Why Nikon should upgrade the D300

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
news
OR crop the Fx image later, as I have been saying and you don't accept.

That's because I wouldn't be so silly as to use a lens so grossly out
of kilter with the sensor size.

What the hell is "grossly out of kilter with the sensor size" when using
any
standard Nikon or Canon lens on a Nikon or Canon DSLR???
How do you make this stuff up, do you lay awake at night thinking about
it?

I'm not the one making it up. You are the one who assumes that I have
to crop Fx images because I use the same lens to take them as I would
with a Dx. I'm saying that I'm not that silly. I would use a longer
focal length to suit the larger sensor. There would be no need to
crop.

Gee you're fill of ****. I assumed nothing, I said others COULD, what *you*
choose to do bothers me not!


Do you really think I have gone
through life with but the one lens which I have used for cameras
ranging from a half-frame (1" x 3/4") Petri to a 4" x 5" plate camera?
Then why on earth do you keep trying to argue on the basis that I have
only the one lens to share between an Fx and a Dx camera?

Point out where I said anything of the sort and I'll answer it, otherwise
it's probably time I stopped arguing with idiots.
So tell me what 400 or 600mm Dx only lens do you use for those wildlife
shots?

You are shifting ground.

Not me freddy, that is all you!


No one said anything about those particular
focal lengths. Nor has there been any suggestion of wildlife shots.

Better go back and look at what I actually replied to before you decided to
set your own agenda.



The whole point about which I have been arguing is your repeated
statement/assumption that a photograph taken with Dx camera has to be
cropped if you want to get the same result with an Fx.

Never said it. I said others COULD if they wanted to get the same image from
the same lens on either a Dx or Fx camera.
What *you* choose to do is irrelevant to me.


Just in case it hasn't occurred to you, irrespective of whether I am
using a Dx or Fx camera I choose a lens to suit the image I want to
capture with the camera.

And you never use a Fx lens on a Dx body? Lucky you to have an infinite
array of lenses to choose from. I don't, so often make do with what I
have.
Whatever works for you, but insisting everyone else is wrong is plain
stupid.

You are shifting ground yet again.

Are you having trouble reading, or comprehending?



The lens I choose depends on whether I'm
using an Fx or a Dx. I might even have a zoom, in which case I zoom in
and out until the image in the view finder coincides with the image I
want to capture.

All this business of having to crop with one sized sensor and not with
another is a nonsense.

Who said you HAVE to do anything?

You said you did, if you want to get the same image.

Are you having trouble reading, or just comprehending?

Trevor.

"Eric Stevens" wrote:

I'm not the one making it up. You are the one who assumes that I have
to crop Fx images because I use the same lens to take them as I would
with a Dx. I'm saying that I'm not that silly. I would use a longer
focal length to suit the larger sensor. There would be no need to
crop.


FWIW, there's essentially no difference in the images taken with an FF
camera and a given lens plus a 1.4x TC and an APS-C camera with that lens
without the TC. Composition, DoF, and photons collected per pixel will be
essentially identical. If there were such a thing as a 1.6x TC, then it'd
really be identical. Oh, yes. Resolution would be pretty much the same, too.
A decent TC makes almost no change in the ability of a lens to render
subject detail, so there's not detail advantage to the APS-C camera, either.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Le 15/10/2012 14:50, David J. Littleboy a écrit :

of a lens to render subject detail, so there's not detail advantage to
the APS-C camera, either.

the price and the weight.

I'm a long time photographer and so had some 35mm (Canon, but it's a
detail) lens

I used them most on DSLR APS-C camera (EOS 50D). I recently decided to
giv up on FF cameras and so sold my FF lenses and buy APS-C lens.

I could even make some money, still having the same photo range (and
more recent lens).

I becomming aged, I appreciate the gain in weight

jdd

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:50:35 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote:

I'm not the one making it up. You are the one who assumes that I have
to crop Fx images because I use the same lens to take them as I would
with a Dx. I'm saying that I'm not that silly. I would use a longer
focal length to suit the larger sensor. There would be no need to
crop.


FWIW, there's essentially no difference in the images taken with an FF
camera and a given lens plus a 1.4x TC and an APS-C camera with that lens
without the TC. Composition, DoF, and photons collected per pixel will be
essentially identical. If there were such a thing as a 1.6x TC, then it'd
really be identical. Oh, yes. Resolution would be pretty much the same, too.
A decent TC makes almost no change in the ability of a lens to render
subject detail, so there's not detail advantage to the APS-C camera, either.

Agreed. As I have been saying all along the image remains unchanged if
if the lens are properly matched to the sensor. I wasn't thinking in
terms of a teleconvertor but there is no reason why one should not be
used.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:04:26 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
news
FWIW, there's essentially no difference in the images taken with an FF
camera and a given lens plus a 1.4x TC and an APS-C camera with that lens
without the TC. Composition, DoF, and photons collected per pixel will be
essentially identical. If there were such a thing as a 1.6x TC, then it'd
really be identical. Oh, yes. Resolution would be pretty much the same,
too.
A decent TC makes almost no change in the ability of a lens to render
subject detail, so there's not detail advantage to the APS-C camera,
either.

Agreed. As I have been saying all along the image remains unchanged if
if the lens are properly matched to the sensor. I wasn't thinking in
terms of a teleconvertor but there is no reason why one should not be
used.


I've never heard of a Dx only teleconverter, is there in fact any Dx only
lens/teleconverter combination available yet?

Don't know

Or are we still talking about Fx lenses and claiming they lose size and
weight when added to a Dx body? :-)

No. Why should we be?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
news
FWIW, there's essentially no difference in the images taken with an FF
camera and a given lens plus a 1.4x TC and an APS-C camera with that lens
without the TC. Composition, DoF, and photons collected per pixel will be
essentially identical. If there were such a thing as a 1.6x TC, then it'd
really be identical. Oh, yes. Resolution would be pretty much the same,
too.
A decent TC makes almost no change in the ability of a lens to render
subject detail, so there's not detail advantage to the APS-C camera,
either.

Agreed. As I have been saying all along the image remains unchanged if
if the lens are properly matched to the sensor. I wasn't thinking in
terms of a teleconvertor but there is no reason why one should not be
used.


I've never heard of a Dx only teleconverter, is there in fact any Dx only
lens/teleconverter combination available yet?
Or are we still talking about Fx lenses and claiming they lose size and
weight when added to a Dx body? :-)

Trevor.

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
FWIW, there's essentially no difference in the images taken with an FF
camera and a given lens plus a 1.4x TC and an APS-C camera with that
lens
without the TC. Composition, DoF, and photons collected per pixel will
be
essentially identical. If there were such a thing as a 1.6x TC, then
it'd
really be identical. Oh, yes. Resolution would be pretty much the same,
too.
A decent TC makes almost no change in the ability of a lens to render
subject detail, so there's not detail advantage to the APS-C camera,
either.

Agreed. As I have been saying all along the image remains unchanged if
if the lens are properly matched to the sensor. I wasn't thinking in
terms of a teleconvertor but there is no reason why one should not be
used.


I've never heard of a Dx only teleconverter, is there in fact any Dx only
lens/teleconverter combination available yet?

Don't know

Or are we still talking about Fx lenses and claiming they lose size and
weight when added to a Dx body? :-)

No. Why should we be?


Well you keep claiming the benefits of a Dx body with "properly matched
lenses" (yet are strangely silent on u4/3 or Nikon V1 for some reason) now
you say "there is no reason" why a Fx body with Fx lens *AND* a
teleconverter is a valid alternative. Well obviously anyone can use anything
to get their required result (as I have been saying all along) but I guess I
should not be surprised by now that consistancy in your arguments is not
your forte' :-)

Personally I always try actual comparison tests to see what works best for
me, others prefer conjecture, which is their right I guess, but does make
for tiresome arguments.

Trevor.

Le 16/10/2012 02:04, Trevor a écrit :

Or are we still talking about Fx lenses and claiming they lose size and
weight when added to a Dx body? :-)

compared with the equivalent lens for FX, sure, FX needs 1.6x more
long lens, converter or not converter

jdd

On 16/10/2012 6:27 PM, jdanield wrote:
Le 16/10/2012 02:04, Trevor a écrit :

Or are we still talking about Fx lenses and claiming they lose size and
weight when added to a Dx body? :-)

compared with the equivalent lens for FX, sure, FX needs 1.6x more long
lens, converter or not converter

jdd



You can buy a 1.7x converter for your FX lenses - to make them feel like
having a dx camera

Le 16/10/2012 10:28, Rob a écrit :
On 16/10/2012 6:27 PM, jdanield wrote:
Le 16/10/2012 02:04, Trevor a écrit :

Or are we still talking about Fx lenses and claiming they lose size
and
weight when added to a Dx body? :-)

compared with the equivalent lens for FX, sure, FX needs 1.6x more long
lens, converter or not converter

jdd



You can buy a 1.7x converter for your FX lenses - to make them feel
like having a dx camera

this still add weigth and price for identical usage.

the technical problem is more the one of the pixel count. It looks
obvious that the FX sensor chip can have more pixel count than the DX
one (with same technology). If this pixel count is essential for you,
you have no choice.

But in most field use 18 Mpix seems to be enough.

The only remaining advantage of FF is depth of field, but having a
blurred background will be obtainable by data procession pretty soon.

Then the only real advantage of FF will be large angle lens.

and, by the way, may be smaller sensors will some time soon have the
same advantages than largers ones, after all the same discussion
arised when Leica build his 35mm camera: why a so small film when I
can have larger one...

jdd