Guidenet
Forum Pro
JC, I wouldn't mind the line by line approach so much if you stayed in context and the actual reply fit what was being replied to. Sometimes, one must reply separately to completely different subjects, but when you break down a paragraph which is a construct involving one subject, it's totally out of context. Did you see the examples above? Your replies are out in left field.You know, your first entry in this thread was a paragraph by paragraph reply to the OP. In his post he seemed willing to pay the price for a decent body, but you countered out of the blue that DX is not cheaper ...For example, in your first response, you said, "And? You mean the other forums are populated by not-gear-heads?" I never said this particular forum was populated by gearheads. I said, "website catering to gearheads." As you can see, your response made little sense. The same is true for each and every response. They had little to do with what they were responding to.
Another example. You replied with "And? You know there is also a 28-300? Designed for FX?" for some strange reason. Did your mind somehow suggest to yourself that I was saying that novice FX users don't upgrade kit lenses to super ratio zooms? Not only did I not make such a suggestion, I didn't even insinuate such a thing.
As I said at the start, this is why I do not like responding to this back and forth, line by line, out of context type of discussions one sees adolescents participating in on game forums. They are each just attempting to "out point" each other and score an argument "win," I suppose. So please, if you want to reply and get a reasonable answer back, read and understand what was said first, then put together a coherent reply addressing all your concerns. This isn't a battle. It's just too tedious to respond to meaningless out of context word bites.
I apologize if I'm sounding arrogant or mean spirited. I truly am not. I'm just trying to explain why I can't do this line by line discussion method and to set your expectations for the future.
Have a great evening.
And when someone laments the existence of a decent DX body, you seem to consider that DX is destined to the dump of history, and any FX is infinitely better. Do you remember the Diana?
How other than line by line can we "reach" you?
If by "reach me" you mean to intimidate into some verbal battle, that's fairly impossible as I have no desire for such a thing. I try to think of forums like a cozy bar or pub where everyone gives their opinions and we listen and either agree or disagree. It's even ok to shoot down the other's ideas if and only if it's done in a somewhat friendly manner. Again, it's not a war where everyone is trying to out-point the others. Oh, and no, I don't remember Diana.
Do I consider DX to be in the dump of history? Yes, in a way. For reasonably full sized DSLR models, I see very little point in going with a half frame sized sensor. Even when considering putting a few more extra pixels on the target, the high pixel count of the newer FX sensors mitigate this desire while all the advantages of FX still apply.
For example, when birding, DX might indeed allow more pixels on the bird for cropping later, but birds tend to be more active in early morning or late afternoon when the better light gathering advantages of FX come into play. This is why big glass on big sensors still remain the realm of serious birding. It's also why something like the new P900 is not used. It puts a crap load of pixels on the tiniest of sensors, but fails for shooting moving birds in challenging light most of the time. Before you jump the gun, I'm not comparing the P900 to an APS-C DSLR, just discussing the merits of a larger sensor over pixel density.
Does DX give us any size advantage. Maybe, but Sony uses a full sized sensor in a compact and the D610 is essentially the same size as a D7200. More importantly, this forum is dedicated to the few people who want to use the DX sized sensor in a large full sized DSLR, so any discussion about saving size and weight seems a bit moot. I'm not sure why any discussion about size and weight advantages for DX could seriously be on the table in this forum when the main point of this forum is to shoehorn a small sensor into a D810 body.
Also, when looking at high quality glass offerings which are dedicated to DX, I see very little size and weight advantage in the least, except in the consumer kit type lenses which I'd assume to not be desired for a D400 level body. I see very little in the way of acceptable glass, native to DX, available and even less so which might be considered reasonably smaller than similar FX glass.
In the past, the arguments for a pro grade DX offering has been build quality and buffer size. Nikon has addressed the latter, so we're down to build quality alone anymore. I have no argument for or against this. I just wonder at the need and think it's more a "want." The truly professional lines which are built to take the abuse of heavy field use are FX and likely to remain that way for all the right reasons. This applies to sports and wildlife photography as well. If one is on a budget, the D7200 is a pretty tough camera with good sealing and a solid build.
So, yes, in summary, I think DX was a temporary stopgap used because larger sensors were too expensive to produce in the early days of digital photography. I think it still has its uses in smaller mirrorless and entry DSLR models today. As the price to manufacture FX continues to decline, I think we'll find it in even less expensive DSLR models excepting maybe the very least expensive. For example, I'd love to see FX in D5500 level cameras in the very near future. Later, I see no reason for it not to also be in D3300 entry level cameras. With the sale prices of the D610 sometimes coming in at under $1500, I think it is not as far in the future and one might suggest. Maybe a D500 FX for around $1000-$1200 this or next year. If this comes about, remember where you heard it. I also said I thought Nikon just might make a D400 as a last hurrah for DX. ;-)
Have fun and take care.
