[Towert7]

Nineohtoo, I'm with you. I have the D50, and it does almost everything I need. My biggest complaint is high ISO grain, small viewfinder, no D3/D300 CA correction, and FX size sensor.

I'll be honest with you, if I could get everything that the D300 has with Full Frame sensor, I'd do it. That would be enough of an upgrade for me over my D50 to warrant a new purchase.

In terms of lenses, Nikon has quite a few. There are a few Canon only type lenses that would be nice to have in the Nikon Kit though. A pro 70-200 F/4 would be cool at 600$ so I don't have to pony up for the 1600$ version.
They could also benefit from a 24-70mm VR.

I would be really sad to see more DX type lenses. I would say to myself, what a waste!

 

[bigshot]

I don't think DX is anywhere close to dead. They'll just continue to make sensors that have higher pixel counts, so it won't really matter if there's a little crop in. At this point, the resolution of my D200 is high enough that I can print any size I want anyway.

See ya
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think DX is anywhere close to dead. They'll just continue to make sensors that have higher pixel counts, so it won't really matter if there's a little crop in. At this point, the resolution of my D200 is high enough that I can print any size I want anyway. See ya Steve

I think DX is close to dead.

Nikon's no dummy. And while their consumer P&S may continue on the marketing road of 'more pixles = better', their pro-sumer DSLR's wont if no more gain is to be had.

The DX sensor size can only capture so much info. After so many pixels you are no longer pixel limited. I forget where the theoretical limit is for DX censors, but I seem to remember it being below 20Mpixels. We are very close to it right now.

Assuming you have a lens with good clarity, there comes a point where no more pixels can help. You need to go to a larger sensor size. This is why the 5D takes such wonderful pictures, even with the most modest of lens. We are very close, if not already at this point.

The only way to improve is to go to a larger sensor size for more clarity. It is going to happen a lot sooner than the nay sayers want you to believe. That's why I would start selling off those DX lenses soon while you can still fetch a good $ for them.

I want 5D clarity with D300 ergonomics!!!

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think DX is anywhere close to dead. They'll just continue to make sensors that have higher pixel counts, so it won't really matter if there's a little crop in. At this point, the resolution of my D200 is high enough that I can print any size I want anyway. See ya Steve

I also wanted to point out something that you may have as a misconception.

If, let us say, the theoretical limit of the DX sensor size is 16Mpixels. Adding more Mpixels will not allow for a better crop than that of the 16Mpixel sensor. It is a physical limit determined by the pixel size of the sensor. Now remember, the sensor size for DX is fixed. Adding more pixels does not increase the sensor size, but rather decreases the pixel size.

Whether it is because you are becoming diffraction limited or whatnot, smaller pixels just won't cut it. That is why you need a larger sensor size.

Hope this helps,
~Drew

 

[nineohtoo]

Quote:

My biggest complaint is high ISO grain, small viewfinder, no D3/D300 CA correction, and FX size sensor.

To be honest, I think the D50 is damn good when it comes to ISO noise and grain. I don't even need to bother with any sort of NR so far with ISO 1600.

One of the first shots I took with it after I traded for it. Had that been with a prior D70s or D2H, I would have had to run some sort of NR and then lose some sharpness and color. I don't mind fixing CA in CS2. It would be nice to have it in camera though.

The viewfinder does suck compared to when I used a D2H, and of course an FX sensor would be nice.

uppis, just buy the 85mm 1.8 if the 1.4 is out of your league. It's still an extraordinary lens, regardless of price compared to 85mm 1.4.

BTW, anyoen have any broken or dismantled lenses lying around? I want to make a lens bracelet like the one that was on gizmodo.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nineohtoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif To be honest, I think the D50 is damn good when it comes to ISO noise and grain. I don't even need to bother with any sort of NR so far with ISO 1600. One of the first shots I took with it after I traded for it. Had that been with a prior D70s or D2H, I would have had to run some sort of NR and then lose some sharpness and color. I don't mind fixing CA in CS2. It would be nice to have it in camera though.

Really? Hm...
Do you have your camera set to max sharpness?
I have mine set to max sharpness, and at ISO800 it is quite noticeable, and at ISO1600 it gets really annoying.

I wonder if the sharpness setting has anything to do with it. I'll have to give that a try and put mine to default some time.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think DX is close to dead. Nikon's no dummy. And while their consumer P&S may continue on the marketing road of 'more pixles = better', their pro-sumer DSLR's wont if no more gain is to be had.

No more gain in pixel COUNT. Pixel quality can still advance quite a ways.

Besides. 6MP is plenty. 20MP is obscene. I've made stunning 20x24 prints off shots from my D50 at ISO400. Take that to the next level and look at the pixel size and ISO performance of a D300. I literally have no idea who, other than landscape-types that should be using large-format film anyhow, would ever need more.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif No more gain in pixel COUNT. Pixel quality can still advance quite a ways. Besides. 6MP is plenty. 20MP is obscene. I've made stunning 20x24 prints off shots from my D50 at ISO400. Take that to the next level and look at the pixel size and ISO performance of a D300. I literally have no idea who, other than landscape-types that should be using large-format film anyhow, would ever need more.

6MP on a DX sensor is still pixel limited. 12mp is much closer.

I agree though, pixel quality is the real tough part, and where improvements are always welcome. The D300 has shown what better quality pixel sensor can do.

For most internet usage, crop sensors are fine. For large prints though, or for instances when you want the best picture quality, a 35mm size sensor or larger is helpful. The weeding photographers who offer their customers the option of a very large print come to mind, as do almost any genre of photographer. All of photography can benefit from sharper images.
It is sad when a canon 5D with a budget lens takes images with better clarity than a nikon DX with a real nice lens....... but that's the way it is.

I don't know. Maybe you think I'm silly.
All I know is that I want my pictures to be as clear as possible. If I were to sell my pictures, I would want to put forth the best image possible. That's why I got a D-SLR in the first place, I want the best images I can get, not just what will look good at small resolutions.

Nikon can not afford to have the 5D go without competition. They must introduce a 5D competitor to maintain that market share.

 

[skyline889]

nineohtoo, are you sure you didn't have in camera NR turned on when you took that shot? I've taken shots at ISO 800 and ISO 1600 and I've never seen shots that clean. While the D50 performs pretty well at high ISOS, I see noise beginning to creep in in shadows from just ISO 400 (I admit, I'm a pixel peeper) and by ISO 1600, I'm definitely losing some detail.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif nineohtoo, are you sure you didn't have in camera NR turned on when you took that shot? I've taken shots at ISO 800 and ISO 1600 and I've never seen shots that clean. While the D50 performs pretty well at high ISOS, I see noise beginning to creep in in shadows from just ISO 400 (I admit, I'm a pixel peeper) and by ISO 1600, I'm definitely losing some detail.

Ah, good point. I too do not have NR on in-camera. Again, I'm a sharpness freak.

 

[uppis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nineohtoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif uppis, just buy the 85mm 1.8 if the 1.4 is out of your league. It's still an extraordinary lens, regardless of price compared to 85mm 1.4.

After some reading and seeing some pictures, thats probably what I'm going to do. And 85 1.4 is little too much right now, right after D300, which maybe didn't turn out the best investment for a while. No that its a bad camera, no, not at all, its absolutely great. I just think I could have buy few nice lenses for the price and work with D50. Its really not that much worse compared to D300, D50 mostly just feels like a toy after D300 and the screen looks so tiny..

But hey, does anybody know why newer lenses (AFS VR as far as I've seen) have ten pins, when bodies have just eight?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If, let us say, the theoretical limit of the DX sensor size is 16Mpixels.

Where are you getting 16 megapixels as the theoretical limit of the DX sensor? A few years ago, the limit was 6 megapixels. There's no reason to believe that a few years from now, it'll be 24 or 32 megapixels. Digital cameras are getting to the point where they have resolution to spare for most people's purposes. The main advantage of modern sensors is high ISO performance, not pixel count. Besides, Nikon has traditionally moved very slowly with abandoning formats entirely. Their lenses from the 80s still work the same on cameras today. DX lenses will continue to work just the same on full frame cameras regardless of whether there are new DX bodies coming out. Even so, I doubt that Nikon will stop making DX cameras entirely. There is an advantage to maintaining a difference between consumer and pro lines. And DX lenses are cheaper to design and build than full frame ones.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif For most internet usage, crop sensors are fine. For large prints though, or for instances when you want the best picture quality, a 35mm size sensor or larger is helpful.

I printed an 18 x 24 poster off a 3 megapixel shot from an Olympus 3030 and it was razor sharp. How big a print are you talking about?

Sometimes I wonder if too much is never enough for some folks. I remember shooting ASA 800 on my old F2 and getting grain up the wazoo even at 8x10. The high ISO performance of my D200 is stunning, and I can print huge and it still looks great. Not to mention the fact that the automation on my D200 kicks ass compared to the manual everything of the F2. That frees me up to think creatively and focus on finessing the fine adjustments instead of going through a laundry list of steps with each and every shot.

See ya
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Where are you getting 16 megapixels as the theoretical limit of the DX sensor? A few years ago, the limit was 6 megapixels. There's no reason to believe that a few years from now, it'll be 24 or 32 megapixels. Digital cameras are getting to the point where they have resolution to spare for most people's purposes. The main advantage of modern sensors is high ISO performance, not pixel count. Besides, Nikon has traditionally moved very slowly with abandoning formats entirely. Their lenses from the 80s still work the same on cameras today. DX lenses will continue to work just the same on full frame cameras regardless of whether there are new DX bodies coming out. Even so, I doubt that Nikon will stop making DX cameras entirely. There is an advantage to maintaining a difference between consumer and pro lines. And DX lenses are cheaper to design and build than full frame ones. See ya Steve

This is a good read if you haven't already.
The Full-Frame Advantage

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 85mm F/1.8 is a great lens, ESPECIALLY for the price!

Do you find the large minimum focusing distance to be a problem? In that same price range you can get the Tamron 90 macro or Sigma 105 macro, which of course are quite a bit bigger, and lose 1.3 steps of light. Every time I look at that 85, the idea of being limited to a yard from my subject seems like it would be an annoyance. Heck, I'm often wishing my 180 could get closer than its' five foot limit. I guess the 35 F2 has spoiled me a bit!