d700 and dx lenses

[Mary Malloy 0]

My understanding is that the d700 will accept dx lenses, however the MP count of the sensor is reduced to 6?MP.

Would 10-17 owners be happy with that?

 

My next question is: What happens to the field of view with this combination? Do you lose/gain angle or is it the same angle as it would have been on a dx camera?

 

What happens to dof, corner sharpness?

 

I am using a 160mm dome with 15mm extension for the 10-17 on a dx camera. Would this combination then cause vignetting on the d700?

 

Thanks

Mary

[jeremypayne 0]

My understanding is that the d700 will accept dx lenses, however the MP count of the sensor is reduced to 6?MP.

Would 10-17 owners be happy with that?

 

My next question is: What happens to the field of view with this combination? Do you lose/gain angle or is it the same angle as it would have been on a dx camera?

 

What happens to dof, corner sharpness?

 

I am using a 160mm dome with 15mm extension for the 10-17 on a dx camera. Would this combination then cause vignetting on the d700?

 

Thanks

Mary

DX crop is the same as using a 5.1mp DX camera.

 

People are having good success in FX mode using the 10-17 with a 1.5x TC.

 

There have been a few threads on the topic.

[Diediealsomustdive 2]

My understanding is that the d700 will accept dx lenses, however the MP count of the sensor is reduced to 6?MP.

Would 10-17 owners be happy with that?

 

My next question is: What happens to the field of view with this combination? Do you lose/gain angle or is it the same angle as it would have been on a dx camera?

 

What happens to dof, corner sharpness?

 

I am using a 160mm dome with 15mm extension for the 10-17 on a dx camera. Would this combination then cause vignetting on the d700?

 

Thanks

Mary

 

The simple answer to your first question is: the dx 5MP is really cutting out the dx size image from the middle of the fx frame. You are throwing away the areas outside the dx circle.

 

The field of view is exactly the same as in FX, 10mm DX = 10mm FX, with the catch that 10mm DX won't fill the FX frame, so you will probably get a circular image and black around the cirlce (if you disable the detect DX function on the camera). The same applies to DOF (that's why compact cameras have enormous DOF).

 

Corner sharpness is - well your corner is black if you set it to FX, or the corner is the same as it would be on a DX camera if you set your D700 to DX, after all it is a cut-out from the centre.

 

Words on the street - see Kenrockwell (I don't trust his reviews) - is that the 10-17 will have FX coverage from about 15mm onwards (disengage auto DX detection on the camera body). I don't have FX bodies so I can't try.

 

Now we worry about corner sharpness - trying to get a DX lens to go FX! I have seen this reviewed by my friends somewhere, I will try to get a link to you. If you have the D700 and the Tokina, it would be nice to do the test. At 16mm you will get 180 degrees on FX so it is an interesting proposition.

 

Would 10-17 owners be happy? Setting D700 on DX you have 5MP, unlikely to be happy. Setting to FX, you need to zoom to about 15-16mm, corner sharpness may not be up to par. Don't know the answer if you may be happy.

 

Some say put a 1.5x (probably a 1.4x will do but may have to zoom to 12mm ~ 17mm FOV) will solve the DX on FX issue.

 

But both methods - zoom to 16mm, and use the 1.4x at 12mm - will give you 180 deg. Performance is now the question. I don't know the answers. Maybe Alex Mustard has the answer.

 

Last question - don't know.

 

Hope this helps.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Diediealsomustdive

[Diediealsomustdive 2]

DX lens as FX on FX camera:

 

Nikon 12-24 DX on D3

 

Nikon 10.5, Nikon 12-24, Nikon 16-85, Nikon 18-200, Nikon 18-70 and the Tokina 10-17

 

Of if you want to jump straight into 10-17.

 

Happy reading. Report back if you've done your own test, underwater hopefully.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Diediealsomustdive

[John Bantin 101]

Thanks for that info.

 

I'm kicking myself for having bought a 16mm Nikon lens for my D700 when I had the Tokina 10-17 already sitting in my bag. I didn't think to try it set at 16mm. Doh!

[Diediealsomustdive 2]

Thanks for that info.

 

I'm kicking myself for having bought a 16mm Nikon lens for my D700 when I had the Tokina 10-17 already sitting in my bag. I didn't think to try it set at 16mm. Doh!

 

Don't kick yourself yet... try it out and see if it is acceptable, then kick .

 

Like you to try setting it at 16mm and do some comparison test, hopefully both UW and top side. Would be useful for me in my going FX consideration...

Edited August 19, 2009 by Diediealsomustdive

[Mariozi 1]

Would be useful for me in my going FX consideration...

For all of us... I think the next D700x @ 25Mp could be the answer to our calls...

[Mariozi 1]

My understanding is that the d700 will accept dx lenses, however the MP count of the sensor is reduced to 6?MP.

Actually is around 5Mp...

 

Would 10-17 owners be happy with that?

No I wouldn't be happy, it is one of the things that keeps me from going FX underwater.

 

My next question is: What happens to the field of view with this combination? Do you lose/gain angle or is it the same angle as it would have been on a dx camera?

Exactly the same as any DX camera.

 

What happens to dof, corner sharpness?

Exactly the same, considering a 5Mp image vs. a 12Mp one.

 

I am using a 160mm dome with 15mm extension for the 10-17 on a dx camera. Would this combination then cause vignetting on the d700?

Port configuration should not change if you stay with the same housing/port maker.

 

Thanks

Mary

Good Luck

[Mary Malloy 0]

Thank you everyone for all your replies. This has been very helpful for me.

The one thing I still have a problem understanding, and it has been explained to me before, is why do digicams have better depth of field?

 

Thanks

Mary

[John Bantin 101]

Thank you everyone for all your replies. This has been very helpful for me.

The one thing I still have a problem understanding, and it has been explained to me before, is why do digicams have better depth of field?

 

Thanks

Mary

 

Depth-of-field is a function of lens-opening diameter. Angle-of-view is a function of focal length/image diameter.

 

For a rough but extreme example, the standard lens on a 10x8inch camera will be 360mm (14 inches) whereas the standard lens for a 35mm (FX) camera is 50mm (2 inches). The angle of view is a function of focal length/image diameter. So you will notice that the diameter of a 10x8 image is approaching 14 inches whereas the diameter of a frame 24x36mm (1 x 1.5 inches) is approaching 2 inches. So in each case the angle-of-view is the same.

Are you with me so far?

 

Take a typical f/stop. This is the diameter of the lens opening expressed as a fraction of the focal length. F/16 is 360 divided by 16 in the case of the 10x8 camera (22.5mm) and 50 divided by 16 in the case of the FX camera (a little more than 3mm) In other words, for a given f/stop the hole is going to be much bigger on the larger camera.

 

Depth-of-field is a function of lens-opening diameter. Smaller cameras have smaller lens openings for a given f/stop and better depth-of-field.

 

DX cameras produce smaller images within the camera than FX cameras. Compacts have even smaller image circles.

 

OK?

Edited August 21, 2009 by John Bantin

[Diediealsomustdive 2]

Depth-of-field is a function of lens-opening diameter. Angle-of-view is a function of focal length/image diameter.

 

For a rough but extreme example, the standard lens on a 10x8inch camera will be 360mm (14 inches) whereas the standard lens for a 35mm (FX) camera is 50mm (2 inches). The angle of view is a function of focal length/image diameter. So you will notice that the diameter of a 10x8 image is approaching 14 inches whereas the diameter of a frame 24x36mm (1 x 1.5 inches) is approaching 2 inches. So in each case the angle-of-view is the same.

Are you with me so far?

 

Take a typical f/stop. This is the diameter of the lens opening expressed as a fraction of the focal length. F/16 is 360 divided by 16 in the case of the 10x8 camera (22.5mm) and 50 divided by 16 in the case of the FX camera (a little more than 3mm) In other words, for a given f/stop the hole is going to be much bigger on the larger camera.

 

Depth-of-field is a function of lens-opening diameter. Smaller cameras have smaller lens openings for a given f/stop and better depth-of-field.

 

DX cameras produce smaller images within the camera than FX cameras. Compacts have even smaller image circles.

 

OK?

Ha ha... nice explanation...

 

Maybe I can rephrase this?

 

Angle of view is directly correlated with sensor size (or film size) - so FX standard lens is 50mm while DX standard lens is 35mm. Compact standard lens would be about 10mm, and camcorder would be not far from that number.

 

DOF is related to the actual focal length, and 10mm would have the same DOF whatever the sensor size is. It is super-duper wide on FX, super wide on DX, with enormous DOF, but standard on some smaller sensors.

 

HTH.

[DuikKees 1]

For all of us... I think the next D700x @ 25Mp could be the answer to our calls...

 

D700x, That is definately the one I am waiting for. (FX+vid)

But I guess that will be another year before camera+housing is availible.

 

On-Topic:

Search for lens shaving. When you shave off the hood from a 10-17, you can use it from 13mm.

http://www.360pano.de/images/tokina_5dklein.jpg