love reading this thread, its always a debate ar...
I notice him a bit more these couple of weeks. I think he jumped from Dxx to D90 to D700 in a pretty short period of time?
Keep saying this will trounce that la, or no comparison la... but where's his evidence?
as for me rather than keep comparing, better to find out which suits u the most, some prefer the reach and the cost of DX lenes, other may opt for high iso performance, thinner DOF, and the access to the FX lenses, technology improve and will always be changing and improving, so will the same topic arises, when the replacement of D700 comes out, cant wait for it thou...
but on a personal opinion, yesh the D7000 or rather DX is catching up in the high iso department... not the same level but catching up..
Last edited by akerue; 24th November 2010 at 10:59 PM.
scattered in between are a few ("d700 rox") kinda threads...
got one photo thread at Chinese Gardens... [http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=764556]
I reserve comment...
during the that i also notice rookie was quite good in his/her shoot and using D90 assume base on the siggy.
ya so basically that guy really need to shoot more instead of nagging...
looking at other photo, remind me of my own when i started to venture into landscapes...
hahaha so the lame man i was ... wakkakaka
Anyway... Many people on FX, their pride was hurt when people say D7k is close in ISO noise performance... But they fail to realize that technology will advance. You compare the D3s with the very old Medium format digital backs from Kodak... you will see the modern day FX will beat it hands down... nothing to do with size of sensor... but all to do with improving technology.
but something FX can do, DX will be struggling... but technology will move la.
was shooting with my frd on D700, hers shot is so much faster and clear with the amount of focusing point.
then end up wanting to poison me!! then wanna past me hers 70-200 to shoot while she "laze" ard cause she have running nose haha