Nikon DX Lenses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John, Jun 5, 2004.

  1. John

    John Guest

    I'm considering a D70 and would like some advice. I understand that
    the DX lenses have the advantages of being smaller, lighter and
    cheaper. However, because of the smaller image circle compared to a 35
    mm camera lens, they would become somewhat obsolete if/when full
    format digital cameras come down in price to something like the D70
    costs today.

    How long do you think the D70 sensor format will be around, and is it
    wise to invest much in the DX lenses?

    Thanks.
    John, Jun 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John

    Bob Flint Guest

    On 4 Jun 2004 17:54:18 -0700, (John) wrote:

    >I'm considering a D70 and would like some advice. I understand that
    >the DX lenses have the advantages of being smaller, lighter and
    >cheaper. However, because of the smaller image circle compared to a 35
    >mm camera lens, they would become somewhat obsolete if/when full
    >format digital cameras come down in price to something like the D70
    >costs today.


    Not really, the main difference with the DX lens's is the fact they extend
    further into the camera, I don't think that means they will become obsolete on
    newer cameras. If Nikon is going to push digital and DX lens's then they won't
    want to obsolete them.

    >How long do you think the D70 sensor format will be around, and is it
    >wise to invest much in the DX lenses?


    Wow what a question!! In the world of digital - once it's made - it's obsolete!!

    Companies have already moved on to the 8m sensor!

    If you're afraid of the DX lens's - just don't buy them. I have one DX, one G,
    and one Sigma Dl - they all fit, they all require multiplying by 1.5.... I don't
    see a problem

    The problem is the beating I took on my Minolta Dimage 7!!

    >Thanks.
    Bob Flint, Jun 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John

    Lourens Smak Guest

    In article <>,
    (John) wrote:

    > How long do you think the D70 sensor format will be around, and is it
    > wise to invest much in the DX lenses?


    Look around in your house. everything digital in there is half the size
    AND better AND cheaper than it was a year ago. Miniaturization is
    unavoidable because of the laws of economics and technology.

    Nikon has stated quite clearly they will stay with the DX format; making
    large chips very cheap will require a scientific breakthrough of
    biblical proportions. Making smaller chips better is a much easier
    route, which in the end will not make a significant difference in
    image-quality. Large chips have drawbacks too...

    Lourens.
    Lourens Smak, Jun 5, 2004
    #3
  4. John

    Ray Paseur Guest

    "John" wrote ...
    I'm considering a D70 <snip>

    I have put up a web site (new on June 5 at 9:30am EDT) to track subjective
    opinions of the Nikkor lenses on the D70.

    http://non-aol.com/D70

    Please contribute your experiences to the data base. I'll keep it online as
    long as it seems relevant to those of us who are moving from film to
    digital.

    Ray Paseur
    Ray Paseur, Jun 5, 2004
    #4
  5. John

    Guest

    Bob Flint <> wrote:
    : On 4 Jun 2004 17:54:18 -0700, (John) wrote:

    : >I'm considering a D70 and would like some advice. I understand that
    : >the DX lenses have the advantages of being smaller, lighter and
    : >cheaper. However, because of the smaller image circle compared to a 35
    : >mm camera lens, they would become somewhat obsolete if/when full
    : >format digital cameras come down in price to something like the D70
    : >costs today.

    : Not really, the main difference with the DX lens's is the fact they extend
    : further into the camera, I don't think that means they will become obsolete on
    : newer cameras. If Nikon is going to push digital and DX lens's then they won't
    : want to obsolete them.

    As far as I know, the DX lenses do not extend fruther into the body. I
    have the Nikon 12-24mm DX lens and I have mounted it on my F100. It just
    does not cover the full frame on a full-frame 35mm camera if you set the
    zoom to the wider end of the range, but it does fit. I think I have read
    that some of the other DX lenses will not cover the 35mm frame at any
    focal length setting.

    Ray

    --
    E. Ray Lemar
    , Jun 5, 2004
    #5
  6. John

    Bob Flint Guest

    On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:46:47 -0500, wrote:

    >Bob Flint <> wrote:
    >: On 4 Jun 2004 17:54:18 -0700, (John) wrote:
    >
    >: >I'm considering a D70 and would like some advice. I understand that
    >: >the DX lenses have the advantages of being smaller, lighter and
    >: >cheaper. However, because of the smaller image circle compared to a 35
    >: >mm camera lens, they would become somewhat obsolete if/when full
    >: >format digital cameras come down in price to something like the D70
    >: >costs today.
    >
    >: Not really, the main difference with the DX lens's is the fact they extend
    >: further into the camera, I don't think that means they will become obsolete on
    >: newer cameras. If Nikon is going to push digital and DX lens's then they won't
    >: want to obsolete them.
    >
    >As far as I know, the DX lenses do not extend fruther into the body. I
    >have the Nikon 12-24mm DX lens and I have mounted it on my F100. It just
    >does not cover the full frame on a full-frame 35mm camera if you set the
    >zoom to the wider end of the range, but it does fit. I think I have read
    >that some of the other DX lenses will not cover the 35mm frame at any
    >focal length setting.
    >
    >Ray


    OK - they don't actually poke out further, but the glass on the DX lens is about
    an inch closer to the camera then on say a G lens. This means the image is
    projected further into the camera, I imagine, and is the reason they don't work
    well with film cameras. I think this makes the DX lens smaller, no?
    Bob Flint, Jun 6, 2004
    #6
  7. John <> wrote:
    >
    > How long do you think the D70 sensor format will be around, and is it
    > wise to invest much in the DX lenses?


    My personal opinion - the DX format will be around for as long as you
    would want to keep any lens that you buy today. I don't expect 35mm
    digital sensors to become popular, ever - silicon area will always be
    expensive, and so long as lenses are made of glass and plastic, the
    lenses will always be larger, too (some of the research on fluid
    deformable lenses might change this last point about lenses, but that's
    a long long way from approaching the quality you'd want).


    --
    There are two types of tasks in life: those which become less urgent
    as time passes, and those which become more urgent. Rotating one's
    ..signature file is a task of the latter type.
    Tim Vanderhoek, Jun 6, 2004
    #7
  8. John

    JR Guest


    > >Ray

    >
    > OK - they don't actually poke out further, but the glass on the DX lens is
    > about
    > an inch closer to the camera then on say a G lens. This means the image is
    > projected further into the camera, I imagine, and is the reason they don't
    > work
    > well with film cameras. I think this makes the DX lens smaller, no?
    >


    No, wrong again, the DX lenses only project the image to the sensor
    area, which is smaller than a 35mm frame. So if used on a 35mm camera,
    it will show a dark circle around the edges where the lens coverage is
    smaller than the frame. The reason the lens is shorter is it does not
    have to cover a full 35mm sized frame.

    JR
    JR, Jun 6, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <8luwc.56757$>,
    says...
    > My personal opinion - the DX format will be around for as long as you
    > would want to keep any lens that you buy today. I don't expect 35mm
    > digital sensors to become popular, ever - silicon area will always be
    > expensive, and so long as lenses are made of glass and plastic, the
    > lenses will always be larger, too (some of the research on fluid
    > deformable lenses might change this last point about lenses, but that's
    > a long long way from approaching the quality you'd want).


    Actually, as the technology stands now, 35mm sized sensors are going to
    be the dominant format for some time to come. As others have explained
    prior and in better detail, a larger sensor allows for less noise and
    more sensitive photosensors. Right now the cost is prohibitive, but
    industry always manages to find a way around that eventually. Within
    the next five years you'll see full frame at consumer prices.
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 6, 2004
    #9
  10. John

    zeitgeist Guest


    > I'm considering a D70 and would like some advice. I understand that
    > the DX lenses have the advantages of being smaller, lighter and
    > cheaper. However, because of the smaller image circle compared to a 35
    > mm camera lens, they would become somewhat obsolete if/when full
    > format digital cameras come down in price to something like the D70
    > costs today.
    >
    > How long do you think the D70 sensor format will be around, and is it
    > wise to invest much in the DX lenses?
    >


    Because of costs involved in making chips, it is more probable that the
    current chips will become the standard, and full frame chips will remain
    more expensive, not only cause they are harder to make but there will be
    less of a demand, and full frame will like what medium format was, the
    upgrade, the professional choice.
    zeitgeist, Jun 6, 2004
    #10
  11. >
    >Nikon has stated quite clearly they will stay with the DX format; making
    >large chips very cheap will require a scientific breakthrough of
    >biblical proportions.


    There is a 35mm chip digital Nikon camera sold as Minolta brand.

    -Michael
    Michael Schnell, Jun 6, 2004
    #11
  12. John

    Tom Scales Guest

    Why would Nikon sell something as a Minolta?


    "Michael Schnell" <> wrote in message
    news:c9ug6i$2a6$06$-online.com...
    > >
    > >Nikon has stated quite clearly they will stay with the DX format; making
    > >large chips very cheap will require a scientific breakthrough of
    > >biblical proportions.

    >
    > There is a 35mm chip digital Nikon camera sold as Minolta brand.
    >
    > -Michael
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Tom Scales, Jun 6, 2004
    #12
  13. == Urspr√ľngliche Mitteilung von "Tom Scales" <> am
    6.06.04 12:07
    >Why would Nikon sell something as a Minolta?
    >


    I suppose they provide them either many of the parts built in the camera or
    the manufacture the complete thing for them.

    It's based on a Nikon body (which is enlarged to hold the content) seems do
    be based on Nikon electronics (similar handling) and takes Nikon glass.

    -Michael
    Michael Schnell, Jun 6, 2004
    #13
  14. John

    B.A.S. Guest

    zeitgeist wrote:

    >>I'm considering a D70 and would like some advice. I understand that
    >>the DX lenses have the advantages of being smaller, lighter and
    >>cheaper. However, because of the smaller image circle compared to a 35
    >>mm camera lens, they would become somewhat obsolete if/when full
    >>format digital cameras come down in price to something like the D70
    >>costs today.
    >>
    >>How long do you think the D70 sensor format will be around, and is it
    >>wise to invest much in the DX lenses?
    >>

    >
    >
    > Because of costs involved in making chips, it is more probable that the
    > current chips will become the standard, and full frame chips will remain
    > more expensive, not only cause they are harder to make but there will be
    > less of a demand, and full frame will like what medium format was, the
    > upgrade, the professional choice.


    I agree. Barring some miraculous breakthrough in chip-making technology,
    full frame sensors will always be an order of magnitude more costly to
    make than APS or 4/3 sized sensors. They just take up too big a chunk of
    silicon...

    Engineering and cost-wise it makes more sense to attack the noise issue
    in smaller sensors, which should be doable. With lighter weight glass,
    and lighter weight bodies, smaller sensor DSLR's will be the mainstream
    for many years to come if they can come close to the resolution and
    noise levels of their big brother full-frame DSLR's. Full frame bodies
    will continue to be a niche product for the relatively small number of
    pros who can afford them.

    And 35mm full-frame glass will slowly become more and more expensive in
    relation to 'DX' glass (for small sensor bodies), as 35mm film bodies
    become a smaller and smaller piece of the SLR market pie, and the
    economics of mass production no longer apply to the full frame lenses.

    Okay, enough peering into that murky crystal ball...

    B.A.S.
    B.A.S., Jun 6, 2004
    #14
  15. >There is a 35mm chip digital Nikon camera sold as Minolta brand.
    >


    Sorry I was sleeping. The brand it question is Kodak.

    -Michael
    Michael Schnell, Jun 6, 2004
    #15
  16. On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:29:44 -0400, Bob Flint
    <> wrote:

    >OK - they don't actually poke out further, but the glass on the DX lens is about
    >an inch closer to the camera then on say a G lens. This means the image is
    >projected further into the camera, I imagine, and is the reason they don't work
    >well with film cameras. I think this makes the DX lens smaller, no?


    Are you sure you aren't thinking of the IX lenses that Nikon made for
    the Pronea APS cameras?

    --
    Michael Benveniste --
    Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
    address only to submit mail for evaluation.
    Michael Benveniste, Jun 6, 2004
    #16
  17. John

    Jose Marques Guest

    On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Bob Flint wrote:

    > OK - they don't actually poke out further, but the glass on the DX lens
    > is about an inch closer to the camera then on say a G lens.


    I think you may be thinking of the IX lenses produced for Nikon's APS SLR
    range. The DX "kit" lens that came with my D70 doesn't extend into the
    camera. The rear lens cap of this lens is the same as that for an
    ordinary AF/AIS lens.

    --
    Jose Marques
    Jose Marques, Jun 6, 2004
    #17
  18. John

    Tom Scales Guest

    What model? I know they did this with Kodak, but Minolta surprises me.

    Tom
    "Michael Schnell" <> wrote in message
    news:c9utvk$5im$02$-online.com...
    == Urspr√ľngliche Mitteilung von "Tom Scales" <> am
    6.06.04 12:07
    >Why would Nikon sell something as a Minolta?
    >


    I suppose they provide them either many of the parts built in the camera or
    the manufacture the complete thing for them.

    It's based on a Nikon body (which is enlarged to hold the content) seems do
    be based on Nikon electronics (similar handling) and takes Nikon glass.

    -Michael
    Tom Scales, Jun 6, 2004
    #18
  19. John

    Tom Scales Guest

    Ah, yes.
    "Michael Schnell" <> wrote in message
    news:c9v5un$aa3$01$-online.com...
    > >There is a 35mm chip digital Nikon camera sold as Minolta brand.
    > >

    >
    > Sorry I was sleeping. The brand it question is Kodak.
    >
    > -Michael
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Tom Scales, Jun 6, 2004
    #19
  20. John

    Bob Flint Guest

    On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:08:16 -0700, JR <> wrote:

    >
    >> >Ray

    >>
    >> OK - they don't actually poke out further, but the glass on the DX lens is
    >> about
    >> an inch closer to the camera then on say a G lens. This means the image is
    >> projected further into the camera, I imagine, and is the reason they don't
    >> work
    >> well with film cameras. I think this makes the DX lens smaller, no?
    >>

    >
    >No, wrong again,


    about what?

    >the DX lenses only project the image to the sensor
    >area, which is smaller than a 35mm frame. So if used on a 35mm camera,
    >it will show a dark circle around the edges where the lens coverage is
    >smaller than the frame.


    I thought I said that! Since the image is closer it is smaller, you'd need to
    move the sensor back and make it bigger... and you'd be back where you started
    with, with normal film cameras.

    I'm only going by what I read at the review site.

    > The reason the lens is shorter is it does not
    >have to cover a full 35mm sized frame.


    Didn't I say the lens was smaller?


    >JR
    Bob Flint, Jun 7, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Al Dykes

    Nikon D100 with Nikon Manual Lenses ?

    Al Dykes, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,599
    JohnG
    Jan 20, 2005
  2. Woody

    Use of old Nikon zoom lenses with Nikon D70

    Woody, Jan 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    452
  3. Nikon D70 compatible w/ Nikon 35mm lenses?

    , Jun 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    595
    Roger
    Jun 3, 2005
  4. Ken M

    Nikon D70s & Nikon AF-D lenses - Compatible?

    Ken M, Jan 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,421
  5. Twibil
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    741
    ASAAR
    Jan 24, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page