Whats limiting them from a 1x focal length ? 1.5x mag is detrimental to wide angle photography. I'm not gonna get a DSLR until a reasonably priced model with no magnification comes along. Simply cant afford ultra wides of reasonable quality.
Simple. The bigger a chip, the higher the chance of a pixel failing. Since consumers *expects* 100% working pixels, now you see how tough the QC needs to be. For 6 megapix DSLR we hv today, this means you've 6 millions pixels all working perfectly.
Originally posted by Shadus Simple. The bigger a chip, the higher the chance of a pixel failing. Since consumers *expects* 100% working pixels, now you see how tough the QC needs to be. For 6 megapix DSLR we hv today, this means you've 6 millions pixels all working perfectly.
clive, not that there's any wrong or right answer answer, but there's always a flip side to your comments as well. this is particularly so for wide-angles. the FLM means that it's next to impossible to obtain "true" wide angles of less than 20mm (disregarding the upcoming 12-24mm Nikkor DX lens).
so while the FLM is a boon for sports shooters for example, the landscape and events people won't be so happy about the lack of wide-angles. so it really depends on the subject matter of choice to see how FLM affects your style of shooting.
Its not a real 'upgrade' of 400 to 600mm etc. Its just the CMOS/CCD is too small to accomodate the whole frame.So what you see is the reduced angle captured by the CMOS/CCD. If you compare your shot 400mm with a real 600mm you will notice that its is a cropped 400mm shot while the 600mm truly gives you the same shot magnified to 600mm.
Originally posted by clive actually from a simpleminded point of view, 1.5x factor is good coz
(1)200mm/2.8 becomes 300mm/2.8 "for free" (yeah disregarding the slight changes to DOF effects; it never really bothers that much anyway)
(2)400mm becomes 600mm "for free"
(3)500mm becomes 750mm "for free"
(4)so what if wideangles get affected? for nikon's case; a 17-35mm lens becomes a 25-52mm lens which is very naturally wide to naturally normal focal length all rolled as one lens! thats good
What Szekiat has said is what I've been saying for a long time. But it goes way beyond that. I can honestly see no benefit to having a full frame sensor at all as opposed to a DX sensor.
If you are keen on finding out why, I'm open to honest questions that I'll answer straightforwardly. But don't ask a general type question because I'm not writing an essay, but if you have a specific concern about DX sensors then feel free.