CX 70-300 vs FT1 and DX 70-300

Wally_in_Austin

I have been looking around for any CX 70-300 reviews with MFT data. The question is simple which gives better image quality the CX 70-300 or The FT1
with the DX 70-300. Will another zoom lens from nikon provide better image quality? I suspect we will get lots of subjective responses to this post top!

Ironheart

1 Nikkor 70-300 wide

1 Nikkor 70-300 tele



FX 70-300 wide

FX 70-300 tele


Case closed.
Also the FT-1 only supports the center focus point, and the CX lens focuses much faster.

NSXTypeR

Holy crap, the CX 70-300 is $1000. It looks like the CX performs better (I think in MTF diagrams, if it stays up more the better it is...?)

I doubt any non pro is going to buy a $1000 CX lens. That's insane.

haroldp

I doubt any pro is going to buy a $1000 CX lens.

Except possibly for video
... H

Bokeh_Hunter

Whoa hold on there with the MTF charts........................ This is a very bad comparison/assumption and doesn't take the crop into effect at all.

The MTF of the FX 70-300VR only needs to be looked at on the horizontal access to the 5 or 10 mark (which is the coverage of CX sensor). At that point they are the same or the FX is a bit better.

That said I have heard the AF isn't that great with the FX 70-300. It is probably better sticking to the lenses designed for the system.

1 Nikkor 70-300 wide

1 Nikkor 70-300 tele



FX 70-300 wide

FX 70-300 tele


Case closed.
Also the FT-1 only supports the center focus point, and the CX lens focuses much faster.

WestEndBoy

Holy crap, the CX 70-300 is $1000. It looks like the CX performs better (I think in MTF diagrams, if it stays up more the better it is...?)

I doubt any non pro is going to buy a $1000 CX lens. That's insane.

These results are non-comparable, as I will explain.

Even at first glance, the FX performs better in those MTF graphs, except perhaps the extreme edges.

However, 10 and 30 lines per mm are being measured for the FX and 20 and 60 lines per mm are being measured for the CX. Let's assume that these images are displayed / printed on the same size monitor / paper. The 20 and 60 lines per mm (this is on the sensor), adjusted for the crop factor of CX of 2.8ish, will be equivalent to 20 and 60 lines per 2.8mm. Notice that I did not say 7.14 and 21.4 lines per mm. That measurement was not performed.

So going back to "my first glance", the FX performs better at 1 mm than the CX does at 2.8 mm, except in the corners. Trying to draw any more of a conclusion would be conjecture and would only be possible if the lenses were measured at 1 and 2.8 mm for FX and CX respectively - or some other equivalent ratio.

And this is one of the reasons that all other things being equal, sensor size trumps everything. Given that "FX performs better at 1 mm than the CX does at 2.8 mm, the technical image superiority of the larger sensor size starts to become apparent.

The big caveat here is that my statement is about sensor size and there is an assumption that lens quality variation will approximate sensor quality variation across format size (from smallest to largest, CX, DX and FX). This is true for the simple reason that there is significant variance between lens quality within a particular format (CX, DX and FX). Think of Nikon's 85 1.4G vs the 28-300 superzoom. However, let's assume that we are comparing the best lenses in each format. I will then assert that my assumption is approximately correct. The 70 - 300 Nikon1 lens is already $1,000. Nikon isn't going to spend any money making this lens better than it needs to be - it only needs to be as good as the CX sensor size will support.

Bokeh_Hunter

@WestEndBoy - thanks for covering the other half I was going to put!

WestEndBoy

You are welcome.

Wally_in_Austin

Thanks for shedding some light on this issue. I meant to also say both lenses would be used on the same Nikon 1 body

WestEndBoy

Yeah, I kinda glossed over that I realize. That is where it becomes more subjective. However, you would only evaluate the first 1/2.8 of the left side of the MTF curve for the FX glass as the rest will be off the sensor. The exact number may be a little different as it will depend how much will be thrown away. However, certainly the edges and corners are no longer relavent.

This puts the FX in an even better light.

manhattanboy

I have the 70-300 CX lens now and will try to do some comparisons with the FT-1 and 70-300 when I get a chance. I like the CX lens a lot. It probably needs something better than the 1V1 though as in low light it racks focus back and forth without locking. I've picked up a cheap 1J4 to test the sensor against the 1V1, but it does not come until next week unfortunately.

heartyfisher

I have the v1 too and would be keen to hear your thoughts on the j4 sensor.

henrik1963

And I would like to know the real world gains in image quality - if any - between the V1 and J4 when printet to same size - please :-)

bryanD7100

@manhattanboy I am currently looking int the 70-300cx +v3 and find it's taking some great looking shots. I"d be moving from a D5300+70-300FX. Doing this for weight reasons mostly and because the CX looks better in 300 range. I, too, will be interested in your findings as well as seeing example shots.

Ironheart

Just received my TR-N100 tripod mount from Adorama. I guess there's a shortage of these things, as I ordered it on 2/2/15. Looks and functions as advertised.