Pixalo Photography Community

Go Back   Pixalo Photography Community > Photography Forums > Cameras, Lenses and Accessories

Cameras, Lenses and Accessories: Discuss Nikon DX and FX.......Hi, I've just been looking up (I think) Lloyd's note here.... " remember this one thing when thinking about the ...
Welcome to the Pixalo Photography Community. As a Guest you are free to browse the site, but see what extras you get as a Member here.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-12-2015, 12:39   #1 (permalink)
Been here a while
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 324
David F is on a distinguished roadDavid F is on a distinguished road

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Nikon DX and FX....

Hi,

I've just been looking up (I think) Lloyd's note here....


"remember this one thing when thinking about the crop factor of camera bodies. I read a while back you made the common mistake of referring to the 35 as a 50mm. While yes the 35mm is focally equivalent to a 50mm in terms of magnification on a DX body, it still carries the characteristics of the 35mm as far as distortion and light handling goes.

So while a 35 seems like a 50, it will confuse people if you say you have a 50 and it won't produce the same image as an actual 50 would on an FX body. I made this mistake plenty of times thinking of what would be an excellent 135mm lens equivalent on a DX body..

I have grown to despise Nikon's DX/FX terminology, especially in lenses. IF they sell a 35mm DX lens it should behave like a 35mm lens on a FX body would. Instead, they sell a DX lens that still has the crop factor of 1.5, and won't fully fill a frame on a FX sensor yet it still "Works" at that magnification (has vignetting)."




...he is absolutely rightly I've got completely muddled on this now and already made a mistake with one lens.

Which of the following statements are right with respect to looking for future lenses
for my Nikon D300s;





1) For a 50 mm Prime lens (ie one giving a standard angle of view or /portrayal or landscape) I would need a 70mm "DX" lens.

2) for a wide angle lens aiming for (for example) 30mm I would need 45mm "DX".

3) Once again for a telephoto, aiming for , say 70mm I need 95mm DX.

4) If ever want to go to full frame (D700/D800 etc) I would need a DX format lens to work.

5) A non DX format lens will not work on a full frame camera. (which I might want to try in the future).

6) A full frame camera is known as "FX".







By the way, I too now loath this system.



Cheers, TIA
David F is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2015, 14:42   #2 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
grease spot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Westmalle, Belgium
Posts: 3,336
grease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of light
grease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

David, below is an explanation of how you should be thinking...

Quote:
Originally Posted by David F View Post
1) For a 50 mm Prime lens (ie one giving a standard angle of view or /portrayal or landscape) I would need a 70mm "DX" lens.
Incorrect: This question is not correctly formed and will lead to confusion. You must think in terms of your standard angle of view and not in terms of a focal length.
To get a standard angle of view on FX I need a 50mm lens.
To get a standard angle of view on DX I need a 35mm lens.
Using a 50mm lens on DX will cover approximately the same angle of view as a 70mm lens on FX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David F View Post
2) for a wide angle lens aiming for (for example) 30mm I would need 45mm "DX".
Incorrect:
For a medium wide angle, on FX I would need a 35mm lens.
For a medium wide angle, on DX I would need a 24mm lens.
Using a 35mm lens on DX will cover approximately the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on FX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David F View Post
3) Once again for a telephoto, aiming for , say 70mm I need 95mm DX.
Incorrect:
For a medium telephoto (portrait lens), on FX I would need a 70mm lens.
For a medium telephoto (portrait lens), on DX I would need a 50mm lens.
Using a 70mm lens on DX will cover approximately the same angle of view as a 105mm lens on FX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David F View Post
4) If ever want to go to full frame (D700/D800 etc) I would need a DX format lens to work.
Incorrect:
You do not need DX lenses for FX.
You need FX lenses for FX.
DX lenses will work on FX but you will lose the edges of the picture.
FX lenses will work on DX.
DX lenses are lighter than the equivalent FX lenses.
FX lenses are more (often much more) expensive than the equivalent DX lenses

Quote:
Originally Posted by David F View Post
5) A non DX format lens will not work on a full frame camera. (which I might want to try in the future).
Incorrect:
As above:
DX lenses are marked DX and are specifically designed to cover the smaller DX format, hence they will give cut off on FX sensors.
FX lenses are not marked FX or DX. They are the correct lenses for the original 35mm film format, which the FX sensor now represents in the digital world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David F View Post
6) A full frame camera is known as "FX".
Partially correct: This only applies to Nikon's naming convention.

The DX system was introduced by Nikon to fullfill a promise of the 1950's : the Nikon (F) lens mount will not change. When digital cameras started to hit the market, Nikon needed a camera to compete with the Canon's smaller sensor (as smaller sensors were the only thing then) plus that camera would also take the lenses that Nikon owners had invested in for their 35mm cameras. So they had to differentiate between the two systems while still keeping the (F) lens mount. The DX (Digital X) form was born, and lenses made specifically for this format are marked DX. The F (Film X = Full frame) is the original format and does not need any marking on the lens.

This also allows owners to invest in full frame/film (FX) lenses while owning a DX camera and then move on to an FX model without paying out further to buy lenses specifically for an FX.

Where the confusion comes is that the D in DX was used for Digital whereas F was used for Film. When Nikon started making the larger sensors they just used FX to signify their digital range of film size sensors.

Other manufacturers have not been so consistent in their lens mounts.
__________________
Graham
grease spot is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2015, 16:55   #3 (permalink)
Been here a while
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 324
David F is on a distinguished roadDavid F is on a distinguished road

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

Quote:
Originally Posted by grease spot View Post
David, below is an explanation of how you should be thinking...


Incorrect: This question is not correctly formed and will lead to confusion. You must think in terms of your standard angle of view and not in terms of a focal length.
To get a standard angle of view on FX I need a 50mm lens.
To get a standard angle of view on DX I need a 35mm lens.
Using a 50mm lens on DX will cover approximately the same angle of view as a 70mm lens on FX.


Incorrect:
For a medium wide andle, on FX I would need a 35mm lens.
For a medium wide andle, on DX I would need a 24mm lens.
Using a 35mm lens on DX will cover approximately the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on FX.


Incorrect:
For a medium wide telephoto (portrait lens), on FX I would need a 70mm lens.
For a medium wide telephoto (portrait lens), on DX I would need a 50mm lens.
Using a 70mm lens on DX will cover approximately the same angle of view as a 105mm lens on FX.


Incorrect:
You do not need DX lenses for FX.
You need FX lenses for FX.
DX lenses will work on FX but you will lose the edges of the picture.
FX lenses will work on DX.
DX lenses are lighter than the equivalent FX lenses.
FX lenses are more (often much more) expensive than the equivalent DX lenses


Incorrect:
As above:
DX lenses are marked DX and are specifically designed to cover the smaller DX format, hence they will give cut off on FX sensors.
FX lenses are not marked FX or DX. They are the correct lenses for the original 35mm film format, which the FX sensor now represents in the digital world.


Partially correct: This only applies to Nikon's naming convention.

The DX system was introduced by Nikon to fullfill a promise of the 1950's : the Nikon (F) lens mount will not change. When digital cameras started to hit the market, Nikon needed a camera to compete with the Canon's smaller sensor (as smaller sensors were the only thing then) plus that camera would also take the lenses that Nikon owners had invested in for their 35mm cameras. So they had to differentiate between the two systems while still keeping the (F) lens mount. The DX (Digital X) form was born, and lenses made specifically for this format are marked DX. The F (Film X = Full frame) is the original format and does not need any marking on the lens.

This also allows owners to invest in full frame/film (FX) lenses while owning a DX camera and then move on to an FX model without paying out further to buy lenses specifically for an FX.

Where the confusion comes is that the D in DX was used for Digital whereas F was used for Film. When Nikon started making the larger sensors they just used FX to signify their digital range of film size sensors.

Other manufacturers have not been so consistent in their lens mounts.



That sounds better, yes.

Thanks very much, that was very helpful of you.

David F is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2015, 17:17   #4 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,250
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

Thank God that Graham saw this before I did!

Saved me some typing.
dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2015, 20:23   #5 (permalink)
Been here a while
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 324
David F is on a distinguished roadDavid F is on a distinguished road

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

Quote:
Originally Posted by dabhand16 View Post
Thank God that Graham saw this before I did!

Saved me some typing.


The effort didn't go unnoticed.
David F is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2015, 21:05   #6 (permalink)
Been here a while
 
StephenBatey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 262
StephenBatey will become famous soon enoughStephenBatey will become famous soon enoughStephenBatey will become famous soon enoughStephenBatey will become famous soon enoughStephenBatey will become famous soon enoughStephenBatey will become famous soon enough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

I use camera formats from 5x4 down through 6x7 and 6x6 to 35mm and I have trouble at all in selecting which focal length lens I want. My secret is that I'm a Luddite who doesn't use "crop factors" (and believes that they create more problems - far, far more problems - than they ever solve). I just know what the standard focal length is for a given format, and armed with the (admittedly highly technical and hard to remember) fact that image size is directly proportional to focal length work out in my head what focal length I need when the standard doesn't suffice.

For those who lack my mathematical sophistication, it may be simpler to multiply by a crop factor or two, but I, by virtue of rigourous training, can multiply and divide by 2 in my head. Though I admit that multiplying by 1.5 or 1.6 is something I find harder.

Seriously, given that "equivalent focal lengths" are equivalent only in angle of view and not in every other particular that makes a lens (like depth of field, working distances in close ups etc. etc.) I think that the concept should have been strangled at birth.
__________________
Stephen
StephenBatey is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2015, 17:39   #7 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
sejanus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 708
sejanus has a spectacular aura aboutsejanus has a spectacular aura aboutsejanus has a spectacular aura aboutsejanus has a spectacular aura aboutsejanus has a spectacular aura aboutsejanus has a spectacular aura aboutsejanus has a spectacular aura aboutsejanus has a spectacular aura about
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

You could always use the old "Standard lens = diagonal of the format" thing, which doesn't work out exactly but is close enough for government work. Thus 5x4 gives you 6 and 1/2 inches (163mm) 6x6 is 85mm, 36x24 is 43mm and DX (24x6) is 29mm.

So you could think in terms of a DX wide being 18mm (roughly equivalent to 28mm on FF) and a moderate tele being 55mm (again, roughly 90mm on FF).

Confused? You will be after this week's episode of "Choose Your Focal Length".

sejanus is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 16:56   #8 (permalink)
Been here a while
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 324
David F is on a distinguished roadDavid F is on a distinguished road

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

Quote:
Originally Posted by sejanus View Post
You could always use the old "Standard lens = diagonal of the format" thing, which doesn't work out exactly but is close enough for government work. Thus 5x4 gives you 6 and 1/2 inches (163mm) 6x6 is 85mm, 36x24 is 43mm and DX (24x6) is 29mm.

So you could think in terms of a DX wide being 18mm (roughly equivalent to 28mm on FF) and a moderate tele being 55mm (again, roughly 90mm on FF).

Confused? You will be after this week's episode of "Choose Your Focal Length".



Yes, but the note above was really helpful thanks again!

Joking aside, good tips here to crack this one.
David F is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 16:57   #9 (permalink)
Been here a while
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 324
David F is on a distinguished roadDavid F is on a distinguished road

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenBatey View Post
I use camera formats from 5x4 down through 6x7 and 6x6 to 35mm and I have trouble at all in selecting which focal length lens I want. My secret is that I'm a Luddite who doesn't use "crop factors" (and believes that they create more problems - far, far more problems - than they ever solve). I just know what the standard focal length is for a given format, and armed with the (admittedly highly technical and hard to remember) fact that image size is directly proportional to focal length work out in my head what focal length I need when the standard doesn't suffice.

For those who lack my mathematical sophistication, it may be simpler to multiply by a crop factor or two, but I, by virtue of rigourous training, can multiply and divide by 2 in my head. Though I admit that multiplying by 1.5 or 1.6 is something I find harder.

Seriously, given that "equivalent focal lengths" are equivalent only in angle of view and not in every other particular that makes a lens (like depth of field, working distances in close ups etc. etc.) I think that the concept should have been strangled at birth.



yup
David F is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 19-01-2016, 22:19   #10 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Lcraft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Saint Charles, Michigan (USA)
Posts: 1,192
Lcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

I just about got bit by this today. I went to order a 35mm prime and was going to save money getting the F1.8


BZZZT last second I noted that the 35mm F1.8 is a DX lens. <sigh> So instead of $199 I'm going to need $549 or live with the DX crop factor on my body..

I recently got bit by the primes bug. I want a 18, and 35mm prime as well as a 135.
Lcraft is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 19-01-2016, 23:46   #11 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,250
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

Sigma do a 28mm f1.8for $100 less

28mm F1.8 EX DG ASP Macro | Sigma Corporation of America
dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 19-01-2016, 23:49   #12 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Lcraft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Saint Charles, Michigan (USA)
Posts: 1,192
Lcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

Quote:
Originally Posted by dabhand16 View Post
Wonder what the focus speed is like on it as it's a macro...
Lcraft is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-01-2016, 00:00   #13 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
dabhand16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunstable Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 30,250
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light
dabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of lightdabhand16 is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcraft View Post
Wonder what the focus speed is like on it as it's a macro...
At f1.8 I think it will be OK. Especially if you are using it for non macro work. Might be worth a bit of research.

I've got a Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro and that is good - and it uses the motor in the body where the Sigma is HSM (I think)

just noticed this on the web page:

*Canon and Nikon mounts are discontinued.

No mention of this on the UK site, but look at the price difference

Sigma Imaging UK | 35mm F1.4 DG HSM | A
dabhand16 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-01-2016, 00:21   #14 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Lcraft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Saint Charles, Michigan (USA)
Posts: 1,192
Lcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

The ART line of lenses are beautiful.

Oh if I didn't have to worry about budgets.....
Lcraft is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-01-2016, 11:07   #15 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
grease spot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Westmalle, Belgium
Posts: 3,336
grease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of light
grease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

Yep, primes can be addictive , but I would look again at the reputation of the 18mm from Nikon ... not the best of lenses. At f/2.8 I find that the zooms work very well considering, and can see very little advantage to primes at the same aperture except weight, and the fact that primes force you to think hard about your subject composition. However, when you get to the larger apertures it feels like a whole different world, but you have to watch out for coma distortion and either work around it (not shooting against spots of light) or just look for another lens. The 50mm f/1.2 AiS is a prime example of this, wide open @f/1.2, but creates quite creamy images otherwise.
grease spot is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-01-2016, 11:34   #16 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Lcraft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Saint Charles, Michigan (USA)
Posts: 1,192
Lcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

Quote:
Originally Posted by grease spot View Post
but you have to watch out for coma distortion and either work around it (not shooting against spots of light) or just look for another lens. The 50mm f/1.2 AiS is a prime example of this, wide open @f/1.2, but creates quite creamy images otherwise.
Interesting. that would definitely be bad in my sunset shooting.

20mm just as bad? how about the 24?
Lcraft is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-01-2016, 12:40   #17 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
grease spot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Westmalle, Belgium
Posts: 3,336
grease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of light
grease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of lightgrease spot is a glorious beacon of light

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

Coma, if a problem, shows itself when the aperture is wide open and around the edges of the image. If you're shooting into one source of light, as with the Sun, keeping the Sun near the centre or stopping down below say f/2.0 on the above 50mm should keep coma at bay.

If shooting the starlit night sky or a city scene with lots of street lights it becomes a problem at the edges of the image. The worse the lens suffers from coma the closer to the centre of the image is affected. I have noticed coma on more lenses, to a lesser degree. Even the highly praised 300mm f/4 , when I used it to photograph some damsel flies over a river, where the sunlight reflected off the rippling water. Not noticeable to the average person on the street who might take them as a sort of starburst.

It just depends on the lighting, and for your sunsets you just might get some aberrations from the pinpoints of light that reflect off the ice and snow around the edge. I would expect most modern lenses to have this under control because of improved optics, but if it were important to me, it could mean the difference between very expensive wide aperture lenses (e.g. Zeiss f/1.4) or much cheaper f/2.8 lenses.

I stress yet again this is only a phenomenon that manifests itself with apertures fully or near fully open. My experience is that it clears up by stopping down one stop, maybe a bit more on the worse culprits like the 50mm.

An example of coma on the 300mm @f/4 ... top left of image.
grease spot is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 20-01-2016, 12:43   #18 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Lcraft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Saint Charles, Michigan (USA)
Posts: 1,192
Lcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enoughLcraft will become famous soon enough

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Re: Nikon DX and FX....

well I normally shoot at f8-11.. So not as big of a problem. Might as well keep my 18-35 since I do that, though.
Lcraft is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon Releases New Version of Nikon Image Space Photo Sharing Service App dabhand16 News 0 27-02-2015 17:06
Nikon Expands the Nikon 1 System with the Announcement of the Nikon 1 J3 and Nikon 1 dabhand16 News 0 08-01-2013 09:05
Wanted Nikon MB-D10 Multi-Power Battery Grip for Nikon D300 Camera Dutchie Photography Classified Adverts 6 25-01-2009 22:22


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49.


vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ReviewPost & PhotoPost vB3 Enhanced, Copyright 2003-2014 All Enthusiast, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright © 2006 - 2017 Pixalo.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196