got the D300/D700/D800/D3/D4 AF system. I suspect that smaller body means the pentaprisms can't be as widely dispersed meaning it definitely will have less AF points. Which actually is quite interesting as physical size is already a restriction on all other Nikon FX bodies leading to the poor (IMHO) dispersion of AF points across the frame. Just as an aside, this won't go away until we get a hybrid AF system that replaces traditional pentaprism hardware with software and ultimately a full software solution (one day lol!)
As for the other things, why would it have all of those, I can't see whats been disclosed/rumoured that would lead you to that?
Interesting discussion anyway
As for the other things, why would it have all of those, I can't see whats been disclosed/rumoured that would lead you to that?
Interesting discussion anyway
- Messages
- 2,631
- Name
- Damian Brown
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm in if the sensor is at least d700 standard, if it has twin card slots and maybe quiet mode. I'm off to look at the rumours tho as it sounds like twin card slots may not fit the rumours. If it wasn't for having those features on my d300s (and Grr not my d700) then id not be bothered but it's where my dx body excels over my older fx body.
- Messages
- 2,631
- Name
- Damian Brown
- Edit My Images
- No
Dual sd slots!
Ok so I expect it to be a nice camera, the big dogs don't really put out a duff camera, just mess with the pricing and marketing.
Looking forward to seeing it and holding it. I don't mind it being a bit smaller/light weight compared to the d7/800 tho not too light please
Ok so I expect it to be a nice camera, the big dogs don't really put out a duff camera, just mess with the pricing and marketing.
Looking forward to seeing it and holding it. I don't mind it being a bit smaller/light weight compared to the d7/800 tho not too light please
With mirrorless entries crapping all over the APS-C market for consumers, it sure looks like both Nikon and Canon want to get back* into the entry-level full frame market to justify those moving mirrors and big bodies + lenses.
It's happening to me personally as well, having been an APS-C user since early on and got a 5Dc later on, it's now pretty clear that my 7D is not getting a lot of use (unless it's wildlife) and my use is getting split between FF with big glass and a small bag that contains my whole MFT system.
Oh and I really really hope the D600 is a great camera and cheap too.. so that Canon will have to respond
* I say back because they were there with film - for a long time.
It's happening to me personally as well, having been an APS-C user since early on and got a 5Dc later on, it's now pretty clear that my 7D is not getting a lot of use (unless it's wildlife) and my use is getting split between FF with big glass and a small bag that contains my whole MFT system.
Oh and I really really hope the D600 is a great camera and cheap too.. so that Canon will have to respond
* I say back because they were there with film - for a long time.
Nothing I have seen says "51 point AF", so its definitely not got the D300/D700/D800/D3/D4 AF system. I suspect that smaller body means the pentaprisms can't be as widely dispersed meaning it definitely will have less AF points. Which actually is quite interesting as physical size is already a restriction on all other Nikon FX bodies leading to the poor (IMHO) dispersion of AF points across the frame. Just as an aside, this won't go away until we get a hybrid AF system that replaces traditional pentaprism hardware with software and ultimately a full software solution (one day lol!)
As for the other things, why would it have all of those, I can't see whats been disclosed/rumoured that would lead you to that?
Interesting discussion anyway
AF doesn't use pentaprisms. The AF module is below the mirror. The limiting factors for AF spread seem to be the sub mirror size and the usable lens image circle. Software won't fix AF calibration or spread issues. What will fix those two is putting PDAF on the image sensor itself, as that removes most of the mechanical limitations for AF performance. The Nikon 1 has it, and apparently the 650D will have an implementation of it. It's only going to spread from now on, thankfully.
The other things are pretty straightforward. Video and live view on every recent Nikon are properly implemented (no mirror bouncing for exposure, 1:1 pixel view (with the apparent exception of the D800), HD with the various framerate options. The metering I'm guessing based on the 2016px system only appearing in the D7000 - D90 and below used the 420px one which the 5100 and 3200 still do, and the 1005px one isn't used anymore. So either they use the 2016 one which adds supply chain complexity, or they use the 91k one (and get a boost in AF performance along with it). Smaller and lighter - it's based on the D7000 body. The IQ stuff is reasonable guessing - the D7000 is already better than the D700 per unit area, demonstrated by the D800 (virtually the same pixel design but FX), the D800 is strictly better, as is the D4. So I'm expecting similar colour and noise performance to the D800 (maybe a tad better if they've managed to shrink the electronics at all).
Stuff I'd like to see but don't really expect:
The D7000 will AF without assist very well at f/1.4, 1/30, ISO6400 light levels, gets distinctly unreliable (useless LOL) beyond that. The D800/D4 seem to go another stop or two beyond. It'd be nice to have some of that improvement.
The same pixel throughput rate as the D800 would be nice - 144MP/s would give 6FPS in FX. The D7000 has a higher pixel throughput than the D300s, so hopefully a similar relationship will be there.
Don't particularly care about 10 pin, though a PC sync port would be nice.
I'm sure there are people who would like an uncompressed HDMI out - the D600 will likely have nicer video than the D800 (but not the D4) because of the whole lineskipping thing, though it wouldn't mean anything to me as the only video I do is distinctly unserious.
Yep, definitely interesting - I just hope Nikon have their supply issues sorted, I have a feeling this will make the D7000 and D800 look easy to find.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
To be fair to them (and others) they have had quite a tough 18 months with issues out of their control on the supply chain front
An FF camera near the size/weight of my K-5 plus a decent enough lens that's not good enough for me to work my biceps with is tempting.... If the price is right I wouldn't mind to dip my toes on the FF waters just to see what the fuss is all about!
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
An FF camera near the size/weight of my K-5 plus a decent enough lens that's not good enough for me to work my biceps with is tempting.... If the price is right I wouldn't mind to dip my toes on the FF waters just to see what the fuss is all about!
The thing is, the "fuss" is all about how the top end Nikon gear coupled with the top end Nikon glass *somehow* just manages to produce "like wow amazing images". Gosh, how did that happen?
Its not FX on its own that does this - thats just a sensor dimension, but I assume Nikon think you all won't spot this?
"cheap FX" and one of those new 18-300 f3.5/f6.8 ultra zoom lenses (which we havent seen yet but based on the others released only recently like the 24-120 we can assume are ok if your only goal is to carry a light lens rather than actually take images), well I am sure you'll see the difference between that and whatever you had before....
Yep, two once in a generation events in the same year is rough to say the least. However, it's not as if the D7000 was easy to find even pre earthquake, and the D800 is still backordered now. And then lenses on top of that. I'm not saying it to knock them, just saying if the camera comes out with those features at that price, it'll make demand for the other two look lukewarm!
The thing is, the "fuss" is all about how the top end Nikon gear coupled with the top end Nikon glass *somehow* just manages to produce "like wow amazing images". Gosh, how did that happen?
Its not FX on its own that does this - thats just a sensor dimension, but I assume Nikon think you all won't spot this?
"cheap FX" and one of those new 18-300 f3.5/f6.8 ultra zoom lenses (which we havent seen yet but based on the others released only recently like the 24-120 we can assume are ok if your only goal is to carry a light lens rather than actually take images), well I am sure you'll see the difference between that and whatever you had before....
.....?????????????
Buffled.... so I am not going to even bother play along other than to say that I was not suggesting pairing a D600 with a 18-300 more with something like the new 24-85.
My current kit is a K-5 with respectable if not exotic glass and I am very happy with the results.
- Messages
- 7,901
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Isn't the 18-300 a DX lens?
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ed Sutton said:
Indeed. The 28-300mm is FX.
Agreed! Wide angle options are pretty lacking on DX but the Tokina 12-24 has been serving me well. Thanks for mentioning the 28mm f1.8G though, I didn't know that lens existed. Its the equivalent of 12mm on the DX so it looks like I'll have my most used focal lengths covered for under 1k
For $1500 I'd settle for CAM4800, which should be a decent enough for a budget FX. Nikon should have improved the system somewhat since its been out 2 years now.
For $1500 I'd settle for CAM4800, which should be a decent enough for a budget FX. Nikon should have improved the system somewhat since its been out 2 years now.
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It'll have the field of view equivalent to 42mm
Indeed, I should have phrased it better. Meant to say the 28mm F1.8G on FX is the equivalent of the 12mm on DX.
28mm on an FX body would give approximately the same angle of view as 18mm on a DX body.
28mm on DX would be similar to 42mm on FX.
and 12mm on DX would be similar to 18mm on FX.
Or is my brain not working? It is Friday, and have already had a glass of wine
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
mike todd said:28mm on an FX body would give approximately the same angle of view as 18mm on a DX body.
28mm on DX would be similar to 42mm on FX.
and 12mm on DX would be similar to 18mm on FX.
Or is my brain not working? It is Friday, and have already had a glass of wine
Your brains working fine I think