Advantage of Full Frame Sensor
- Thread starter lwt11137
- Start date
- Status
Canon had it easy for quite a few years and can afford to takes its time to recover investment cost. Once Sony gets into the picture, everything changes. Sony have ambitions to be market leader for DC. Sony makes sensors and Nikon buys sensors from Sony. In 5 years time if Canon continue as it has for the past 25 years, it will be number 2. Also Nokia will want to have a slice of the market as well but will be Camera phones centric.
By then, everyone has to start dumping FF lens because they can't fit into a MF camera.
Lets be honest, anyone here can say that they are doing justice to their hardware? I mean spending so much money on the hardware stuff is one thing, whether you can product the stuff is another (just to avoid any conflict, I am not one of those who think i can take very good pictures). Seeing some WOW pictures taken using yesteryears camera on magazines sometimes really make me feel ashame.
Nevertheless, I think a hobby, like photography, has a evolution in its host (you and me
). In the beginning, you are very interested in hardware stuff (FF vs crop etc), then finally, you will settle down and dun really go into website to see which new camera is coming out. But websites to see how people takes those jaws-dropping pictures.Cheers
I admit that I would get myself a FF camera..... if I could afford it. I think a price of around $2100 is acceptable. But even that, I would keep my 1.6x crop camera..... for no other reason than my 70-200mm will be 112-320mm now....:bsmilie:
Sooner or later - I think within 5yr - FF camera will be price around those like the 40D now. And camera like 400D would be well below $1000. :thumbsup:
Sooner or later - I think within 5yr - FF camera will be price around those like the 40D now. And camera like 400D would be well below $1000. :thumbsup:
Alas.... all these will never come to be !
Cause the world is going to end on 21 Dec 2012 :cry:
http://www.december212012.com/
So we should all just Buy! Buy! Buy! to our hearts' content in the last 4 remaining years while we still can enjoy our hobby and technology still exists to produce such equipment.
Yeah... Probably by then we will have an equivalent of D40x (in today's terms) with 51 point focusing system...:bigeyes:
Can't possibly still continue to seel you cams with 3 point focusing right?
Anyway, I totally agree with the point on people chasing technology, and in the process forgot all about honing their "software" to match the "hardware" they buy. And wat does these poor souls end up with? A superb set-up, but photos that are anything but complementing the set-up.
Nowadays, I'm more interested in the "software", although I would say the hardware does have its effects on me.:bsmilie:
A FF sensor has the advantage of fully utilising standard ultra-wide lenses instead of those made for cropped sensors, better DOF control that bring out the subject when taking portraits and also a larger and brighter viewfinder in the DSLRs itselves.
thanks brother Snoweagle, now considering which to pick up canon or nikon. Is it true that canon are more lense friendly, for example many other brand of lense able to use in canon system with an adapter.
you put the D300 on ISO3200 (which is its max) pic side-by-side with the D3's ISO3200 (which is not even breaking a sweat for the D3), you will be able to tell the difference in noise levels. dat is the best proof your eyes can see wrt the FX vs DX sensor debate.[/QUOTE]
I started with D40, and is still using D40 now..
I am thinking of upgrading to D300, or... go straight to D700, since I only have the 17-55mm lens to get rid of, minimum pain and loss. I will keep the D40 and kit lens, bcos the 2nd hand price is really too low :cry:
My key reason of upgrading is to get high ISO performance.
Max acceptable ISO for D40 is 800 (my own judgement).
I believe max acceptable ISO for D300 is 3200 (??, In another thread, i see beautiful photo shot at ISO3200)
How about D3?? How high the ISO we can crank up till it shows the same noise level as ISO3200 at D300?
Any bro here with the above comparison, please enlighten me.
I started with D40, and is still using D40 now..
I am thinking of upgrading to D300, or... go straight to D700, since I only have the 17-55mm lens to get rid of, minimum pain and loss. I will keep the D40 and kit lens, bcos the 2nd hand price is really too low :cry:
My key reason of upgrading is to get high ISO performance.
Max acceptable ISO for D40 is 800 (my own judgement).
I believe max acceptable ISO for D300 is 3200 (??, In another thread, i see beautiful photo shot at ISO3200)
How about D3?? How high the ISO we can crank up till it shows the same noise level as ISO3200 at D300?
Any bro here with the above comparison, please enlighten me.
Whether Nikon or Canon is entirely up to the individual, even the feel of the DSLRs are different too. I wouldn't say that Canon's lenses are more 'friendly' but they have the largest range in 35mm photography.
Yes u can use it with an adapter but only in manual focus.
Is fine for me, the more the merrier we all come here with one objective share our thought and view.
Thats not the point really.
Today's digital sensors are giving far better noise at ISO800 and ISO1600 when compared to film.
How low a noise is noiseless enough? Film photographers still lived with their noisy ISO800/1600.
The better is always an enemy of the good.
On the other hand you may want to ask, now that you can shoot relatively noiseless at high ISO, how high an ISO do you need, if you really know what you need? Or you just want to have the lowest noise camera in the market?
To make an analogy, a 5GHz double quad core PC can certainly do a lot of compute intensive stuff, but the real question is what stuff do you really do?
- Status
Similar threads
