Why Nikon should upgrade the D300

On 14/10/2012 3:51 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:07:40 +1100, Rob wrote:
: On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote:
: "Rob" wrote in message
: ...
: You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know of
: that have rectangular or oval image "circles".
:
: yes there are BTW - think movie lenses.
:
: Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a
: circular glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular
: of course, which is a totally different issue.
:
: Trevor.
:
:
: Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic
: lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then projected
: with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress.
:
: Hope this helps.

It helps keep your previous statements from being wrong, but everyone here
understands that Cinemascope lenses (if that's how they work) are irrelevant
to the issues being discussed in this thread.

Bob


No they are not - in the context of of the above statement.

which was, and I qualified it by mentioning it was used in movie
production.

"there are no lenses I know of
: that have rectangular or oval image "circles"."

Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:07:40 +1100, Rob wrote:
: On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote:
: "Rob" wrote in message
: ...
: You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know
of : that have rectangular or oval image "circles".
:
: yes there are BTW - think movie lenses.
:
: Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a
: circular glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular
: of course, which is a totally different issue.
:
: Trevor.
:
:
: Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic
: lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then
projected : with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress.
:
: Hope this helps.

It helps keep your previous statements from being wrong, but everyone
here understands that Cinemascope lenses (if that's how they work)
are irrelevant to the issues being discussed in this thread.

Bob

I first saw cinemascope in London in the early sixties (Could have been
'How the West was won' but not sure now) the film looked to me as if it
was taken and projected with three lenses. There were two distinct
joins in the projected picture, we were comparitively close to the
screen and in the first row of the balcony.

--
Neil

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:56:59 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:38:06 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
:
:
: "Eric Stevens" wrote in message
: .. .
: It is not my definition - it is Trevor's. I am just pointing out that if
: you regard DX as a "crop" of FX, then every format is in the same
: (rather pointless sense of the word) a crop of some larger format, real
: or theoretical.
:
: My apologies. It sounds as though you and I agree. To regard a smaller
: sensor as a crop of a larger implies that the smaller sensor is
: restricted to the same lens as the larger. It might very well be able
: to use the same lens but there is no reason why it should not use a
: proportionally shorter.
:
: So you choose to ignore the fact that 90% of Canon and Nikon lenses fit
: either Dx or Fx bodies, (and the lens mount is the same)? And some Nikon Dx
: lenses can be used in "crop mode" on an Fx body anyway? Fine, your choice.
: Not like I should care :-)
:
: Of course I don't ignore it!
:
: But I feel no compulsion to use the same lens on my Dx camera as I
: would on an Fx and I certainly wouldn't go around complaining that
: images from my Dx are cropped versions of what I would produce with an
: Fx.

Laying aside the "cropped" nomenclature (as I agree one probably should), are
we entering a phase in which it may be dangerous to buy APS-C lenses, lest
they stop making cameras that will use them properly before the lenses wear
out? Nikon is holding back on a D300 replacement while cranking out new FF
equipment, and Canon has just introduced a FF camera (the 6D) for only about
$400 more than the 7D. (Yes, the 6D has fewer features and about the same
resolution as the 7D, but these things change over time.) Clearly FF is in the
ascendancy now, and there may be no looking back. I think we've always
suspected that FF would win in the end; now the question is not whether, but
when.

One more point: This is a Nikon thread, but just now the interesting
developments with APS-C are in the Canon world. Canon's new mirrorless M uses
an APS-C sensor, in contrast to the tiny sensors in Nikon's mirrorless
offerings. Maybe the future of APS-C lenses is on mirrorless cameras, where
reduced weight matters more. Even there, though, the picture is murky, since
Canon evidently plans to develop a line of even lighter lenses specifically
for the M.

I have no FF bodies, but I don't think I'm ready to buck the trend. The last
two lenses I bought are FF. I think the next one will be too.

Bob

In article , Neil Ellwood
wrote:

Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:07:40 +1100, Rob wrote:
: On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote:
: "Rob" wrote in message
: ...
: You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know
of : that have rectangular or oval image "circles".
:
: yes there are BTW - think movie lenses.
:
: Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a
: circular glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular
: of course, which is a totally different issue.
:
: Trevor.
:
:
: Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic
: lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then
projected : with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress.
:
: Hope this helps.

It helps keep your previous statements from being wrong, but everyone
here understands that Cinemascope lenses (if that's how they work)
are irrelevant to the issues being discussed in this thread.

Bob

I first saw cinemascope in London in the early sixties (Could have been
'How the West was won' but not sure now) the film looked to me as if it
was taken and projected with three lenses. There were two distinct
joins in the projected picture, we were comparitively close to the
screen and in the first row of the balcony.

Strictly, what you saw would have been Cinerama. Three filmsstrips.
Wikipedia has a fair description of the technology and its successors.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

On 2012-10-14 09:31:06 -0700, Elliott Roper said:

In article , Neil Ellwood
wrote:

Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:07:40 +1100, Rob wrote:
: On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote:
: "Rob" wrote in message
: ...
: You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know
of : that have rectangular or oval image "circles".
:
: yes there are BTW - think movie lenses.
:
: Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a
: circular glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular
: of course, which is a totally different issue.
:
: Trevor.
:
:
: Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic
: lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then
projected : with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress.
:
: Hope this helps.

It helps keep your previous statements from being wrong, but everyone
here understands that Cinemascope lenses (if that's how they work)
are irrelevant to the issues being discussed in this thread.

Bob

I first saw cinemascope in London in the early sixties (Could have been
'How the West was won' but not sure now) the film looked to me as if it
was taken and projected with three lenses. There were two distinct
joins in the projected picture, we were comparitively close to the
screen and in the first row of the balcony.

Strictly, what you saw would have been Cinerama. Three filmsstrips.
Wikipedia has a fair description of the technology and its successors.

Yup! "How The West Was Won" was notorious as one of the early "three
screen" Cinerama productions filled with demo scenes to emphasize the
immersion effects of the curved screen. Scenes such as the "runaway
train" and "buffalo stampede". It had major production issues as
Cinerama was a "three-camera", "three-projector" process which required
complicated synchronization, and even more production problems related
to direction and editing, since principle actors might be
simultaneously filmed in scenes by different cameras, only to be
synchronized in the final presentation.

John Frankenheimer used the effect to his advantage with "Gran Prix",
by throwing up unrelated and disconnected scenes in the three screen
areas. "Gran Prix" was also one of the last to use the "three-camera"
set up, as was "2001". Both of these also use a blend of Super
Panavision 70 , Todd-AO, & MCS-70 and were part of the transition to
single camera "Ultra Wide screen" productions.
Cinerama was shot in a 2.59:1 aspect ratio, and originally did not use
anamorphic 35mm lenses. That came later with Ultra Panavision 70 and
Super Technirama 70.

It was also interesting in the way they built the curved Cinerama
screen. It was made up of 6 inch wide strips mounted vertically under
tension to create the curved 146 degree field of view, and could only
be use for showing "three-camera/three-projector" movies until the
advent of 70mm anamorphic production and projection.


....and then came IMAX.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 14/10/2012 11:40 PM, Neil Ellwood wrote:
Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:07:40 +1100, Rob wrote:
: On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote:
: "Rob" wrote in message
: ...
: You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know
of : that have rectangular or oval image "circles".
:
: yes there are BTW - think movie lenses.
:
: Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a
: circular glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular
: of course, which is a totally different issue.
:
: Trevor.
:
:
: Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic
: lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then
projected : with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress.
:
: Hope this helps.

It helps keep your previous statements from being wrong, but everyone
here understands that Cinemascope lenses (if that's how they work)
are irrelevant to the issues being discussed in this thread.

Bob

I first saw cinemascope in London in the early sixties (Could have been
'How the West was won' but not sure now) the film looked to me as if it
was taken and projected with three lenses. There were two distinct
joins in the projected picture, we were comparitively close to the
screen and in the first row of the balcony.



Cinerama was like this and projected with three (or more) projectors.
Different to cinemascope which was one projector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin%C3%A9orama

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
The problem is that there is an enormous amount of obfuscation
generated by people who insist in thinking only in terms of a
still-camera image size based on the Edison Kinetographic film size of
1890. It doesn't matter what the sensor (film or silicon) size is:
it's not a 'crop sensor'.


Yep, that statement would certainly be "obfuscation"! :-)
The sensor is indeed "cropping" the image a Fx lens was designed for, and
isn't when used with a Dx lens.

Are you really so silly that you select the focal length of the lens
you are going to use without taking the sensor size into account?

Nope, how did you arrrive at that "straw man"? Just being your usual
disingenuous self?


Your choice, except Canon and Nikon only
give you a small choice of Dx only lenses. Of course my argument was not
based on simple definitions anyway, only on the fact that it *is* possible
to obtain similar results with the *same* lens on an Fx or Dx body. You
can
ignore it all you like, define it away however you want, but it doesn't
change the physics, or final image that is possible.

You can "obtain similar results with the *same* lens on an Fx or Dx
body" only if that part of the image in which you are interested does
not fall outside the Dx sensor. But why use the same lens on each? If
the Fx image is satisfactory you should be able to use a shorter lens
on the Dx camera.

OR crop the Fx image later, as I have been saying and you don't accept.
If you really *insist* on maximum "reach" for minimum lens size, Nikon
already has a great camera for you, just stay away from their DSLR's
altogether! :-)
Your choice, I certainly don't give a rats what you do!!!

Trevor.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:39:53 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
The problem is that there is an enormous amount of obfuscation
generated by people who insist in thinking only in terms of a
still-camera image size based on the Edison Kinetographic film size of
1890. It doesn't matter what the sensor (film or silicon) size is:
it's not a 'crop sensor'.


Yep, that statement would certainly be "obfuscation"! :-)
The sensor is indeed "cropping" the image a Fx lens was designed for, and
isn't when used with a Dx lens.

Are you really so silly that you select the focal length of the lens
you are going to use without taking the sensor size into account?

Nope, how did you arrrive at that "straw man"? Just being your usual
disingenuous self?


Your choice, except Canon and Nikon only
give you a small choice of Dx only lenses. Of course my argument was not
based on simple definitions anyway, only on the fact that it *is* possible
to obtain similar results with the *same* lens on an Fx or Dx body. You
can
ignore it all you like, define it away however you want, but it doesn't
change the physics, or final image that is possible.

You can "obtain similar results with the *same* lens on an Fx or Dx
body" only if that part of the image in which you are interested does
not fall outside the Dx sensor. But why use the same lens on each? If
the Fx image is satisfactory you should be able to use a shorter lens
on the Dx camera.

OR crop the Fx image later, as I have been saying and you don't accept.

That's because I wouldn't be so silly as to use a lens so grossly out
of kilter with the sensor size. Do you really think I have gone
through life with but the one lens which I have used for cameras
ranging from a half-frame (1" x 3/4") Petri to a 4" x 5" plate camera?
Then why on earth do you keep trying to argue on the basis that I have
only the one lens to share between an Fx and a Dx camera?

Just in case it hasn't occurred to you, irrespective of whether I am
using a Dx or Fx camera I choose a lens to suit the image I want to
capture with the camera. The lens I choose depends on whether I'm
using an Fx or a Dx. I might even have a zoom, in which case I zoom in
and out until the image in the view finder coincides with the image I
want to capture.

All this business of having to crop with one sized sensor and not with
another is a nonsense.

If you really *insist* on maximum "reach" for minimum lens size, Nikon
already has a great camera for you, just stay away from their DSLR's
altogether! :-)
Your choice, I certainly don't give a rats what you do!!!

Trevor.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
OR crop the Fx image later, as I have been saying and you don't accept.

That's because I wouldn't be so silly as to use a lens so grossly out
of kilter with the sensor size.

What the hell is "grossly out of kilter with the sensor size" when using any
standard Nikon or Canon lens on a Nikon or Canon DSLR???
How do you make this stuff up, do you lay awake at night thinking about it?


Do you really think I have gone
through life with but the one lens which I have used for cameras
ranging from a half-frame (1" x 3/4") Petri to a 4" x 5" plate camera?
Then why on earth do you keep trying to argue on the basis that I have
only the one lens to share between an Fx and a Dx camera?

Point out where I said anything of the sort and I'll answer it, otherwise
it's probably time I stopped arguing with idiots.
So tell me what 400 or 600mm Dx only lens do you use for those wildlife
shots?


Just in case it hasn't occurred to you, irrespective of whether I am
using a Dx or Fx camera I choose a lens to suit the image I want to
capture with the camera.

And you never use a Fx lens on a Dx body? Lucky you to have an infinite
array of lenses to choose from. I don't, so often make do with what I have.
Whatever works for you, but insisting everyone else is wrong is plain
stupid.


The lens I choose depends on whether I'm
using an Fx or a Dx. I might even have a zoom, in which case I zoom in
and out until the image in the view finder coincides with the image I
want to capture.

All this business of having to crop with one sized sensor and not with
another is a nonsense.

Who said you HAVE to do anything?


If you really *insist* on maximum "reach" for minimum lens size, Nikon
already has a great camera for you, just stay away from their DSLR's
altogether! :-)

BTW how is your Nikon V1, what lenses do you have for it?
Of course if you ever did mount a 35mm lens on it, you would be "cropping"
it's image circle whether you like it or not :-) :-)

Trevor.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:49:00 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
OR crop the Fx image later, as I have been saying and you don't accept.

That's because I wouldn't be so silly as to use a lens so grossly out
of kilter with the sensor size.

What the hell is "grossly out of kilter with the sensor size" when using any
standard Nikon or Canon lens on a Nikon or Canon DSLR???
How do you make this stuff up, do you lay awake at night thinking about it?

I'm not the one making it up. You are the one who assumes that I have
to crop Fx images because I use the same lens to take them as I would
with a Dx. I'm saying that I'm not that silly. I would use a longer
focal length to suit the larger sensor. There would be no need to
crop.


Do you really think I have gone
through life with but the one lens which I have used for cameras
ranging from a half-frame (1" x 3/4") Petri to a 4" x 5" plate camera?
Then why on earth do you keep trying to argue on the basis that I have
only the one lens to share between an Fx and a Dx camera?

Point out where I said anything of the sort and I'll answer it, otherwise
it's probably time I stopped arguing with idiots.
So tell me what 400 or 600mm Dx only lens do you use for those wildlife
shots?

You are shifting ground. No one said anything about those particular
focal lengths. Nor has there been any suggestion of wildlife shots.
The whole point about which I have been arguing is your repeated
statement/assumption that a photograph taken with Dx camera has to be
cropped if you want to get the same result with an Fx.

Just in case it hasn't occurred to you, irrespective of whether I am
using a Dx or Fx camera I choose a lens to suit the image I want to
capture with the camera.

And you never use a Fx lens on a Dx body? Lucky you to have an infinite
array of lenses to choose from. I don't, so often make do with what I have.
Whatever works for you, but insisting everyone else is wrong is plain
stupid.

You are shifting ground yet again.


The lens I choose depends on whether I'm
using an Fx or a Dx. I might even have a zoom, in which case I zoom in
and out until the image in the view finder coincides with the image I
want to capture.

All this business of having to crop with one sized sensor and not with
another is a nonsense.

Who said you HAVE to do anything?

You said you did, if you want to get the same image.


If you really *insist* on maximum "reach" for minimum lens size, Nikon
already has a great camera for you, just stay away from their DSLR's
altogether! :-)

BTW how is your Nikon V1, what lenses do you have for it?
Of course if you ever did mount a 35mm lens on it, you would be "cropping"
it's image circle whether you like it or not :-) :-)

Trevor.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens