D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Try again

noirdesir wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

The D800 of course. And I know what your point here is: you can use DX lenses with a D800 and get better output than from a D300 (and about equal output than from a D7000), and thus by definition lenses for the D800 (and thus FF) are not more expensive than DX lenses because the lenses are the same.

Good to see you understand the reasoning but your conclusion is not quite 100% tight. it should read:

and thus by definition lenses for the D800 (and thus FF) are not more expensive provide more reach than D300 (a DX) lenses because Reach is not subject to crop but subject to pixel density the lenses are the same.

And the answer to this obviously is that very few users do this because it removes the three reasons to go to full frame (ie, you would have paid for FF and then not use it):

  1. Better base ISO performance / more MP
  2. Better low light performance aka shallower DOF
  3. Larger viewfinder

And you could extend that reasoning to saying that my argument that FX lenses are more expensive than DX lenses because there are no really slow FX lenses is rather irrelevant because very few would want to get those really slow lenses because it would negate the reasons people went to FF (see above). But look closely, using slow FX lenses only negates the second reason, reason one and two still remain.

That is my first reason (A): Overall, you cannot get to FF and only have advantage No. (1)  and (3), you also get some of advantage No. (2) because there are no really slow FX lenses. And because there are no really slow FX lenses, the cheapest FX lenses for a particular focal length (FOV, actually) are more expensive than the corresponding (FOV) DX lenses.

you argument is incorrect because:

i. you ignore the existence of slow FF lenses and they they exist in vast quantity, and

ii. they they are much cheaper than DX lenses for the same or similar performance, and

iii. that people would buy them, therefore

iv. your conclusion is wrong.

Lets look at the facts, one example that has been mentioned many times here is 24-85VR vs 17-55. the 24-85 is  provides similar speed (factor sensor size difference) and range, has VR for bonus and is 2/5 the price. a couple of other expample which have also been raised several times are 24-120 3.5-5.6 vs 16-85, 28-85 vs 18-55. there are many more.

You argue people do not buy them, that is clearly false. I bought the 24-85VR, and if it did nto exist I would have bought the older 24-85G or 24-85D or the 24-120. I bought FF because I wanted to use some of the good primes, a walk around zoom is just a walk around zoom, I do not need it to be in top quality. as long as its output IQ matched what I got from my Canon 17-55 IS I was OK.

Note I am saving even more with 50 F1.8, I always wanted a fast normal lens. On APS-C the closest was 35 F1.4. I was not going to pay that kind money. the 50 F1.8G is about 1/8 the price of 35L or 35 F1.4G. I did not save much on 85 F1.8G compared to the 50 F1.4 USM (which I would have to buy if I wanted similar FOV and speed) but the 85 F1.8G on FF is vastly superior to 50 F1.4 on aps-c.

My second reason is the one I stated in my first post in this thread (B): A lot of the appeal of FX is reason No. (2) (low light/DOF), thus going FF results in more expensive lenses because people go to FF to get better low light performance and lower DOF. It's like saying that tires for a Ferrari are more expensive than for a Fiat, yes, technically you can use a Fiat's tires on a Ferrari (using DX lenses or just lenses with the same equivalent f-stop) but nobody does this. Going FF results in more expensive lenses because most people went FF in order to being able to use more expensive lenses (fully).

You are right low light and DOF is one of the appeals for buying FF but you are incorrect in assuming that it is always more expensive - it is not - refer to my example of 50 F1.8 vs 35 F1.4, FF router provides shallow DOF, better low light and cost 1/8 the money; Or the 85G example, FF route cost the same money but again provides better high iso and shallower DOF. You post is also incorrect in assume people must have better low light and shallower DOF for every lens they buy. As I pointed out that is not the case. I (and i am sure there are others as well) are quite happy to settle for "not significantly better than APS-C" in some uses.

Thus, when you make the decision to go to FF, you also make the decision to get more expensive lenses. Therefore the overall system cost of FF is not just the more expensive body but also the more expensive lenses. People who say they go to FF but won't spend more on lenses are mostly kidding themselves.

See, you say this as if those who buy FF are aliens whom we must guess their motives. These people are us, right here. they include me and a bunch other and we are telling you that we are already saving money on lens.

Then there are people who does not know what the consensus is but follows one not because they thnk it is right but  because they think it is the consensus. I don't hate them, hate is too strong, I pity them.

There usually is a consensus because most issues are not that complicated and thus most people get it.

Clearly not the case here.

For some reason you have drawn some peculiar boundary conditions that result in you coming up with a result that runs counter the consensus.

What is the "peculiar boundary conditions" you are referring to?

The real question here is why you have drawn those boundary conditions.

The real question here is why you have made up the existence of these boundaries?

Something irked you about the consensus and consciously or subconsciously you have created conditions that allow you contradict the consensus?

There is no consensus, there was a frivolous but not well thought-out idea by some that FX system ought to cost more. It has been debunked thoroughly and convincingly here. Some with an unexplainable mental block still do not accept the facts despite of them being presented before their eyes over and over.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow