Nikon blast - good news!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Alan Browne, Aug 24, 2007.

  1. Interesting. I've never seen this defect.
    It certainly isn't a low-light camera, so if that is what you were
    looking for, not getting it is probably the wise thing (the newer
    SLR/n is a bit better in this respect than the old 14n, which is the
    model I use, but it is still not a "available drakness camera").
    Yes, but the point we debate here (see the Subject line) is whether
    present Nikon users will have to replace their existing lineup of
    non-DX Nikkor glass to use the new D3 digital model, and my point was
    simply that judging from my own personal experience with old Nikkors
    on my Kodak 14n body - which also has a FX-sized sensor - it that
    old glass work fine on this format.

    You then started to argue that because of all the "issues" with the
    sensor in the Kodak, it is supposedly useless for evaluating how these
    lenses perform on an FX-size digital sensor. My point is that these
    "issues", to the extent thay exist, are avoidable, so, yes, you can
    use this camera to judge the suitability of a lens on a FX-sized
    digital sensor. Ok?
    Nobody has jumped you. I simply responded to the points you
    raised with respect to my opinion about the usability of old
    Nikkors on the D3.
    Which was probably the right thing to do, if you wanted a camera for
    available light. That doesn't mean that the camera can't be used to
    see how old Nikkors perform at various apertures, given that there is
    enough light to shoot at ISO 80.
    Support may become a problem at one point, but currently, there are a
    number of workshops, official and un-official, that repair these
    cameras. I had to replace a shutter about two months ago, and that
    was not a problem. However, the prices at eBay for these models are
    falling, and it is probably only a matter of time before it will be
    more expensive to repair than to replace.
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 29, 2007
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    cjcampbell Guest

    Nothing wrong with using the DX lenses on DX cameras. Nikon has
    introduced only one FX camera. All the rest are still DX. We can
    expect that Nikon will continue to introduce DX lenses in the future.
    Thom Hogan, who claims to be in a position to know, says that they
    will.

    That said, my DX lenses are for sale. :) At least, they will be after
    I get back from Mazatlan. Except for the 18-200mm and 10.5mm fish eye.
    Those I will keep for the D200. So I guess that leaves the 12-24mm and
    the 17-55mm f/2.8. I really love the latter lens, though, for
    portraits. Maybe I will keep it after all. The 12-24mm can go, though.
    Maybe. Hmm. The D70 is now so unreliable it can no longer serve as a
    backup, so I might need a wide angle for the D200. Besides, I am not
    planning on getting a D3 at all -- waiting for the next FX camera
    which I think will be introduced next year. (But then again, I was not
    going to get an iPhone, either.) So, what? Start acquiring the new
    lenses with a view toward a new FX camera, while I keep the DX lenses
    until then? Probably. But then I need something to replace the wobbly
    D70. The D300 is overkill. So, what, the D40? Again I need the DX
    lenses.

    OTOH, I really do not want to lug two camera bags around on our
    travels. So the DX lenses are likely to get left behind, especially on
    our trip to South America next spring. So it hardly makes any sense to
    keep the DX lenses after all.
     
    cjcampbell, Aug 29, 2007
    #42
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.