Reading mode: Light Dark

FF vs. DX is Like Automatic vs. Stick

Go to last post
And about the cars, it's not true you have an option in many brands and models any more. For many luxury models, it's either automatic or automatic.

Best,
Dioni
Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler (Albert Einstein)
 
T3 wrote:
.> evolution and advancement than Nikon's LBCAST. So get out of your
T3 said:
horse and buggie and realize that the horseless carriage is already
here and cruising down the road ahead of you!
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah, we know. Canon is so much better than Nikon.

So if one were to display prints from a D2X and a 1DS Mk2, would one look like it was taken by a person driving a car and the other by somebody in a horse and buggy?

--
Richard D.
http://www.photocritique.net/cgi-bin/phtg?xx+RICHARD+DONG
 
Actually, Lambo DID make an "SUV" it was called the "LM" and it looked a bit like a HumVee that went to Milan for a rebody by a blind sculptor.... and it had the 5.2L V-12 as well! .... If I remember right, that was way back in the 1980's -
Cheers,
Scotty

--
Click* Snap Gotcha Free the Images*
 
Half seriously without much thought... how about a FF sensor with a DX crop mode and high fps ( just step up the D2X on more notch). Keep all your DX lenses and shoot FF only with your very best FF glass that can stand up to the challenge. Sportshooters keep their long glass and landscape artists buy top quality FF glass that doesn't have to be as wide as they'd need on 1.5 crop camera. Are we possibly happy with that?
--
Marabou Muddler
 
And you can't tell a difference until you look in the corners, the Canon has softness problems whereas the D2X is still sharp. There's your FF v. DX difference.
KF
Richard Dong said:
So if one were to display prints from a D2X and a 1DS Mk2, would
one look like it was taken by a person driving a car and the other
by somebody in a horse and buggy?
Click to expand...
 
ScottyNV said:
Actually, Lambo DID make an "SUV" it was called the "LM" and it
looked a bit like a HumVee that went to Milan for a rebody by a
blind sculptor.... and it had the 5.2L V-12 as well! .... If I
remember right, that was way back in the 1980's -
Cheers,
Scotty

--
Click* Snap Gotcha Free the Images*
Click to expand...
Correct! I should had remeber the ugly LM002.
Ok this will never happen again (I hope, at least for Ferrari).

Ciao,
 
I love my 350z 6 speed manual shift. It wouldn't be the same as an automatic!!!!!!!
--
Life is too short to not be in it to the fullest!!
Photographing people, places and things with only 300 million more to take!!!!!!
 
I am a DX-size chip user from the other brand, and have no axe to grind with anyone here!

I am happy with the 1.5/1.6 FOV crop and have no need or desire at this time to go to 35mm FF.

I must agree with the OP here... the issue is all about CHOICE... perhaps in a few years, Nikon will be proven correct in their thinking, and DX will be the format of preference... HOWEVER... at this point in time (2005) there is still a significant portion of the SLR-buying public - both pro and consumer - that are still sold on "FF"...

In addition, where (ANY BRAND) is the 35mm f/0.9 lens that would be the DX equivalent of the old "standard" 50mm f/1.4?... now that would be a lens to lust after!

Cheers,
Good thread before it got a bit OT!

Scotty
--
Click* Snap Gotcha Free the Images*
 
the Kodak slr/n, or switch to canon. Those are ff optiond.

If you absolutely postively have to have ff, thats that with that.

Another option, keep waiting.

Either way, this is another wasted thread as it ultimately solves nothing, just a pity party for those who want ff. I sympathize, but we cant do anything here about it.

--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor
 
That was a generic post to everyone....I was judging NOBODYS skill....but I have learned a thing or two in this life....

One of them is...no matter how good you are at ANYTHING....you still have stuff to learn.

I dont need to see your work or anyones..(including my own) to understand that universal truth applys. Heck...even Ansel Adams would have kept pushing himself if he were still alive.

I shoot every day of my life....my camera goes everywhere I go. I am off to Yosemite for the fall color show in a few weeks and every weekend I am hunting (weather permitting) for another oppertunity.

Again ...my point is...if your that passionate that FF will give you what you want.....and Nikon is giving you no clue that it will give you want you want....just wondering why you stick with Nikon?

LOL...and I find it rather funny that you keep trying to run these little shots at me....its rather entertaining.

Roman
Adam Kmiec said:
without ever seeing it? for the record, I probably get out and
shoot twice a week (a little less lately since we bought a new
house). Two boot, I'll be in Rome in less than a week for a 7 days
worth of shooting.

never once did I say I don't like my D100 or D2H. If you read my
posts I actually favor the D100 very much (more so than the D70).
--
Currently refusing to upgrade until Nikon gives me FF.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

http://www.romanjohnston.com
 
Robin Horlock said:
Then you should be happy with your new toy camera and go
back to the canon board instead of trolling on the Nikon board.
Adam you should go with him or go buy one of those really
great Kodak FF masterpieces.
Click to expand...
Toy camera my @$$. This is going to have some Nikon glass on it via a Novoflex adapter. I just showed my buddy who has a D2X the shots I got with my 16-35 from 2.8 to F22 and he is Fed Up* with Nikon.

I have a shot looking up into some aspen trees at F16 at 16mm that is REALLY sharp from center to edge. A hair of CA and a nominal loss of sharpness only in the very corners. I have had this camera for 16 hours and it is SO much better than I expected.

So: At infinity, an F stop of F/11 or higher will get you near perfect results with the 16-35 at 16mm.

At lower F stops say on an indoor shot like I did this morning, it looks great as low as 5.6 at around 10-15 feet, corner to corner to center. No softness or vignetting and a trace of CA.

At 2.8 it is near perfect at 22mm or longer. On the wide end it just does not look that much worse than a film shot.

Of course with all my other glass, it is terrific at all apertures.

I have shot three magazine assignments with it since I got it yesterday and it SO worth the money.

I am not trolling guys. This is reality, like it or not. Really, don't get all ticked off at me. This will Definitely get Nikon in gear and we will all benefit.

Nikon needs to get on it and like yesterday.
 
In most cases those that want ff want it for wa, like landscape, architecture, some for portraits as well. The Kodak should do well, there does not seem to be the need for 5-8fps like in a D2X or H. Seems a good option.
--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top