Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
If this wasn't DX only, I'd be all over it. Some of us still shoot film, primary reasons being that it's higher-definition than digital at this point in time (35mm film being the potential equivalent of at least 87 megapixels), and it's more fun (put more into it, get more out of it).
This is some good advice here. When I shot Canon my second lens (after the kit) was a plastic-fantastic 50mm f/1.8, and having to zoom with your feet, not to mention the great IQ:price ratio really stepped things up.
I personally don't like normal lenses, so 50mm on a DX is a lot more useful to me. Nikon's new 50mm has a built in AF motor so you can use it on the new cheap bodies, but it's a decent amount more expensive than the old nifty fifties.
@ganooch: The 35mm f/2 is really really great. It's an older lens, which also illustrates why this is needed from Nikon-a lot of their older glass won't autofocus on the new, low-end DSLRS.
@Closed captioning provided by Homerjay: That could go two ways, depending on how you measure it. A 50mm lens is defined as being 50mm from the film plane. So, if this is 50mm from the film plane, it is a true 50mm. If you're talking about the crop factor, then it is a 33 1/3mm lens (if it were a Canon it would be a 31.25mm).
Stick to playing the piano Charlie Brown. Until Nikon AND Canon phase out cropped sensors, DX (and AF-S) will be around for a long time to come. There are far too many people out there who absolutely cannot stand touching a point and shoot camera, but also cannot stand to pay a large premium for a non-prosumer professional SLR camera. That's where DX and AF-S come in.
@jessedybka: DX and EF-S are kind of like the digital equivalent of APS film. They suck, but for some odd reason, people insist on shooting with it still. Look how long it took APS to die, DX and EF-S are going to stick around till neither Canon or Nikon make a profit off of them. I'd be willing to bet the profit margin off of a 50mm DX is greater than that of a 50mm standard prime, or a 35mm prime for that matter. With that standard, you have less glass to mill, etc.
@EqualOpportunityCrasher: Yeah, I completely forgot that Emulsifide meant EF-S. It's been a while since I shot Canon.
I don't necessarily agree that crop sensors suck, though. Obviously larger sensors are going to be better in low-light or blowing things up big-big, but there are some benefits to APS-C sized sensors like being cheaper (for now, anyway) and free telephoto length, like turning a 70-200mm lens into a 105-300mm.
Exactly my point. Otherwise, Nikon wouldn't offer cameras such as the D40/60/90 and Canon wouldn't offer the entire Digital Rebel series. There must be buttloads of money to be made off of DX and EF-S.
This is different from APS because APS was a crappy film format that was smaller than 35mm and really didn't sell well. It's longevity was spurred by stubborn film/camera companies (Including Nikon...not sure whether or not canon has anything APS) that wanted to see their "average layman" film format take off. The digital era eventually sent APS to the grave.
Funny that you bring up APS though. Ken Rockwell (www.kenrockwell.com) has a pretty funny review of a Nikon Pronea S that he picked up off of fleabay for around $25. The photos it produces are very surprising when compared to his Nikon D3...
02/09/09
02/10/09
02/09/09
I personally don't like normal lenses, so 50mm on a DX is a lot more useful to me. Nikon's new 50mm has a built in AF motor so you can use it on the new cheap bodies, but it's a decent amount more expensive than the old nifty fifties.
02/10/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
NIKON D3 FTW!
(Oh, come on, people! Just kidding!)
02/10/09
[www.fredmiranda.com]
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
Sorry, I couldn't resist being a douche.
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
Stick to playing the piano Charlie Brown. Until Nikon AND Canon phase out cropped sensors, DX (and AF-S) will be around for a long time to come. There are far too many people out there who absolutely cannot stand touching a point and shoot camera, but also cannot stand to pay a large premium for a non-prosumer professional SLR camera. That's where DX and AF-S come in.
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
I don't necessarily agree that crop sensors suck, though. Obviously larger sensors are going to be better in low-light or blowing things up big-big, but there are some benefits to APS-C sized sensors like being cheaper (for now, anyway) and free telephoto length, like turning a 70-200mm lens into a 105-300mm.
02/09/09
Exactly my point. Otherwise, Nikon wouldn't offer cameras such as the D40/60/90 and Canon wouldn't offer the entire Digital Rebel series. There must be buttloads of money to be made off of DX and EF-S.
This is different from APS because APS was a crappy film format that was smaller than 35mm and really didn't sell well. It's longevity was spurred by stubborn film/camera companies (Including Nikon...not sure whether or not canon has anything APS) that wanted to see their "average layman" film format take off. The digital era eventually sent APS to the grave.
Funny that you bring up APS though. Ken Rockwell (www.kenrockwell.com) has a pretty funny review of a Nikon Pronea S that he picked up off of fleabay for around $25. The photos it produces are very surprising when compared to his Nikon D3...
02/09/09
There's actually a damn good article on Ken's site regarding APS and how it was the scam of the photography industry:
[kenrockwell.com]
Very interesting read.
02/10/09
02/10/09
You get a field of view cropping factor equivalent, you don't get a focal length magnification that is equivalent.
Your 70-200 is still a 70-200 for magnification; it's just cropped as a 105-300 instead.
02/10/09
02/10/09