DX vs FX and image quality in print

[robbins.photo]

Better equipment can be nice to have, sure - but better equipment does not necessarily mean better photographs if you ignore the most important part of the equation. The most important part of the equation here Hamlet is you.

I fully agree with you. But lets say you are a master canoe paddler and you hear about a new canoe that moves with even less friction through the waters than the current canoe you own. That's all were talking about here. I'm not saying that technology is a substitute for skill, because a master will always out paddle inexperienced people with better boats.

Hamlet, you'll have to forgive me here - but when you start saying things like you should always move closer to your subject for a portrait, it pretty much indicates you are no master photographer. Not that I would lay claim to that title either, mind you - but I think my point here is you're so hung up on the trees you can't see the forest.

I highly recommend you spend a lot more time working with the gear you already have and a lot less time focused on the minutia. I think you would be much better served investing your time in taking portraits yourself, as opposed to all the time you spend "researching" how portraits are taken. In the end there simply is no substitute for experience.

To use your analogy - the master canoe paddler didn't get to be a master by sitting on the shore and reading book after book on the theory of paddling canoes. He got his skill by actually getting out on the water and finding what works for him - all I'm suggesting is that you do the same.

 

[hamlet]

@astro

I gave that example to show that the infusion of experience or skill is irrelevant to this topic, because i already understand the ground rules. However, the camera and the photographer are still independent entities. And Right now we aren't talking about the man behind the viewfinder.

 

[astroNikon]

@astro

I gave that example to show that the infusion of experience or skill is irrelevant to this topic, because i already understand the ground rules. However, the camera and the photographer are still independent entities. And Right now we aren't talking about the man behind the viewfinder.

Then it is SIMPLE

Buy the most expensive and latest and greatest camera out there. And buy ALL the current lenses available as they each offer something different.

Nikon this past several months actually had a sale on that.
This 'Complete Set' of Nikon DSLR Gear Will Only Set You Back $82,700

 

[robbins.photo]

@astro

I gave that example to show that the infusion of experience or skill is irrelevant to this topic, because i already understand the ground rules. However, the camera and the photographer are still independent entities. And Right now we aren't talking about the man behind the viewfinder.

Hamlet, until the man behind the viewfinder understands that he is and always will be the most important part of the equation, no amount of equipment in the world will make on iota of difference. FX, DX, full frame, cropped sensor - none of that will mean squat. I will wish you well in your future endeavors, as this has pretty much become pointless.

 

[hamlet]

Hamlet, you'll have to forgive me here - but when you start saying things like you should always move closer to your subject for a portrait, it pretty much indicates you are no master photographer.

I didn't give you the right context to understand this in. I was simply referring to getting it right in my shot so i don't have to crop, whether this gives me more distortion or not or if it has a nice bokeh are not relevant.

 

[astroNikon]

... as this has pretty much become pointless.

Such as most of his other threads
unfortunately

no one mention Medium Format either .. ;P

 

[480sparky]

I didn't give you the right context to understand this in. I was simply referring to getting it right in my shot so i don't have to crop, whether this gives me more distortion or not or if it has a nice bokeh are not relevant.

So a pretty girl with a nose the size of Manhattan is acceptable as long as the bokeh looks great?

 

[hamlet]

@astro

I gave that example to show that the infusion of experience or skill is irrelevant to this topic, because i already understand the ground rules. However, the camera and the photographer are still independent entities. And Right now we aren't talking about the man behind the viewfinder.

Hamlet, until the man behind the viewfinder understands that he is and always will be the most important part of the equation, no amount of equipment in the world will make on iota of difference. FX, DX, full frame, cropped sensor - none of that will mean squat. I will wish you well in your future endeavors, as this has pretty much become pointless.

I am coming to the same conclusion, but that is my fault entirely i'm not able to make you see things objectively.

 

[astroNikon]

I didn't give you the right context to understand this in. I was simply referring to getting it right in my shot so i don't have to crop, whether this gives me more distortion or not or if it has a nice bokeh are not relevant.

So a pretty girl with a nose the size of Manhattan is acceptable as long as the bokeh looks great?

I thought he meant he wanted to properly get the person the "right size" in the photo irrelevant of everything else.
Which just means .. move up or back to get the photo that you desire .... as the rest of the composition is irrelevant.
ie, a passport photo

 

[amolitor]

hamlet's just trying to fill up on technical details. Nothing particularly wrong with that. Ultimately the individual details are not likely to be particularly relevant, but having a nice thorough background of facts and figures and discussion is helpful for some people. Just knowing a bunch of random stuff can help you synthesize a complete picture and figure out which details you need, which details are relevant to you.

Expecting someone to only ask questions based on whatever you perceive as their current "level" is silly. Insisting that they do is obnoxious.

 

[hamlet]

I didn't give you the right context to understand this in. I was simply referring to getting it right in my shot so i don't have to crop, whether this gives me more distortion or not or if it has a nice bokeh are not relevant.

So a pretty girl with a nose the size of Manhattan is acceptable as long as the bokeh looks great?

For the sake of this thought experiment it is. But who are you to knock surréalisme?

 

[480sparky]

For the sake of this thought experiment it is. But who are you to knock surréalisme?

Surrealism is one thing, and if that's the effect you're after from the start, that's fine. But if said pretty girl is paying me for a head shot so she can use it to advance her modeling career, I'm gonna make sure her nose doesn't look like it's the size of Manhattan, bokeh be damned. However, one should have the skill to create a basic model's head shot that is free of distortion and great bokeh.

Accepting 'surrealism' in post because I lack the skill to produce what I'm being commissioned to create, and proclaiming it 'artistic', is simply a definition of failure.

 

[hamlet]

For the sake of this thought experiment it is. But who are you to knock surréalisme?

Surrealism is one thing, and if that's the effect you're after from the start, that's fine. But if said pretty girl is paying me for a head shot so she can use it to advance her modeling career, I'm gonna make sure her nose doesn't look like it's the size of Manhattan, bokeh be damned. However, one should have the skill to create a basic model's head shot that is free of distortion and great bokeh.

Accepting 'surrealism' in post because I lack the skill to produce what I'm being commissioned to create, and proclaiming it 'artistic', is simply a definition of failure.

I'm glad you aren't close minded, But that is a whole other can of worms i don't want to get into right now.

 

[hamlet]

I don't disagree with most of what has been said by many, but i need a FX body in order to go forth and actuate! Or someone who has done extensive study in their inherent differences. That is what it boils down to.

 

[SCraig]

I don't disagree with most of what has been said by many, but i need a FX body in order to go forth and actuate! Or someone who has done extensive study in their inherent differences. That is what it boils down to.

No! You don't! That is what people have been trying to tell you. There is an untold number of people shooting with DX cameras who have no urge whatsoever to get an FX camera. I'm one of them. I'm perfectly content shooting a DX camera and have no desire at all to downgrade to an FX camera. There is an untold number of people shooting with point-and-shoot cameras that don't even know FX cameras exist, and most of them are perfectly happy with what they have. Use what you have. LEARN to use what you have and you'll realize how minor the difference really are.