Instead of just taking snipits of my post, quote and or read the entire post. I stated the diffrences quite well.
They are not snippets but two full and self standing sentences, complete statements. The two sentences I wanted to answer to, and the recommendation is
Only quote what's relevant for the post, delete the rest for better readability . At least that's what DPR says. Sorry you don't like that, but that's the way things are.
And I stand behind all that I said.
Good. Your opinion against mine. I have never seen any posts near to that kind of glorifying FF description (perhaps because I am not active on the FF sites) and indeed images taken with FF look different, which is what I said. Not that their cure cancer or anything, just that they are different and the difference is visible in most cases if identical images are compared.
I have shot with my D300 and a D3s, minor diffrences are there.
Again, your opinion, meaning that
you have not seen anything other than minor differences in the images
you have seen.
Most average shooters will not see a diffrence.
I can't talk for the majority, I have no idea what most average shooters would see or not see. I also don't know how to define an
"average shooter" .
Really good shooters will leverage the diffrences and see it, but it isnt a night and day diffrence. You would have to see them side by side and either be shooting in extreeme conditions or really push the files to see any diffrence. And the diffrence in most cases would not be worth the thousand dollars of diffrence in the price for the average shooter.
Of course you are right, the differences would not be night and day but there would be differences even under ideal conditions. And yes, you must see them side by side or else it is in most cases not possible to differentiate between them. But that is true also for DX vs. a good P&S.
Under ideal conditions there will be very little differences, but as conditions change the differences become more and more obvious. By conditions I mean increase in contrast or decrease in light, need for fast frame or faster focus and so on. You don't really need to end up in extreme conditions for the differences to become obvious and clear.
Than what is worth and not worth paying for is again just a personal opinion based on personal economy and other personal conditions. Going FX is not really "thousands of dollars away from a DX kit if the DX kit one has is not just a D300 with an 18-200 or with a large collection of DX lenses. You see, even that is personal; assuming one already has some FX lenses the jump to FX won't be that expensive. Anyway, I am not in position to say what an average shooter may or may not need, as far as I am concerned there is no such thing as "average shooter". If you mean majority than I agree, the majority is only interested in P&S anyway, so they don't care about this discussion. But in any case, I let every one to decide for themselves what they need and what may and may not be worth paying for. In any case, personal economy is not the same for all of us and there is no doubt about the fact that FX is more expensive than DX. Anyway, the reason I bought the D300s and not the D700 was actually the fact that I also considered the price differences did not give enough advantages for me, so I felt it was not worth
for me to pay for. I would however not deny the obvious differences, and not willing to state in generic terms that it is not worth paying for.
Were talking 12MP FX to 12MP DX.
Yes. And I still say there are differences, but that may be more or less visible in some images than in others. For shooting flowers or close ups, macros may not make much difference if you use FX, but perhaps shooting portraits, available light, high ISO or landscapes will clearly show differences. At least that's where I see the differences.
D3X is a bit diffrent...of course. More MP, better DR, better color....from what I hear. I still have yet to shoot one.
If FX in general is not worth for the average shooter, than the D3x is even less worth. Regardless how good the end result is, the D3x is in my opinion both very heavy and very expensive. It is a clear studio camera as I see it, not one for general photography.
I have shot MF digital and thats a whole nother ballgame. The diffrence is staggering....but so is the price.
I believe you.
)
enjoy the one you have now or buying the one you need.
