D800/17-55 2.8 DX lens ???

H

HotHits

Senior Member
I'm a armature with a D3200 thinking about upgrading to the D800. I'm a DJ so I will be using it in a night club and would like to know the good & bad effects of using a DX 17-55 2.8 lens on a camera like this.
Thanks
HotHits:cool:
 
C

crycocyon

Senior Member
You would be restricting the D800 to DX format with that lens, not to mention getting nowhere near the maximum resolution of the sensor. Get a fast lens like 50 1.4G or 1.8G or an 85 1.8 or 1.4G, all FX lenses. Putting that $150 kit lens on a D800 is like putting cooper tires on a Mercedes. The D800 is not intended as a low light camera because the pixels are so small. In spite of that it has very good low light noise levels but a D4 far outperforms in that department. Even a D700 is a very good low light camera because its pixels are even larger (ie: fewer megapixels usually means the pixels will be larger meaning larger area for collecting photons).
 
M

mr2_serious

Senior Member
crycocyon said:
You would be restricting the D800 to DX format with that lens, not to mention getting nowhere near the maximum resolution of the sensor. Get a fast lens like 50 1.4G or 1.8G or an 85 1.8 or 1.4G, all FX lenses. Putting that $150 kit lens on a D800 is like putting cooper tires on a Mercedes. The D800 is not intended as a low light camera because the pixels are so small. In spite of that it has very good low light noise levels but a D4 far outperforms in that department. Even a D700 is a very good low light camera because its pixels are even larger (ie: fewer megapixels usually means the pixels will be larger meaning larger area for collecting photons).
Click to expand...

Hmm...I think you mistook the 17-55 F2.8 for the 18-55 F3.5-5.6 :p


» William via Tapatalk
 
M

mr2_serious

Senior Member
Yeah, FX will always be at least one stop better at low light. But for image quality, the d7100 is not too shoddy. It does not have an AA filter.

You have a d7100 and get better glass. Better glass allows you to pull the most out of your sensor. The 17-55mm on the D800 would be a like a top speed of 35mph on a 600hp car.

But like the other guy said, if you do opt for the D800 you would be better off with some primes so you can pull in more light.

I have a friend that shoots with a D300 and primes and he does quite a few concerts and events. Check it out:

http://brianvogelsphotos.com/events-concerts/

So technically, it comes down to technique

» William via Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
A

aroy

Senior Member
Low light photography required
. Better sensor
. Faster lenses

To utilize your DX lenses a D7100 is a better proposition as you would get more resolution. That said, if you are willing to finance a D800, then you should very well be able to get a few fast primes as recommended.

You will get quite decent primes after selling the D3200 with the zoom lens you have. In case you do not require the 36MP resolution, go for D610 instead. The files are smaller and low light performance marginally better. The $1000 difference will get you a decent set of prime lenses - 50f1.4, 20f2.8 etc
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
HotHits said:
I'm a armature with a D3200 thinking about upgrading to the D800. I'm a DJ so I will be using it in a night club and would like to know the good & bad effects of using a DX 17-55 2.8 lens on a camera like this.
Thanks
HotHits:cool:
Click to expand...

The good effects is that the Dx lens can be used with a FX camera in Dx mode but that defeats the purpose of buying a FX camera.

A D610 and a 50mm f1.8g might work best for your intended purpose.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
crycocyon said:
You would be restricting the D800 to DX format with that lens, not to mention getting nowhere near the maximum resolution of the sensor.
Click to expand...

You'd actually be getting the full resolution of the sensor, just not the full coverage area - but this argument has been had before.

It's a lot of camera to buy if your main use for it is going to be in DX mode. That said, if you want a great camera that will outperform something like the D7100 in low light situations when you need it to then this will do it, though I don't know if that difference in performance will justify the difference in price. If you're not going to shoot full frame then you're overspending. Get the D7100 and invest the change in something else.
 
H

HotHits

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
You'd actually be getting the full resolution of the sensor, just not the full coverage area - but this argument has been had before.

It's a lot of camera to buy if your main use for it is going to be in DX mode. That said, if you want a great camera that will outperform something like the D7100 in low light situations when you need it to then this will do it, though I don't know if that difference in performance will justify the difference in price. If you're not going to shoot full frame then you're overspending. Get the D7100 and invest the change in something else.
Click to expand...
Thanks BackdoorHippie I can get the D800 for the same price as the D7100 from a family member & I do plan to buy more FX lens at a later date.
 
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
Here's a shot with the 17-55 @17mm in NON-DX mode on my D600. Full 24mp but heavy vignetting. Switch to DX mode and you get a 10mp camera.

crop 11-17.jpg
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
mr2_serious said:
The 17-55mm on the D800 would be a like a top speed of 35mph on a 600hp car.
Click to expand...

These analogies are always ridiculous to me. It's nothing like that. If you must force me to use an automobile analogy, in this case it's actually much more like driving a 600hp car on speed restricted roads instead of on the highway in Montana during the daytime. You'll still be able to drive fast enough to lose your license in DX - I know, I shoot the D800 in DX mode frequently as it saves both hard drive space and time cropping. What, no one has ever gotten a speeding ticket with a learner's permit?!
 
M

Manna69247

Senior Member
Hi. I've got a D7000 and have to be picky on what I spend, low budget, don't get paid big money yet. I buy my lenses second hand, tested. I shoot jazz conserts for a magazine and only use my Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and Nikon 80-200 f/2.8D and get great results. I'm usually at ISO 3200 f/4 at the jazz conserts (at night). I'm very happy with the D7000.

With that said, I'm shopping around for a low used D700 but that is mainly because my wedding photography is expanding and I need another body. The better low ISO will help me with the jazz and weddings. I won't use the 17-55 f/2.8 on the D700, will get a good 24-70 f/2.8, already have a 50 f/1.8D wich I can use on both.

I'm still in two minds about a low used D700 or new D7100 for another body.

I believe you will be very satisfied with your D7100.
 
Top