luminosity wrote:
Is one automatically a "fanboy" because they prefer FX? That's absurd. I don't need long telephotos and I much prefer shooting with primes. I like shooting with film and that's part of what got me into preferring the FX perspective. My N80 cost me $60, and I've made most of my best shots on it. What an expensive piece of equipment, no? I learned a lot from it, got to use FX more and moved on to the D700 by selling my DX equipment.
I have praised the D300 many times, and again, I owned one. The D700 suits my needs and preferences more than the D300 did. This does not in any way make me a "fanboy." The D300 is a terrific camera, and even as I type this, is serving the needs of a lot of photographers somewhere in the world.
So, the conclusion is that for MOST people in MOST situations, FX is a want and NOT a need or even a significant improvement.
So, I guess that makes one wonder how anyone survived in ye old days of film....Show more →
Very good points. No, wanting or needing FX does not make one an FX fanboy, but a blanket statement that FX is better without qualification is going in that direction ... but enough of lables and names as those don't help the conversaion. I think you and I are starting to understand each other's points which means we are both learning. If I were shooting film and digital with primes in the range you do, my choices would be the same as yours. Clearly my needs are different and thus different equipment.
As for surviving in the film age, well at the SLR level, 35mm was where it was at. I'm not sure why APS-C format did not catch on in the SLR world.
Aug 15, 2009 at 08:17 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Andre Labonte wrote:
The point of the non-FX fanboys is that for most shooting conditions and print sizes needed by most people, including many pros and avid ametures, the differences between DX and FX are negligible.
Makten wrote:
About as negligible as the difference between a D300 and a D40.
YES! From an IQ point of view. YES!
I have a D300 only because I need the pro-level AF and FPS, othewise a D90 would fine. Also, I have non-AFS lenses, so a D90 or higher level camera is needed.
Look at the green leaves and the darks in the bottles. Is the differences "insignificant"? Not to my eyes. The D300 is much better than the D40, and the D700 is much better than the D300.
All three are great, but I don't understand why people keep saying the differences are negligible.
I have a D300 only because I need the pro-level AF and FPS, othewise a D90 would fine. Also, I have non-AFS lenses, so a D90 or higher level camera is needed.
And I have a D700 only because I "need" the sensor. I could as well have had a D40 with the D700 sensor, if it metered with non-CPU lenses and had a decent viewfinder.
Andre Labonte wrote:
As for surviving in the film age, well at the SLR level, 35mm was where it was at. I'm not sure why APS-C format did not catch on in the SLR world.
Because it wasn't any better. Nor was it cheaper. Things are different with dSLR:s, where large sensors are more expensive. It's all about cost.
ISO 1600 is NOT what I would call what MOST people need or shoot at. At ISO 1600 I certainly agree with you that FX is the way to go (matching MP of course).
95+% of my pictures are ISO400 or less and I suspect that is what MOST people need and use ... maybe ISO 800 every so often and the rare ISO1600 shot. At those low ISO's (<400) and at f-stops of 2.8 to 11 (again, what MOST people use) the differences are nigligible for standard print sizes (8"x10" or smaller). That is all anyone has ever said.
If you truely need the advantages of FX, then you made the right choice. Nobdy will argue with that. For most people, FX is not a need, but a want. Nothing wrong with that either, unless you can't afford it or you are giving up other aspects of photography that you don't want to give up, just to have FX. $2000-$3000 just for a camera body is a huge commitment of money for a hobby. Making the right choices early on can mean more enjoyment of the hobby. If someone does not need the advanteges of FX, they should save money, go with DX and expand their equipment in other ways that they need. In that sense, FX is not always the best choice.
This whole debate is really pretty meaningless because everyone here has different factors they are using to come to what they feel the best choice is and unless we share those exact same factors, we simply are not going to agree.
For example, wide angle coverage. Some may say DX is better because theres a bunch of cheap zooms that can give you 15mm equiv coverage. Of course the 14-24 is optically better but due to price its not an option to some. Fair enough point right ?
Well for someone else, the price factor might not matter in the least. They only care about the IQ and the 14-24 is the hands down best UWA zoom made. End of story.
But yet another person may easily be able to afford the 14-24 and FX but they are concerned about weight, and while they aren't buying a DX and 10-24 to save money, they are buying it to save weight.
And the list could go on and on.
So for me personally, I don't care about weight, and I don't care about cost, I just care about the IQ, so you can make all the arguments about cheaper DX zooms but they are meaningless to be because your making them based upon factors that I don't care about.
Thats not to suggest cost isn't a perfectly valid factor, because it is, its just isn't for my needs in this case. In a different case it may be.
We all shoot different things, have different incomes, some shoot professional, some for a hobby, using our cameras in different ways and different places.
There is no one size fits all
Really we should just be happy that Nikon gives us the option of having excellent tools in either DX or FX format. Thats pretty cool.
Andre Labonte wrote:
ISO 1600 is NOT what I would call what MOST people need or shoot at. At ISO 1600 I certainly agree with you that FX is the way to go (matching MP of course).
Less different for sure, but the same obvious trend: Larger sensor = better IQ.
And this is still not a good comparsion for equality, since we're not taking lenses and possibility for stopping down into consideration.
For most people, FX is not a need, but a want.
That probably goes for the D300 AF over D90 ditto too. Most people don't even need a camera.
$2000-$3000 just for a camera body is a huge commitment of money for a hobby.
Not in my opinion. People don't seem to be concerned at all with throwing away tens of thousands of dollars on cars, furniture and other stuff. But cameras?
I rather spend all my money on my hobby than on "everyday stuff".
By the way, I'll probably try analogue MF soon. Just for the heck of it.
Makten wrote:
You wrote: "There are more situations where FX is more expensive, and offers no significant advantages." Just must not have tried yourself then.
Of all lenses I've used and tried on both DX and FX, all have been significantly better on FX.
Were you comparing them on the D300, or on the D200 for DX? All my lenses perform better on the D300 than on the D200 too, at least by a small margin (depends on how closely I'm looking really).
Most of the arguments I read on behalf of FX begin with higher ISOs. Take both the D300 and the D700 at base ISO and in the f/4 (for FX) to f/11 aperture ranges, and you are not going to be demonstrating significant improvements. I have a very good 58mm f/1.4 Nokton, and I'm finding f/2 on my D300 too shallow for most portraits (at least that's to my tastes, as I don't like having a nose and one eye to be out of focus on a slightly angled shot).
I presented some shots earlier in this thread, and I dare say none of them would have been significantly better with a D700. I also saw your contribution, and I can also say it could have been done with a tripod at half the shutter speed and half the ISO with the same aperture on a D300 and not been significantly any worse. Really, how much less DOF would I have gotten with my 58/1.4 in that situation than you got with your 85/1.4?
The argument that you can get more for less with FX doesn't hold water -- it's a peculiar form of format chauvinism.
You can, if you like fast and short lenses. A 28/1.4 on DX is way more expensive and less good than a 35/2 or 50/1.4 on FX. Sure, there is the Sigma 30/1.4, but it's still a smaller aperture than 50/1.4, or even 50/1.8.
Well, you like them, I would neither run out and spend the money for them nor would I find them particularly useful. Hey, it's your money and your priorities so do what you want; for me your argument still doesn't hold water.
Aug 15, 2009 at 04:54 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Less different for sure, but the same obvious trend: Larger sensor = better IQ.
And this is still not a good comparsion for equality, since we're not taking lenses and possibility for stopping down into consideration.
That probably goes for the D300 AF over D90 ditto too. Most people don't even need a camera.
Not in my opinion. People don't seem to be concerned at all with throwing away tens of thousands of dollars on cars, furniture and other stuff. But cameras?
I rather spend all my money on my hobby than on "everyday stuff".
By the way, I'll probably try analogue MF soon. Just for the heck of it. ...Show more →
Regarding your test images. When I view them side by side on my monitor, both set to fill and 8x10 inch window, I can't tell them apart. NOBODY can because the 20/20 human eye lacks the magnification to see it.
Now, if I view them at 100%, I see very small differences. BUT at 100%, that is the equivalent of 30"x40" image. No doubt in my mind that you will see an advantage with FX at that print size. But VERY FEW people ever print images that large. MOST use 8"x10" or smaller.
I have ALWAYS used 8"x10" as my comparison point in ALL of my posts in ALL the threads we have discussed this. Do it yourself. Look at the ISO200 images side by side filling an 8"x10" window and you will not be able to see the differences.
As for the money spent on a hobby, do you have a wife and children? I have a wife and four children, going without a car and other things is not an option, so my budget for camera equipment is limited. That is the reality for most people. You are lucky that you are not so constrained.
Andre Labonte wrote:
As for the money spent on a hobby, do you have a wife and children? I have a wife and four children, going without a car and other things is not an option, so my budget for camera equipment is limited. That is the reality for most people. You are lucky that you are not so constrained.
See, this is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Your (perfectly valid) argument is taking into account other obligations you have in life, in this case wife and children, which certainly aren't cheap and obviously your budget is limited.
But, your debating with someone whom doesn't have those obligations and who can devote far more disposable income towards a hobby of photography. Nothing wrong with doing that either, more power to those whom can do so.
But trying to convince someone why DX is better when part of your argument is budget based and they don't have those same budget constraints just doesn't work.
millsart wrote:
But trying to convince someone why DX is better when part of your argument is budget based and they don't have those same budget constraints just doesn't work.
I may have missed something, but I don't believe that anyone has made the claim that DX is better, excepting perhaps in very narrow circumstances.
OTOH, makten has made some pretty outrageous statements, amounting to magical qualities of an FX camera. Do you agree with the claims that he's made, especially the part that every lens is better on the d700 than on the d300?
I gotta say, if you can't take excellent photos with any of the current cameras, DX or FX, it's you that is the problem, not the camera.
Given that I have and use both cameras and that I don't believe that either one of them is magical, I guess that makes me a complete moron, right? I'm too stupid to use a d700, so undeserving of a tool of the gods. My FX fanboy club membership will be revoked, my d700 will melt into a little puddle, I'll be denounced and banished forever.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Given that I have and use both cameras and that I don't believe that either one of them is magical, I guess that makes me a complete moron, right? I'm too stupid to use a d700, so undeserving of a tool of the gods. My FX fanboy club membership will be revoked, my d700 will melt into a little puddle, I'll be denounced and banished forever.
Which of them do you tend to reach for and why ? I had both and except for the times I really needed the reach, or for setting up a remote, I never choose the D300.
Thats not to suggest its not capable but it just didn't have any attributes to make me prefer it 9 times out of 10.
Do you typically grab for the D300 over the D700 ?? If so, why or why not, thats the big question I guess.
millsart wrote:
Which of them do you tend to reach for and why ? I had both and except for the times I really needed the reach, or for setting up a remote, I never choose the D300.
Thats not to suggest its not capable but it just didn't have any attributes to make me prefer it 9 times out of 10.
Do you typically grab for the D300 over the D700 ?? If so, why or why not, thats the big question I guess.
millsart wrote:
See, this is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Your (perfectly valid) argument is taking into account other obligations you have in life, in this case wife and children, which certainly aren't cheap and obviously your budget is limited.
But, your debating with someone whom doesn't have those obligations and who can devote far more disposable income towards a hobby of photography. Nothing wrong with doing that either, more power to those whom can do so.
But trying to convince someone why DX is better when part of your argument is budget based and they don't have those same budget constraints just doesn't work. ...Show more →
There are two conversations going on. And, you did not quote MY ENTIRE POST.
The primary conversaiont is NOT about DX being better. I have NEVER made that claim. I have simply said that there are significant parameters which apply to most ametures and even professionals under which the differences between DX and FX are negligible. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of my post were about that.
The last paragraph which you quoted is a side conversation. Makten has argued that spending the extra money on a chosen hobby is an easy thing to do if you give up something else in life. That simply is not the case for many people, and I provided an example of such.
Please keep things in context and read what I say, not what you twist my words into.
Andre Labonte wrote:
There are two conversations going on. And, you did not quote MY ENTIRE POST.
The primary conversaiont is NOT about DX being better. I have NEVER made that claim. I have simply said that there are significant parameters which apply to most ametures and even professionals under which the differences between DX and FX are negligible. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of my post were about that.
The last paragraph which you quoted is a side conversation. Makten has argued that spending the extra money on a chosen hobby is an easy thing to do if you give up something else in life. That simply is not the case for many people, and I provided an example of such.
Please keep things in context and read what I say, not what you twist my words into.
I am not trying to twist your words in the slightest. I am simply using an aspect of your post as an example to illustrate why its impossible to come to any sort of agreement for everyone on the issue.
Why should I quote your entire post when I'm not making any reference to the other aspects of it ? I quoted you completely and accurately on one topic of conversation you presented and only made reference to that point. The rest of what you had to say has no bearing at all upon the other aspect of your post. I'm not saying they aren't good arguments, but they have zero do to with the issue of budgets.
I'm only talking about budgets so why repeat things you said that we've established to be meaningless in the context of what I'm debating ?
Do you disagree with me that you and Makten are going to have a fundamental difference over your budgetary viewpoints based on your coming from two very different worlds of financial pressures and responsibility ?
Therefore, his subjective viewpoint of whats "worth it" is going to be different than yours.
And its certainly not about just money. Money is but one in a world of differences between you two I'm sure. I doubt you shoot the same things, in the same style. Your probably two very different peoples.
Again, you two are but just two unique people, just like every person on this board is unique, and I'm pretty confident theres not another person here who shares my life, my responsibilities, my budget, my shooting needs and my shooting enjoyment.
So how can I, or how can you, or how can anyone, expect to argue that what works for us is a valid argument for what works for anyone else ?
DX users seem upset that FX users can't see their POV
FX users seem upset that DX users can't see their POV
Well of course we can see each others POV, thing is, we just don't agree with it.
Someone telling me DX has more lens choices is an argument I understand, but if cost is no object to me, I don't agree with their argument becasue I have plenty of choice with FX. If however I"m on a very tight budget, I'm going to agree that FX has fewer options because there are less choices I can afford.
Our own unique reality is what shapes our perception. Follow what I'm saying ?
I guess what Nikon really needs is a D700x that has a DX crop mode of 12megs, and a price of $1799, so then if you've got DX glass your still getting every bit the quality and attributes of using a D300 for not additional expense, while still getting the unique benefits of a 24meg full frame sensor.
Its "the peoples camera" Does everything a DX d300 can give you. Does everything a D700 can give you and then some, all without any extra cost. Put those savings into glass if you, or don't, because any and all DX glass will work just as well as before on your d300.
Problem totally solved.
You can't complain about cost. You can't complain about lens choices, You can't complain about IQ or crop factor advantage, or full frame advantages or anything else.
If I were shooting film and digital with primes in the range you do, my choices would be the same as yours. Clearly my needs are different and thus different equipment.
I could as well have had a D40 with the D700 sensor, if it metered with non-CPU lenses and had a decent viewfinder.
very true, but the human eye can make that distinction with no troble at all!