Nikon FX Sensor on "affordable" cameras?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Carlos Moreno, Sep 3, 2008.

  1. 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
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Sep 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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, Sep 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Carlos Moreno

    Frank Arthur Guest

    "Carlos Moreno" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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?
     
    Frank Arthur, Sep 3, 2008
    #3
  4. Carlos Moreno

    trouble Guest

    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.
     
    trouble, Sep 3, 2008
    #4
  5. Carlos Moreno

    Noons Guest

    On Sep 4, 3:38 am, "Dan" <> 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.
     
    Noons, Sep 4, 2008
    #5

  6. > > 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 pissed 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
    pisses
    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!
     
    Carlos Moreno, Sep 4, 2008
    #6

  7. > > > 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/milky_way_2002_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/eclipse_2004-10-27/images/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
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Sep 4, 2008
    #7
  8. Carlos Moreno

    Noons Guest

    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/photos/events/F6 small.jpg
    :)
    relax, just kidding!
     
    Noons, Sep 5, 2008
    #8
  9. Carlos Moreno

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: |GG| Re: Nikon FX Sensor on "affordable" cameras?

    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
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 6, 2008
    #9
  10. Carlos Moreno

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: |GG| Re: Nikon FX Sensor on "affordable" cameras?

    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/milky_way_2002_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/eclipse_2004-10-27/images/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
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 6, 2008
    #10
  11. Carlos Moreno

    Paul Furman Guest

    trouble wrote:
    > 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.


    Yes this is true, that was the main thing I noticed moving up from a D70
    to D200, and full frame is a whole next step up in big bright viewfinders.

    > 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.



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

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 6, 2008
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Super Troll

    2030 before affordable fullframe bodies

    Super Troll, Aug 31, 2004, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    204
    Matt Clara
    Sep 3, 2004
  2. Paul Furman
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,233
    Gordon Moat
    Jun 3, 2005
  3. Jeff Rife

    Dearth of affordable 70-200mm lenses?

    Jeff Rife, Sep 30, 2005, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    668
  4. bj
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    351
    Blinky the Shark
    Jul 8, 2008
  5. RichA

    Nikon's affordable new telephoto lens

    RichA, Dec 9, 2013, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    150
    Bowser
    Dec 12, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page