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
Lenses
General Lenses
Should I step across from FX to 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="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 562267" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>How does a person who has never picked up an instrument in their life justify a $3000 PRS to take their first guitar lesson?</p><p></p><p>How does an old fart with bad reaction times justify a six-figure automobile that they'll never drive over 70mph, expect maybe on an interstate, to drive themselves to play golf on the weekends?</p><p></p><p>"Secret sauce" is not something hidden away and pulled out like a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle for only a special few on a special occasion, it's called technological advancement and it takes time and costs money. Full framed bodies always cost more because the sensors cost more to manufacture. Cropped sensors could easily perform as well as full frame if photographers were willing to live with 44% of the MP's. Nikon could have easily given you a DX camera that has the D750's high ISO capabilities if you were willing to shoot at 10 MP's. </p><p></p><p>Here's a 24x36 block grid over a photo, the unshaded 16x24 area represents the DX coverage.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]215426[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Because the pixels are the same size you can easily collect the same light information, but at a cost of 56% of your image size. You want the same file size, same MP's, and would love to have the same "secret sauce". Well...</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]215427[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>...now you have to cram all that goodness into a space that's 44% as big. That's a whole lot of physics to overcome. Oh yeah, I forgot, since it's a DX camera you also expect it to be cheaper. Where's that sauce bottle, I need to pour another shot to try and figure out why it is something is always supposed to be had for nothing? </p><p></p><p>Getting a DX camera that comes close to what Nikon did with the D750 sensor took time and money, which is why you now have a $2000 cropped sensor rig. What you have is a 10 fps beast that can shoot for(almost)ever in a sport or wildlife situation, and yet with the right glass can hold its own with full framed bodies. A DX body that doesn't prevent you from shooting in a needed situation is probably a photographer's greatest gift. With the right glass and proper skill it's probably the only camera you'd need.</p><p></p><p>So how can a slouch such as myself who spends far more than he makes on the photos I take possibly justify a D500 and a D750 (it's not a "backup", it's a second camera) for my photography? Because it's <em>my photography -</em> my art, my vice, and in many ways my voice. I write words - lots of words. I make music - lots of music. I've expressed myself in different ways throughout my life and for the last 5 years this has been the channel I've chosen - or I should say, the channel that's chosen me. </p><p></p><p>How does one justify the $50 bottle of wine when the $10 will get them just as drunk? Ah, because the person asking the question doesn't know enough to realize that "drunk" is just the end result and hasn't experienced enough to realize that there's a whole lot going on between Point A and Point B. One would certainly love to find a $10 fare for that same journey, but it's not an easy find. At the same time, the $50 bottle given to the unexperienced and uneducated palate wouldn't provide the same level of satisfaction because they don't have the points of reference to fully understand the nuances. </p><p></p><p>You need to do a lot of <em>picture taking</em> to know why something doesn't work for you. If you don't understand when you're up against your limitations and not your tool's then you need to spend more time with the tools you have. Once you grasp that then it's simply a matter of finding the right tool for the job. As I said above, I write words - lots of words. The true justification for having this combination is spewed across 4 years of posts here. The journey is documented. The data collected and presented. Geoff's been part of it - a sounding board at times as we've tackled similar questions at coincident times, often reaching opposite conclusions. Dig if you want.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 562267, member: 9240"] How does a person who has never picked up an instrument in their life justify a $3000 PRS to take their first guitar lesson? How does an old fart with bad reaction times justify a six-figure automobile that they'll never drive over 70mph, expect maybe on an interstate, to drive themselves to play golf on the weekends? "Secret sauce" is not something hidden away and pulled out like a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle for only a special few on a special occasion, it's called technological advancement and it takes time and costs money. Full framed bodies always cost more because the sensors cost more to manufacture. Cropped sensors could easily perform as well as full frame if photographers were willing to live with 44% of the MP's. Nikon could have easily given you a DX camera that has the D750's high ISO capabilities if you were willing to shoot at 10 MP's. Here's a 24x36 block grid over a photo, the unshaded 16x24 area represents the DX coverage. [ATTACH=CONFIG]215426._xfImport[/ATTACH] Because the pixels are the same size you can easily collect the same light information, but at a cost of 56% of your image size. You want the same file size, same MP's, and would love to have the same "secret sauce". Well... [ATTACH=CONFIG]215427._xfImport[/ATTACH] ...now you have to cram all that goodness into a space that's 44% as big. That's a whole lot of physics to overcome. Oh yeah, I forgot, since it's a DX camera you also expect it to be cheaper. Where's that sauce bottle, I need to pour another shot to try and figure out why it is something is always supposed to be had for nothing? Getting a DX camera that comes close to what Nikon did with the D750 sensor took time and money, which is why you now have a $2000 cropped sensor rig. What you have is a 10 fps beast that can shoot for(almost)ever in a sport or wildlife situation, and yet with the right glass can hold its own with full framed bodies. A DX body that doesn't prevent you from shooting in a needed situation is probably a photographer's greatest gift. With the right glass and proper skill it's probably the only camera you'd need. So how can a slouch such as myself who spends far more than he makes on the photos I take possibly justify a D500 and a D750 (it's not a "backup", it's a second camera) for my photography? Because it's [I]my photography -[/I] my art, my vice, and in many ways my voice. I write words - lots of words. I make music - lots of music. I've expressed myself in different ways throughout my life and for the last 5 years this has been the channel I've chosen - or I should say, the channel that's chosen me. How does one justify the $50 bottle of wine when the $10 will get them just as drunk? Ah, because the person asking the question doesn't know enough to realize that "drunk" is just the end result and hasn't experienced enough to realize that there's a whole lot going on between Point A and Point B. One would certainly love to find a $10 fare for that same journey, but it's not an easy find. At the same time, the $50 bottle given to the unexperienced and uneducated palate wouldn't provide the same level of satisfaction because they don't have the points of reference to fully understand the nuances. You need to do a lot of [I]picture taking[/I] to know why something doesn't work for you. If you don't understand when you're up against your limitations and not your tool's then you need to spend more time with the tools you have. Once you grasp that then it's simply a matter of finding the right tool for the job. As I said above, I write words - lots of words. The true justification for having this combination is spewed across 4 years of posts here. The journey is documented. The data collected and presented. Geoff's been part of it - a sounding board at times as we've tackled similar questions at coincident times, often reaching opposite conclusions. Dig if you want. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Should I step across from FX to DX?
Top