Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       6       7       end
  

Archive 2013 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...

  
 
Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...



Arka wrote:
I don't agree that it's so important to "follow-up" on everything. It is clear that you have a tremendous interest in the DX line. You acknowledge that you aren't a working pro, yet you think that lots of pros are going to start sinking cash into DX rather than FX. I just don't see it. In fact, I don't know any pros that shoot crop sensors out of preference (except for a few posters in this thread).


I would suggest that it isn't very important whether or not pros care about DX cameras. They do not comprise the significant portion of buyers, perhaps of any camera type, even FX. However, that doesn't mean that the wildlife pros would not buy and carry DX. Thom Hogan had a pair of d300's that he used for a few years.

Regardless, amateurs comprise the largest share of the market, by far. Indeed, DX outsells FX by about 9:1, last I heard. Most any amateur that wants to shoot sports/wildlife would be interested in a d400, for the same reasons that made the d300 a top seller. Anyone that wants to use long telephoto and that can't afford, can't justify the expense, or can't carry the big telephoto exotics that are typically used by the pros, will buy DX.

The d7100 seems to be selling well, but many complain about its buffer, fps rate and ergos. I would suggest that the d400 would make a nice profit for Nikon, regardless as to what Apple has done in the past.

Nikon will do what it wants to do, no matter what anyone here thinks that they should do. So, we'll have to wait and see if they think a d400 is worth doing or not. Time will tell.

Kerry



Nov 16, 2013 at 02:30 PM
rhyder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Kerry Pierce wrote:
Regardless, amateurs comprise the largest share of the market, by far. Indeed, DX outsells FX by about 9:1, last I heard. Most any amateur that wants to shoot sports/wildlife would be interested in a d400, for the same reasons that made the d300 a top seller. Anyone that wants to use long telephoto and that can't afford, can't justify the expense, or can't carry the big telephoto exotics that are typically used by the pros, will buy DX.

Kerry



Sounds like you are still holding on to the myth that a crop sensor gives more "reach". Will that myth never die??



Nov 16, 2013 at 03:44 PM
Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


So long as there are DX sensors with more pixel density than available in an FX sensor, the crop factor "reach" is real, not a myth. Today, no FX sensor can touch the 24mp DX sensors.

Sounds like you're holding on to the FX is best for everything myth....

Kerry



Nov 16, 2013 at 06:38 PM
rhyder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Kerry Pierce wrote:
So long as there are DX sensors with more pixel density than available in an FX sensor, the crop factor "reach" is real, not a myth. Today, no FX sensor can touch the 24mp DX sensors.

Sounds like you're holding on to the FX is best for everything myth....

Kerry


I see you're trying to play the "effective" pixel thing. If that were true the D800 would have a "crop factor" right? pixel density has nothing to do with "reach". Every lens has an image circle. The size of the sensor does NOT change what comes through the lens. The only difference is how much of the image circle the sensor uses (actually this is where the DX shines, you don't have to deal with tyhe corners of some lenses). You could have a 48 MP sensor and it won't bring you any closer to the subject. You've been around long enough to know that not all pixels are created equal. In fact with today's software....well...you wouldn't believe what I can do.....

Don't put words in my mouth.....I probably have more DX cameras than you have. I have NEVER said one format was better than the other. I use both formats (and others) in my work flow. I really don't care what format someone uses. I DO care if someone shells good money thinking all their lenses are going to "grow".



Nov 16, 2013 at 07:06 PM
txstubby
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


So the general consensus is that Nikons marketing department doesn't know what its doing and should take the requests in this thread and use it to develop their product roadmap.?

A product roadmap typically covers a 5 year windows and drives product development and R&D. The roadmap typically shows the target release date for a new production, the products key selling points and it's target market segment/price point. The objective is to cover all of the market segments or price points using the available development resources while achieving a a target gross margin for each new product.

Roadmaps are complex as they have to link the availability of new technology (sensors from Sony etc.) to the product development schedules and development resources as well as dealing with changes in market segmentation or price points. The introduction of a disruptive new technology or product by a competitor could render the current product roadmap unusable and in some cases lead to the demise of the company.

Now looking at basic economics, material costs are driven by volume - the more you sell the lower the per unit material costs, R&D costs are effectively amortized over the projected sales volumes- again the more you sell the lower the per unit costs. Typically in big corporations unless a new product is projected to achieve a certain gross margin percentage it will not be developed UNLESS it is designed to defend a particular market segment.

My conclusions are

The traditional camera companies are being squeezed by improved cameras on smart phones. Selling a low end P&S which will then leads to an SLR sale over.

There are fewer photographers who make a their living exclusively from photography.

Unless you work in a specialized area of photography there is really very little difference between the results obtained from a D3200 and a D4 or D800. A burst of 10 jpegs from a D3200 will not look that much different to the same shots captured with a D800 or a D4.

DX camera sales probably don't increase lens sales, most users stick with the kit lens.

Unless Nikon wants to defend the high end prosumer DX segment from the Canon 7D MKII we will not see a D400 as it does not make economic sense.

My prediction is that the SLR form factor is a dying breed, it may not be next year but the next generation of interchangeable lens cameras will dispense with the mirror and go EVF, they may even abandon the venerable F mount. The traditional camera companies will either adopt the new paradigm or get out of the business, until the move to mirror-less EVF they will do whatever is required to stay in business even if it means upsetting existing customers by not creating the products they think they want.

One saying I have heard is:-

One way to go out of business is to give the customer exactly what they want. The way to succeed is to create something the customer didn't know that absolutely had to have.







Nov 17, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Arka wrote:
No, that's not what I think or said. What I said was that Nikon's perceived interest in protecting F-Mount generally (which encompasses your arguments re: "consistency") prevents it from making bolder initiatives into developing large-sensor mirrorless systems, with suitably sized (e.g., smaller) lenses.

Apple is no stranger to abandoning products and dumping interface formats. They dropped the floppy disk in the late 1990's with the iMac and are phasing out the removable optical drive today. Apple transitioned their entire processor architecture from PowerPC to Intel in 2006, and phased out SW support for PowerPC by 2010. They dropped FireWire a
...Show more

***********************

Yes, it is what you said ... you made several snide comments about it ... if you are going to start denying what you said (read through the thread carefully) there's little I have to say to you any further.

As for your comments regarding Apple abandoning things ... you are confusing features with products ... Obviously old features are replaced over time by newer better ones. But in a round-about way you have brought but a good ... let me explain:

Notice I said that Nikon should "follow up past successes". The implication is that when a product line is no longer a success, it should be discontinued ... like low end point-n-shoots. But DX format is clearly still in it success stages and a D400 is clearly a desired body as is a D800h and even a D4X ... their predecessors all did well an demand for updates is clearly out there. My little poll proves that much ... granted a limited sampling but I suspect a good representative one.

As for smaller being more desires as time goes on ... absolutely ... look how things transition from view cameras to 35mm ... and I do meet and see lots of pros using DX bodies for it's smaller lighter profile while providing reach. I must hang out in different pro circles than you. The difference between FX and DX is one of diminishing returns and pros know this ... they have an ROI decision to make, and for many they can make just as much using DX as FX ... there are of course exceptions depending on what one does.

So in the end, your decision to be blind to the indicators is your choice ... just like Nikon's ... and that shows a lack of understanding of the market.

I think we've beat this horse to death ... and I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree.






Nov 17, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


rhyder wrote:
I see you're trying to play the "effective" pixel thing. If that were true the D800 would have a "crop factor" right? pixel density has nothing to do with "reach". Every lens has an image circle. The size of the sensor does NOT change what comes through the lens. The only difference is how much of the image circle the sensor uses (actually this is where the DX shines, you don't have to deal with tyhe corners of some lenses). You could have a 48 MP sensor and it won't bring you any closer to the subject. You've been around
...Show more


******************************
Oh please rhyder, nobody is saying that lenses magically grow on DX bodies, but the effective FOV and pixel density argument clearly has it justifications. An no, not all pixels are equal, but the differences between DX and FX are in the area of diminishing returns for most situations .. and for those where it does make a difference, there are lots of FX bodies to choose from ... maybe not the right one as is the point of this thread.




Nov 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Kerry Pierce wrote:
So long as there are DX sensors with more pixel density than available in an FX sensor, the crop factor "reach" is real, not a myth. Today, no FX sensor can touch the 24mp DX sensors.

Sounds like you're holding on to the FX is best for everything myth....

Kerry

rhyder wrote:
I see you're trying to play the "effective" pixel thing. If that were true the D800 would have a "crop factor" right? pixel density has nothing to do with "reach". Every lens has an image circle. The size of the sensor does NOT change what comes through the lens. The only difference is how much of the image circle the sensor uses (actually this is where the DX shines, you don't have to deal with tyhe corners of some lenses). You could have a 48 MP sensor and it won't bring you any closer to the subject. You've been around
...Show more

I truly don't understand why this "myth" topic resurfaces every few months nor do I understand why the argument is always presented with nonsensical statements such as thinking a lens is going to grow. It's not all that difficult to comprehend the benefits of pixel density for telephoto work and is easy to demonstrate for yourself, if you have the requisite DX and FX cameras, as you do.

Please put that nice 200 f/2 on these 2 cameras in your collection, the d300 and then the d700 or d3. Take some test shots with both, framing the shots where the subject appears to be the same size in the viewfinder, with each camera. Then please post the resulting SOOTC shots here and explain to me why the d300 shot looks like you used a significantly longer lens than you used on the d700/d3.

Please don't grab the d800 and try to use it as a test camera against the d300. If you want to use the d800 in a test, then buy, rent or borrow a d7100 to test it against.

If you like, I can do the same thing. I have a d3s, d800 and d700 at my disposal, along with a d300, d7k and a rental d7100. I could do a comparison of the d7100 and d3s to really demonstrate the pixel density issue.

Or we could simply agree that you got a little carried away and that there is something to the DX pixel density issue after all.

I too, use both formats and have done so for years. Each has their good and bad points. The d7100 seems to be a rather remarkable camera, in that the sensor is better than I anticipated. It isn't as good as the d800 sensor, but it isn't all that bad either. Given a choice, I'd generally much rather use the d7100 for reach than I would the d800, such as for most any sporting event needing 300mm or longer lenses.

Having said that, I would also say that there are moments where I'd pick an FX camera to shoot sports. For example, if the light levels required extremely high ISO settings and I could use my 200 or 300mm f/2.8 lenses, then I would likely use the d3s, rather than any DX camera.

thanks
Kerry



Nov 17, 2013 at 03:40 PM
rhyder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Kerry Pierce wrote:
Or we could simply agree that you got a little carried away and that there is something to the DX pixel density issue after all.

thanks
Kerry


When you understand what today's software can do, you'll realize that pixel density is meaningless. Actually it always was. There was NO magnification factor back then and there is none now. If pixel density made a difference (your logic) then the D800 would have more "reach" then the D4, Yet the image frame is the same. I did a test years ago when the D300 and the D3 came out using a 200 f/2. The image from the D300 fit exactly where it should have when superimposed over the D3 image. There is no way around the laws of physics.......Sorry.




Nov 17, 2013 at 04:21 PM
matthewsaville
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


rhyder wrote:
When you understand what today's software can do, you'll realize that pixel density is meaningless. Actually it always was. There was NO magnification factor back then and there is none now. If pixel density made a difference (your logic) then the D800 would have more "reach" then the D4, Yet the image frame is the same. I did a test years ago when the D300 and the D3 came out using a 200 f/2. The image from the D300 fit exactly where it should have when superimposed over the D3 image. There is no way around the laws of physics.......Sorry.



Huh? So today, a D5200 gives no extra reach compared to a D600? Not sure I follow you... This is simply not true...



Nov 17, 2013 at 05:01 PM
rhyder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Yep! You're correct...you don't follow me. "Reach" is a myth. Pixel density isn't "reach". There is no magnification factor. Sorry. Don't blame me blame physics.



Nov 17, 2013 at 05:15 PM
rhyder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


I do shoot DX. I shoot it because I like my D200 and D300 cameras. I like make D200 for the 100 ISO. I like my D300 for the handling and for using my DX lenses. When I look through the view finder I don't care what camera I'm using...I'm just composing an image.

If you really want to believe some that isn't true...that's up to you. The only problem is when I see one person tells another to spend money for a reason that is not true. The crop sensor narrows the field of view...but it does NOT add length to a lens.

With today's software pixel density is meaningless...........

Sorry..........



Nov 17, 2013 at 05:22 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


rhyder wrote:
Yep! You're correct...you don't follow me. "Reach" is a myth. Pixel density isn't "reach". There is no magnification factor. Sorry. Don't blame me blame physics.



And your degree in physics is?

I'm sorry, but pixel density does matter as it is a factor in real resolution as opposed to some form software interpolation via upressing. So while there is no optical magnification, there is an advantage to DX in having greater pixel density, which said another way, means more pixels in a tighter FOV. Every pixel is more information. To say it does not matter is just as bad as claiming optical magnification by changing format. Please do not exchange one myth with another.

So yes, that d300 image did fit in the DX frame of the D3, but it did so with much more pixel information ... i.e. more resolution in that DX frame. Also, from a practical perspective, not having to crop in post, but framing it correctly in camera is a real boon if you do a lot of long distance work where the FX frame is too large for the given lens ... add the pixel density for the extra quality and DX has a real advantage in that case ... especially at base ISO where the larger FX pixels have no advantage.

Finally, more prominent names in the industry, like Thom Hogan for instance, do see the advantage of greater pixel density ... if not, then why do we care about a D800 with its 32MP ... why not just stick a 6MP sensor into it? Oh, right, pixels matter

And the pixel density argument must be within reason of course ... there is optical resolution of the optics and the diffraction limit to consider.

Again, please do not exchange one myth with another.

Andre Labonte,
Ph.D. Physics



Nov 17, 2013 at 05:37 PM
matthewsaville
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Regarding this overall discussion, by the way, I think that quite the opposite is true about Nikon's alleged lack of a "clear and decisive" lineup these days, compared to the D1 up to the D3.

The D1 thru the D2X was a constant underdog battle in which Nikon was barely keeping up with Canon. Yes, Nikon had awesome feature sets and a decent overall lineup, but no more earth-shatteringly diverse or well-rounded than today.

Then from the D3 onward, Nikon has consistently been king of the hill. The D3s and D4 are as good or better than the 1DX for action. In fact the D3 and D3s were leaps and bounds beyond the competition, especially back in the days of Canon's attempts to use a 1.3x crop for action. (I think it was an awesome system that they shouldn't have eliminated from their lineup, by the way, but I'm just saying that the D3 and D3s were truly incredible cameras...)

The D800 is un-beatable for landscape photographers. Seriously, especially when combined with the 14-24, what else comes even close?

The D700 is old as hell, indeed, but you know what? For it's primary purpose, (IMO wedding and portrait and light action photography) ...it beat the pants off its initial competition the 5D mk2, and still holds a candle to the 5D mk3 for things like photojournalism.

A D700 + D800 combo is completely peerless with regard to performance and image quality for almost any profession. If you want to argue that a two-camera solution doesn't count, especially if one of them is discontinued and has no video, well all I can say is that I work as a photographer full-time in the "real world", and this is just the way I see things. Nikon may be missing out on making a buck if I buy a used D700 on Ebay, but I'm sure they're working on something...

The D600 came as soon as it could, and aside from the wimps who are afraid to clean their sensors, it was a nearly perfect execution of affordable full-frame.

The D300s->D400 situation is pretty annoying for anyone who couldn't afford a D700 right when it came out, or who currently feels that they'd love the reach of a more powerful D7100 for wildlife, but the D7100 simply needed to come first.

And once again, with dual card slots, truly flagship AF and 8 FPS when using a V-grip, the D300s was still way ahead of the curve with the ONLY drawback being high ISO performance, something Nikon DX has always struggled with.

So, what do you want from Nikon, to qualify them as "clearly defining" their market goals or direction, or whatever? A D400 and a D710 and a D4X, all in the same year? Not gonna happen. Sure, maybe we could have used at least one of these cameras within the past few years, but all the other cameras that Nikon DID release were simply more urgent. Maybe the DF could be considered not urgent, and I would agree, however considering Nikon's history of gold-plated lizard-skilled 35mm SLR cameras, I'm frankly quite surprised we didn't see the DF years ago, and with a whole lot more gaudy silliness.

Simply put, the only reason that we're up in arms here is because we're a more advanced, selective crowd and the past few years have not been "our" years. But the D3200 / D5200, the D7100, and the D600 / D610 have all still been class-leading cameras that were very necessary for Nikon to remain on top.

So we're complaining because the previous generation of pro and semi-pro Nikon's were so damn good that Nikon hasn't needed to upgrade them yet. So, go out and shoot some photos and have a little patience!

BTW, Nikon has repeatedly mentioned that this coming winter and next year will see a focus on higher-end bodies. So many of us are probably going to find that our "needs" are met within the next 6-12 months. Long before Canon ever gets around to catching up with the roughly FIFTEEN Nikon DSLR's that rank higher for dynamic range at DXO, for example. I know that for many this is just one tiny aspect of a very complex overall market, but for me as a landscape photographer it is definitely one of the absolute highest priorities.

;-)

=Matt=



Nov 17, 2013 at 05:47 PM
matthewsaville
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


rhyder wrote:
Yep! You're correct...you don't follow me. "Reach" is a myth. Pixel density isn't "reach". There is no magnification factor. Sorry. Don't blame me blame physics.

I understand your assertion that the "magnification" of a lens does not optically change with added pixels. In fact NOBODY is arguing this. That would indeed be magic, and defy the laws of physics.

But adding more pixels, if they are good quality pixels, does in fact create the appearance of being CLOSER to the subject. It is that simple.

I'll try my best to give us an opportunity to find a common agreement here. Clearly, you are NOT trying to argue that for example a D5200's image would need to be SHRUNKEN to the 1.5x crop factor of a D600 before the per-pixel resolving power of the two sensors would match. This would be an absurd argument, and I am still assuming that is not what you are trying to say. You maybe un-willing to agree to the terminology of "adding pixels does not increase optical reach", and that's fine if you're uncomfortable with that terminology. But adding pixels, regardless of what we're unable to agree upon, does bring a subject "closer" to the viewer with respect to the level of detail can be resolved at 100%.

=Matt=



Nov 17, 2013 at 06:13 PM
matthewsaville
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


rhyder wrote:
.......If you really want to believe some that isn't true...that's up to you. The only problem is when I see one person tells another to spend money for a reason that is not true. The crop sensor narrows the field of view...but it does NOT add length to a lens.

With today's software pixel density is meaningless...........

Sorry..........


BTW, I just popped the same lens on my D5200 and my D70s. Holy crap what a huge difference in "magnification!!!!"

I'm also stumped by what you're saying about "one person tells another to spend money for a reason that is not true". Are you talking about how people wish a D400 would come out, with say the sensor of the D7100 or D5300, because it would give more "reach" than say a D800 or D4 for wildlife and such?

To be quite honest, this is in fact a GREAT reason to buy a 24 MP DX sensor, and one of the biggest reasons I wish Nikon would make a D400. What is "not true" about getting roughly the same image out of a 135 f/2 on a D400 as I would get out of a D600 with a 70-200 f/2.8?

=Matt=



Nov 17, 2013 at 06:28 PM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #17 · p.5 #17 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...




***********************

Yes, it is what you said ... you made several snide comments about it ... if you are going to start denying what you said (read through the thread carefully) there's little I have to say to you any further.


I just read through my posts, and honestly don't understand how your statement is reflected in what I wrote. Either explain more clearly, or avoid putting words in my mouth.

As for your comments regarding Apple abandoning things ... you are confusing features with products ... Obviously old features are replaced over time by newer better ones. But in a round-about way you have brought but a good ... let me explain:

"Feature" changes can be as significant to vested end-users as product changes. When customers purchase devices designed to connect to a "system," most hope that connection protocols won't change very often. External speakers, hard drive enclosures, and car interfaces designed to operate on FW-friendly interface protocols represent substantial customer investment. Yet Apple unilaterally abandoned FW, which even by today's standards is a pretty fast data transfer protocol. While I'm not whining about these changes, the end-user problems they create aren't that different from the kinds of problems that might arise if Nikon abandoned DX. Note, however, that I don't think Nikon has or will ever completely abandon DX.

But DX format is clearly still in it success stages and a D400 is clearly a desired body as is a D800h and even a D4X ... their predecessors all did well an demand for updates is clearly out there. My little poll proves that much ... granted a limited sampling but I suspect a good representative one.

I don't believe FM gear forums are a representative sample of what the SLR buying public thinks. But in truth, you know about as much about the "market" as I do. Nikon and its resellers have the best data, and they are presumably making decisions based upon it and other considerations. Or maybe not. But you and I are just speculating.

So in the end, your decision to be blind to the indicators is your choice ... just like Nikon's ... and that shows a lack of understanding of the market.

If you say so. Since we agree to disagree, we can stop blathering on about this. However, given your propensity for generating Internet traffic through your gear-complaining on this issue, I would suggest you (1) find a way to monetize that traffic/interest, or (2) devote your argumentative energy to actually convincing Nikon to adopt your "vision." Alternatively you could try to find contentment in the enormous capability of the photographic tools we have access to today.





Nov 17, 2013 at 07:34 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #18 · p.5 #18 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Arka wrote:
I don't believe FM gear forums are a representative sample of what the SLR buying public thinks.




Not of the general public, but as I originally posted with regards to my poll, of the enthusiast and pro crowd, I suspect it is. A good sample of the general public would show the D3200, D5200 and D7100 swamping out the FX bodies by a margin of 9:1.




Nov 17, 2013 at 08:36 PM
rhyder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #19 · p.5 #19 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Andre Labonte wrote:
And your degree in physics is?

I'm sorry, but pixel density does matter as it is a factor in real resolution as opposed to some form software interpolation via upressing. So while there is no optical magnification, there is an advantage to DX in having greater pixel density, which said another way, means more pixels in a tighter FOV. Every pixel is more information. To say it does not matter is just as bad as claiming optical magnification by changing format. Please do not exchange one myth with another.

So yes, that d300 image did fit in the DX frame
...Show more

Andre...you should, of all people know that you don't need a Ph.D. in Physics to understand Physics. Do you have a Ph.D. in Photography? Yet you do Photography. As a Ph.D you should know that all pixels are not created equal. As a Ph.D. you should also know enough to look at the situation form a larger viewpoint. The "bigger picture" so to speak. As wont with many Ph.Ds there is a tendency to focus (I swear these puns are unintentional) to narrowly on a subject (its understandable, its how we study things to glean data). When we just focus (again sorry) on the pixels, the pixels do matter...but the pixels exist in a larger arena than just on a sensor of a camera. To do anything with the pixels we must migrate into the software sphere. Without software a pixel just sits there on the sensor with its data going nowhere. This is where the paradigm has shifted (approximately three years ago)...Apparently you missed it. Please don't feel bad you are certainly not alone. I myself didn't see it for several months.

According to KP's logic the D800 (36 MP BTW) should have this "reach" you speak of......why doesn't it? Step back and get a broader view...maybe do a little research on what happening with software today (hint...you won't find it in a spec sheet) see if you can find the shift. It's there. You won't need a Ph.D to see it.

If pixel density were what it's all about we'd all have that phone with the 44 PM sensor (just kidding)(I hope).

To reiterate...I enjoy my DX bodies as much as my FX bodies...When I'm out shooting, I don't spend a single nanosecond worrying about pixels or crop factor. I just respond to what I see in the viewfinder.

Have a great day, Doctor.



Nov 18, 2013 at 07:56 AM
hans98ko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #20 · p.5 #20 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Since this is the number 100 post, I will review the truth;
Nikon's problem Isn't the Camera ... but the people who kept dreaming for that perfect camera that no manufacturer is able to build at the expected price.
Put up 100 million dollars up front and I bet someone will build it for you base on your personal specs.



Nov 18, 2013 at 08:47 AM
1       2       3       4      
5
       6       7       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.