Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Help me understand FX vs. DX
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="salukfan111" data-source="post: 520239" data-attributes="member: 39212"><p>The point I was trying to make is that two FF can have aspects that are different in ways you wouldn't expect due to things other than the sensor. I probably should have provide a separate paragraph (I'm an engineer not an english teacher). The best way to argue that tech is important is to take a high level product and point out something a lower level of product is able to beat it at.</p><p> </p><p>The whole jest of the responses from me is that Nikon establishes their product line and pricing based upon the level of tech. FF sensors cost more than DX and if they offered a kick ass DX it would hurt their premium camera sales. For Nikon and Canon to maintain the mythos that allows maximum penetration and sales for entry level, amateur level, semi pro, and pro requires that people believe things like these levels are due to sensors and not mostly due to tech other than sensors. Audi does the same exact thing with their a3,a4,a5,a6,a7,a8 / s4,s5,s6,s7/rs4,rs5,rs6,rs7, r8 and s8. In reality, they'd be fine with an a3, a4, a5, a6, rs6, rs7, s8, and r8 were each car to be given the max tech available. Giving up those other models means they have more issues undercutting BMW and Mercedes sales.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="salukfan111, post: 520239, member: 39212"] The point I was trying to make is that two FF can have aspects that are different in ways you wouldn't expect due to things other than the sensor. I probably should have provide a separate paragraph (I'm an engineer not an english teacher). The best way to argue that tech is important is to take a high level product and point out something a lower level of product is able to beat it at. The whole jest of the responses from me is that Nikon establishes their product line and pricing based upon the level of tech. FF sensors cost more than DX and if they offered a kick ass DX it would hurt their premium camera sales. For Nikon and Canon to maintain the mythos that allows maximum penetration and sales for entry level, amateur level, semi pro, and pro requires that people believe things like these levels are due to sensors and not mostly due to tech other than sensors. Audi does the same exact thing with their a3,a4,a5,a6,a7,a8 / s4,s5,s6,s7/rs4,rs5,rs6,rs7, r8 and s8. In reality, they'd be fine with an a3, a4, a5, a6, rs6, rs7, s8, and r8 were each car to be given the max tech available. Giving up those other models means they have more issues undercutting BMW and Mercedes sales. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Help me understand FX vs. DX
Top