Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 8/15/2008
|
The ONLY lenses that won't give you a full coverage of the sensor are DX Nikkors and DC Sigmas.
But do take care, you will notice enhanced chromatic abberation and other distortions in the frame edges when using wideangle lenses.
That's the reason Nikon never before made cameras using FX sized sensors, only started doing it as a marketting gimmick when Canon was seen selling a lot of 5Ds.
Both your 50mm and 105mm should be fine. They're great lenses, no problems using them on cameras with FX size sensors, just like they're fine when used on 35mm film cameras.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 8/15/2008
|
That said, the D700 IMO is a marketting gimmick only.
The D300 is just as much camera, has a DX sensor which is overall superior, and is cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Monsieur Bernardo
(K=356) - Comment Date 8/15/2008
|
Thankīs, Jeroen. I was suspicios of that. So, I think we have to wait ītill Nikon produces its own good Ful Frame lenses for its new sensor. What do you think?
Thankīs again for your comments.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 8/15/2008
|
no, you won't have to wait.
Get a D300 now and get a better camera for less money 
Or get a D700 if you want to throw money away on a marketing campaign and don't use it with lenses of 24mm and wider.
|
|
|
|
Monsieur Bernardo
(K=356) - Comment Date 8/18/2008
|
|
|
|
|
Monsieur Bernardo
(K=356) - Comment Date 8/20/2008
|
Jeroen: D3 is also a marketing campaign or in your opinion is it a serious product?
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 8/20/2008
|
Same thing as the D700, but worse.
According to quite a few people it would have been a far superior camera had they fitted the sensor from the D2x.
But then of course it would have been a D2xss and hardly anyone would have bought it.
Read Thom Hogan's review, he's not uniformly positive about it: http://bythom.com/nikond3review.htm
|
|
|
|
Monsieur Bernardo
(K=356) - Comment Date 8/21/2008
|
Iīll do this weekend, Jeroen.
But, before: whatīs your idea of "fitting the sensor from the D2x", to keep the DX CMOS sensor instead of the FX CMOS sensor?
But, in your opinion, when would it be appropiated time for Nikon to jump from DX cropped sensor to the full-frame FX sensor and, then, to the medium format camera (twenties MP)as the Canon Mark III did? Do you think the time is now (Thom suspires for that move since Canon started its own full-frame sensor game), but is very poorly done by Nikon? Or, tout court, DX Nikon sensor (CDD or CMOS?) are better ones than Full-frame sensors?
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 8/21/2008
|
To get the same image quality from an FX sized sensor as you get from a DX sized sensor requires a far larger image circle, which in turn requires a larger rear element.
The only way to accomplish that is to change the lensmount to one that has a larger diameter.
This is true for both Nikon and Canon, though less severe a problem for Canon as their mount already has a (somewhat) larger diameter so there's more room to work with.
Also remember that a larger sensor will have a smaller density of photosensitive elements for the same number of megapixels.
Depending on the actual density this may or may not be a good thing (there is an optimum), but current generation DX sensors have not yet (quite) reached that optimum.
So it's more a problem of the physics of the optical path rather than the sensor.
And without changing the lensmount (which Nikon has maintained backwards compatible for the last 50 years or so) to be completely different from any other camera those physics will limit the quality of the image irrespective of the quality of the sensor.
Several years ago Nikon stated that during the product presentation of the D2h when asked when they'd produce a "full frame" (read FX) sized sensor.
They explicitly stated they'd not do so until they introduced a new larger diameter lensmount as well.
They've now given up on that for marketing reasons, and I fear it will lead to a lot of disgruntled customers.
|
|
|
|
Monsieur Bernardo
(K=356) - Comment Date 8/23/2008
|
Full frame FX sensor is a 36.5mm x 23.9mm sensor(and Canonīs, a 36.5 x 25mm), almost the size of 35mm film. But Nikonīs F-Mount (1959, when no digital sensor existed at all) was used by cameras loaded with 35 mm film. Worked well & has no physical problem with the circle or the optics.
How is that the same F-mount that worked well with 35mm film does not work at all in 36.5mm FX sensor?
Why the same identical lens mount has "a problem of the physics of the optics" with the 35mm of the sensor and doesnīt have any problem with the 35 mm of the film?
Why the image circle of the F-mount works with the film and doesīnt work with the FX sensor?
Why the 35mm film did not require "a new larger diameter lensmount" and the 36.5mm FX sensor does?
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 8/23/2008
|
You need to understand the physics involved in the sensor as well as the design and chemistry of film somewhat to understand that.
Due to the sensor design it is very important that light falls onto it at as near the perpendicular as possible.
Light falling on it at an angle can excite multiple photoelements, causing ghosting which leads to abberations and distortion, mainly along the frame edges.
This can best be achieved by increasing the diameter of the image circle, as the light (draw some pictures of lens systems and trace rays through them to see why) from the edges of the image circle will be more slanted than light in the center.
By adding optical elements to "straighten out" light beams something can be done, and this is done in DX lenses, but adding optics of course has a degrading effect as well, plus it increases size and weight (which increasing the lens diameter does as well).
For film there's far more leeway.
|
|
|
|
Monsieur Bernardo
(K=356) - Comment Date 8/23/2008
|
As I understand you, Jeroen,
1)light behavious differently in film than in sensor;
2)in the case of digital sensor, light passing through the diameter of the lens (and the mount),under certain circumstances of non-perpendicularity, can excite multiple photoelements along the frame edges, causing aberrations and distortions;
3) Nikon DX sensor adds some optical elements to "straighten up" light beams, but FX does not(or it does?).
If that is so, that will explain the little advantage of Canon EF mount whose threath diameter equals 54mm, and Nikonīs F-mount which equals only 44mm.
Ergo, and finally, all digital cameras passing to the full-frame format need an adjustment in its lens-mount throat diameter in order to make space to the bigger sensor, including, of course Nikon of whom we are here talking about.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 8/24/2008
|
No. the DX sensor doesn't need such optical elements because it only uses a small section of the image circle that sits right in the middle, precisely the spot where the light falls at (near) the ideal angle.
And that explains the advantage of larger diameter mounts, they have a larger section of the image circle that gives that near parallel light you want.
But yes, all sensors suffer from this. It's just that when the sensor is smaller in relation to the diameter of the rear element of the lens (and thus the image circle) the effect it smaller.
Thus the EF mount will support a somewhat larger sensor without it becoming noticeable than does the F mount, but even there it is often rather annoying when using wideangle lenses.
Of course when you don't make very large prints or don't enlarge crops from the frame edges you're not going to suffer much from it, but if you don't plan to do such things why buy a camera with that big a sensor with such a high resolution anyway as you can make prints up to about 20x30" from a 6MP DX sensor with image information to spare?
|
|
|
|
Monsieur Bernardo
(K=356) - Comment Date 8/25/2008
|
OK, Iīm on D300, then; and wait until the awaited promise of a wider throat in Nikonīs mount becomes truth, and we could have enough diameter to sustain the full-frame. Or change brand.
|
|
|
|
