Sorry, what we print is an image on your monitor which does have a physical size determined by number of pixels in the sensor and not the size of the sensor. When you open an image from D700 or D300, they will have the same dimensions and will require the same magnification to be printed to the same size. When we printed from film, yes different sizes of negatives required different magnifications.
If you shoot large field daytime sports or wildlife, there are indeed differences between the formats to the advantage of DX. I find it better to say that one should pick the right tool for the job rather than argue that one tool has some innate advantage.
Sic! it seems we have to agree to disagree, I can't make it any clearer:
olyflyer, it is not clear to me who you were responding to with this post (since you didn't quote anything). I looked in the threaded view and your post is listed there as a response to mine so it looks like you were responding to me.
The D300 paired with the Tokina 11-16 2.8 is hard to beat too.
It depends on what and where you shoot- being able to go wide without a lot of distortion is useful for many shots. To me, the only thing that beats the dynamic range of the D3x is a medium format camera- and while they're useful in the studio or on a tripod for landscapes, they tend to be less useful for things like wildlife and birds.
The question is, however how much income that investment creates in the time that the asset is in use.
But if it's gained you $200,000 in the same time period, then it was a good investment.
They would if it brought in more income in the time period than it cost by a large margin. The idea of an investment based upon the value of the asset only rather than the income derived from the asset combined with its value is an interesting concept, but I won't be using you as a financial adviser any time soon
My D2x has returned more than it cost several times over, my S2Pro before that did the same. My D3x should also do that. How much money has your house brought you in the same time period?
If FX won't change your earnings one bit, why would you buy one even at 1k? Surely you'd be better off spending the delta between an FX and DX camera on advertising, lenses or somewhere else?
True. Suppose two paths can be taken:
I've bought a few of Nikon's excellent FF cameras over the years. But I didn't have to pay more than $1,000 for one, and most of the time it was well under a grand. $2,500 is a bit steep for me, personally. I've become accustomed to paying much, much less for FF bodies in the past.
But if the FX camera sells just one more ultra-large print because of IQ then that goes out the window. Also, it may be that that slight IQ advantage gets you a job over your competition, or gets you in a particular gallery where wall space is limited...
I have a 10.5 year old vehicle with over 280,000 miles on it- you'll get no sympathy from me because there's a D3x in the back of it
I actually ended up ditching at least a stop and a half's worth of shadow detail in a B&W conversion for Web usage yesterday. The tonal range of the D3x is very impressive for a digital. This means a wider fine art market for me, as well as event shots that sell well in upscale markets. It's not PMK off of 220 or 4x5, but it's not a toxic health risk either. To me, at least for fine art sales, the improved IQ does equate to more sales- probably because I'm happier, but it's still an effect on the bottom line.
Many people use DX lenses on their DX cameras, thus using the full frame of the sensor they are using as well as most of the image circle of the lens they are using. Referring to the image circle as projecting a frame is factually incorrect and even an FX sensor does not necessarily record the entire image circle.
Using the term "Full Frame" to designate a format is even sillier (regardless of how you think FX sounds). We could call it 35FF or 135 format, those would be factual designations without implying that one format is genuine while the other is not.
You're surely mistaken, that's not a format difference, its' a body difference.
Yes, but again that's a sensor difference, and once you have to go above base ISO things change.
Again, I can shoot DX crop mode on my D3x and peep for the delta, so this is again not a format difference, but a difference in the particular sensor, though I'd hazard to guess for most usage the D700 would hold out just fine in DX crop mode.
It depends, lots of great landscape shots are taken when weather is moving in- and then movement becomes an issue. If you're in Monument Valley and shooting under blue skies, then it's not a big deal. If you're looking at a storm rolling over the landscape, then it can be.
You'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between a D3x DX crop and a D300s image- I'd guess the same from the 5DmkII with slightly less DR than the D3x- the D3/D700 isn't the only FX sensor out there.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but my post had nothing to do with the D3x. I was talking about the D300 vs. D700 or D3 and commenting on equivalent pixel counts at DX vs. FX and I'm under the impression that that is what most of this thread is about. The D3x is a completely different comparison that I have not intended to include in my comments or make any comments on.
