Why Nikon should upgrade the D300

On 16/10/2012 7:43 PM, jdanield wrote:
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.

That's what they were saying about the D100 (6Mp)



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


How does that change the DOF. So deadheads don't know how to work the
DOF and need in camera processing!



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


You can get that now - Even if you stitch images.


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

"jdanield" wrote:

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

You are forgetting image quality. The difference between APS-C and FF is
certainly much smaller than that between 35mm and medium format, but it's
still there. Not only are there high ISO performance and dynamic range
advantages, when you make a print, you are enlarging the APS-C image 1.6
times as much as you are the FF image, and that means your lens MTF is
reduced by 1.6 times at the print. If you make larger prints, and your
images are interesting enough that people take a second look, these are real
differences.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 17/10/2012 12:34 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote:

"jdanield" wrote:

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

You are forgetting image quality. The difference between APS-C and FF is
certainly much smaller than that between 35mm and medium format, but
it's still there. Not only are there high ISO performance and dynamic
range advantages, when you make a print, you are enlarging the APS-C
image 1.6 times as much as you are the FF image, and that means your
lens MTF is reduced by 1.6 times at the print. If you make larger
prints, and your images are interesting enough that people take a second
look, these are real differences.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



I'd agree with that.

On 2012-10-16 17:28:51 -0700, "Trevor" said:


"Rob" wrote in message
...
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

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

Or how about create a 1.6 crop "action" in Photoshop?

Trevor.

Creating a Crop Tool preset at a specific aspect ratio and resolution
setting is simpler, and more useful. Particularly when it comes to
isolating a specific potion of the image, rather than a generalized 1.6
crop with little control other than the resize.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"jdanield" wrote in message
...
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

****, we've already covered that in this thread, I'm not arguing why you may
not all over again!

Hell, anybody would think we were still taking slides, and what you get in
the viewfinder is what you are stuck with in the projector! Anybody using a
DSLR who doesn't know how to crop yet is pretty stupid.

Trevor.

"Rob" wrote in message
...
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

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

Or how about create a 1.6 crop "action" in Photoshop?

Trevor.

On 17/10/2012 11:28 AM, Trevor wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
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

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

Or how about create a 1.6 crop "action" in Photoshop?

Trevor.




My FF automatically changes to DX crop when I attach a DX lens. Will
that do ?

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012101616421164440-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
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

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

Or how about create a 1.6 crop "action" in Photoshop?


Creating a Crop Tool preset at a specific aspect ratio and resolution
setting is simpler, and more useful. Particularly when it comes to
isolating a specific potion of the image, rather than a generalized 1.6
crop with little control other than the resize.


Yes, I was being faceteous. I'd never want an automatic crop anyway, and
those who don't know how to crop, sure wouldn't know how to create an action
in PS :-)

Trevor.

"Rob" wrote in message
...
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

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

Or how about create a 1.6 crop "action" in Photoshop?



My FF automatically changes to DX crop when I attach a DX lens. Will that
do ?


Absolutely! You already have the best of both worlds as I have been saying
all along. Those who've never owned a FF DSLR just don't seem to get it.
Or maybe prefer to fool themselves that a Dx body is actually an advantage
over Fx, rather than just a cost saving.
(but they don't seem to be buying Nikon V1's in droves though :-)

Trevor.

On 18/10/2012 12:30 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
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

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

Or how about create a 1.6 crop "action" in Photoshop?



My FF automatically changes to DX crop when I attach a DX lens. Will that
do ?


Absolutely! You already have the best of both worlds as I have been saying
all along. Those who've never owned a FF DSLR just don't seem to get it.
Or maybe prefer to fool themselves that a Dx body is actually an advantage
over Fx, rather than just a cost saving.
(but they don't seem to be buying Nikon V1's in droves though :-)

Trevor.



I have one DX lens and that was bought out of necessity (12-24) to cover
a particular assignment.


the biggest problem that I see for those who have a DX camera lock
themselves into DX lenses - maybe its just the cheaper option - surly
not for a quality image.