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="salukfan111" data-source="post: 562369" data-attributes="member: 39212"><p>The point I was trying to make is the average joe who is going to own a single camera he pays more than $1500 for would be foolish to not buy a D500 unless he absolutely needed the FF for a specific task. There are many aspects to how a picture turns out, the size of the sensor is just one small part of that. As DX cameras climb into the price range of FF all of those bells and whistles the expensive FFs get will go to the DX. </p><p>For a D500:</p><p>1. awesome AF from the flagship $6500 - got it - it works even better because there is focus coverage for the entire image hitting the sensor</p><p>2. top of the line microlens for the sensor normally reserved for cameras like D5 and 810 - got it</p><p>3. top of the line imaging A to D converters and algorythms reserved for expensive FFs - got it</p><p>4. iso invarient sensor - got it</p><p>5. natural benefit of smaller sensor is a lot more information is collected on the image you are looking at (very cost effective teleconverter)</p><p>6. low light performance on par or in many cases exceeding the capabilities of FFs - this camera will focus lock and get decent pictures where many FFs can't even get a focus lock - they withheld the IR focus assist to keep this camera from blowing all the FFs out of the water</p><p>7. fast shutter speed and top of the line buffering</p><p></p><p>The D500 without the FF special sauce is just a D7000</p><p>There are reasons Nikon did the D500 not the least of which is to have a platform for working out the bugs for the 60mp + they're probably working on. That camera will basically have an overgrown D500 sensor. If people with FFs like them, then by all means they can keep patting themselves on the back and repeating ridiculous crap like how FF lens work better on FFs than DXs (in spite of physics), better low light performance despite D500 having significantly better low light AF, etc. etc. It is a free country.</p><p></p><p>Were it up to me I'd stick the 18 or whatever MP sensor from the Nikon 1 series and stick it in the D500 and use the extra space to install vr on the sensor itself. That would be a very effective TC indeed.</p><p></p><p>I have provided raws to Blacktop of low light shots where a D7200 or D7xx or D8xx would not have even got a focus lock on. The camera does well in low light. Astro shots at 3200 are really sweet too - significant improvement over the D7100 for sure.</p><p></p><p>No one is taking shots at you for anything but using the "no true scotmans" argument style.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="salukfan111, post: 562369, member: 39212"] The point I was trying to make is the average joe who is going to own a single camera he pays more than $1500 for would be foolish to not buy a D500 unless he absolutely needed the FF for a specific task. There are many aspects to how a picture turns out, the size of the sensor is just one small part of that. As DX cameras climb into the price range of FF all of those bells and whistles the expensive FFs get will go to the DX. For a D500: 1. awesome AF from the flagship $6500 - got it - it works even better because there is focus coverage for the entire image hitting the sensor 2. top of the line microlens for the sensor normally reserved for cameras like D5 and 810 - got it 3. top of the line imaging A to D converters and algorythms reserved for expensive FFs - got it 4. iso invarient sensor - got it 5. natural benefit of smaller sensor is a lot more information is collected on the image you are looking at (very cost effective teleconverter) 6. low light performance on par or in many cases exceeding the capabilities of FFs - this camera will focus lock and get decent pictures where many FFs can't even get a focus lock - they withheld the IR focus assist to keep this camera from blowing all the FFs out of the water 7. fast shutter speed and top of the line buffering The D500 without the FF special sauce is just a D7000 There are reasons Nikon did the D500 not the least of which is to have a platform for working out the bugs for the 60mp + they're probably working on. That camera will basically have an overgrown D500 sensor. If people with FFs like them, then by all means they can keep patting themselves on the back and repeating ridiculous crap like how FF lens work better on FFs than DXs (in spite of physics), better low light performance despite D500 having significantly better low light AF, etc. etc. It is a free country. Were it up to me I'd stick the 18 or whatever MP sensor from the Nikon 1 series and stick it in the D500 and use the extra space to install vr on the sensor itself. That would be a very effective TC indeed. I have provided raws to Blacktop of low light shots where a D7200 or D7xx or D8xx would not have even got a focus lock on. The camera does well in low light. Astro shots at 3200 are really sweet too - significant improvement over the D7100 for sure. No one is taking shots at you for anything but using the "no true scotmans" argument style. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Should I step across from FX to DX?
Top
