Grevture

To get the same level of DR and noise from a sensor half as big you do need twice the exposure. The fact that you do not seem to grasp that very basic fact and at the same time rather pompously...

Well put. This is the very part that he just don't seem to get. The fact that capturing area affects performance was well known by people shooting both medium format and 35 mm film - when you often...

I think you have some reading to do :) Or even simpler, actually try a DX and a FX camera side by side (with comparable sensor technology). It might be very educating. With half the surface to...

Here I think is the crux of the matter: We want to compare prices of lenses giving the same real life performance, while you bring up price comparisons of lenses which deliver different...

To be honest, I do not look much into DOF tables like that ... I look at images :) One can calculate DOF back and forth, but there is a multitude of other factors at play too, like different OOF...

To get the corresponding DOF control and light gathering of a 14-24/2.8 on FX with a DX lens you would need at least something like a 9-16/2.0. Or if you look at midrange, look at 16-85 vs 24-120...

Well, I look at performance at a whole, if you choose to look at some aspects of performance you care less about as "exceptions" it becomes very hard to have any constructive discussion at all. For...

I did. If you find facts ridiculous, it is of course entirely up to you, but others might find them helpful ;) I for one also made a direct response to the OP regarding his question, where I...

Me and some others just pointed out that the common blanket argument "DX does the same thing cheaper" is not entirely accurate. You pay different prices for different things, and depending on the...

I know Joeseph W tried (valiantly, but without much apparent success) to explain this some years ago back when it still was popular to ask for "digital backs" for SLR cameras. I would have...

To be fair, it is a case of both sides being right, just in slightly different ways. I guess what our opponents say is that to get images in everyday use, it can very often be done with cheaper...

That could be true - if you look at DSLR lenses only. If you look at lenses in general, Tamron is by far the biggest of the those mentioned above (including Canon and Nikon). Keep in mind they...

In reply to martin11: I shot sports professionally for daily newspapers (and has done so for many years) and I almost always shot raw, and so does most of my collegues i meet. It was years ago I...

There are still glass filters in front of the sensor - IR filters and so on. Its just a bit less functionality in the filters compared to earlier.

Did you even bother to read my question before (not) answering it?

And how does that prove there is no oil problems problem with D40, D60, D90, D300, D700, D800...Canon, Sony, Lumix, Pentax, Olympus ...?

I have used a wide variety of cameras over the years, and any camera which is actually used will  get dust sooner or later. The D3 is one of the worst dust-collectors I have ever used. As for oil...

There are many arguments supporting either choice: You are choosing between two (overall) very good cameras. They just have slightly different sets of advantages and disadvantages. First of all the...

What was said, was that FX lenses are not necessarily more expensive. This as a response to a poster who in rather unspecified terms claimed that FX lenses were more expensive then DX ones....

Well, then factor in things like DOF control and light gathering (of a FX sensor) in the equation and the DX option has noticeable less performance for the same money. And aside from light...