So I met a die hard full frame fan

Markk

Markk

Messages
728
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I went with my wife to one of her class reunions and there was was this one guy at the end of the table I had a quick convo with (a bit of a weirdo, but I thought at least I'd be able to talk photo with him).

And ultimately our discussion amounted to him saying that full frame (FX [he has a Nikon D300]) is better than DX in every single aspect. It was impossible to discuss this on a friendly level: FX, that's it, it's better. And any statement was put down with "those idiots on internet forums don't know anything, they're all stupid."

Along with this came the "SB 900 is God, and the SB800 or SB600 and everything else is pure cr@p" mentality, and Manfrotto pods are useless, along with their heads. (He apparently only uses a wooden tripod from the 70's).

Basically you could sum up his view on things like this: "An award winning photo by a D3 (or full frame) is leaps and bounds better than an award winning photo of a D300 (or cropped sensor), solely because it was a full frame that took it."

Aaargh. Our conversation ended quite quickly. I can't stand people like that, with formulated opinions that don't even allow friendly discussions.
But I woke up this morning and started thinking, maybe I'm the one that's living in denial. Maybe I should hop on the bandwagon and share his preachings?

Your views?
 
I hope you didn't invite him to join Talk Photography lol :puke:
 
Sounds like one of these people who believe they have made the perfect choice and anyone who has chosen something else is an idiot.

Ignore him. It's not the sensor, brand, lens, processing. It's the result that counts.
 
you already know the answer :)
 
I've seen this before. It's normal behavior for Nikon users!

Its just not worth arguing with some people. It's more fun to be overly nice and totally agreeable. Usualy takes the wind out of their sails
 
Well, FX is better in every way apart from price. And that'll change sooner than you think.

DX was a huge marketing exercise, sold with lots of sound bites "only uses the sweet spot of your lens!", "more REACH!" and we were all stupid enough to by into it. In reality is was just a compromise until full frame was ready and available.

Every Nikon camera at all ranges will have a full frame sensor option within 3 years. DX will be dead - the same way as HD-DVD in 5 years.

Essentially, he's probably more right than wrong.
 
Well obviously not as stupid as he is, as the D300 is a DX (crop) body not FX (full frame)!

There has always been a saying in photographic circles that a good 'big un' will always beat a good 'little un' This is not so much to do with grain, but more to do with tonal range and a smoothness of tones available from a larger format.

There are advantages to FF as there are to DX, and by that token why isn't everyone switching to medium format as surely that would be better again.

Each has their place in photography, and many factors will decide which you want to go with and what will be best for you. Perhaps this person needs to become less blinkered and realise that it is the image that matters, not what size medium it was taken on.
 
FF sensors are for the P&S generation, until we get 10x8 sensors it will not be possible to take photographs of acceptable quality :nono:

















;)
 
Guy sounds like a k*****r to me. Who really cares what kit the photo was taken on, its the emotional and aesthetic aspects that mean everything.

That guy needs to get a grip.
 
subseasniper said:
Guy sounds like a k*****r to me. Who really cares what kit the photo was taken on, its the emotional and aesthetic aspects that mean everything.

That guy needs to get a grip.
Click to expand...

but surely that will just increase his shooting time not image quality???














:D:p:LOL:
 
LOL I met a guy like that at the kite surfing nationals, but it was digital is cr@p and film wins hands down, the thing that got me was he was using a 5d and a 100-400:LOL: and recond digital is ok for happy snaping.:wacky:
 
If I'm honest, I really don't know the difference between the 2 LOL I've done the reading, but still not sure I understand. A 300mm lens on a DX is really like a 420mm compared to an FX format... I just take pictures for fun :D
 
He clearly doesn't believe himself does he?

If FX is so wonderful, why does he not own one?

Or does he justify it to himself somehow?:shrug:
 
FX is pants.

Mr. Grubby is on the right track. The 54MP hasselbald is about as good as we have at the moment though. Maybe the new Leica will move things on a tad.....off to do my weights session in readiness now.
 
puddleduck said:
Well, FX is better in every way apart from price. And that'll change sooner than you think.

DX was a huge marketing exercise, sold with lots of sound bites "only uses the sweet spot of your lens!", "more REACH!" and we were all stupid enough to by into it. In reality is was just a compromise until full frame was ready and available.

Every Nikon camera at all ranges will have a full frame sensor option within 3 years. DX will be dead - the same way as HD-DVD in 5 years.

Essentially, he's probably more right than wrong.
Click to expand...

Err not quite, it seems the smaller sensor with as many pixles resolves better than the larger sensor, although that takes in more light. Wayne
 
I read somewhere a few days ago that a guy sold a limited edition framed print at £350 a go. Full frame? Nope - it was a grainy, blured, BW taken on a pinhole camera.

So there you have it. DX, FX etc - all rubish. Get a pinhole and join the real professionals:LOL:
 
AndyB said:
I read somewhere a few days ago that a guy sold a limited edition framed print at £350 a go. Full frame? Nope - it was a grainy, blured, BW taken on a pinhole camera.

So there you have it. DX, FX etc - all rubish. Get a pinhole and join the real professionals:LOL:
Click to expand...

:LOL: He must be a better salesman than photographer!
 
He had an agent. I think that says a lot;)

Actually I think it says more about knowing the market you are trying to sell into. Good for him I say - never under estimate the lack of artistic appreciation that some of the more affluent members of the public are blessed with.

I'm off to paint a grain of sand blue and find the old Kodak disposable. See you all in Habitat!
 
mattyh said:
He said that his Full Frame D300 was better than a DX model?

If that's right, then the guy is a complete and total tool!

Also. :LOL: @ onform - You sure are!
Click to expand...

No no, not that hisD300 is fullframe. That must have mixed some up. I just added that to explain why I'm using FX and DX (Nikon designations.)

None-the-less, the conversation was quite interesting.
 
WGAF?

Each to thier own and enjoy what you use.
 
puddleduck said:
Well, FX is better in every way apart from price. And that'll change sooner than you think...

Every Nikon camera at all ranges will have a full frame sensor option within 3 years. DX will be dead...
Click to expand...

So it was you at the reunion with Markk :D I won't comment as I can't believe you're serious, but in the general interests of where sensor development is going these days, have a read of this link:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

It's an amazing tale of how experienced photographers couldn't tell the difference between quite large prints shot on a Canon G10 and similar images from a $40k Hasselblad. He's not kidding :eek:

Richard.
 
TBF he owns a nikon did you really expect him not to be like that lol

Markk said:
I went with my wife to one of her class reunions and there was was this one guy at the end of the table I had a quick convo with (a bit of a weirdo, but I thought at least I'd be able to talk photo with him).

And ultimately our discussion amounted to him saying that full frame (FX [he has a Nikon D300]) is better than DX in every single aspect. It was impossible to discuss this on a friendly level: FX, that's it, it's better. And any statement was put down with "those idiots on internet forums don't know anything, they're all stupid."

Along with this came the "SB 900 is God, and the SB800 or SB600 and everything else is pure cr@p" mentality, and Manfrotto pods are useless, along with their heads. (He apparently only uses a wooden tripod from the 70's).

Basically you could sum up his view on things like this: "An award winning photo by a D3 (or full frame) is leaps and bounds better than an award winning photo of a D300 (or cropped sensor), solely because it was a full frame that took it."

Aaargh. Our conversation ended quite quickly. I can't stand people like that, with formulated opinions that don't even allow friendly discussions.
But I woke up this morning and started thinking, maybe I'm the one that's living in denial. Maybe I should hop on the bandwagon and share his preachings?

Your views?
Click to expand...
 
I can't believe this debate.

FX, DX, Boll-X.:razz: The best system is the one you're using and each has it's advantages and shortcomings.
 
At the moment DX in good light is better than FX if you want further reach on the tele end. FX benefits from either more pixels or larger photosites so in worse light it wins.
 
Technically fx is better, the slr was designed using full frame. I remember Reading a post frmo a nikon user who said nikon will never go full frame because of all the wonderful dx lenses. I wish I remember who it was and say Ha! I personally don't see the real advantage of crop apart from being cheaper, I think if you ask anyone who used to shoot film, they will prefer full frame.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I personally don't see the real advantage of crop apart from being cheaper.
Click to expand...
So why aren't you using a Hasselblad then? Or at least a 1Ds III?

"Cheaper" is a hu-u-u-uge advantage in the real world.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I think if you ask anyone who used to shoot film, they will prefer full frame.
Click to expand...

I used to shoot film but I prefer the benefits of a 1.3X (or 1.6x for that matter) crop camera. :shrug:
 
I just thought of something else. I'm not totally sure of this but here's the theory.

One of the arguments for using full frame is that for a given focal length the DOF is less on a full frame camera compared to a crop camera, fine, no debate there.

However, let's say you're roughly 20 feet/7 metres from a candid subject. On the full frame using 200mm at F2.8 you've got a DOF of about 34cm.

To get the same field of view on a 1.3X or 1.6X crop you'd need to be using a focal length of 154mm or 125mm respectively. Using the same subject distance and aperture the DOF is about 26cm and 21cm respectively which gives you better subject isolation than full frame :shrug:

Which bit have I got wrong? :p The distances/aperture were just random choices, different variations might mess with the figures.
 
Think your figures are a bit out there:

FF, 200mm, f/2.8 @ 700cm = 20cm
1.3, 155mm, f/2.8 @ 700cm = 26cm
1.6, 125mm, f/2.8 @ 700cm = 33cm
 
dod said:
Which bit have I got wrong? :p
Click to expand...
All of it, I think.

I tried to reproduce your calculations using DOFMaster but couldn't.

And anyway your basic premise is fundamentally wrong: it can be shown that large sensors give you better subject isolation. (We all know that P&S cameras produce huge depth of field, don't we?)

But please, let's not have this debate again. We did all this last week and it was pretty confusing then.
 
pxl8 said:
Think your figures are a bit out there:

FF, 200mm, f/2.8 @ 700cm = 20cm
1.3, 155mm, f/2.8 @ 700cm = 26cm
1.6, 125mm, f/2.8 @ 700cm = 33cm
Click to expand...

I've written them down the wrong way round :LOL: Thanks, as you were :confused:
 
pxl8 said:
Think your figures are a bit out there:

FF, 200mm, f/2.8 @ 700cm = 20cm
1.3, 155mm, f/2.8 @ 700cm = 26cm
1.6, 125mm, f/2.8 @ 700cm = 33cm
Click to expand...

Can you explain how these were worked out,
I would be interested to know :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top