If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink | R. Mark Clayton | Digital Photography | 140 | March 29th 12 08:38 PM |
When will these people get it? Telephotos can't shrink | Paul Furman | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | March 14th 12 12:42 AM |
When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 29th 12 10:33 PM |