Upload & Sell: On
| p.2 #14 · Probably the last semi-Pro DX camera from Nikon |
Kerry Pierce wrote:
While you are looking at prints, I'd be willing to wager that I could make 80x60cm prints from both DX and FX that nobody in your workshop could tell which prints came from which format.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that people couldn't tell which prints came from which format? If you are, then your argument that DX isn't any good, is a fallacy.
but always keep in mind, you can do with FX EVERYTHING what DX does image-feel-wise, but not other way around. So i can make FX photo which nobody can tell if it was P&S, DX or FX. But i can with FX make a photo which would be different to what any DX camera or P&S (in extreme) can do.
No, that's not true either. FX can't always do everything that DX does. They are different formats, with different strengths and weaknesses of each format. They do have some overlapping capabilities, but that doesn't mean that one can always do what the other can do. I've shot the d300 and d700 side by side, for several years. I wouldn't have done that, if it weren't a necessity.
and again: would you buy D300s, if for same moneys you could have D700? Maybe you answer yes on the forum, but would you really?
If I could fly to the moon tomorrow, I would. But, that's not the reality, is it? The reality was that the d300 was over $1000 cheaper than the d700, when they were introduced. DX will always be cheaper to produce, it's as simple as that.
I don't understand why it should matter to you anyway. Nobody is forcing you to buy a DX camera and you have several FX cameras to choose from. So, why do you care?