«

Is there anything out there like some sort of a "petition" to Nikon
to
release more models featuring the full-size FX sensor?

By that, I mean more non-professional models --- I have to say, I
felt
sort of offended by Nikon's announce of the D3 (first model featuring
full-size sensor), talking about (I'm paraphrasing, off the top of my
head) how the DX being ideal for most users, but they were convinced
that the *professionals* need the additional quality, etc. etc.

I felt insulted --- just because I don't make a living out of taking
photographs I am not allowed to want the additional quality? Pfftt!!

Well, the other issue is: well, it's simple: you want full-size
sensor?
You got it! It costs $5000 (well, $3000+ with the release of the
D700).

I guess my complaint has two parts:

1) You look at Nikon's web site (the Canadian one at least), and they
present three categories: Essential DSLR (D40 and D60), Advanced
DSLR (D80, D200, D300 and now the new D90), and Professional
DSLR (D3 and D700 only, IIRC). Why don't they have a model in the
Advanced category that has a full-size sensor?

2) Compare the D300 and D700 --- they have a price difference of
a little above $1000 ... Then look at the D90 --- at a glance it
seems
like all the features of the D300 and several more (I may be mistaken
there --- please do tell me!): GPS-tagging, video capture at
720p ...
Not saying that these are necessarily good features, but they seem
like *expensive* features.... And yet, the D90 is priced far below
the
D300... So, why not a "D90 with full-size sensor" that costs around
$1000 more than the D90? That would bring it to what I consider
the reasonable price threshold for an "advanced/serious amateur".
At least from my point of view, I would most definitely *jump* to a
model with full-size sensor that goes for around $2000. The $3000
figure already makes my pocket hurt...

Any comments? Any petitions from Nikon users already in place, or
should I start one? Would I be the only one sending such a petition
letter to Nikon? Or, will I simply get a nice response from them
telling
me, "Oh, you want a camera with full-size sensor? Oh yes, we have
two models available, feel free to drop by any of our authorized
dealers and get yours" ??

Cheers,

Carlos
--

Thanks for your comments!

A couple of additional points:

> Two reasons why you're not seeing cheaper full frame cameras
>
> 1) A full frame sensor costs more to make than a cropped APS-C sensor

Of course --- that part was clear to me. I was analyzing the price
differences
in the existing models, and noticed what I believe to be an
inconsistency
when it comes to FX vs. DX sensors; in any case, estimating an
increase
of $1000 in the cost *just because of the sensor*, that still leaves
the
possibility of a full-size sensor camera in the order of $2000
(assuming
similar features as the D90)

> 2) Marketing; whilst you can sell any product at a premium price because of
> it's perceived superiority you do so. Cheaper full frame cameras will arrive
> but not for a few years I suspect. For now full frame carries the aura of
> "pro". Nikon and Canon are cashing in on that and will continue to do so for
> as long as possible.

Agreed. I guess this is, in a sense, the central point of my
complaint.

> People are taking amazing photos with cropped sensors

I know --- at the risk of sounding immodest, I like to believe that I
*have*
taken some more or less amazing ones with my D70. The thing is, with
a full-size sensor, I would be able to take the exact same ones,
equally
amazing, plus a few others that I may have simply passed at some
point given the impossibility to take with my D70. (the key detail
here
being *wide-angle*)

> Also full frame lenses are more expensive than APS-C
> lenses.

This may be offset by the fact that many people may have a stock of
lenses from the time of their film cameras (that's my case at least;
at the time I got my D70, I already owned an F80 with three lenses,
so I held on to those)

But then, my frustration level rises when my 18-35mm zoom lens
becomes
a pedestrian 27-50mm, severely limiting the wide-angle capability.

> Adding video recording to a D90 is not a difficult task, most point
> and shoot cameras have done this for years.

I'll agree that you are right, but you're probably overstating your
case a bit;
the D90 shoots at High-Definition, 720p quality ... P&S cameras do a
far
lousier job... (for a suitable definition of "lousy", that
is!! :-) )

> A bigger, better sensor costs a
> lot more than video recording

Oh no! I didn't mean to equate those two!! I was just comparing
models
in which those extra features would, if anything, add to a price
difference;
I may have overestimated how much they would do.

> If you want a full frame body then you can buy a Canon 5D for $2199 (also at
> Henrys.com) that's pretty close to the amount you said you'd be happy to
> pay.

Well, sort of ... I would have to then pay for the new lenses :-
( (the key
detail being, I already have a nice trio of Nikon lenses)

> compared to the US and the price gouging that goes on even when the dollar
> is at, or near, par.

*sigh* ... Yeah, that was my other case for which I was considering
starting
a petition... You know, boycotcanadianretailers.com or something like
that ...

> Do you really *need* a full frame camera? It's the photographer that matters
> not the equipment.

Careful here ... I have a quite serious objection to the above being
said as a
blanket statement ... The camera *alone* does not make good photos;
and
while a good photographer with crappy equipment would take better
pictures
than a bad photographer with an excellent camera, the camera still
*does
limit* the quality and the type of photographs that you can take.

As some say, the only thing that the camera has to do is stay out of
our
way and let us take the photograph that *we* decide that we want to
take...
But then, that's the same about saying that the camera *does*
matter...
If a D700 stays out of my way 99% of the time (as an example), I
would
claim that a D300 would stay out of my way only 90% of the time
(again,
as an example --- don't take these numbers as precise figures)... In
fact,
for people that mostly want to take wide-angle images, the D300 would
get in their way 90% of the time, whereas a D3 or D700 would stay out
of their way most of the time.

> Are you absolutely sure you'd take better photos with a
> D700 as opposed to a D300?

See above --- I would be able to take *more* photos that are about as
good...

And anyway, strictly speaking, the answer is *yes*, I'm *absolutely
sure*
that I would take better photos with a D700 than with a D300 --- that
the
photographer counts? Of course --- then again, the photographer is
the
same in both cases; the comparison is: me with a D700 vs. me with
a D700. What I guess you meant to ask is one of the following two
(IMO
valid) questions:
- Will the photos that you take with a D700 be *significantly better*
than
those that you'd take with a D300?
- Are the photos that you take with a D300 *not good enough*?

Anyway, trying to stay away from the philosophical discussion of "the
camera doesn't count, it's *only* the photographer that counts" ...
Again,
my main concern is with the *extra* capabilities that I would have in
terms
of being able to shoot wide-angle images that a DX sensor would
simply
not allow me to... ISO 25600 is just a bonus... ;-) (though again,
this
translates into photographs that I *could* take with a D700 that I
would
not have even attempted with my D70 or with a D300).

*I want my wide-angle photographs*!!!!! I want my full-size
sensor!!!
(when do we want it --- NOW!!! :-) )

Cheers,

Carlos
--

"Carlos Moreno" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:c6b430f7-b4b4-4cb6-b89f-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Is there anything out there like some sort of a "petition" to Nikon
> to
> release more models featuring the full-size FX sensor?
>
> By that, I mean more non-professional models --- I have to say, I
> felt
> sort of offended by Nikon's announce of the D3 (first model
> featuring
> full-size sensor), talking about (I'm paraphrasing, off the top of
> my
> head) how the DX being ideal for most users, but they were convinced
> that the *professionals* need the additional quality, etc. etc.
>
> I felt insulted --- just because I don't make a living out of taking
> photographs I am not allowed to want the additional quality?
> Pfftt!!
>
> Well, the other issue is: well, it's simple: you want full-size
> sensor?
> You got it! It costs $5000 (well, $3000+ with the release of the
> D700).
>
> I guess my complaint has two parts:
>
> 1) You look at Nikon's web site (the Canadian one at least), and
> they
> present three categories: Essential DSLR (D40 and D60), Advanced
> DSLR (D80, D200, D300 and now the new D90), and Professional
> DSLR (D3 and D700 only, IIRC). Why don't they have a model in the
> Advanced category that has a full-size sensor?
>
> 2) Compare the D300 and D700 --- they have a price difference of
> a little above $1000 ... Then look at the D90 --- at a glance it
> seems
> like all the features of the D300 and several more (I may be
> mistaken
> there --- please do tell me!): GPS-tagging, video capture at
> 720p ...
> Not saying that these are necessarily good features, but they seem
> like *expensive* features.... And yet, the D90 is priced far below
> the
> D300... So, why not a "D90 with full-size sensor" that costs around
> $1000 more than the D90? That would bring it to what I consider
> the reasonable price threshold for an "advanced/serious amateur".
> At least from my point of view, I would most definitely *jump* to a
> model with full-size sensor that goes for around $2000. The $3000
> figure already makes my pocket hurt...
>
> Any comments? Any petitions from Nikon users already in place, or
> should I start one? Would I be the only one sending such a
> petition
> letter to Nikon? Or, will I simply get a nice response from them
> telling
> me, "Oh, you want a camera with full-size sensor? Oh yes, we have
> two models available, feel free to drop by any of our authorized
> dealers and get yours" ??
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carlos
> --

Whichever camera you buy a newer model will come out a short time
later. Usually at roughly the same price you will get higher
resolution, additional features and, unless some totally revolution in
technology occurs, and more choices. If you are a person who finds
unhappiness because next weeks model
has more pixels, larger CMOS or greater capability I am sorry for you.
I have a (now ancient) Nikon D80 with a 24-120mm DX VR lens in which I
do 75% of my work with plus a number of other Nikon lenses through
80-400mm VR. I am extremely happy with my results and make excellent
images- usually about 8 x 12 inches but sometimes as large as 11 x 14
inches.
I watch readers here who gave up their D80 to uprgrade to a D200 and
later upgrade to D300 and now still unhappy with their lot are
perplexed that they may buy a D700 only to find a D90 with movies. Oh
woe!
Why don't you just use your existing camera body and lenses to the
maximum potential bearing in mind that other peopl make prizewinning
knockout images using that same equipment and enjoy photography?

Your ability to use your camera will improve greatly if you upgrade from
your D70 to a D80 or D200 due to the improved viewing system. The D70 can
make high quality images but you have to be able to see what you are taking
a picture of, a difficult task through the D70.
Wide angle lenses for APS sized sensors are equally good or bad as their
full frame bretheren as are any issues due to the use of a wide angle lens
with a digital sensor. The aesthetic quality of the image is more important
by far than the lens or capture medium with the gear that is available
today.

On Sep 4, 3:38*am, "Dan" <d...@pergatorytowers.com> wrote:



> 1) A full frame sensor costs more to make than a cropped APS-C sensor

I doubt the difference is that big. After all, the d700 and the
d3 have the same sensor and look at the price difference. Look
also at the price diff between d300 and d700 for a better gauge of
the *real* diff in price between fx and dx.

> 2) Marketing; whilst you can sell any product at a premium price because of
> it's perceived superiority you do so. Cheaper full frame cameras will arrive
> but not for a few years I suspect. For now full frame carries the aura of
> "pro". Nikon and Canon are cashing in on that and will continue to do so for
> as long as possible.


Entirely agreed. That's always been the case with dslrs, even
in the film days: the "pro" word is always associated with
a premium price, even though the proportion of pros to
normal users is minimal. It's the cachee of the word.

Wait for Sony's reaction on this: they have already caused a huge
drop in price of the DX camera bodies since they entered the dslr
market. The day they start selling affordable FX, which is not far
away, is the day all this "pro=expensive" stuff vanishes.
Nothing like a disruptive factor!




> Do you really *need* a full frame camera? It's the photographer that matters
> not the equipment. Are you absolutely sure you'd take better photos with a
> D700 as opposed to a D300?

Ah! Do you REALLY need a dslr at all? A good photographer
can take great shots even with the lowliest of the p&s.
Does that mean only "bad" photographers buy dslrs?
Wait for the mini-4/3 to take off, that will definitely
cause a huge drop in dslr demand, fx or otherwise.

> > Do you really *need* a full frame camera? It's the photographer that matters
> > not the equipment. Are you absolutely sure you'd take better photos with a
> > D700 as opposed to a D300?
>
> Ah! *Do you REALLY need a dslr at all? A good photographer
> can take great shots even with the lowliest of the p&s.
> Does that mean only "bad" photographers buy dslrs?

*Very* nice way to put it!!

I understand that there are a lot of people *obsessed* with having to
have the best possible equipment without there being any reasonable
justification for that. I hope that I was not confused with one of
those;
but I also find equally unreasonable going to the other extreme of
putting such excessive emphasis on the photographer and dismissing
almost entirely the role of the camera (the role being, *letting you
take*
the photos that you want to take --- yes, the camera won't decide for
you, but it will definitely *affect your decision* in that it won't
let you do
what you want if the camera is not good enough)

Coming back to the I'm not one of those [people obsessed with always
having to buy the latest and greatest gear because that, and that
alone,
is what makes great pictures] --- what part of "my D70" did you guys
miss?? :-)

I got my D70 when it was just released (April 2004), and I have
remained
a happy owner (*) since then... I paid $1400, and in no way I get
jealous
or ****ed off that 6 months later, or 1 year later, the same model
was
going for half the price, or whatever new model with whatever amount
of entirely irrelevant megapixels was now available for less money,
etc.

The thing is, *at that time*, when I bought it, knowing how new
models
would come and go, with newer and better features and better quality,
I
decided on a definitive and sole criterion for my decision to upgrade
the
camera, which was... (three guesses??) ... yep, you guessed: full-
size
sensor!!

To me, *that* is *the one, big, important* feature that justifies
replacing
the camera... Again, the important keyword being: *wide angle*
photographs. (well, *wider* angle anyway)

The thing is, well, I had already kind of given up hope that they
would
ever go that way... Now, I started to see signs that maybe things
would
finally go that way, but then I keep seeing the "pro" aura associated
to it...
Well, what do you want from me, guys --- I'm human: of course it
****es
me off!! :-)

So I guess the conclusion is that we're talking a marketing thing;
Nikon
(and other companies) taking advantage of what they see as an
opportunity to inflate their prices and get away with it...

So, ok, I'll either wait or see if I can give my pocket an analgesic
and
alleviate the pocket-ache that $3000 for a new camera causes.... :-)

Still, makes me wonder if voicing our concerns might accelerate the
natural process of those prices coming down or equivalently, non-pro
cameras with FX sensors becoming available... I mean, it's a matter
of letting them know that there would be an important market for
it ...
That is, maybe they would get a far larger number of people replacing
their D70's and D80's for a $2000 camera with full-size sensor, than
they get by offering $1000 - $1500 models with increased irrelevant
features such as the resolution.

Anyway, thanks for all your comments!

Carlos
--
(*) I actually now have a D70*s*, but it is accidental --- during a
warranty service, there was a confusion with my address, and
the package got returned to them twice! They [Nikon Canada]
felt so bad that, as a courtesy, decided to replace my repaired
D70 with a brand-new D70s ... Not bad!

> > > Do you really *need* a full frame camera? It's the photographer that
> > > matters
> > > not the equipment. Are you absolutely sure you'd take better photos with
> > > a
> > > D700 as opposed to a D300?
>
> > Ah! Do you REALLY need a dslr at all? A good photographer
> > can take great shots even with the lowliest of the p&s.
> > Does that mean only "bad" photographers buy dslrs?
>
> *Very* nice way to put it!!
>
> "Obviously there's a point at which a certain technical quality is required.
> [ ... ]

> simplistic spin on what was said and make a "clever" reply . *Nobody* said
> "don't buy a DSLR get a P&S". If they think that was what was said then a
> course in basic reading and comprehension is in order!

*sigh* The irony is so unbelievable!! You know, you complaining that
there
is no way that others understand what you wrote when you clearly
missed
completely the "metaphor/analogy" nature of that comment --- even
though
I didn't write it, I feel the pain.

As you give someone the argument about wanting a D700 as opposed to
a D300, well, someone could come and apply the exact same reasoning
and claim that: "hey, do you think you'd take better pictures with a
DSLR
as opposed to a P&S" ... You dismiss the need of a D700 as opposed to
a
D300 arguing that it's the photographer that counts --- so, by the
same
argument, one would dismiss the need of a DSLR as opposed to a P&S,
arguing that it's the photographer that counts.

The example/analogy comes to show that the argument about the D700
as opposed to a D300 is just stated as a blanket statement that can
not
be valid on its own.

So yes, you now are more specific and say "well, there is a certain
minimum
of quality that is required" (where quality includes flexibility and
features,
of course).

Well, as you claim that that minimum is somewhere between the P&S's
and the DSLR's (a solid argument, yes, given that professionals have
been
using cropped-sensor DSLRs for a while), well, one could say that
that
minimum is somewhere between the cropped-sensor and the full-size
sensor --- at least the argument is valid if you take into account the
type
of photography that you take; if you're a professional that takes
mostly
architectural pictures, then the lack of ultra-wide-angle capability
does
make such camera *useless* for you.

What I'm saying is, as much as there is an important jump from P&S to
DSLR, in my opinion, there is an important jump from a cropped-sensor
to a full-size sensor; in terms of flexibility, mostly --- with a
D300, I can
not catch a 114 degrees angle using a 14mm lens; with a D700 I can.

Does that justify the extra money? Well, that's each person's
choice!
I used to dislike wide-angle shots, and my style was usually oriented
to
telephoto shots... But then, a few years ago, a couple of fellow
photo-
enthusiasts convinced me about the beauty of wide-angle photography.

Also, in my case, enjoying astrophotography, including wide-angle
shots
of the night sky, well, it's a no-brainer that I would definitely like
to have
the benefits of Digital photpgraphy combined with the wide-angle that
I used to enjoy with my F80 film camera!

Why is that so hard to accept? Why does that trigger bitterly
sarcastic
comments like the following:

> If you want a D700
> and think it'll make you a better photographer, who takes better photographs
> and has more shooting opportunities due to the spec of the latest gear go
> ahead.

Which BTW brings me to: and again with completely missing what was
said
before ... Do read my previous post (well, if you want, of course)
talking about
my D70, which I have chosen not to replace for four and a half
years...

> Please post some pics when you have time.

Well, let's see... Once upon a time, I had my Nikon F80 with a few
lenses....
With that, I once took the following pictures (you can see the dates
from
the URLs):

http://www.mochima.com/personal/milk..._06/index.html

Look at the last two, taken with an 18mm lens... You see, those, I
can not
unfortunately take with my new great DSLR that has a cropped
sensor...
Yeah, ok, I can take *many other pictures* that I enjoy, such as:

http://www.mochima.com/personal/aurora_2004-11-07
or
http://www.mochima.com/personal/aurora_2004-11-09
or
http://www.mochima.com/personal/ecli...ges/2250_2.jpg

Yes, ok... But why is it so hard to understand that as much as I
enjoy
taking pictures like these, I would enjoy *even more* if I could take
these
*in addition to* others like the ones of the Milky Way above??

Anyway, I'm sorry that you don't want to know any more about this
thread...
I'm quite happy with what I've read so far (even when not agreeing
with
what I read), and would definitely welcome additional comments...

Carlos
--

Dan wrote,on my timestamp of 5/09/2008 3:54 AM:

> I didn't specify any particular price differential only that a bigger
> sensor, shutter and body cost more. If you read my other posts you'd see
> that I said that I don't know how much a full frame sensors adds to the cost
> of a camera. But, it certainly increases the price. The cost difference
> between D700 and D300? About $1500 dependent on where you buy. According to
> your logic that's the real world difference. OK....

Around 1000 here, the difference. I'm eagerly waiting for Sony
to deliver their version of FX: could almost guess that it's gonna
put the cat amongst the pigeons for fx, on price...



> Obviously there's a point at which a certain technical quality is required.
> The above paragraph is a non sequitur. You're unlikely to be selling stock
> photography, getting shots published in magazines or getting paid to shoot
> weddings with a P&S. But there are plenty of pros earning a living with
> cropped frame sensor cameras. Nikon didn't make a full frame for a long time
> and in fact stated they'd be sticking with DX. So yes a DSLR is required for
> serious quality. As to whether the mini 4/3 takes off, we'll see.

or even better, one of these:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...F6%20small.jpg

relax, just kidding!

Top posting for simplicity in this case.

There are 4 levels, not 3 (though they are mixing).
D40 - D60 is level-1 (small, AF-S only, no manual lens compatibility)
D70 - D90 is level-2 (medium, AF all, no manual lens compatibility)
D200-D700 is level-3 (medium-large, AF all, manual lenses)
D3 is level-4 ( very-large, everything )

You want level 2 with full frame and it probably will come but maybe not
because the sensor itself is a lot of cash and always will be because
Moore's law about decreasing computing costs/increasing performance
assumes miniaturization and full frame opposes that assumption.

Remember that DX has a huge advantage for telephoto and that FX lenses
on DX give shallower depth of field as long as you are able to back up
from the subject.

Paul,
who just got a D700 and kept his D200, and would like a D90 :-)
-and who liked his D70 till it broke on a rock
-and whose 20-year-old car is in the shop for going on 3 weeks now!


Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Thanks for your comments!
>
> A couple of additional points:
>
>> Two reasons why you're not seeing cheaper full frame cameras
>>
>> 1) A full frame sensor costs more to make than a cropped APS-C sensor
>
> Of course --- that part was clear to me. I was analyzing the price
> differences
> in the existing models, and noticed what I believe to be an
> inconsistency
> when it comes to FX vs. DX sensors; in any case, estimating an
> increase
> of $1000 in the cost *just because of the sensor*, that still leaves
> the
> possibility of a full-size sensor camera in the order of $2000
> (assuming
> similar features as the D90)
>
>> 2) Marketing; whilst you can sell any product at a premium price because of
>> it's perceived superiority you do so. Cheaper full frame cameras will arrive
>> but not for a few years I suspect. For now full frame carries the aura of
>> "pro". Nikon and Canon are cashing in on that and will continue to do so for
>> as long as possible.
>
> Agreed. I guess this is, in a sense, the central point of my
> complaint.
>
>> People are taking amazing photos with cropped sensors
>
> I know --- at the risk of sounding immodest, I like to believe that I
> *have*
> taken some more or less amazing ones with my D70. The thing is, with
> a full-size sensor, I would be able to take the exact same ones,
> equally
> amazing, plus a few others that I may have simply passed at some
> point given the impossibility to take with my D70. (the key detail
> here
> being *wide-angle*)
>
>> Also full frame lenses are more expensive than APS-C
>> lenses.
>
> This may be offset by the fact that many people may have a stock of
> lenses from the time of their film cameras (that's my case at least;
> at the time I got my D70, I already owned an F80 with three lenses,
> so I held on to those)
>
> But then, my frustration level rises when my 18-35mm zoom lens
> becomes
> a pedestrian 27-50mm, severely limiting the wide-angle capability.
>
>> Adding video recording to a D90 is not a difficult task, most point
>> and shoot cameras have done this for years.
>
> I'll agree that you are right, but you're probably overstating your
> case a bit;
> the D90 shoots at High-Definition, 720p quality ... P&S cameras do a
> far
> lousier job... (for a suitable definition of "lousy", that
> is!! :-) )
>
>> A bigger, better sensor costs a
>> lot more than video recording
>
> Oh no! I didn't mean to equate those two!! I was just comparing
> models
> in which those extra features would, if anything, add to a price
> difference;
> I may have overestimated how much they would do.
>
>> If you want a full frame body then you can buy a Canon 5D for $2199 (also at
>> Henrys.com) that's pretty close to the amount you said you'd be happy to
>> pay.
>
> Well, sort of ... I would have to then pay for the new lenses :-
> ( (the key
> detail being, I already have a nice trio of Nikon lenses)
>
>> compared to the US and the price gouging that goes on even when the dollar
>> is at, or near, par.
>
> *sigh* ... Yeah, that was my other case for which I was considering
> starting
> a petition... You know, boycotcanadianretailers.com or something like
> that ...
>
>> Do you really *need* a full frame camera? It's the photographer that matters
>> not the equipment.
>
> Careful here ... I have a quite serious objection to the above being
> said as a
> blanket statement ... The camera *alone* does not make good photos;
> and
> while a good photographer with crappy equipment would take better
> pictures
> than a bad photographer with an excellent camera, the camera still
> *does
> limit* the quality and the type of photographs that you can take.
>
> As some say, the only thing that the camera has to do is stay out of
> our
> way and let us take the photograph that *we* decide that we want to
> take...
> But then, that's the same about saying that the camera *does*
> matter...
> If a D700 stays out of my way 99% of the time (as an example), I
> would
> claim that a D300 would stay out of my way only 90% of the time
> (again,
> as an example --- don't take these numbers as precise figures)... In
> fact,
> for people that mostly want to take wide-angle images, the D300 would
> get in their way 90% of the time, whereas a D3 or D700 would stay out
> of their way most of the time.
>
>> Are you absolutely sure you'd take better photos with a
>> D700 as opposed to a D300?
>
> See above --- I would be able to take *more* photos that are about as
> good...
>
> And anyway, strictly speaking, the answer is *yes*, I'm *absolutely
> sure*
> that I would take better photos with a D700 than with a D300 --- that
> the
> photographer counts? Of course --- then again, the photographer is
> the
> same in both cases; the comparison is: me with a D700 vs. me with
> a D700. What I guess you meant to ask is one of the following two
> (IMO
> valid) questions:
> - Will the photos that you take with a D700 be *significantly better*
> than
> those that you'd take with a D300?
> - Are the photos that you take with a D300 *not good enough*?
>
> Anyway, trying to stay away from the philosophical discussion of "the
> camera doesn't count, it's *only* the photographer that counts" ...
> Again,
> my main concern is with the *extra* capabilities that I would have in
> terms
> of being able to shoot wide-angle images that a DX sensor would
> simply
> not allow me to... ISO 25600 is just a bonus... ;-) (though again,
> this
> translates into photographs that I *could* take with a D700 that I
> would
> not have even attempted with my D70 or with a D300).
>
> *I want my wide-angle photographs*!!!!! I want my full-size
> sensor!!!
> (when do we want it --- NOW!!! :-) )
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carlos
> --


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Your messages are too wide, causing strange word wrap formatting.
See comments below...

Carlos Moreno wrote:
>>>> Do you really *need* a full frame camera? It's the photographer that
>>>> matters
>>>> not the equipment. Are you absolutely sure you'd take better photos with
>>>> a
>>>> D700 as opposed to a D300?
>>> Ah! Do you REALLY need a dslr at all? A good photographer
>>> can take great shots even with the lowliest of the p&s.
>>> Does that mean only "bad" photographers buy dslrs?
>> *Very* nice way to put it!!
>>
>> "Obviously there's a point at which a certain technical quality is required.
>> [ ... ]
>
>> simplistic spin on what was said and make a "clever" reply . *Nobody* said
>> "don't buy a DSLR get a P&S". If they think that was what was said then a
>> course in basic reading and comprehension is in order!
>
> *sigh* The irony is so unbelievable!! You know, you complaining that
> there
> is no way that others understand what you wrote when you clearly
> missed
> completely the "metaphor/analogy" nature of that comment --- even
> though
> I didn't write it, I feel the pain.
>
> As you give someone the argument about wanting a D700 as opposed to
> a D300, well, someone could come and apply the exact same reasoning
> and claim that: "hey, do you think you'd take better pictures with a
> DSLR
> as opposed to a P&S" ... You dismiss the need of a D700 as opposed to
> a
> D300 arguing that it's the photographer that counts --- so, by the
> same
> argument, one would dismiss the need of a DSLR as opposed to a P&S,
> arguing that it's the photographer that counts.
>
> The example/analogy comes to show that the argument about the D700
> as opposed to a D300 is just stated as a blanket statement that can
> not
> be valid on its own.
>
> So yes, you now are more specific and say "well, there is a certain
> minimum
> of quality that is required" (where quality includes flexibility and
> features,
> of course).
>
> Well, as you claim that that minimum is somewhere between the P&S's
> and the DSLR's (a solid argument, yes, given that professionals have
> been
> using cropped-sensor DSLRs for a while), well, one could say that
> that
> minimum is somewhere between the cropped-sensor and the full-size
> sensor --- at least the argument is valid if you take into account the
> type
> of photography that you take; if you're a professional that takes
> mostly
> architectural pictures, then the lack of ultra-wide-angle capability
> does
> make such camera *useless* for you.
>
> What I'm saying is, as much as there is an important jump from P&S to
> DSLR, in my opinion, there is an important jump from a cropped-sensor
> to a full-size sensor; in terms of flexibility, mostly --- with a
> D300, I can
> not catch a 114 degrees angle using a 14mm lens; with a D700 I can.
>
> Does that justify the extra money? Well, that's each person's
> choice!
> I used to dislike wide-angle shots, and my style was usually oriented
> to
> telephoto shots... But then, a few years ago, a couple of fellow
> photo-
> enthusiasts convinced me about the beauty of wide-angle photography.
>
> Also, in my case, enjoying astrophotography, including wide-angle
> shots
> of the night sky, well, it's a no-brainer that I would definitely like
> to have
> the benefits of Digital photpgraphy combined with the wide-angle that
> I used to enjoy with my F80 film camera!
>
> Why is that so hard to accept? Why does that trigger bitterly
> sarcastic
> comments like the following:
>
>> If you want a D700
>> and think it'll make you a better photographer, who takes better photographs
>> and has more shooting opportunities due to the spec of the latest gear go
>> ahead.
>
> Which BTW brings me to: and again with completely missing what was
> said
> before ... Do read my previous post (well, if you want, of course)
> talking about
> my D70, which I have chosen not to replace for four and a half
> years...
>
>> Please post some pics when you have time.
>
> Well, let's see... Once upon a time, I had my Nikon F80 with a few
> lenses....
> With that, I once took the following pictures (you can see the dates
> from
> the URLs):
>
> http://www.mochima.com/personal/milk..._06/index.html
>
> Look at the last two, taken with an 18mm lens... You see, those, I
> can not
> unfortunately take with my new great DSLR that has a cropped
> sensor...

11.88mm, closely replicated with a Tamron 12-24 zoom (or Nikon: more $).
Sigma 10-20 will exceed that significantly.
Sigma 12-24 on full frame goes further but that's really extreme,
though, yeah none of those at f/3.5.


> Yeah, ok, I can take *many other pictures* that I enjoy, such as:
>
> http://www.mochima.com/personal/aurora_2004-11-07
> or
> http://www.mochima.com/personal/aurora_2004-11-09
> or
> http://www.mochima.com/personal/ecli...ges/2250_2.jpg
>
> Yes, ok... But why is it so hard to understand that as much as I
> enjoy
> taking pictures like these, I would enjoy *even more* if I could take
> these
> *in addition to* others like the ones of the Milky Way above??

Just wait a couple years. Get a Canon 5D for your Nikkors if you can't wait.


> Anyway, I'm sorry that you don't want to know any more about this
> thread...
> I'm quite happy with what I've read so far (even when not agreeing
> with
> what I read), and would definitely welcome additional comments...
>
> Carlos
> --


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam