CX 70-300 vs FT1 and DX 70-300

Wally_in_AustinWally_in_Austin Posts: 3Member
edited September 2014 in Nikon 1
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!

Comments

  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited September 2014
    1 Nikkor 70-300 wide
    image
    1 Nikkor 70-300 tele
    image


    FX 70-300 wide
    image
    FX 70-300 tele
    image

    Case closed.
    Also the FT-1 only supports the center focus point, and the CX lens focuses much faster.
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 1,982Member
    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.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    I doubt any pro is going to buy a $1000 CX lens.

    Except possibly for video
    ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • Bokeh_HunterBokeh_Hunter Posts: 234Member
    edited September 2014
    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
    image
    1 Nikkor 70-300 tele
    image


    FX 70-300 wide
    image
    FX 70-300 tele
    image

    Case closed.
    Also the FT-1 only supports the center focus point, and the CX lens focuses much faster.
    Post edited by Bokeh_Hunter on
    •Formerly TTJ•
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    edited September 2014
    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.
    Post edited by WestEndBoy on
  • Bokeh_HunterBokeh_Hunter Posts: 234Member
    @WestEndBoy - thanks for covering the other half I was going to put!
    •Formerly TTJ•
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
  • Wally_in_AustinWally_in_Austin Posts: 3Member
    edited September 2014
    Thanks for shedding some light on this issue. I meant to also say both lenses would be used on the same Nikon 1 body
    Post edited by Wally_in_Austin on
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    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.
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 970Member
    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.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,171Member
    edited November 2014
    I have the v1 too and would be keen to hear your thoughts on the j4 sensor.
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 559Member
    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 :-)
  • bryanD7100bryanD7100 Posts: 13Member
    @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.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.