FF vs. DX is Like Automatic vs. Stick

[Adam Kmiec]

I'm a FF proponent, want FF, don't want DX. After reading through the countless threads here lately about FF vs. DX, specifically as it relates to the 5D has been exhausting.

I don't know about you, but for me the single biggest issue is Nikon supporters do NOT have an option. When I buy a car I can choose automatic or manual transmission. There are those that will tell you one is better than the other; but at the end of the day the consumer can choose. Even in cars that don't offer an automatic option can have one put in after-market (the Lamborghini and Ferrari come to mind). With the Nikon stance on DSLRs our choice is clear, DX or DX, unless you want to switch.

As a consumer i'm irritated that I don't have the option. The issue at hand isn't if FF is better than DX or if Nikon is better than Canon. The issue should be about choice. I hope that whether you are a DX or FF advocate you at least understand that what is ultimately right for you may not be right for me; and unless there are service offerings to accomodate both perspectives, the only real losers are us as consumers.
--
Currently refusing to upgrade until Nikon gives me FF.

 

[Bob Lang]

Don't you think that your analogy with "automatic" vs "stick" is a little flawed considering that automatic transmissions have been around for years whereas an FF sensor which meets Nikon specs is not exactly "available technology" but very much technology in the R&D stage.

 

[Adam Kmiec]

cropped sensors and sensors in general have been around for a while. also technology advances much faster now that in the 1930s. at the end of the day it's choices. if you don't like the car analogy, pick MAC vs. PC, or pick Turkey vs. Chicken, etc., etc.
--
Currently refusing to upgrade until Nikon gives me FF.

 

[pwilly]

OK but it's 1953 and the automatics have dumb issues that GM (Canon) won't fix. Kodak finally has offset microlens, I can't wait to se the reviews of the new Leica. I'll bet no CA and Little vignetting. Canon just takes the same issues and puts them in cheaper bodies. A powerglide is a powerglide. Nikon may be really slow, but they won't sell a FF that doesn't at least get the most out of all that lovely Nikkor glass.

--
Paul
Just an old dos guy

 

[RiverSide Photography]

if the issues are with the sensor technology, how come images are ok once u mount quality lenses on FF bodies?

--

Equipped with: A Camera that ain't good enough, Lenses that aren't sharp enough, technique that leaves a lot to be desired and an imagination that fails to run wild.

 

[pwilly]

--
Paul
Just an old dos guy

 

[Bob Lang]

How come images are ok once u mount quality lenses on FF bodies?

When you say "images are ok" are you talking Nikon or Canon specs?

--
Equipped with: A Camera that ain't good enough, Lenses that aren't
sharp enough, technique that leaves a lot to be desired and an
imagination that fails to run wild.

 

[Robin Casady]

if the issues are with the sensor technology, how come images are
ok once u mount quality lenses on FF bodies?

Which images are these? The problem I've seen is in wide-angle shots. Are there some WA images available online from FF that don't have problems at the edges? They would have to be at 100%. Reduced images would not show the edge problem.

When the D2x came out, a Nikon exec. said that Nikon would eventually have a FF camera, but implied that it wouldn't happen until they could do it with quality they found acceptable.

Robin
http://www.robincasady.com

 

[Adam Kmiec]

let's say that the "unacceptable" portion of a FF image with a 17-35 is an area of pixels on every side. You'd still end up with the option to crop there, or further. With DX the choice is made for you.
--
Currently refusing to upgrade until Nikon gives me FF.

 

[T3]

Don't you think that your analogy with "automatic" vs "stick" is a
little flawed considering that automatic transmissions have been
around for years whereas an FF sensor which meets Nikon specs is
not exactly "available technology" but very much technology in the
R&D stage.

I think the notion that FF is still "very much technology in the R&D stage" is very myopic. Canon introduced their 1Ds in 2002. Even at $8000, selling primarily to the high-end, discriminating commercial photographic community, it was successful enough for Canon to follow up with the 1Ds MKII, also at $8000. And FF has continued to be successful enough that Canon now offers a FF DSLR for "the masses" at only $3300. FF has stood the test of time. It's been on the market for almost as long as the D100 (D100 and 1Ds were both introduced in 2002; the D100 in the beginning of 2002, the 1Ds at the end of 2002), and is now in its THIRD GENERATION. FF in DSLR cameras is NOT A NEW THING. It's NOT still in the R&D stage. It's actually gone through more generational evolution and advancement than Nikon's LBCAST. So get out of your horse and buggie and realize that the horseless carriage is already here and cruising down the road ahead of you!

 

[[email protected]]

I'm happy with the D2X.
maljo

 

[Adam Kmiec]

What FF option is nikon offering? What choice is there for a nikon user (10+ years) with 1000s in nikon gear, who wants FF from nikon?
--
Currently refusing to upgrade until Nikon gives me FF.

 

[Robin Casady]

So, you get all the disadvantages of both formats. Definitely worth paying more money for.

Robin
http://www.robincasady.com

let's say that the "unacceptable" portion of a FF image with a
17-35 is an area of pixels on every side. You'd still end up with
the option to crop there, or further. With DX the choice is made
for you.
--
Currently refusing to upgrade until Nikon gives me FF.

 

[Bob Lang]

Don't you think that your analogy with "automatic" vs "stick" is a
little flawed considering that automatic transmissions have been
around for years whereas an FF sensor which meets Nikon specs is
not exactly "available technology" but very much technology in the
R&D stage.

I think the notion that FF is still "very much technology in the
R&D stage" is very myopic. Canon introduced their 1Ds in 2002.
Even at $8000, selling primarily to the high-end, discriminating
commercial photographic community, it was successful enough for
Canon to follow up with the 1Ds MKII, also at $8000. And FF has
continued to be successful enough that Canon now offers a FF DSLR
for "the masses" at only $3300. FF has stood the test of time.
It's been on the market for almost as long as the D100 (D100 and
1Ds were both introduced in 2002; the D100 in the beginning of
2002, the 1Ds at the end of 2002), and is now in its THIRD
GENERATION. FF in DSLR cameras is NOT A NEW THING. It's NOT still
in the R&D stage. It's actually gone through more generational
evolution and advancement than Nikon's LBCAST. So get out of your
horse and buggie and realize that the horseless carriage is already
here and cruising down the road ahead of you!

I never said that FF is very much technology in the R&D stage. Read my post.

 

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

What FF option is nikon offering? What choice is there for a nikon
user (10+ years) with 1000s in nikon gear, who wants FF from nikon?
--
Currently refusing to upgrade until Nikon gives me FF.

Seriously what exactly do you think you will gain by starting yet another thread ?

I mean Nikon wont come out with a ff option faster cause of this forum... or do you actually belive they gonna change their marketing strategy and production line up because of post like these ?

Im just curious.

Kindest

--
Regards
Paul L.

 

[Ed]

The image goes all the way across!

 

[pwilly]

All estimates are FF is 10x the cost of APS and the sensor is by far the most expensive component in the system. In PC's only the status seekers and the very few with a legitimate reason would spend 2000 on a CPU. Last year an interview, translated by a forum member, with a Nikon exec suggested at that time FF was possible but for $10,000.
--
Paul
Just an old dos guy

 

[Adam Kmiec]

I've never started a thread on FF. I've commented on it in other threads. I thought my point was clear in the initial post: having read through all of the posts this week I think people are debating the wrong thing. it isnt canon vs. nikon or FF vs. DX (in terms of which is better), it's about options. if my passion for the situation bothers your, I would encourage you to:

A: not read the posts
B: no respond
--
Currently refusing to upgrade until Nikon gives me FF.

 

[Adam Kmiec]

if Canon can do it for 3500 and Kodak could for 3500 I have a tough time believing Nikon can only hit 10K.
--
Currently refusing to upgrade until Nikon gives me FF.

 

[Adam Kmiec]

based on your sig, you must know what I'm talking about when I say need is completely arbitrary. did we need windows 3.1 or Windows 95 or for that matter 98, 2000, NT, XP, and now vista. More importantly look at word processing, it hasn't changed all that much and we are on office build 11. need vs. want is interesting. consumers generate needs by wants, becuase if we really examine need, do any of even need the DX bodies we have now? why not go back to film and a point and shoot digital.
--
Currently refusing to upgrade until Nikon gives me FF.