| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4435 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
When digital started we only had DX.
The gold standard we sought to attain was 35mm film ...ieFX.
The D300 (arguably for some people) just about achieved 35mm film quality. The D3 (IMHO) did/does attain and even exceed film in many situation.
I believe the new range of DX bodies also now match or better film.
But as the bar is lifted ....do DX cameras approach ever closer FX quality when comparing crops? Is the gap narrowing?
Are we yet at a stage where we might conceivable forget FX (apart from the wider angle advantage) and take the unquestionable lens advantage of 1.5x focal length multiplication ?
My reasons for raising this are twofold...
Firstly the thread about the new 58mm and Toms point about it really only being a 'portrait' lens for DX. This focal length was always a compromise for me. Supposedly closest to our eye's perspective on things....but without the versatility of our eyes, that automatically 'take in' peripheral detail to enhance or concentrate the 'impression'. In short, we NEED wider and longer lenses to attempt to deliver what the eye 'sees'...or at least add extra dynamism to our shots.
So I am not sure I would buy this lens to specifically use on an FX body...it's the wrong focal length for my photography... but for DX it's another matter.
The second point relates to the image quality I have seen on the Fuji XE1. Despite being a DX sensor, it matches my D3 with its pro lenses most of the time and betters the D7000 with its prosumer lenses. (not done the latter comparison with pro lenses)
Clearly, THIS DX camera matches the FX of 'yesterday'....which bettered 35mm film! But is this good enough?
So ....are we at a point where further advancement lifts the image quality into the medium format equivalent domain?
The significance of this thought is that few amateur photographers opted for medium format in the film days. (even fewer worked in plate sizes) These were the realm of serious professionals and obsessive amateurs. (yes I had one LOL)
A feature of using these larger formats was the need for greater precision...given their narrower dof, greater bulk and fewer shots in the back.
Similarly it seems that the increased pixel sensors also require greater precision in technique to capitalise on their IQ. When this ATD happens they probably approach or better medium format film. So it goes on.
With all this in mind, I wonder if the D400 when it arrives WILL be the perfect camera for the huge majority of mainstream users. The quality standard comparable to old FX....without the hassle of precise technique.
Will it be the point where the majority of us say...this is good enough for me?
When I got the D3...that's what I felt.
The D300 wasnt as good ..but I did believe that it was nearly 'there'...sufficiently ahead of its time to become a classic and possibly not be replaced! The 6years it has been top of the DX tree may well be coming to an end...we shall see.
But if Nikon get the specification 'right', it could change me back from an FX to a DX user, fullstop.
The reality of diminishing returns starts to play a bigger part.
Ramble and coffee break over.
Last edited on Tue Oct 22nd, 2013 08:48 by Eric
____________________
Eric