Exactly. And if they do come out with a D400 next year (which i doubt) they AIN'T doing it for you, but simply just to compete with its competitor. Is kind of hard to spend money on a company with that kind of mentality towards it's customers.
LOL. Now that's funny. Good point.
For starters, it's $1799 USD, not a hundred less than that. Moreover, I believe you are already above the price that might be comfortable for most non-professionals. We'll have to see. Secondly, I think full frame is the way to go for the more serious users for a number of reasons. Only the robust build comes to mind as important in my world as well as other jobbing professionals I know.
For starters, it's $1799 USD, not a hundred less than that. Moreover, I believe you are already above the price that might be comfortable for most non-professionals. We'll have to see. Secondly, I think full frame is the way to go for the more serious users for a number of reasons. Only the robust build comes to mind as important in my world as well as other jobbing professionals I know.
As far as a "budding professional" is concerned, I don't think it's wise to strap oneself down with a small APS-C sensor unless you really have to for some reason. I can think of no features in the new Canon or imaginary Nikon D400 other than build quality which I'd consider to be important enough. Being able to shoot RAW with a full sized sensor is just about the most important feature possible. I'd rather see the compromise be in build than sensor size all day long. This means seeing our budding professional using a professional size format. In other words, I'd much rather see them beginning their investment with a D610 than some loaded with whistles and bells small format body.
Those whistles and bells are features you don't need or use much as you grow out of beginning photography and into professional usage. What's the point of fancier matrix metering, if you learn to avoid Automatic Mode? When I say Automatic, I mean all the automatic modes from Aperture Priority to Green Auto.
Your budding professional should probably invest slowly and carefully in pro-grade glass. There are only, at this level, Nikon with the 17-55 and the 12-24 which I know of. The rest are all designed as FX offerings. They can be used on DX, of course, but where's the advantage? DX is supposed to offer us size, weight and price savings, right?
Again, we'll just have to see. I'm not sure where you're getting all this about universities, architectural offices and the like, but I certainly don't agree.
Anyway, take care.
Although my D800 spoils me, I never had a big problem with DR on my old D300 which ran around 12 stops. Right now, give me back the 12 stop DR of my old D300 w/20MP @1.6 crop, 10 FPS, 65 AF points, deep buffer and throw in one of Canon's supertele's...and I could get by. :-D
Hey pal. Good to see you.
But some people don't want FF for various reasons.
Are Canon knocking out loads of EPS lenses? Doesn't seem to be harming their APS-C camera sales too much. It's almost as if they are saying if you want the best quality lens it will have to be one of our expensive EP lenses. :-/ What position do they hold in the market again? Nikon are doing the same, but for some reason user believe there has to be a full range of DX lenses.
Because at the long end the get the FOV equivelent to a 300mm and 405mm. Yes you can crop down to get the same FOV, but you may be losing pixels compared to a 24mp sensor even with a D810, and even more if it is a D610 or D750.
You say that like it is a good thing. Multiple camera hobbled in different ways in comparison to each other. They obviously want you to my multiple cameras, and if their perfect World it would be a D810 and D4S, but not many have the need or desire for 2x FF cameras. Now a DX and FF could complement each other, and be easier on the pockets of those with the cash. Oh, and look what Canon have done, they have made the 7DII and the 5DIII with very similar layouts. It is like that is what they want their customers to do.
Yes, but for how many frames? ;-) That there are people still not willing to migrate to a D7*** even now, should tell you that is not good enough for them.
And if they want the build quality of a top of the range DSLR, the One Series has even less chance than a D7*** has of attracting people.
So anyone who wants quality images from distant subjects with smaller, cheaper lenses didn't enter your head? There are bird/sport users here that have been saying the same thing for years.
10fps with AF in a DSLR for almost a third of the price of a 1DX! Again, being able to use smaller cheaper lenses to get very similar results for a fraction of the cost! :-/
You have a nice day too.Anyway, take care and have a great day.
The only advantage is that under certain situations where you have to crop anyway, DX can put more pixels on the target, all else being equal. In those situations, I'd personally rather manually do my cropping in post. I have better control that way. That's why I'd never put an FX camera in crop mode, as well. I might decide to use an off-center crop later. Make sense?
Take care.
I guess you would be happy if you captured that 17mm image on a Hasselblad. With that focal on such a large frame (full-frame?), you could include your ears in the image, then crop it down in photoshop to only keep the fence. You would need that anyway in order to eliminate the vignetting.
If it works for you, no problem ;-)That's the problem with people thinking in terms of crop factor. They think it's optical instead of digital. It's not, you know. Nothing magical happens when you use a smaller sensor to crop a smaller image from a larger one. When you trim the larger image then enlarge it, it looks like you went to a longer lens, but you didn't.
I stuck a DX lens on an FX camera. See? Now if I enlarge that area in the red rectangle to the total size of the image, the background will look closer making it seem as if I moved to a longer lens. It's just parlor tricks. Crop factor doesn't provide longer focal length. 300mm stays at 300mm.
The only advantage is that under certain situations where you have to crop anyway, DX can put more pixels on the target, all else being equal. In those situations, I'd personally rather manually do my cropping in post. I have better control that way. That's why I'd never put an FX camera in crop mode, as well. I might decide to use an off-center crop later. Make sense?
Thom thinks, Nikon doesn't want to play ball anymore.
and can utilize FX glass better than FX sensors themselves in terms of reach......Don't forget the viewfinder magnification. On DX this red rectangle is your entire viewfinder. This does make a difference when you shoot distant subjects (e.g. players on a standard size field), where you actually want to see what you're shooting the best you can. In addition, focus points spread is significantly better on DX. And if you use an FX lens, you don't need to worry about performance degradation away from the center when this matters.
The only advantage is that under certain situations where you have to crop anyway, DX can put more pixels on the target, all else being equal. In those situations, I'd personally rather manually do my cropping in post. I have better control that way. That's why I'd never put an FX camera in crop mode, as well. I might decide to use an off-center crop later. Make sense?
Take care.
--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile - f/22 Club Member
I reserve the right to make mistakes in reasoning and logic as well as to change my mind anytime I wish. I also ask forbearance with respect to my typos. Please take a look at my gallery here at DPR.
