View Single Post
Old 12-12-2008, 10:47 AM   #4
John Craft
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 238

Originally Posted by jdirelan87
Title explains it all.
Does it? What defines 24mm x 36mm as "full frame?" It's certainly not "full frame" to someone who was shooting a Pentax 6x7, or a 4x5 in film times, or with Hasselblad's 36mm x 48mm sensor today.

The photographers that put away their Speed Graphics in favor of the Leica M Series and the Nikon F were criticized for picking such a substandard negative size. And yet, the "35mm" format became the most common by far. One of the reasons was that, despite the theoretical superiority of the larger 4x5 negative, in actual practice the difference wasn't enough to offset the 35mm's advantages in use and flexibility.

Now, granted, we're guys. We like to talk about, brag about, and obsess about the size of our . . . toys. (It's in our jea-- err, genes.) But digital isn't film, and basing your choice of sensor size on a design decision made in occupied Japan for film cameras over 50 years ago makes as much sense as buying a car, or a stereo, based on design decisions made in Detroit when Eisenhower was President. (Edsel, anyone? Fins?)

An FX sensor may be theoretically superior to a DX, but if I printed side-by-side pictures from a D300 and a D700, you probably couldn't tell me which one was "full frame" and which wasn't. (You certainly can't tell at 72ppi or 96ppi on the web.)

If bragging rights and theory is important, get the D700. If results, and images, are more important, go with the D300, and if you want to future-proof your decision, stick to FX lenses.
John Craft is offline   Reply With Quote