>Bob Flint <FlintsTone_at_amplification.valve> wrote:
>: On 4 Jun 2004 17:54:18 -0700, rayman10012002_at_yahoo.com (John) wrote:
>
>: >I'm considering a D70 and would like some advice. I understand that
>: >the DX lenses have the advantages of being smaller, lighter and
>: >cheaper. However, because of the smaller image circle compared to a 35
>: >mm camera lens, they would become somewhat obsolete if/when full
>: >format digital cameras come down in price to something like the D70
>: >costs today.
>
>: Not really, the main difference with the DX lens's is the fact they extend
>: further into the camera, I don't think that means they will become obsolete on
>: newer cameras. If Nikon is going to push digital and DX lens's then they won't
>: want to obsolete them.
>
>As far as I know, the DX lenses do not extend fruther into the body. I
>have the Nikon 12-24mm DX lens and I have mounted it on my F100. It just
>does not cover the full frame on a full-frame 35mm camera if you set the
>zoom to the wider end of the range, but it does fit. I think I have read
>that some of the other DX lenses will not cover the 35mm frame at any
>focal length setting.
>
>Ray
OK - they don't actually poke out further, but the glass on the DX lens is about
an inch closer to the camera then on say a G lens. This means the image is
projected further into the camera, I imagine, and is the reason they don't work
well with film cameras. I think this makes the DX lens smaller, no?
