Group: rec.photo.digital
Digital cameras, scanners, printers, software, PhotoCD.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it
will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then
moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300. The d3 is entirely
out of my range; even the d300 is a stretch. However, I am going to retire
in August, and I want to be able to expand my horizons at that time. I
remember the days when I got my first film SLR (*many* years ago), and I
have really forgotten all that I knew then about making manual adjustments.
I even had to use a light meter at that time! In recent years, I have done
almost everything in automatic settings and want to get back to knowing how
to do things manually when conditions call for it.
Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm
f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures
appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and
look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this
provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens, and
I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile.
Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in this type
of camera? (I do realize that this question may come across sounding rather
stupid. That's because I simply don't understand that part of the process,
and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have
not had interchangeable lenses, of course.)
MaryL
I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it
will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then
moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300. The d3 is entirely
out of my range; even the d300 is a stretch. However, I am going to retire
in August, and I want to be able to expand my horizons at that time. I
remember the days when I got my first film SLR (*many* years ago), and I
have really forgotten all that I knew then about making manual adjustments.
I even had to use a light meter at that time! In recent years, I have done
almost everything in automatic settings and want to get back to knowing how
to do things manually when conditions call for it.
Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm
f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures
appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and
look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this
provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens, and
I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile.
Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in this type
of camera? (I do realize that this question may come across sounding rather
stupid. That's because I simply don't understand that part of the process,
and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have
not had interchangeable lenses, of course.)
MaryL
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
MaryL wrote:
> I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it
> will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then
> moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300. The d3 is
> entirely
> out of my range; even the d300 is a stretch. However, I am going to retire
> in August, and I want to be able to expand my horizons at that time. I
> remember the days when I got my first film SLR (*many* years ago), and I
> have really forgotten all that I knew then about making manual adjustments.
> I even had to use a light meter at that time! In recent years, I have done
> almost everything in automatic settings and want to get back to knowing how
> to do things manually when conditions call for it.
>
The D300 is quite expensive for a crop-sensor camera. Probably, Nikon
will release an "updated D80" this year that would share some of the
D300 features. But of course nobody (except Nikon) knows what features
will be downgraded or left off, so speculation about whether that might
meet anyone's needs is mainly futile.
The D80 was "almost" a D200 - how close to being "almost" a D300 the new
camera will be can only be a guess.
This may not apply to you, but the lack of "scene modes" on the D300 may
be a problem to some people - there's no easy fallback position (only
"P" exposure mode) if you don't want to bother thinking about how you
are using the camera.
> Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm
> f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures
> appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and
> look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this
> provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens,
> and
> I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile.
>
Some people love this lens, others surely don't. For the zoom range of
11x, it's pretty good, and the VR feature works. It is quite slow to
focus for an AFS (Nikon ring motor / USM) lens.
For about the same price, you can get a Nikkor 18-70 and a 70-300VR, and
go from something with barely acceptable optical performance, to
something with quite good performance over the same range, with the
inconvenience of having to change lenses. Even the very inexpensive
55-200VR is probably better optically.
No scientific test, but if dust on the sensor is your concern, then I've
now used a D300 for about 8 weeks with many lens changes, and have not
had one speck of dust visible in an image. Either the sensor cleaning
system works better than I thought it ever could, or I've been
unbelievably lucky. I suspect the former. I don't have sensor cleaning
set to be done at power on etc, just occasionally run a clean after I
change a lens outdoors. With previous Nikon dslr cameras, and the way I
use them, weekly cleaning by blowing dust off was about the norm, plus
occasional cloning out of dust spots, and a full "wet-clean" two or
three times a year.
> Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
> stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
> factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in this type
> of camera? (I do realize that this question may come across sounding
> rather
> stupid. That's because I simply don't understand that part of the process,
> and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have
> not had interchangeable lenses, of course.)
In theory, because in-lens stabilisation works better at longer focal
lengths - which is where it's the most benefit. Cynics said that it was
because Nikon (&Canon) would make lots of $ on sales of new lenses, but
low cost VR lenses are now available, and there's no evidence that any
camera makers with in-body stabilisation are offering lenses any less
expensively than VR/IS equivalents from Nikon or Canon.
MaryL wrote:
> I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it
> will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then
> moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300. The d3 is
> entirely
> out of my range; even the d300 is a stretch. However, I am going to retire
> in August, and I want to be able to expand my horizons at that time. I
> remember the days when I got my first film SLR (*many* years ago), and I
> have really forgotten all that I knew then about making manual adjustments.
> I even had to use a light meter at that time! In recent years, I have done
> almost everything in automatic settings and want to get back to knowing how
> to do things manually when conditions call for it.
>
The D300 is quite expensive for a crop-sensor camera. Probably, Nikon
will release an "updated D80" this year that would share some of the
D300 features. But of course nobody (except Nikon) knows what features
will be downgraded or left off, so speculation about whether that might
meet anyone's needs is mainly futile.
The D80 was "almost" a D200 - how close to being "almost" a D300 the new
camera will be can only be a guess.
This may not apply to you, but the lack of "scene modes" on the D300 may
be a problem to some people - there's no easy fallback position (only
"P" exposure mode) if you don't want to bother thinking about how you
are using the camera.
> Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm
> f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures
> appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and
> look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this
> provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens,
> and
> I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile.
>
Some people love this lens, others surely don't. For the zoom range of
11x, it's pretty good, and the VR feature works. It is quite slow to
focus for an AFS (Nikon ring motor / USM) lens.
For about the same price, you can get a Nikkor 18-70 and a 70-300VR, and
go from something with barely acceptable optical performance, to
something with quite good performance over the same range, with the
inconvenience of having to change lenses. Even the very inexpensive
55-200VR is probably better optically.
No scientific test, but if dust on the sensor is your concern, then I've
now used a D300 for about 8 weeks with many lens changes, and have not
had one speck of dust visible in an image. Either the sensor cleaning
system works better than I thought it ever could, or I've been
unbelievably lucky. I suspect the former. I don't have sensor cleaning
set to be done at power on etc, just occasionally run a clean after I
change a lens outdoors. With previous Nikon dslr cameras, and the way I
use them, weekly cleaning by blowing dust off was about the norm, plus
occasional cloning out of dust spots, and a full "wet-clean" two or
three times a year.
> Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
> stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
> factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in this type
> of camera? (I do realize that this question may come across sounding
> rather
> stupid. That's because I simply don't understand that part of the process,
> and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have
> not had interchangeable lenses, of course.)
In theory, because in-lens stabilisation works better at longer focal
lengths - which is where it's the most benefit. Cynics said that it was
because Nikon (&Canon) would make lots of $ on sales of new lenses, but
low cost VR lenses are now available, and there's no evidence that any
camera makers with in-body stabilisation are offering lenses any less
expensively than VR/IS equivalents from Nikon or Canon.
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
MaryL wrote:
[]
> Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
> stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
> factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in
> this type of camera? (I do realize that this question may come
> across sounding rather stupid. That's because I simply don't
> understand that part of the process, and my previous cameras have had
> built-in image stabilization -- but have not had interchangeable
> lenses, of course.)
> MaryL
Mary,
In-lens probably allowed Nikon (and Canon) to bring IS/VR to the market
more quickly. One important advantage of in-lens VR is that it stabilises
the image in the viewfinder - and makes it easier to compose and see the
shot. By providing a more stable image to the focus and exposure sensors,
it allows the camera to perform better as well.
Of course, if you have a bunch of existing lenses the in-body IS is
cheaper than buying new lenses, and may be worth the reduced performance.
Cheers,
David
MaryL wrote:
[]
> Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
> stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
> factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in
> this type of camera? (I do realize that this question may come
> across sounding rather stupid. That's because I simply don't
> understand that part of the process, and my previous cameras have had
> built-in image stabilization -- but have not had interchangeable
> lenses, of course.)
> MaryL
Mary,
In-lens probably allowed Nikon (and Canon) to bring IS/VR to the market
more quickly. One important advantage of in-lens VR is that it stabilises
the image in the viewfinder - and makes it easier to compose and see the
shot. By providing a more stable image to the focus and exposure sensors,
it allows the camera to perform better as well.
Of course, if you have a bunch of existing lenses the in-body IS is
cheaper than buying new lenses, and may be worth the reduced performance.
Cheers,
David
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
In article <4813f221$0$4055$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink,net >, MaryL
<stancole1@yahoo,com TAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:
> I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it
> will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then
> moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300.
there's quite a difference between a d40x and d300. also keep in mind
that the d80 is soon to be replaced...
> Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm
> f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures
> appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and
> look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this
> provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens, and
> I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile.
it's an excellent one-lens solution, but if you split the range into
multiple lenses, you'll probably get better quality with a little less
convenience.
> Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
> stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
> factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in this type
> of camera? (I do realize that this question may come across sounding rather
> stupid. That's because I simply don't understand that part of the process,
> and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have
> not had interchangeable lenses, of course.)
nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only
way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized
lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body.
In article <4813f221$0$4055$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink,net >, MaryL
<stancole1@yahoo,com TAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:
> I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it
> will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then
> moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300.
there's quite a difference between a d40x and d300. also keep in mind
that the d80 is soon to be replaced...
> Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm
> f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures
> appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and
> look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this
> provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens, and
> I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile.
it's an excellent one-lens solution, but if you split the range into
multiple lenses, you'll probably get better quality with a little less
convenience.
> Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
> stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
> factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in this type
> of camera? (I do realize that this question may come across sounding rather
> stupid. That's because I simply don't understand that part of the process,
> and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have
> not had interchangeable lenses, of course.)
nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only
way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized
lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body.
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
In article <270420080558261835%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only
> way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized
> lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body.
You mean it's all a legacy issue? Looks rather that Nikon and Canon want
you to buy their expensive IS lenses.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http :// tech.groups.yahoo,com /group/MyOlympus/
http :// myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
In article <270420080558261835%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only
> way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized
> lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body.
You mean it's all a legacy issue? Looks rather that Nikon and Canon want
you to buy their expensive IS lenses.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http :// tech.groups.yahoo,com /group/MyOlympus/
http :// myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <270420080558261835%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the
>> only way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had
>> stabilized lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera
>> body.
>
> You mean it's all a legacy issue? Looks rather that Nikon and Canon
> want you to buy their expensive IS lenses.
.. as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have
IS?
<G>
You have a choice - if you want to see the image stabilised while you're
taking the shot, you need in-lens IS, otherwise you can use in-body IS.
Your money, your choice of compromise. BTW: some Nikon IS lenses are not
that expensive, and are rather good value for money.
David
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <270420080558261835%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the
>> only way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had
>> stabilized lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera
>> body.
>
> You mean it's all a legacy issue? Looks rather that Nikon and Canon
> want you to buy their expensive IS lenses.
.. as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have
IS?
<G>
You have a choice - if you want to see the image stabilised while you're
taking the shot, you need in-lens IS, otherwise you can use in-body IS.
Your money, your choice of compromise. BTW: some Nikon IS lenses are not
that expensive, and are rather good value for money.
David
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
In article <h%2Rj.16354$yD2.5803@text.news.virginmedia,com >, David J
Taylor says...
> .. as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have
> IS?
Which Olympus lenses are more expensive than equivalent Canon lenses
with IS?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http :// tech.groups.yahoo,com /group/MyOlympus/
http :// myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
In article <h%2Rj.16354$yD2.5803@text.news.virginmedia,com >, David J
Taylor says...
> .. as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have
> IS?
Which Olympus lenses are more expensive than equivalent Canon lenses
with IS?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http :// tech.groups.yahoo,com /group/MyOlympus/
http :// myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
In article <MPG.227f148fed81866698bbd5@news.supernews,com >, Alfred
Molon <alfred molon@yahoo,com > wrote:
> > .. as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have
> > IS?
>
> Which Olympus lenses are more expensive than equivalent Canon lenses
> with IS?
since 4/3rds has a smaller sensor, to match depth of field as well as
noise, an f/2 4/3rds lens is equivalent to f/2.8 on dx and f/4 on full
frame, all things being equal. thus, the canon 70-200mm f/4 would give
the same final image, and it is about half the price of the olympus.
the f/2.8, which is effectively faster than the olympus lens given the
difference in frame size, is *still* less expensive.
olympus 35-100mm f/2, $2199
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/404517-REG/Olympus 261012 35 100m
m f 2 0 ED Zuiko.html>
canon 70-200mm f/4, $1059
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/457678-USA/Canon 1258B002 70 200m
m f 4L IS USM.html>
canon 70-200mm f/2.8, $1699
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/234444-USA/Canon 7042A002 70 200m
m f 2 8L IS USM.html>
nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, $1624
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/274780-USA/Nikon 2139 70 200mm f
2 8D VR G AFS.html>
In article <MPG.227f148fed81866698bbd5@news.supernews,com >, Alfred
Molon <alfred molon@yahoo,com > wrote:
> > .. as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have
> > IS?
>
> Which Olympus lenses are more expensive than equivalent Canon lenses
> with IS?
since 4/3rds has a smaller sensor, to match depth of field as well as
noise, an f/2 4/3rds lens is equivalent to f/2.8 on dx and f/4 on full
frame, all things being equal. thus, the canon 70-200mm f/4 would give
the same final image, and it is about half the price of the olympus.
the f/2.8, which is effectively faster than the olympus lens given the
difference in frame size, is *still* less expensive.
olympus 35-100mm f/2, $2199
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/404517-REG/Olympus 261012 35 100m
m f 2 0 ED Zuiko.html>
canon 70-200mm f/4, $1059
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/457678-USA/Canon 1258B002 70 200m
m f 4L IS USM.html>
canon 70-200mm f/2.8, $1699
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/234444-USA/Canon 7042A002 70 200m
m f 2 8L IS USM.html>
nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, $1624
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/274780-USA/Nikon 2139 70 200mm f
2 8D VR G AFS.html>
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
In article <270420081830462517%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> since 4/3rds has a smaller sensor, to match depth of field as well as
> noise, an f/2 4/3rds lens is equivalent to f/2.8 on dx and f/4 on full
> frame, all things being equal. thus, the canon 70-200mm f/4 would give
> the same final image, and it is about half the price of the olympus.
> the f/2.8, which is effectively faster than the olympus lens given the
> difference in frame size, is *still* less expensive.
Total nonsense. You have to compare lenses with the same aperture.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http :// tech.groups.yahoo,com /group/MyOlympus/
http :// myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
In article <270420081830462517%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> since 4/3rds has a smaller sensor, to match depth of field as well as
> noise, an f/2 4/3rds lens is equivalent to f/2.8 on dx and f/4 on full
> frame, all things being equal. thus, the canon 70-200mm f/4 would give
> the same final image, and it is about half the price of the olympus.
> the f/2.8, which is effectively faster than the olympus lens given the
> difference in frame size, is *still* less expensive.
Total nonsense. You have to compare lenses with the same aperture.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http :// tech.groups.yahoo,com /group/MyOlympus/
http :// myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
In article <MPG.227f8660fa88840598bbd6@news.supernews,com >, Alfred
Molon <alfred molon@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Total nonsense. You have to compare lenses with the same aperture.
it's only nonsense if the sensor size is the same.
since the 4/3rds sensor is much smaller than dx and even more so
compared with fullframe, the aperture needs to change so that the final
image is equivalent.
In article <MPG.227f8660fa88840598bbd6@news.supernews,com >, Alfred
Molon <alfred molon@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Total nonsense. You have to compare lenses with the same aperture.
it's only nonsense if the sensor size is the same.
since the 4/3rds sensor is much smaller than dx and even more so
compared with fullframe, the aperture needs to change so that the final
image is equivalent.
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
In article <280420080736101694%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> since the 4/3rds sensor is much smaller than dx and even more so
> compared with fullframe, the aperture needs to change so that the final
> image is equivalent.
4/3 sensors are only a little bit smaller than APS. 15%-20% linear size
difference is not much smaller.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http :// tech.groups.yahoo,com /group/MyOlympus/
http :// myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
In article <280420080736101694%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> since the 4/3rds sensor is much smaller than dx and even more so
> compared with fullframe, the aperture needs to change so that the final
> image is equivalent.
4/3 sensors are only a little bit smaller than APS. 15%-20% linear size
difference is not much smaller.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http :// tech.groups.yahoo,com /group/MyOlympus/
http :// myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
In article <MPG.22800b81802ff9f798bbd7@news.supernews,com >, Alfred
Molon <alfred molon@yahoo,com > wrote:
> In article <280420080736101694%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
> > since the 4/3rds sensor is much smaller than dx and even more so
> > compared with fullframe, the aperture needs to change so that the final
> > image is equivalent.
>
> 4/3 sensors are only a little bit smaller than APS. 15%-20% linear size
> difference is not much smaller.
nikon dx is 17% larger in height, but due to the different aspect
ratios, the width is 31% wider.
In article <MPG.22800b81802ff9f798bbd7@news.supernews,com >, Alfred
Molon <alfred molon@yahoo,com > wrote:
> In article <280420080736101694%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
> > since the 4/3rds sensor is much smaller than dx and even more so
> > compared with fullframe, the aperture needs to change so that the final
> > image is equivalent.
>
> 4/3 sensors are only a little bit smaller than APS. 15%-20% linear size
> difference is not much smaller.
nikon dx is 17% larger in height, but due to the different aspect
ratios, the width is 31% wider.
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:MPG.227f8660fa88840598bbd6@news.supernews,com ...
> In article <270420081830462517%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> since 4/3rds has a smaller sensor, to match depth of field as well as
>> noise, an f/2 4/3rds lens is equivalent to f/2.8 on dx and f/4 on full
>> frame, all things being equal. thus, the canon 70-200mm f/4 would give
>> the same final image, and it is about half the price of the olympus.
>> the f/2.8, which is effectively faster than the olympus lens given the
>> difference in frame size, is *still* less expensive.
>
> Total nonsense. You have to compare lenses with the same aperture.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
> http :// tech.groups.yahoo,com /group/MyOlympus/
> http :// myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Alfred. There's no use debating this "nospam" dude. He just make's the shit
up as he goes along.
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:MPG.227f8660fa88840598bbd6@news.supernews,com ...
> In article <270420081830462517%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> since 4/3rds has a smaller sensor, to match depth of field as well as
>> noise, an f/2 4/3rds lens is equivalent to f/2.8 on dx and f/4 on full
>> frame, all things being equal. thus, the canon 70-200mm f/4 would give
>> the same final image, and it is about half the price of the olympus.
>> the f/2.8, which is effectively faster than the olympus lens given the
>> difference in frame size, is *still* less expensive.
>
> Total nonsense. You have to compare lenses with the same aperture.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
> http :// tech.groups.yahoo,com /group/MyOlympus/
> http :// myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Alfred. There's no use debating this "nospam" dude. He just make's the shit
up as he goes along.
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
In article <4815d984$0$7068$4c368faf@roadrunner,com >, Yoshi
<dreamstwice@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Alfred. There's no use debating this "nospam" dude. He just make's the shit
> up as he goes along.
if it's all made up then it should be easy for you to refute it with
some facts.
In article <4815d984$0$7068$4c368faf@roadrunner,com >, Yoshi
<dreamstwice@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Alfred. There's no use debating this "nospam" dude. He just make's the shit
> up as he goes along.
if it's all made up then it should be easy for you to refute it with
some facts.
Re: Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:280420081053442931%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <4815d984$0$7068$4c368faf@roadrunner,com >, Yoshi
> <dreamstwice@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
>> Alfred. There's no use debating this "nospam" dude. He just make's the
>> shit
>> up as he goes along.
>
> if it's all made up then it should be easy for you to refute it with
> some facts.
Welcome to my killfile.
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:280420081053442931%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <4815d984$0$7068$4c368faf@roadrunner,com >, Yoshi
> <dreamstwice@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
>> Alfred. There's no use debating this "nospam" dude. He just make's the
>> shit
>> up as he goes along.
>
> if it's all made up then it should be easy for you to refute it with
> some facts.
Welcome to my killfile.
