D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,950
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to ultimitsu, May 4, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

Show me three examples that contradict what I said. Only three.

Lets first answer the question,  Which one has more reach - D800 or D300s?

The D800 of course. And I know what your point here is: you can use DX lenses with a D800 and get better output than from a D300 (and about equal output than from a D7000), and thus by definition lenses for the D800 (and thus FF) are not more expensive than DX lenses because the lenses are the same.

And the answer to this obviously is that very few users do this because it removes the three reasons to go to full frame (ie, you would have paid for FF and then not use it):

  1. Better base ISO performance / more MP
  2. Better low light performance aka shallower DOF
  3. Larger viewfinder

And you could extend that reasoning to saying that my argument that FX lenses are more expensive than DX lenses because there are no really slow FX lenses is rather irrelevant because very few would want to get those really slow lenses because it would negate the reasons people went to FF (see above). But look closely, using slow FX lenses only negates the second reason, reason one and two still remain.

That is my first reason (A): Overall, you cannot get to FF and only have advantage No. (1)  and (3), you also get some of advantage No. (2) because there are no really slow FX lenses. And because there are no really slow FX lenses, the cheapest FX lenses for a particular focal length (FOV, actually) are more expensive than the corresponding (FOV) DX lenses.

My second reason is the one I stated in my first post in this thread (B): A lot of the appeal of FX is reason No. (2) (low light/DOF), thus going FF results in more expensive lenses because people go to FF to get better low light performance and lower DOF. It's like saying that tires for a Ferrari are more expensive than for a Fiat, yes, technically you can use a Fiat's tires on a Ferrari (using DX lenses or just lenses with the same equivalent f-stop) but nobody does this. Going FF results in more expensive lenses because most people went FF in order to being able to use more expensive lenses (fully).

Thus, when you make the decision to go to FF, you also make the decision to get more expensive lenses. Therefore the overall system cost of FF is not just the more expensive body but also the more expensive lenses. People who say they go to FF but won't spend more on lenses are mostly kidding themselves.

Then there are people who does not know what the consensus is but follows one not because they thnk it is right but  because they think it is the consensus. I don't hate them, hate is too strong, I pity them.

There usually is a consensus because most issues are not that complicated and thus most people get it. For some reason you have drawn some peculiar boundary conditions that result in you coming up with a result that runs counter the consensus. The real question here is why you have drawn those boundary conditions. Something irked you about the consensus and consciously or subconsciously you have created conditions that allow you contradict the consensus?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow