full censor vs a crop sensor is their a $1500.00 difference

[Derrel]

Do you think they will proceed with a aps-c pro line?

Maybe, maybe not. The D2 series (two basic models, high-speed "H" series, and high-resolution "x" series, 4 total iterations) were the last "professional", meaning flagship-level Nikon models designed and sold. Beginning in 2007, Nikon went to full-frame sensors in all of its higher-end bodies. While the D200 and D300 are capable of being used by professionals, and MANY Nikon professionals use those cameras to leverage certain lenses (mostly telephotos for long-range work where higher pixel density is an advantage, not a handicap), it remains unclear if Nikon will make another APS-C camera that has the flagship-level features of their D1,D2,or D3 series cameras; meaning, the round eyepiece that takes threaded eyepiece accessories and offers a better view than the consumer cams with their rectangular eyepiece; the much faster shutter lag times, the faster mirror return times, the high-torque in-body AF motor, the most-sophisticated AF and metering system, and the most dedicated, external, single-function controls, built-in sealed grip, and the heavier weight to balance better with the pro-sized Nikkor lenses. I can see that, as sensors get better and better, and as electronics get better and better, that Nikon might simply decide to do what they have been doing for a while, and offering additional, and maybe different In-Camera cropping and capture options. Currently the D3 series offers three capture sizes: FX 24x36mm , 5:4 (30x24mm), and DX size (16x24mm) capture.

In the D2x and D2Xs models, the normal size shot was a DX of 1.5x, but there was also a 2.0x High-Speed Crop FOV option available with one button press. I can envision Nikon deciding to keep all of its high-end d-slrs FX format, while offering the option of smaller capture areas, since it's pretty easy to do, and has already been proven to work quite well over the last almost seven years in multiple Nikon pro-level bodies.

 

[KmH]

I think this is why Nikon dropped the double digit series(d90, d80, etc).
Soon you will be able to look at their lineup and it will be pretty straight forward.

Dx
Dxxx
dxxxx

Well, in the prosumer lineup they went D100, D200, D300 in APS-C and D700 in full frame.

So they are now limited to D400, D500, D600 in APS-C and D800 and D900 in full frame. Where do they go after that? A D10000 APS-C and a D50000 full frame?

Otherwise they have to do something else, unless they start going D301, D302, D303.... D701, D702, etc.

In the entry-level they have already established precendent when they used the D3000/D3100, D5000/D5100, and D7000, which following their convention, so far, will be replaced by the D7100 at some later date.

Do you think they will proceed with a aps-c pro line?

No. they have already been there and done that with their first pro DSLR's the D1 and D2 series.

 

[molested_cow]

Thought it will be cool to have movable sensors in cameras. What I mean is, a FF sensor move forward towards the lens to achieve a "crop" without losing image quality. The light will focus differently, and the AF system will need quite a bit of work to make it happen, but you will get the best of both worlds.

 

[Derrel]

Thought it will be cool to have movable sensors in cameras. What I mean is, a FF sensor move forward towards the lens to achieve a "crop" without losing image quality. The light will focus differently, and the AF system will need quite a bit of work to make it happen, but you will get the best of both worlds.

Wait,wait,wait....that's not how that works!! The flange-to-film distance for each lens mount must always be the same, no matter the size of the capture area, if you are going to use the same lenses. That is why the Nikon DX lenses work on both DX bodies and FX bodies. To get a smaller capture area, the sensor stays in the same,exact place,and the same EXACT distance from the lens mounting flange, and the outer, peripheral pixels are simply not utilized to make the image capture...

 

[molested_cow]

Yeah I realized this when i walked away from the computer while taking a dump in the bath room.... obviously I have no idea what I am talking about

I think this whole crop sensor thingy is just a conspiracy for the camera companies to "tier" their price points. I wonder how much more will it cost for them to put a full frame sensor into say a D5100 type of body and features.

 

[Gaerek]

I can actually think of ONE scenario where you could argue crop-sensor would be better. Can you? I'm pretty sure you're just blustering without any goddamned clue what the hell you're talking about. Prove me wrong.

I know, not directed at me, but I have a buddy who shoots wildlife. His primary camera is a 7d. If you ask him why, his response: "It's like a built in 1.6x telephoto converter that doesn't add any weight, allows me to haul around one less piece of gear, lets me use full resolution, and lets me use max aperture."

DUDE. You weren't supposed to give him the answer!

I just had to poke this guy for letting the blow-hard off easy.

Sorry! Couldn't help myself seeing that question hanging there, and even having anecdote to fill it. I can tell you, that I understand that for essentially any use, FF is going to be better. And really, there's plenty of wildlife/bird photogs out there that shoot FF (Scott Bourne comes to mind, off hand). So unless you have a reason for having that extra reach, and money not being an object, there's no reason not to move up to FF.

 

[Gaerek]

Yeah I realized this when i walked away from the computer while taking a dump in the bath room.... obviously I have no idea what I am talking about

I think this whole crop sensor thingy is just a conspiracy for the camera companies to "tier" their price points. I wonder how much more will it cost for them to put a full frame sensor into say a D5100 type of body and features.

Full frame is expensive right now. That's why they still sell cropped sensors. Drop a FF in a 5100 and you go from an $800 camera to at least (no proof of this, but seems very reasonable given FF camera prices, and used FF prices) $1500, if not more. A beginner who's just seeing if photography is his thing is going to be hard pressed to come up with $800, let alone $1500.

I imagine in 5-10 years, the number of cropped sensor DSLR's available will drop. I bet you're likely to soon see only entry level cameras (Rebels, and DX000's) with cropped sensors. Everything else will be FF. Of course, this is all speculation.

 

[Netskimmer]

Yeah I realized this when i walked away from the computer while taking a dump in the bath room....

I find a good dump usually clears out the mind. :mrgreen:

 

[jake337]

Well, in the prosumer lineup they went D100, D200, D300 in APS-C and D700 in full frame.

So they are now limited to D400, D500, D600 in APS-C and D800 and D900 in full frame. Where do they go after that? A D10000 APS-C and a D50000 full frame?

Otherwise they have to do something else, unless they start going D301, D302, D303.... D701, D702, etc.

In the entry-level they have already established precendent when they used the D3000/D3100, D5000/D5100, and D7000, which following their convention, so far, will be replaced by the D7100 at some later date.

Do you think they will proceed with a aps-c pro line?

No. they have already been there and done that with their first pro DSLR's the D1 and D2 series.

Sorry, I thought the d300 was grouped in there.

 

[usayit]

I think this whole crop sensor thingy is just a conspiracy for the camera companies to "tier" their price points. I wonder how much more will it cost for them to put a full frame sensor into say a D5100 type of body and features.

Number of sensors that can be created from a single silicon wafer is a major reason.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon D300s SLR Digital Camera (Body Only) 25464 B&H Photo Video


Nikon D300s $1599 at B&H, $1699 at many other locations


Nikon D700 $2699 at Adorama


Nikon D700 $2149 refurbished, direct from Nikon, USA web site


So, a price premium of between $550 and $1,100 for a "roughly comparable" FX Nikon body compared to a Nikon D300s.

Not a $1,500 difference.

 

[JClishe]

I can actually think of ONE scenario where you could argue crop-sensor would be better. Can you? I'm pretty sure you're just blustering without any goddamned clue what the hell you're talking about. Prove me wrong.

I know, not directed at me, but I have a buddy who shoots wildlife. His primary camera is a 7d. If you ask him why, his response: "It's like a built in 1.6x telephoto converter that doesn't add any weight, allows me to haul around one less piece of gear, lets me use full resolution, and lets me use max aperture."

DUDE. You weren't supposed to give him the answer!

Camz and Over- I'll respond to your stuff tonight. I'm late and gotta go home, but loving the discourse. I just had to poke this guy for letting the blow-hard off easy.

Ha! That was seriously the answer you were looking for? I literally spent time Bing'ing this question today, thinking that you were looking for some obscure factoid about how the field of view of crop sensors has a different affect on vertical lines when shooting architecture. I'm just making that up, but I figured you had some kind of crazy, obscure answer like that in mind. And to be honest, it seems like I vaguely recall Bryan Peterson mentioning some weird fact about crop sensors that I had never heard before in his Understanding Photography Field Guide, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly what it was. So yeah, I was hoping this question would go away.

But yeah, I'm well of aware of how a crop sensor affects reach, no one "let me off easy". If you read my original reply in this thread you'll see that I even specifically mentioned a sports photographers preference of a 1D MKIV over a 1Ds MK3. Not only will a crop sensor give you greater reach, but they burst significantly faster than full frame bodies (in Canons line anyway; I admit that I don't know how crop Vs ff FPS compares in other manufacturers' bodies).

 

[Ginu]

@the OP - in your case it costs quite a bit more than 1500$ to upgrade to FF due to your lens lineup... so I don't think it makes sense to move unless you got the lens to go with FF.


@the rest of the debaters, its funny to see the whole Canon vs Nikon thing... keep it coming, its quite entertaining and educational...

I'm glad I picked Nikon though

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I don't know this guy but on a google search (why didn't Op search) his info with illustrations and charts sure helped me understand.

And one of the main points for me is depth of field is better on the crop job so this may be better for landscapes and such but worse for portaits. Maybe he's off his rocker though again I don't know the source.

Crop Sensor (APS-C) Cameras and Lens Confusion

 

[BadPictures]

Gosh. This is my third post here, and I'm going to wade into this very heated discussion and take a wack at answering the OP's question. So umm... here goes.... Full frame is better but more expensive. So let your wallet decide.

Seriously, though. It seems like that is more or less what it comes down to. If you are not happy with what you have, and have the money to upgrade, regardless of whether you really understand all the benefits you might garner.... go ahead and do it. If you do not, then do not. Or if you have to sell your kids into slavery to do it, yeah, don't do that either. You could sell some puppies, though. That'd be okay.