jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

This post got me to thinking(really bad thing for me to do) and I sat down and added the prices of all the Nikon lenses, both FX & DX and got the following numbers.

FX 68 different lenses. Average price $2061.70
DX 25 different lenses. Average price $532.95

If you add the 3 tc's to the FX the price drops to$1994.35

BebuLamar

I don't want to argue the long end but for the short end my 24-85mm lens bought for the FX camera which gave me decent wide angle shots certainly is not wide enough when mounted on a DX body.

leftj Loc: Texas

I don't think anyone is disputing that.

BebuLamar

It is what your call loyalty and familiarity that I bought only FX camera and didn't buy any DX camera.

stevetassi

Actually unless you need to shoot at a wide angle or require narrow DOF, I see no advantage to FX. Besides since DX is so prevelant, it can be an expensive proposition replacing DX lenses if you have a lot of them.

Joexx

There is a very big difference between digital magnification and optical magnification. I am not trying to start an argument, I am just trying to clear up a very common mistake. It is very common not to understand the differences.
If you would like more information, just do a search and you can find many articles that describe the differences. In summary: Digital magnification gives you NO additional information ( ie data) while with optical magnification you get additional data.
Here is a "thought experiment" (or actually do this). Take a picture shot with a 50mm lens (normal FOV) and blow it up about 10 times. Compare it with the same picture taken with a 500mm lens (this will be about the same magnification, about 10 times normal ). Compare the part of the pictures that show the same area. The picture from the 500mm lens will have way better quality. That is the difference between Optical and digital magnification.

OwlHarbor Loc: Pacific North West USA

It is about cost. I have a Canon and my lenses are all EF and I use them on a Rebel so when I move up I do not have to buy new lenses. As far as I know chip size does make a difference. The pro chips are the size of 35mm film Nikon being a fraction bigger than the Canon. The mega pix on cameras use a micro size chip and the results are good but not great. (they have come a long way. The EF lenses are bigger and heavier. DSLR are a camera of the film days (That is where I started). It is comforting to me to hear the swing of the mirror but technologically it is no longer necessary. With that said with the mirror gone we will still need great lenses. I imagine that military grade lenses for satellites are much better and when that technology is realised to the public then the major companies, Canon, Nikon, Sony and may others will follow. Half full/empty says, "Perhaps you are just an old fart that can't learn any new tricks!

We all know that old film SLR lenses don't always work well on new bodies - unless they are post 1987 Canon EF lenses, then you are good to go - but what is the problem here?

The tech has moved on. Perhaps we should move on also..." The problem is less robust or quality technology like EF-S lenses compared to EF lenses is not an advancement new or old fart. The argument on lenses is not like cell phones where the old brick and the new smart phones. Cameras have not advanced much past the flip phone yet except for the ability to produce RAW. That has moved cameras past current smart phones. To compare B&W negative film to photo paper and process in a dark room (I have done thousands of times) to today in Adobe Photo shop manipulated RAW files is light years difference using EF lenses. HD photography is coming closer to what we see. 4K HD is showing up. For example I have had VHS tapes from the 1990ties converted to digital and individual frames are horrible. Little data and they are only partly good when multiple frames run. Freeze frame HD today and it is acceptable. Right now cameras with full frame sensors with full frame lenses give crisp clear pics if the photo was taken in focus. I am not sure what we see life in or its magnitude but our mechanical electrical digital systems have a long way to go.

Bill1967 Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado now Wilmington NC

Cost, weight, size, very good picture quality 1.50 Crop factor. Personally I would never consider carrying around a D810 even if cost were equal to my Pentax K 5. In the real world I doubt most can tell a difference in photo quality in 90% of shots taken.

OwlHarbor Loc: Pacific North West USA

I have taken refresher photo classes and an instructor questions the quality of Jpeg and RAW pictures and claims that you can't tell the difference tells me that this person does not understand the difference. If you take a camera produced Jpeg and a RAW to match then there is little difference. But if you use the full amount of data in RAW using software the photo can be exceptional and there will be noticeable difference and how big a print you can make is much different.

OwlHarbor Loc: Pacific North West USA

The point is if your posting on social media or 4"x6" prints you can't but try processing the file (Jpeg) a second or third or multiple times and the difference is greatly apparent. When processing photos from Jpeg from my phone it is greatly apparent the diff.

jaimeblackwell Loc: Lewiston, Maine

[quote=Leitz]We all know that old film SLR lenses work well on certain new bodies - as long as they are post 1958 Nikon F mount lenses.[/quote

Yes I shot this with a 1978 or so Vivitar 135 prime F mount lens. Being that I'm only able to afford a d7200 Nikon and this old lens. I guess I should feel embarrassed to post this sub-par image!

Old lenses and new bodies work just fine. some lenses just such! It just don't matter what camera you have.

(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Money, budget, extra reach, some size advantages, speed (Unless you go $6k which goes back to money). I have no idea why one would purchase a crop sensor camera. Does anyone else know why one would buy a crop sensor camera?

leftj Loc: Texas

Having trouble making sense of your statement.

jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

Drink more coffee. He was being sarcastic.

leftj Loc: Texas

Thought that might be the case (I am on my third cup of coffee) but wasn't sure.