When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink
 

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
wrote in message
...
In , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a
smaller
image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full
frame
sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the
area is
a rip off.

Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.

crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.

Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).

wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.

You get [serious] vignetting* or even just black.


And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.

It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)

Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
Canon 330 1700
Nikon 430 1840
Sony 290 1850

so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS
size.

bogus comparison.

the cheapest slrs are cheap not just because of a smaller sensor
(that's obviously part of it), but because they lack many other
features in the higher end full frame bodies.

for example, the cheapest full frame nikon has a 51 point autofocus and
internal focus motor, while the cheapest crop sensor nikon has an 11
point autofocus and no internal motor. there are many other differences
between those two, *all* of which contribute to the price difference.

Well compare the cost of full frame film SLR's then - they were just £££ as
well.

Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.


Law of diminishing returns. If you want just a little better on the high
end, it's gonna cost a lot more.

When will these people get it? Cost does not necessarily equal worth or value.
 

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.

Law of diminishing returns. If you want just a little better on the high
end, it's gonna cost a lot more.

= Law of higher unit costs at lower production volumes, and more
particularly *higher profit margins*.

The continual argument here however simply seems to revolve around the
definitions of "worth" Vs cost.

Trevor.