Reading mode: Light Dark

Why complain about lack of reach with FX format.

Go to last post
michaeladawson said:
Much simpler explanation is that the noise and FF crowd is now silent
because they have what they want (and I'm in that crowd) and it's the
DX crowd that is now worried about the future of DX.

I have nothing against DX. I think Nikon should continue with both.
The question is going to be whether Nikon continues to support both
formats at the flagship level or whether DX is relegated to the
consumer section.
Click to expand...
I'd guess that is probably as close to truth as one could get, with a minor caveat. Seems likely to me that realistic and reasonable users want to see both formats continued at the flagship levels and below, because they are capable of understanding and appreciating the capability and value of both formats.

The problem now seems to be that more than a few people seem to be unable to grasp the concept that the d300 is a flagship pro camera, in spite of the fact that it is exactly the way nikon described it.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Kerry Pierce said:
The problem now seems to be that more than a few people seem to be
unable to grasp the concept that the d300 is a flagship pro camera,
in spite of the fact that it is exactly the way nikon described it.
Click to expand...
I do find it amazing. All the flagship features that the D300 has and some still seem to refuse to consider it a pro or flagship body. The fall back excuse seems to be that it doesn't have an integrated grip (I'd prefer if all bodies were optional) and doesn't have pro build and can't match the D1/2 series for taking punishment.

As far as I recall there was no built in vertical grip until the F5 came along. And the F6 doesn't have one either. And as far as build quality goes I'm not sure what information people could have before the D300 release that would imply it's not up to the D2 series build.
--
Mike Dawson
 
Looking @, (at least the Sub 1600 iso) images, the d3's may interpolate to almost match the d200's at full res, (assuming pro glass).

I can't see why anyone has reason to moan.
If the FX format is not reachy enough for you , get the d300.

What's the problem? You simply loose the advantages the larger sensor size brings you. Can't have your cake and eat it.
The d300 will out perform the d200 and the d2x, (assuming the grip is attached).
Everyone's a winner, FX and DX users.

If you have the money/justification of springing for a Top of the line Nikon, it would be a safe bet you can get the glass as well, (or already have it).

Nikon have also said the DX format will live on.

The d300 is a pro body; no it doesn't have an integrated grip, but it sounds like they got the grip right this time, (i.e. it's not flimsy plastic, and takes the full on D2/3 batteries).

It is metal, fully weather sealed, 8 fps, (with grip) has the 50 point AF system etc.....

:D
 
lanef said:
Smaller sensor does not change the focal
length or the magnification, only the FOV is changed.
Click to expand...
Not only the FOV is changed -- the size (or number) of photosites may be different, too. If number of photosites on the smaller sensor is the same as on the larger one, the size of the photosites must be smaller (as with D300 vs D3). In theory, if the size of the photosites on the smaller sensor is the same as on the larger one, there must be fewer of them. (D2H vs D3 is the closest comparison here, although D2H photosites must be a tad larger than on D3 since DX crop on D3 has more MP than D2H.)

I think that's why there is any debate about the relative value of the DX vs FX sensors for wildlife and sports where reach is important: Given similar design of sensor and on-board processing methods, will image detail with 12 MP on the D300 with the longest lens available be the same or better than with 5 MP on the D3 with the same lens (cropped to give same FOV)? At high ISO, it looks like D3 will have advantage, but at base ISO, which sensor will give the more detailed image (using the same lens)?

Yes, you can use a longer lens on the larger sensor (assuming such a lens is available) to get the same FOV as the shorter lens on the smaller sensor, but that's comparing oranges to pineapples.

Or take the other point of view. Which is the better "system" -- 200 f/2 (at f/2.8)on DX with 12 MP or 300 f/2.8 on FX with 12 MP? Now there's a comparison I'd like to see..

Interesting times we live in.
--
Jim Kaye

'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981
 
and don't realize that their 300mm is effectively a 450mm and that a 70-200mm zoom with the TC-17 is giving them a 510mm f4.8 lens.

They still think they need the 500mm (750mm equivalent) and don't understand technique. They figure if they get the long lens that skill is no longer necessary. That's the problem with a gear forum where people don't understand the underlying physics or technique.
--
WSSA Member #51
Various Images - http://www.nikongear.com/alb/index.php?cat=10429&theme=eyeball
Stock portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611
 
If you want the added reach a DX chip gives you ...buy the D300. If you are more concerned about cleaner files at higher ISO's...buy the D3. Oh, you say you want it all in one body - your cake and eat it too? Too bad. I want a gazillion billion dollars, but for some strange reason it's not dropping from heaven into my lap (total bummer!).

10 years ago digital cameras cost $25,000.00 and only 6MP! Anything about 320ISO sucked. Now we are talking about cameras that can pretty much see in the dark at ISO25,600 for a 1/5 the price. I think considering how far digital has come in such a short period..... I can live with having to pay for a longer lens if I want one. Heck, I can get a D3 and the latest 6000MM VR F4 for about $15,000.00. An awesome camera and lens for 10 grand LESS the cost of Kodak DCS660 body new less then a decade ago.

So to all those complaining about about having to buy a longer lens because of the FX chip - I believe the saying goes....

"Suck it up princess! :-)

Bruce Allen Hendricks MPA, F.Ph.
http://www.impactphotographicdesign.com
 
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
period..... I can live with having to pay for a longer lens if I want
one.
Click to expand...
But, you don't want one, right? Do you own a lens that costs more than the d3? Not likely. You seem to do controlled shoots with short lenses.
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
So to all those complaining about about having to buy a longer lens
because of the FX chip - I believe the saying goes....

"Suck it up princess! :-)
Click to expand...
That's nice, Bruce. I'd like to see you say the same thing, after carrying all that stuff around for a couple of days. Not only is it expensive, it's heavy, and needs a heavier tripod, heavier duty head, etc. Long lenses have some serious technique and equipment requirements.

There is more to it than just the simpleton issue that some of you guys like to portray. So, princess, maybe you could suck it up and learn more about the issue, heh? :-)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
michaeladawson said:
The fall back excuse seems to be that it doesn't have an integrated
grip (I'd prefer if all bodies were optional) and doesn't have pro
build and can't match the D1/2 series for taking punishment.
Click to expand...
Dunno, but not sure that it matters. If durability is a real concern, you can buy 2 d300's for the price of the d3 or d2x and still have a lot of change left over. Most small business owners will appreciate that.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Kerry Pierce said:
There is more to it than just the simpleton issue that some of you
guys like to portray. So, princess, maybe you could suck it up and
learn more about the issue, heh? :-)
Click to expand...
So what did you do in the world before digital? Make stick drawings? Come on.

If you are complaining about the weight of a 35MM style lens, obvioulsy you have never dealt with MF! A 1000MM lens for a Blad cost about $40,000.00 back in 1978 and the front element had a diamater of about 1 ft. It weighed about 15LBS. (I just saw one in person for the first time about 6 months ago). And by the way it was manual focus ( you mean like..... you actually had to turn the lens to get it in focus? - whats'up with that????) That was one mother of a lens! But guess what....those that needed it to do the job bought (or rented it) and dealt with it!

Wow ...what a concept.

Maybe you are right however....

In support of all those that are complaining that the D3 is FX format I'm now refusing ever to create another photograph until Nikon come up with a 100MP camera (that I can control telepathically) that can losslessly compresses the files down to 3MP and has 10,000MM F0.24 lens... both must come in purple (well, lylac actually) and together cost under 50 bucks (taxes in). Until then all I'm going to do is complain to anyone who will listen that Nikon doesn't care about my needs because the haven't come up with that yet.

Sorry Kerry, your arguement doesn't wash. Buy the D300. Buy the D3 and a 1.7X or a 2X converter. Just stop the complaining.

Eventually you will get what you want...only when it's released there will be something else about it that you will then find to complain about. Sky blue????? I wanted it in Perrywinkle!!!!!! :-)

Bruce Allen Hendricks MPA, F.Ph.
http://www.impactphotographicdesign.com
 
ahh. You don't own or use any long lenses, so you evade the questions and issues, just like the rest. Good job. :-)
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
So what did you do in the world before digital? Make stick
drawings? Come on.
Click to expand...
Yes, come on. Progress is progress and there are better ways to do things today. True or not?
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
If you are complaining about the weight of a 35MM style lens,
Click to expand...
These are factors that you obviously haven't considered and don't want to consider with an open mind.
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
Wow ...what a concept.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. :-)
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
Maybe you are right however....
In support of all those that are complaining that the D3 is FX format
I'm now refusing ever to create another photograph until Nikon come
Click to expand...
Now you're just being stupid.
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
Sorry Kerry, your arguement doesn't wash. Buy the D300. Buy the D3
and a 1.7X or a 2X converter. Just stop the complaining.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between complaining and pointing out significant facts and errors that folks like you continuously make. Maybe you should have someone explain that difference to you.
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
Eventually you will get what you want...only when it's released there
Click to expand...
I'm getting what I want, princess. :-)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
and I know Nikon will deliver it... it will be a D2Xs like sensor on a FF size chip with about 24 MP. Trust me, is in the works... it is a natural upgrade for the D2Xs.

So, at DX, you can get the 12 or 14 MP of old and the reach of old and all the benefits of old without the loss of MP. Perhaps they'll give us HSC mode too LOL.

So if they do DX and also HSC modes on a D3x kind of camera, you can get three sizes and reaches:

24MP FF
18MP FF HSC
14MP DX
7MP DX HSC

Heck and maybe we will get 12 to 14 FPS in those smaller modes for those who need those kinds of speeds, like wildlife photographers shooting finicky birds like Hummingbirds. You can then select the absolute most perfect shot. I am not kidding or making this up. This would be a great bunch of options that Nikon [CAN] make happen... they absolutely do not need retooling at all.. they can do it all in software.

Whatdaya'll think? :-)
--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.mannyphoto.com/
FCAS Member - http://manny.org/FCAS
 
Kerry Pierce said:
ahh. You don't own or use any long lenses, so you evade the
questions and issues, just like the rest. Good job. :-)
Click to expand...
The longest lens I personally own is 200MM. I am upgrading from a D200 to a D3 and a D300. But big deal. When I went from a FF 14NX to the D200, I had to buy all new wide angle lenses to get that perspective back. It was my choice to go to the 1.5 sensor, so I wasn't complaining to anyone. I shut up and paid my money. Now I will be buying all new wide glass for the FX sensor again. It's my choice, so it's my expense. I am not complaining to anyone about it.
Kerry Pierce said:
Yes, come on. Progress is progress and there are better ways to do
things today. True or not?
Click to expand...
Well, actually not - not in the case of what you want. If it was possible, Nikon would already be making what you want them to. The smaller size of the chip effects the noise in the final image. It's easier to get higher ISO's with a FX chip then a DX chip. That is just a scientific fact. Look it up on the net or on DP review and you'll read a 1000+ posts telling you that.
Kerry Pierce said:
These are factors that you obviously haven't considered and don't
want to consider with an open mind.
Click to expand...
What are your factors? You keep saying people who think the way I do don't lsiten to your types needs with an open mind. We don't consider the facts... You have never said the facts. All you have said is a wish list and complain that Nikon doesn't make it.

I've given you options:
Buy a D300
Buy new glass

Buy a D3 with a converter. With the ISO capability of that camera the 1.5 or 2 stops loss will not be a problem.

Why aren't any of these options good enough for you?
Kerry Pierce said:
Kerry Pierce said:
Maybe you are right however....
In support of all those that are complaining that the D3 is FX format
I'm now refusing ever to create another photograph until Nikon come
Click to expand...
Now you're just being stupid.
Click to expand...
Yes I am, but so are you.

The science doesn't exist today for Nikon to be able to make a camera will all the D3's high ISO IQ with a 1.5 sensor. The D300 is a close as they've come so far. If you want the 1.5 sensor..... buy the D300. That is the camera for you. It's very good, it's low cost, it's 90% of the D3 and just a little over 1/3rd the price. Sounds like a pretty good solution..... so what's your problem?

You remind me of the old joke about a man on the roof of his house in a flood. Two boats a helicopter come by and offer to take him to safety. He refuses, stating "God will save me!" He drowns. In heaven he asks God " Why didn't you save me?" God replies: "Hey, what more do you want...I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter!"

The D300 is your helicpoter. I suggest you climb aboard. Or at least don't complain when you drown.

--
Bruce Allen Hendricks MPA, F.Ph.
http://www.impactphotographicdesign.com
 
radix said:
this guy is...
Click to expand...
..he is practically the only guy in nature/bird photography I know using 4/3 system. I'm not commenting his results but would ask is he getting the results because of chosen camera format or in spite of chosen camera format?
radix said:
Anastigmat said:
If small sensors are so great for wildlife
photography, then may be we should all sell our APS-C cameras and
full frame cameras and go get an olympus 4/3 format camera.
Click to expand...
maybe you should? ;)
Click to expand...
Personally I think he shouldn't. I came from digiscoping, graduated into 1.6x dslr -format then into my currently used 1.3x and 1.0x formats. Getting closer and using appropriate focal length for the task is giving better result at the end of the day. Only my personal view.







El cheapo EF 35/2, handheld quick landscape with 5D and not so favorable light:



-
http://www.jussivakkala.com
 
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
Yes, come on. Progress is progress and there are better ways to do
things today. True or not?
Click to expand...
Well, actually not -
Click to expand...
Well, actually yes, there certainly are better solutions today. Even better solutions are coming soon, due to progress, without a doubt.
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
not in the case of what you want. If it was
possible, Nikon would already be making what you want them to.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't know what you're talking about here, any more than you do on the DX crop factor.
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
What are your factors? You keep saying people who think the way I do
don't lsiten to your types needs with an open mind. We don't
Click to expand...
I've never said a wish list such as you assert, nor have I complained about anything nikon has done in that regard. In this thread, all I've said concerns some of the strengths of DX. What I've said over time is an outline of the strengths and weaknesses of both formats and that both formats have their place as tools. Nothing more, nothing less.
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
consider the facts... You have never said the facts. All you have
said is a wish list and complain that Nikon doesn't make it.
Click to expand...
The facts are that DX is better than FX with the current crop, like the d3 and d300/d2x, for most any telephoto use, for several reasons. The reasons are cost, size, weight, portability, support issues, and lens availability. It isn't restricted to the exotic long teles either. If one routinely uses the full range of the 70-200 on DX, there is no f/2.8 nikon alternative for FX in the 100-300 range. The only alternative is the sigma 120-300, which is significantly more expensive, heavier, less portable, less easy to use, no VR, etc.
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
Why aren't any of these options good enough for you?
Click to expand...
I didn't say they weren't. Indeed I have said the opposite. I'm quite pleased with both of the new cams. But, unlike you I understand the differences between them and when each would be a better tool for certain tasks. :)
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
Bruce Allen Hendricks said:
Now you're just being stupid.
Click to expand...
Yes I am, but so are you.
The science doesn't exist today for Nikon to be able to make a camera
will all the D3's high ISO IQ with a 1.5 sensor.
Click to expand...
Now, you're making stuff up. I've certainly never stated anything of the sort and certainly have stated that DX would not, could not, compete with modern FF sensors at high ISO.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Kerry Pierce said:
The facts are that DX is better than FX with the current crop, like
the d3 and d300/d2x, for most any telephoto use, for several reasons.
The reasons are cost, size, weight, portability, support issues, and
lens availability. It isn't restricted to the exotic long teles
either. If one routinely uses the full range of the 70-200 on DX,
there is no f/2.8 nikon alternative for FX in the 100-300 range. The
only alternative is the sigma 120-300, which is significantly more
expensive, heavier, less portable, less easy to use, no VR, etc.
Click to expand...
Your statement that DX is better than FX is quite subjective though it does sound like a blanket statement. Of course everything is relative. I would agree more with you if you were to say: I prefer DX to FX because of the following.
 
Right crop factors, they do not get you closer to your subject! it is an optical illusion and not magnification you would get the same result from cropping post process full stop. The other funny thing I hear people do is HSC mode as Tele converter replacement.

There is no replacement for longer high quality glass

What people seem to be complaining about is now they have less pixels covering their subject, when using a D3 then a D2x or D300.

The reason Nikon only made the D3 12 Mega pixels is for the noise performance you can't have both! the more pixel the more noise.

Whilst some people have tested the D300 and say noise performance is better than a D2x it is still no match for a D3 in this area

If you can afford a D3 then you can afford good glass after all it the lens that make a good photograph more than the body back in the film days. this still hold true today. lens are investments bodies are basically replaceable items and do not have much resale value when newer technology is released.

I have on order a D3 and a 500 f4 AFS VR11 I will also keep my D2x and 120-300 f2.8 they should compliment each other very well I think.

--
Chris Horsley
Equipment in Profile
 
It's obvious you prefer the DX sensor. Good for you.

As far as the quality issue of DX vs FX sensors regarding high ISO's do a little research and you'll find out the facts. I'm not about to state everythinghere that has alrwady been said in DP review a million times.

As far as the Sigma lens being more expensive - big deal. If you are willing to invest in a D3 you understand that good quality tools cost money. It's just a fact of life.

Also, your concern for faster glass is a little irrelivent. DX sensors give you a larger DOF then FX sensors. The D3 will give you at least 2 stops to play with. By buying a F4 lens you are not losing much when matched with a D3 - however you gain a lot. PLus from what I can tell by your webpage this is only a hobby for you. So you don't "need" a camera with a DX sensor that can preform like the D3 - you "want" one.

As I said before, it doesn't exist at the moment, - "so suck it up princess!"

Bruce Allen Hendricks MPA, F.Ph.
http://www.impactphotographicdesign.com
 
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