where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
I guess i should wait 'til the 14th :) I'll also be in the market for an upgrade, would like to look at whats coming up soon...something maybe like D90 or D400...would like something that is the next step from the video that is in the D90...hoping autofocus makes it...anyway...
Do you think the full frame cameras will wipe out the old DX camera's in the near future?
FYI: I have a D70 right now.
Oh, i just saw the D400 spec is going to be a DX too...hmm.
I wouldnt say that DX is going to die. But to respond to your OP. I didnt like the 18-200 when I had my D300. Zoom creep and spotty AF made the lens too much to cope with. I wasnt all that thrilled with the sharpness either. I have heard a lot of people say its a true all in one DX lens, but MY opinion it wasnt worth the money. When I went FF it was useless anyways.
dashingemt
I agree, that lens isn't really the best. I have a friend who uses it on a D200 and CA is also noticeable and most likely would be on a D70 as well. In that line of consumer lenses; the 18-55 is good and the 70-300 is. Of course you're missing that 15mm in between but the 55-200 isn't that great either. I sold mine with the D40 I sold but still have the other two I mentioned.
For portrait/landscapes, FX is the future.
For motor sports and photography where you can't always get close up, DX will be around for quite a long while...
That 1.5x crop is really nice on the long end...
[quote]For portrait/landscapes, FX is the future.
For motor sports and photography where you can't always get close up, DX will be around for quite a long while...
That 1.5x crop is really nice on the long end... [/quote]
Exactly! While I would love the ISO performance of a D700, I will always pick a DX over FX for my wildlife stuff.
I would say that FX is def the wave of the future, but DX will certainly have its place for a long time I think. I dont think I'll be going FX anytime soon. Maybe if they introduce a cheaper body then I'll think about picking one up, but as long as they keep pumping out the DX lenses, I dont think DX is going anywhere.
In regards to the 18-200, I actually own this lens. It's ok, but nothing spectacular. For the same cost, you could probably get the tamron or sigma 70-200 2.8s, which probably have better image quality. The 18-200 is a good utility lens when youre looking for a solid zoom range, but not the best quality photo. It's pretty soft at both ends of the range and there's a little barrel distortion too. I have the 18-55 which came with my body and I think that IQ is better.
Can't go wrong with fast primes either.
For FX system (camera and lens makes the system) to become affordable to an amateur you will have to wait for a couple of years. And I doubt it will ever really replace DX, just like 6 by 6 never put 35mm out of market.
18-200 lens is the most convenient glass on the market. There is nothing, not even close to it, in FX range (try to imagine 27-300 FX lens, and how much would it weight if it existed). Overall image quality of this lens is very good, and usability is perfect.
On the other hand if you are going for D90 it would really be a shame not to try 18-105 kit lens. It has image quality no worse than 18-200 (18-105 is a little bit sharper if you look really close), and build quality is only slightly behind (the significant difference is that 18-105 does not have metal mount, and that really does not matter if you do not switch the lens more then 10 times a day), and it costs 5 times less. And, for complete set, you could get Nikon AF-S 70-300 VR for the money you saved on 18-200, or, if you prefer wider angle, currently you could get Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for a very good price.
Getting your gear is never a simple choice, but most of us are enjoying this, but what really matters is taking pictures, that is all that stuff is really all about.
I dont know why people keep thinking FX is going to take over... DX has taken over! more than 90% maybe upto 97% of the DSLRs sold today are DX.. sigh.. FX is for most Pros and the very Rich or very dedicated amateurs. who want or need that extra stop of High ISO sensitivity, And are willing to pay 4 to 10 times the price (including lenses) for it. For the rest of us we will just need to wait a couple of years for technology to catch up and we will have the same high ISO performance in DX. Most of us shoot at base ISO anyway so it REALLY DOESNT MATTER IF WE USE DX OR FX!
@mb : There is a Tamron 28-300 VC FX
I have the 18-200vr. Nice lens .. but the 18-105vr is also a very nice lens and a wonderful range. It will be all you need for 80-99% of your needs depending on the your style. Play with it for a while then get longer or wider or more macro or brighter depending on what YOU feel YOU need. no one can tell you that. You can pay $$$ for the 14-24 and never use it or use its once and scratch the front element !
FX is for most Pros and the very Rich or very dedicated amateurs. who want or need that extra stop of High ISO sensitivity
I'm curious why you think the larger FX sensor has anything to do with ISO sensitivity?
generally the FX sensors have the same MP as the DX. Therefore generally the individual pixels on the FX sensor are about twice the size of those on the DX sensor therefore, they are able to capture more light and therefore, have better high ISO capability. Generally :-)
Note that. 1 stop or 1 EV is double the light. Which is why the FX sensor is generally 1 stop better than the DX sensors. However due to challenges of manufacturing at that small size they seem to loose an additional 1/2 stop on the DX sensor. But, that seems to be improving.
Lot's of replies on my first forum post... unusual for me :) Thanks for the info. I was mostly looking for that convenience factor (and having it be a good lens). To fill you in i currently have:
-Sigma 10-20mm
-50mm DX (it was cheap and is good for low light, but with DX format 50mm is almost always too close...i didn't think that much about it since when i had an old camera film i loved my 50mm)
-18-70 (kit lens for the D70)
- 80-300 (Nikon - one of the cheaper ones)
So as you can see, i can pretty much "cover" the range of shots the 18-200 would give me, but since i'm just an amateur/friend/family photographer type it's a real pain carrying around multiple lenses for casual outings.
...and to top it off i love taking pictures, but i'm not especially good, knowledgeable and no where near a pro. I also have a personal problem with wanting better gear than my talents (and yes i've read the ken rockwell type articles on gear doesnt matter) :) For some reason though i'm constantly more impressed with my sister in law's D40 than my D70 when i'm using it (minus a few features).
To top off, i'm the king of getting dust/dirt on the CCD when changing lenses "in the field" no matter how careful i try to be.
Another advantage of the larger pixels in FX (IMO more important than the extra sensitivity) is that to maintain the same system resolution in DX, the lens must have *greater* resolving power in line pairs/mm. The difference is not insignificant. A 24MP FX sensor with good prime glass is much closer to equaling the resolving power we used to get from film cameras with Velvia than a 12MP DX system with the common zooms. This is why Nikon can sell the D3x for so much money, and why MF is far from dead. FX has a big future in semi-pro+ systems.
It really depends on whether or not you'll move to FX or not in the future. If you don't plan to, then there isn't a reason you shouldn't get the 18-200 if you don't want to carry many lenses.
Nikon already released a 35mm DX. It shows you that they're not ending DX lens/camera production any time soon.
"try to imagine 27-300 FX lens, and how much would it weight if it existed"
Interesting you mentioned this. Canon has a 28-300mm and it's about $2000 dollars or so. It's not the best either.
DX will always be around for entry level SLR consumers. FX is the future for portraits.
I’ve heard about Canon 28-300, it is couple of years old now, but I don’t use Canon and I can not say anything about it personally. From what I heard it is not a great glass, and it is very heavy, much heavier than 18-200, and that was my point exactly.
In my opinion Nikon 18-200 is currently the best all around lens on the market, and with D300 or D90 it is best set for occasional shooter.
In my opinion, a good alternative to the 18-200 is the 16-85. It dosn't get you as much on the telephoto end, but if you coupled the 16-85, with the 70-300 VR, you would have a great combo of lenses, if you shoot alot. I have no idea how much $$ you are willing to spend, but consider alternatives. The one I played with was very sloppy, but that may just be sample variation.
You must log in to post.
