Why DX mirrorless will replace FX DSLR (for most photographers)

Started Nov 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
altair8800 Senior Member • Posts: 1,869
Re: Not at all

Mako2011 wrote:

Kerry Pierce wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Kerry Pierce wrote:

Actually, the crop factor really is a big advantage in real life. The lenses have finite properties, but any telephoto that will fit on a Nikon body, will work whether or not there is a DX sensor underneath. The big fly in your argument is that if you put a TC on a lens for FX, the same TC can be put on a DX camera for even more reach. FX simply can't keep up. The simple fact is that for telephoto work, no FX camera can put nearly as many pixels on target as can any of the 24mp DX cameras.

Again not a FF vs DX thing. It's a pixel density/QE thing. D7000 vs D800...the is no reach advantage. D7100 there is but it has zero to due with the size of the sensor

Yes, it is pixel density and the simple fact is that DX has always had the pixel density advantage, which makes the crop factor beneficial.

Not true at all.

Yes, it is true for cameras of similar ages.

The D800 has a pixel density advantage over many DX Nikon cameras.

Only the older ones.

I don't see the point in making it even more complicated for novice users, than it already is.

Not complicated at all. Not point in letting novice users think a camera has a pixel density advantage just by virtue of being DX. Nothing wrong with improving there basic understanding with more accurate statements.

I agree.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
WD
WD
MOD Mako2011
WD
WD
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
WD
WD
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow