How evil is it to not use full frame on a D3?

catspaw

condrum:

I will be upgrading to the Nikon D3 in 2009, although this has as much to do with the speed (I do sports photography) as the fact my current camera is a lovely but limited D50 (I bought it to grow into, now growing out of it).

FX format is the 'camera community' name for the D3 and other full frame cameras from Nikon, but Nikon themselves do NOT use it on any of their lenses. From their website, it appears I have a choice of .... 2 lenses and some mega huge primes.

this can't be right, can it? Typically I use bythom.com for my education but he's a bit behind on this stuff and I can't figure out what might work (or even what I have that might be full frame) other than the fact that anything 'DX' isn't full frame.

However, I've a number of lenses I really DO love and plan on keep on using. A bizarre moral side of me says 'bad Leah bad!' for not planning on using the D3 to the maximum of its abilities.

Does anyone know of any *current* online guides to FX lenses for Nikon? (Nikkor, Sigma, etc) I've a few I'm considering buying, but at this point I'm better off putting $$ into FX lenses than not. Or so my guilt tells me.

help?

Ekaj

On Nikkor lenses you can use every lens in the lineup at full resolution except for those with the DX badge. This includes the 14-24, 24-70, 17-35, 28-70, 70-200, 80-200, 80-400, and more. There are many more fx lenses than dx.

catspaw

Ekaj wrote:

On Nikkor lenses you can use every lens in the lineup at full resolution except for those with the DX badge. This includes the 14-24, 24-70, 17-35, 28-70, 70-200, 80-200, 80-400, and more. There are many more fx lenses than dx.

oh that's good to hear -- the Nikon website does NOT make it seem like that, as they pimp out just a few high end lenses for the D3 and other full frame cameras. thanks guys :P really.

Course, I think 1/2 of mine have the DX badge ... must investigate. Might be time for that 70-200 upgrade

Robinivich

I don't shoot Nikon, but maybe I can help a bit on the basics. One site I know of that has a pretty nice listing of lenses is http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests, this site hasn't started full frame (aka FX) testing yet, but they have tested a great number of lenses, and their findings should be broadly applicable, certainly in terms of build, features, etc. http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php has a larger number of lenses listed, but fewer tested, though they do have loads of user reviews for each lens (whether or not it's been scientifically tested yet).

FX is just a fancy moniker for "normal" or "acts like film used to" DX is the newer one that means specifically "designed for small sensors only." Any Nikkor lens that is not DX (or Sigma lens that is not DC, or Tamron lens that is not Di II, etc) will cover the full sensor of your camera, and use all your 12 megapixels.

catspaw

Robinivich wrote:

I don't shoot Nikon, but maybe I can help a bit on the basics. One site I know of that has a pretty nice listing of lenses is http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests, this site hasn't started full frame (aka FX) testing yet, but they have tested a great number of lenses, and their findings should be broadly applicable, certainly in terms of build, features, etc. http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php has a larger number of lenses listed, but fewer tested, though they do have loads of user reviews for each lens (whether or not it's been scientifically tested yet).

FX is just a fancy moniker for "normal" or "acts like film used to" DX is the newer one that means specifically "designed for small sensors only." Any Nikkor lens that is not DX (or Sigma lens that is not DC, or Tamron lens that is not Di II, etc) will cover the full sensor of your camera, and use all your 12 megapixels.

great sites! and two I hadn't heard of yet.