D600 vs d7100

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

noirdesir wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

I am comparing the cheapest way to cover a set of focal lengths on DX vs. FX. That is my original statement in my original posts which you called a myth.

First of all, the cheapest way to cover a set of focal lengths has been shown to you by chlamchowder, FX is cheaper, by a significant margin.

Funny that chlamchowder said exactly the opposite if one restricts oneself to new lenses:

With new lenses, FX and DX trade blows. For someone like the OP who probably just wants to get to certain focal lengths without too much concern about DOF or low light capability, DX provides a cost advantage.

As my list clearly showed, and as I spelled it out in another post, my statement was based on new lenses. Now, you don't acknowledge that I spelled that out, nor that there is a significant difference between including used out-of-production lenses or only new lenses, or that in fact for new lenses my statement is true.

There is a very simple rule when discussing a matter: you have to acknowledge you opponent's position before you criticise it.

What he said is if one wants to get to certain focal lengths, but no concern about DOF or low light capability. then DX is cheaper.

it does not resemble what you said which is

"to cover any set of focal lengths, you will have almost universally pay more for a FX set than a DX set"

There is no qualification that it must be new, and there is no qualification that you compare the same FL but ignore everything else.

Secondly, and more importantly, there is no sensible reason why anyone would cover a whole FL range with the cheapest lenses. such discussion has zero practical value and hardly any academic value.

Is there a sensible reason why you are unable to differentiate between whether a statement refers to something irrelevant or is a myth?

The reason if you are confused, I have never been unable to.

And see above for chlamchowder describing a situation which exactly fits my conditions.

that is a misquotation.

Lastly, and amusingly, you place such a peculiar boundary conditions ("cheapest") and then you turn around and say :

How is 'cheapest' a peculiar boundary condition when talking about which lenses are cheaper?

Because no one goes for the cheapest for every thing. When people ask "what is cheaper" there is always a implied condition that any candidate is of a particular quality or performance standard.

And 'cheaper' is still a much more general condition than comparing just two individual camera models that are years apart.


You can declare that question irrelevant (because few people would aspire to do that) but you didn't, you called it a myth.

It is a myth, despelled by chlamchowder.

Why are you unwilling to acknowledge that there are two different statements? (a) looking only at new lenses and (b) including used lenses. And that the answer is different for these two statements?

It is like me saying: 'The inside of the car is black' and you answering back: 'You are wrong, the outside of the car is white'.

it is not like that at all.

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