thinking about the D3 but have doubts

[racedraper]

I a wanting a full frame camera but after reading this article Im not liking it.
"DX lenses work great on your D3, but waste the whole point of the big sensor of the D3.

Used on a D3, DX lenses only use the central 5MP portion of the sensor. A D300 or even a D40 gives more resolution with DX lenses."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/lenses.htm
let me know what you think

[Squidward]

The solution should be quite simple: avoid DX lenses. Then again, even if you use a DX lens the quality should be sufficient for most people's uses. 5MP isn't bad, it's just not as good as 12MP. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

[deckcadet]

It is pointless to shoot a D3 if you have primarily DX lenses. I say this as an owner of a D3, D300, and the proud former owner of DX lenses.

It's not just that it's 5mp, you're also losing a huge portion of the viewfinder view.
If you want a body upgrade while keeping the 18-200 VR as your primary lens, the D300 or a D2X (if high ISO is not your big concern) is a better choice.

IMHO a top grade body like the D3 is a waste of money if you're going to use it with substandard lenses that would do better on a lesser body.

[AgingEyes]

I a wanting a full frame camera but after reading this article Im not liking it.
"DX lenses work great on your D3, but waste the whole point of the big sensor of the D3.

Used on a D3, DX lenses only use the central 5MP portion of the sensor. A D300 or even a D40 gives more resolution with DX lenses."

let me know what you think

It definitely is a waste of money if you gonna use it with DX lenses only.

[Franglais]

With the D200 + 18-200 DX you have a great compact do-anything combination. I know because this is what I use most of the time.

You can always do better. With a FX (24x36) sensor and the highest quality pro f2.8 constant lenses you will get better results. You may have to look really closely at the images to see the difference but there is one. However the combination of D3 plus several f2.8 constant zooms will be MUCH heavier, bigger and more expensive than your present combination. (Have you handled a D3? My instant reaction was "this is too heavy for me").

I already have a bunch of f2.8 constant zooms, which I use when only the best is good enough. I chose the D300 because it has most of the advantages of the D3 plus some features the D3 doesn't (a dust removal system that works). I can still use my DX lenses fully when I want to. And if I take the battery pack off it's just as compact as the D200.

[racedraper]

IMHO a top grade body like the D3 is a waste of money if you're going to use it with substandard lenses that would do better on a lesser body.

Great you make me think I bought a crappy lens.:cryin: . Okay so If I start buying DX lenses for my D200 I will okay? cause I like the high shutter speeds and ISO of the D3 plus it seems everyone is getting the canons and I want something different then others.

[Franglais]

Great you make me think I bought a crappy lens.:cryin: . Okay so If I start buying DX lenses for my D200 I will okay? cause I like the high shutter speeds and ISO of the D3 plus it seems everyone is getting the canons and I want something different then others.

The 18-200 DX is an excellent compromise between versatility and quality. I use it most of the time. The 50mm FX is an excellent lens. If you want to move towards the 24x36 format you should buy FX (not DX) lenses but only the best (24-70 f2.8, 70-210 f2.8, etc). They work just fine on your D200. But they're not nearly as versatile as the 18-200. I prefer to carry around a small bag all the time and make a compromise on quality rather than hump around a flight bag full of gear.