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



## RumDaddy (Jun 20, 2011)

Im debating on exchanging/upgrading my new 60d to a 5d mark II. What are the benifits of a full sensor camera compared to a crop sensor and is it worth the extra $1500.00.


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 20, 2011)

To some...yes.  To others...no.

Keep in mind that you may need to upgrade your lenses as well.  EF-S or other lenses made for crop sensors won't be useful with a full frame body.


----------



## SabrinaO (Jun 20, 2011)

Is that really the price difference????


----------



## RumDaddy (Jun 20, 2011)

5 or my 6 lenses are EF-S. The other one my new favorite. Works just fine on my 50D and Ill be keeping that as a back up. 

SabrinaO 60D is $999.00 5d markii is $2500.00.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 20, 2011)

Is it worth it?

I dunno. Do you sell your images?


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 20, 2011)

IMHO, if you're making money off of your images then it's definitely worth the investment because your reputation will be on the line (at least on the technical part).  You want the pictures to have the best quality possible, full frame body and top of the line lenses.  So to me, it is not worth it as I don't make money off of my images enough to justify the price difference in lenses and body.


----------



## RumDaddy (Jun 20, 2011)

I dont sell my images but I do sell my services and get paid to shoot.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 20, 2011)

Too bad you bought Canon, whose EF-S lenses will not even MOUNT on their FF bodies...Nikon's FX bodies WILL mount and WILL shoot the Nikkor DX lenses, either at reduced megapixel count, OR with almost full-frame coverage in the 4:5 aspect ratio on the D3 series bodies...as Nikon showed, there is no real reason that a reduced-circle lens must be made so that it will mount ONLY on crop-frame bodies....as Nikon proved, a reduced-circle lens can easily be made so that it works on ANY camera body currently made...

As to the worth of a 5D-II with a $389 EOS Elan body paired with a $2,000 sensor....hmmm....the sub-systems (simplified extremely centrally-weighted autofocusing, color-blind metering, no built-in flash, no flash commander, slow FPS, poor light meter readouts for use in bright light) ehhhhh....I can see how many people do not see the value proposition in the 5D series. It's another matter entirely if you're looking at a Nikon D700 at the SAME price as the Canon 5D-II....there you're getting a camera with a full-bore professional autofocusing system, color-aware light metering for both daylight and flash, built-in flash, built-in flash commander system, faster FPS, and a rugged pro-type camera body, not a consumer body that has had a good sensor dropped into it. If you're looking for the lowest-cost, highest megapixel full frame d-slr, the SOny A900 and A850 are the lowest cost AND the highest MP models currently on the market, and are actually pretty nice cameras, with good viewfinders, and actually quite nice ergonomics and 'feel'.

The value of a FF camera depends on what you need it for, and to an extent, on which camera maker you buy it from. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are all selling very different types of FF d-slrs at the $1899-$2600 price points. FOr people photography, I prefer the "look" of shallower depth of field, and the way FF allows me to use traditional focal lengths, in traditional locations, to get the kind of background control that is a total PITA to achieve with a crop-body camera.


----------



## DisasterDan (Jun 20, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Too bad you bought Canon, whose EF-S lenses will not even MOUNT on their FF bodies...Nikon's FX bodies WILL mount and WILL shoot the Nikkor DX lenses, either at reduced megapixel count, OR with almost full-frame coverage in the 4:5 aspect ratio on the D3 series bodies...as Nikon showed, there is no real reason that a reduced-circle lens must be made so that it will mount ONLY on crop-frame bodies....as Nikon proved, a reduced-circle lens can easily be made so that it works on ANY camera body currently made...
> 
> As to the worth of a 5D-II with a $389 EOS Elan body paired with a $2,000 sensor....hmmm....the sub-systems (simplified extremely centrally-weighted autofocusing, color-blind metering, no built-in flash, no flash commander, slow FPS, poor light meter readouts for use in bright light) ehhhhh....I can see how many people do not see the value proposition in the 5D series. It's another matter entirely if you're looking at a Nikon D700 at the SAME price as the Canon 5D-II....there you're getting a camera with a full-bore professional autofocusing system, color-aware light metering for both daylight and flash, built-in flash, built-in flash commander system, faster FPS, and a rugged pro-type camera body, not a consumer body that has had a good sensor dropped into it.


Things like this make me want to just sell all my equipment and go with nikon :er:


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 20, 2011)

I have Nikon but never realized canon lens aren't interchangeable.


----------



## usayit (Jun 20, 2011)

Such a subjective question it is impossible to answer.

It is to some and not to others.

For me, going from 1.33x to FF was worth it... because the focal lengths and their FOV on 135 film was ingrained into my mind from way back in the film days.  I want my 50mm to look like the 50mm I remember.


----------



## johnh2005 (Jun 20, 2011)

uh oh, Canon vs. Nikon





And, NO, I will not share.  I think this is going to turn EPIC...  I am talking Lord of the Rings epic.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 20, 2011)

The 5Dmk2 must be really bad, shame it is the most popular wedding camera in the UK


----------



## usayit (Jun 20, 2011)

johnh2005 said:


> uh oh, Canon vs. Nikon
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can almost cut and past Derrel's response in every Canon thread....  lol


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 20, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Too bad you bought Canon, whose EF-S lenses will not even MOUNT on their FF bodies...Nikon's FX bodies WILL mount and WILL shoot the Nikkor DX lenses, either at reduced megapixel count, OR with almost full-frame coverage in the 4:5 aspect ratio on the D3 series bodies...as Nikon showed, there is no real reason that a reduced-circle lens must be made so that it will mount ONLY on crop-frame bodies....as Nikon proved, a reduced-circle lens can easily be made so that it works on ANY camera body currently made...
> 
> As to the worth of a 5D-II with a $389 EOS Elan body paired with a $2,000 sensor....hmmm....the sub-systems (simplified extremely centrally-weighted autofocusing, color-blind metering, no built-in flash, no flash commander, slow FPS, poor light meter readouts for use in bright light) ehhhhh....I can see how many people do not see the value proposition in the 5D series. It's another matter entirely if you're looking at a Nikon D700 at the SAME price as the Canon 5D-II....there you're getting a camera with a full-bore professional autofocusing system, color-aware light metering for both daylight and flash, built-in flash, built-in flash commander system, faster FPS, and a rugged pro-type camera body, not a consumer body that has had a good sensor dropped into it. If you're looking for the lowest-cost, highest megapixel full frame d-slr, the SOny A900 and A850 are the lowest cost AND the highest MP models currently on the market, and are actually pretty nice cameras, with good viewfinders, and actually quite nice ergonomics and 'feel'.
> 
> The value of a FF camera depends on what you need it for, and to an extent, on which camera maker you buy it from. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are all selling very different types of FF d-slrs at the $1899-$2600 price points. FOr people photography, I prefer the "look" of shallower depth of field, and the way FF allows me to use traditional focal lengths, in traditional locations, to get the kind of background control that is a total PITA to achieve with a crop-body camera.



Yeah, how the **** do all those professional wedding photogs get such great images out of 5D2's? Jeeze. :meh:


----------



## kundalini (Jun 20, 2011)

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


I have both in Nikon flavor plus a Canon 35mm film camera.  I wanted it, I got it and I like it.  I don't make any money off the stuff I shoot, just an enthusiatic hobbyist with good taste.

If you want it and get it, you _should_ like it also.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 20, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Yeah, how the **** do all those professional wedding photogs get such great images out of 5D2's? Jeeze. :meh:



Extensive photoshopping.


----------



## Geaux (Jun 20, 2011)

Not sure if there is a 1500 worth difference. What I do know though, is a difference between "there" and "their"


----------



## Gaerek (Jun 20, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Yeah, how the **** do all those professional wedding photogs get such great images out of 5D2's? Jeeze. :meh:



Duh, they're not. Obviously, they're all actually shooting Nikon, painting their black lenses white (to fake everyone out) and using an EXIF editor to make it look like the shot they took with a D700 is really from a 5dmkii. I thought every professional photographer knew that.

Derrel says 5dmkii sucks, so it MUST be true.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 20, 2011)

I don't think anybody thinks the 5d series are horrible, but I do think most people can acknowledge that Canon doesn't have a direct competitor to the D700.  It is basically a smaller, lighter version of their flagship model for around $2300.  Canon hasn't made anything close to their 1Ds Mark III series anywhere near that affordable.  This isn't a Canon vs Nikon thing.  I am sure a lot of Canon users would be thrilled at 1Ds performance for around $2300.  Nikon just happened to make it available...about 4 years ago.


----------



## Gaerek (Jun 20, 2011)

I won't reply again, just because this thread's been derailed enough, but I will make a couple final comments. Reading Derrel's post makes it sound like the 5d-II is a Rebel in a metal body. Which simply isn't the case. When someone can start showing me photos, and without looking at EXIF definitively tell me a photo was taken with a Canon or a Nikon, then maybe all of the nitpicking about camera companies would actually make sense. As it is, no one can do that. Shoot what works for you. To most shooters, the difference between shooting equivalent models, across brands is negligible, especially when you factor out familiarity with a particular brand's control layout. Does Nikon make a better product? I don't know from experience, but most review's, tests, etc, seem to point to that being the case. Does that mean Canon makes a bad product? Absolutely not. Shoot what you like, and have fun. Forget about the Ford/Che, errr, Coke/Pep, I mean, Nikon/Canon debate.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 20, 2011)

Well, interestingly enough, this is one of the few threads where the Nikon vs Canon vs expectations vs value actually matters.  The OP has a large investment in Canon gear, but 5 out of his 6 lenses cannot continue up the Canon upgrade path.  The OP is at a crossroads, and needs to make a decision as to whether to drop the full frame aspirations and stick with his initial investment, or look at selling some of his gear that is unusable at the next level.  If the OP decides to start selling gear, then it is relevant as to whether or not he sticks with Canon or moves to Nikon, or Sony, or Pentax....

P.S.  I was just kidding about Pentax.:smileys:


----------



## flea77 (Jun 20, 2011)

gsgary said:


> The 5Dmk2 must be really bad, shame it is the most popular wedding camera in the UK



I sincerely doubt that. I would be willing to bet good money that disposable film cameras have taken far more wedding pictures than the 5Dmk2, by a massive amount. Next step down is some digital P&S, then way way way down is the 5Dmk2. Now you may have meant current model pro wedding camera, in which case I would love to see where you get your statistics (links would be nice).

Allan


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 20, 2011)

To the OP: It depends on what you like to shoot and whether or not you plan on making money ( or have money to burn ) Personally I shoot a 7D because I like the crop factor for more reach from lenses and a faster frame rate for birds and sports.




Derrel said:


> Too bad you bought Canon, whose EF-S lenses will not even MOUNT on their FF bodies...Nikon's FX bodies WILL mount and WILL shoot the Nikkor DX lenses, either at reduced megapixel count, OR with almost full-frame coverage in the 4:5 aspect ratio on the D3 series bodies...as Nikon showed, there is no real reason that a reduced-circle lens must be made so that it will mount ONLY on crop-frame bodies....as Nikon proved, a reduced-circle lens can easily be made so that it works on ANY camera body currently made...
> 
> As to the worth of a 5D-II with a $389 EOS Elan body paired with a $2,000 sensor....hmmm....the sub-systems (simplified extremely centrally-weighted autofocusing, color-blind metering, no built-in flash, no flash commander, slow FPS, poor light meter readouts for use in bright light) ehhhhh....I can see how many people do not see the value proposition in the 5D series. It's another matter entirely if you're looking at a Nikon D700 at the SAME price as the Canon 5D-II....there you're getting a camera with a full-bore professional autofocusing system, color-aware light metering for both daylight and flash, built-in flash, built-in flash commander system, faster FPS, and a rugged pro-type camera body, not a consumer body that has had a good sensor dropped into it. If you're looking for the lowest-cost, highest megapixel full frame d-slr, the SOny A900 and A850 are the lowest cost AND the highest MP models currently on the market, and are actually pretty nice cameras, with good viewfinders, and actually quite nice ergonomics and 'feel'.
> 
> The value of a FF camera depends on what you need it for, and to an extent, on which camera maker you buy it from. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are all selling very different types of FF d-slrs at the $1899-$2600 price points. FOr people photography, I prefer the "look" of shallower depth of field, and the way FF allows me to use traditional focal lengths, in traditional locations, to get the kind of background control that is a total PITA to achieve with a crop-body camera.



Genius, so let me get this straight....you dump +$2000K into a camera body with high rez and high megapixels and then essentially crop it with a DX lens because the mount fits? Canon didn't bother doing that, because most Canon shooters aren't morons.:lmao:


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 20, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Genius, so let me get this straight....you dump +$2000K into a camera body with high rez and high megapixels and then essentially crop it with a DX lens because the mount fits? Canon didn't bother doing that, because most Canon shooters aren't morons.:lmao:



Just because you can do it, doesn't mean that it's logical to do it or people will do it at all.  However, the option is there when absolutely necessary.  People like to have options, that's why we get DSLR's because of the many options.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 20, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Genius, so let me get this straight....you dump +$2000K into a camera body with high rez and high megapixels and then essentially crop it with a DX lens because the mount fits? Canon didn't bother doing that, because most Canon shooters aren't morons.:lmao:



Look on flikr for D700 and 35mm 1.8.  There are some absolutely stunning shots that wouldn't have been possible with Canon gear.  Especially, since EVERY photographer seems to think it is en vogue to add vignette to their photos anyway...using a DX lens on an FX camera just saves time in post processing...best of both worlds. ;-)


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 20, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Genius, so let me get this straight....you dump +$2000K into a camera body with high rez and high megapixels and then essentially crop it with a DX lens because the mount fits? Canon didn't bother doing that, because most Canon shooters aren't morons.:lmao:
> ...



Why wouldn't the shots  be possible on a full frame Canon with the 35mm f/1.4L? You'd be able to print them larger than 11x14.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 20, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> ...



You kind of missed the point.  For one, I was half-joking.  For another, we were discussing lenses that don't even mount to a full frame Canon since Canon decided to use a separate mount for their full frame cameras.

Canon deliberately made a separation between their lines.  Once you get to a certain point, your old Canon lenses won't even mount to the current Canons.  I appreciate Nikon's backwards compatibility...even at reduced function.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 20, 2011)

Yeah, how the **** do all those professional wedding photogs get such great images out of 5D2's? Jeeze. :meh:[/QUOTE]

Kind of amusing that you should ask that...a few months back there was a professional wedding shooter posting shots here. He had some BEAUTIFUL shots of a really pretty bride, posed inside of a nice wedding area, a large room, with a very grand fireplace behind, and lots of opulent wall decorations, etc.etc. An "upscale wedding venue". His static bridal portraits looked GREAT here, on PF, so I went to Flickr. I downloaded some of his large-sized JPEG images....know what??? MANY of them were OUT OF FOCUS!!!! Eyes missed...focus OFF...looked fine when shrunk down and plastered on the web, but POSED bridal portraits, with bad focus from his Canon 5D Mark II.

Anyway, Tyler, if you have never used a PROFESSIONAL-level d-slr, like a Nikon D1, D2, or D3 series, then you cannot possibly understand how weak and feeble the Canon 5Ds AF system is under demanding conditions, or with slower-aperture lenses...if you've never used, and owned, a PROFESSIONAL-level (read $5,000 body) Nikon, or a Canon 1-series $4,500 body, then you really are just talking out of your ass. And once again, you're talking out of your ass...with zero actual experience with TOP-level gear. I do not think you have any idea of what the difference is between salmon fishing and trout fishing, either. Nor between riding a bicycle, and riding a 1,000 cc touring motorcycle. Even though both trout fishing, and bicycling involve A)catching fish and B)getting from one place to another, the actual DIFFERENCES between salmon fishing and motorcycling and their pedestrian counterparts is staggering. Boy versus man, one might say.

I find it amusing to see the 5D defenders get their panties in a bunch....hell, I own a Canon 5D...I shoot it a lot...it's got a WEAK autofocusing system with an f/4 lens like the 24-105-L....the Nikon D2x by comparison, has a much,much,much stronger AF motor in the body, as well as a much better AF "system" as a whole,even when the lens is a slow-aperture consumer lens. The 5D is capable of taking good photos with a skilled operator, but it also has a very POOR AF system for leveraging off-center focus point with wide-aperture lenses, which is something that the flagship-level Canons and Nikons all can do much,much better. I've had my salmon fishing partners use my 5D,and it will fail miserably without a very skilled operator behind the eyepiece; that is not the case with a much more powerful, "smarter" camera that has color-aware light metering, and a wide-area AF system that uses red-green-blue color measurements to track focus,and can differentiate skin tone from background, and can tell the difference between sky, seawater, and white boats. Again, Tyler, let me say that until one has actually owned a flagship-level camera, the crudeness of the 5D and its sub-systems is not apparent from one's own, personal experience with consumer-level gear. In your case, maybe we could compare the 5D to naturally growing "ditchweed" selling for $40 an ounce, as opposed to some kind of purple-haired, resin-oozing sensimilla selling for $100 a gram. Maybe that analogy will make it more clear to you. You can get high off of ditchweed, if you smoke 5 joints of it, or.....go for the high-end...


----------



## iNick (Jun 20, 2011)

"LOUD NOISES!!!!!!"


----------



## Derrel (Jun 20, 2011)

Here's a good example of the kind of gorgeous, shallow depth of field, lovely color images that full-frame Nikon 12 MP cameras and Nikon's 12-24 24-70 and 70-200 zoom lenses create. Perhaps two of the world's best candid, photojournalistic wedding shooters, a man,and his grown daughter, turn out wedding after wedding with full-frame Nikons and three of the absolute best modern zoom lenses, all of which demonstrate the superiority of full-frame d-slr's over crop-body cameras.

Menin


----------



## kundalini (Jun 20, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Genius, so let me get this straight....you dump +$2000K into a camera body with high rez and high megapixels and then essentially crop it with a DX lens because the mount fits? Canon didn't bother doing that, because most Canon shooters aren't morons.:lmao:


It's an option we are afforded.  Which means you upgrade the glass at a slower pace, allowing you time for researsh for the next correct lens, but still being able shoot with something.  No doubt, Canon doesn't like you as much.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 20, 2011)

Sorry GooniesNeverSayDie, but it is possible to shoot the D3,D3s,or D3x with, say, the DX 35mm f/1.8 AF-S lens using those bodies' built-in 4:5 (you know 4 to 5, or 8x10 inch enlargement...) framing options, and pretty much fill up almost the entire 4 to 5 aspect ratio at almost full megapixel count. AS WELL AS using the camera in DX crop mode with DX lenses,at reduced pixel capture size. With some of the other Nikon's like the D2x, for example, you get a 1.5x APS-C framing at 5 frames per second in normal operation, and then at the press of a programmable function button (one of two, actually, including the dedicated FUNC. button you can press with the camera held up to your eye with your unoccupied middle finger, you press the FUNC. button and if it is programmed to High-Speed Crop mode, the camera instantly shifts to 8.2 frames per second firing rate at 5.8 megapixel capture and 2.0x Field of view crop factor, which means you can use your 200mm f/2 as a 400mm angle of view lens, or use your 300/2.8 as a 600mm f/2.8 lens.

Please, don't even TRY to defend Canon's idiotic EF-S or EF SHORT back-focus engineering....it is a deliberate effort to screw over their customers...Nikon engineered a way around the issue with a bnetter solution, AND more features, like a body that offers users multiple capture aspect ratios using either FX or DX lenses....Sorry goonies, but the morons are Canon engineers...but then again, Canon has never had problems screwing over its existing users by introducing a new lens mount!!!


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 21, 2011)

That's funny Derell. For having such a weak AF system, I get a lot of shots in focus. Must be a fluke. Or maybe I just know how to use my camera? Yeah, that's probably it.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 21, 2011)

I dont care about brand, I shoot with a crop camera (quite a good one I think). To the OP, judging by photographs i have seen printed (not on a screen at 400% crop blah) FF cameras seem to give better quality prints. This is of course subject to the photographers ability. Friends that have both and are pro photograhers will use their FF most opportunities, using the crop cameras as back ups or for leisurly shooting.

The drawback of FF seems to be the cost and size of gear, and also unless you put lots of money in (possibly lots more than 1500),they seem to be slower relative to cropped sensors due to size of files used etc, (not always I know some brands dont really do the mega pixel race as much as others) but if out and out picture quality is what you require, bigger sensor seems better, but crop cameras give a lot for the smaller outlay. I think you have to be a good photographer to get the benefit of a FF camera also. (I personally probably couldnt do any better with one than the camera I have)


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2011)

Derrel, why must every Canon thread degrade into your rants?

Really?

A simple, I don't like Canon will suffice....  Or how about just links to your previous posts  (there's enough to search on).

Let the Canon folk enjoy their cameras and equipment without having to endure your rants.  Last time I check, this wasn't the TheNikonForum.  Any Canon guy should be able to start a thread without your attempts to degrade it to a "Nikon vs Canon" thread... correction a "Canon sucks thread".


Its well past childish... now.  Judging from your avatar, you are way too old er.. mature for this.



I feel like I'm stuck watching reruns on a crappy channel.


----------



## Overread (Jun 21, 2011)

Derrel said:


> .Sorry goonies, but the morons are Canon marketing department...but then again, Canon has never had problems screwing over its existing users by introducing a new lens mount!!!



I corrected your mistake 
Also don't Nikon mess up their shooters with that whole AF motor thing? I think Big Mike said it - Canon found a way to annoy everyone in 198something when they shifted to the EF mount -and Nikon found a way to annoy everyone till today with the AF motors thingy


----------



## manaheim (Jun 21, 2011)

So going back to the original question...

Purchases in camera gear are always about capability, diminishing returns and budget.  Generally speaking, any device that costs more in the world of cameras, is going to be more capable (and I include quality in capability).  

The thing to understand is that to get a relatively small increase in capability over any given level, you are going to get very quickly into exponential cost increases for a relatively small gain.  For example... compare an Nikkor 80-200 2.8 to a Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR2.  In some respects, essentially the same lens... both excellent quality... nearly identical focusing length... both constant 2.8 aperture.  However, the VR2 focuses faster, has the latest VR and has slightly better optical quality (I would say noticably so, but the 80-200 2.8 is still excellent).  Difference in price?  $1000 vs $2500.  2.5x the cost.

The last, but arguably most important bit is budget... assuming you want to have good gear, you essentially need to spend as much as you are willing to spend to get it.  Does this mean you blow your entire wad on one lens or one camera?  Not necessarily.  In OP's case, sounds like if you went out and spent ALL your money on a FF camera, you'd be hosed because none of your lenses would handle it.  You have to decide how much money you have available, both now and in the future, and come up with a budget plan that  gets you there.

For example, I shoot Nikon.  I have a D300 and at one point I had about $3K available in my photography fund.  I had ONE full frame lens... a 24-70 2.8... but really wanted a full frame camera.  I figured "Well, If I bought a D700 now, I really would only have ONE lens to use it with, and that lens would effectively become a wide angle one, making it generally a bit less useful than it is to me now... so probably the smart thing for me to do is to purchase the 70-200 2.8 VR2 now, then save up and wait for the D800 to hit... then I will have two VERY good FF lenses and one very nice FF camera to go with it."  That was essentially my budget/purchase plan, and I am basically now just waiting for the D800 to hit.

All of these things are very personal decisions that you need to make for yourself, but in the end... again... more money generally means better gear, so in the end if you're serious about this then you're going to want to try to sink some real money into it because it does make a difference.


----------



## ausemmao (Jun 21, 2011)

FF gets you twice the SNR at a given sensor tech, because of hysics:. Subtracting losses due to sensor area covered by ADCs and readout hardware, you will get a stop or so extra high ISO. 

You get a bit less apparent depth of field due to the reduced magnification, and lens performance varies (often more vignetting and worse corner sharpness, but better overall resolution) again hysics:

That's basically it from a sensor perspective. The bodies they're housed in may get you more (though in the case of a D300/probable D400, it isn't much and will likely be even less). How much it's worth depends on how much you have and what you need. For me, it isn't and likely won't be until I'm a fat cat with my own caribbean island (I may be exaggerating slightly). But a 70-200 was. For someone else, a 70-200 means nothing, where the FF stuff is what they want.

Others may justify their purchases with 'FF magic' or some other tripe. Let them, it makes them happy. Doesn't make it true though.

The 5D II has terrible autofocus compared to the D700, fine. But if you don't need the complex autofocus, that's a lot of useless hardware. On the other hand, the 5dII gets you gobs of resolution. If you don't need that, it's a lot of useless hardware. 

Some people get themselves emotionally invested in the technology and equipment rather than output, some exclusively in output, some mix both. Understand yourself and where you fall along that line, you will be much happier for it. FWIW, I mix both. I'm an engineering nerd, but I like pretty things :mrgreen:


----------



## manaheim (Jun 21, 2011)

ausemmao said:


> FF gets you twice the SNR at a given sensor tech, because of hysics:. Subtracting losses due to sensor area covered by ADCs and readout hardware, you will get a stop or so extra high ISO.
> 
> You get a bit less apparent depth of field due to the reduced magnification, and lens performance varies (often more vignetting and worse corner sharpness, but better overall resolution) again hysics:
> 
> ...


'

You're forgetting better color representation, generally better high ISO performance, etc.


----------



## ausemmao (Jun 21, 2011)

manaheim said:


> ausemmao said:
> 
> 
> > FF gets you twice the SNR at a given sensor tech, because of hysics:. Subtracting losses due to sensor area covered by ADCs and readout hardware, you will get a stop or so extra high ISO.
> ...



Does nobody read a post around here? :meh:



			
				me said:
			
		

> FF gets you twice the SNR *at a given sensor tech*, because of hysics:.  Subtracting losses due to sensor area covered by ADCs and readout  hardware, you will get *a stop or so extra high ISO*.



Better colour representation isn't a function of the size of the sensor, except inasmuch as SNR is improved. This is one of the wonderful things about signal processing and optics - there are some things that are esoteric and weird, but most things aren't. Sadly most people wouldn't know what impulse responses or deconvolution actually are so misinformation reigns supreme. 

You will not be able to tell whether a properly shot and presented image is from a full frame or crop sensor unless it specifically invokes one of the main differences, and even then you often wouldn't be able to tell. 

That of course is notwithstanding the minor detail that if your first thought on seeing a given image is "what" rather than "why" or "how", the photographer has failed, in my opinion.

What would be in that 'etc'?


----------



## RumDaddy (Jun 21, 2011)

WOW DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA. Sorry I have no time for it. Thank you Mr. Canon hater for hijacking my thread. Before someone gets the idea to poke fun at me for my  lack of photography know how. Keep in mind this is a beginners photography forum. FYI! The original topic was whats the benefit to a FF camera over a cropped sensor camera? Not Canon vs Nikon.


----------



## jritz (Jun 21, 2011)

To the OP.  Honestly if you have to ask this question, I believe that you have no reason to go full frame.  If you knew the pros and cons of each format, knew what you wanted to shoot, and had the money to spend, you would have already gone FF.  Just do your research and either save your money for the big boy toys, or just go with the crop which will still suit you fine.


----------



## molested_cow (Jun 21, 2011)

If you really want to experience full frame and learn the basics, there's no better route than to pick up a 35mm SLR instead.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 21, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> That's funny Derell. For having such a weak AF system, I get a lot of shots in focus. Must be a fluke. Or maybe I just know how to use my camera? Yeah, that's probably it.



Yeah, it can focus--in the CENTER of the frame....but can you place an AF bracket on the EDGE of the frame, and get a focus lock-on of a motorcycle, or track runner, or bird located 1/3 of the way off to the edge of the frame....uh, sorry, but no, you cannot, because there are no AF brackets at the edges of the frame. The 5D and 5D-II borrowed the AF diamond pattern of the old Canon 20D, a 1.6x body...it's such a cheap body that the AF array is from a crop-frame camera!!! The 5DF series is a FINE sensor, paired with a $389 EOS Elan type body!!! Do you not understand that??? THat is following the "old model" of digital SLR building that FujiFilm used to use, and that Kodak used, and that Nikon used in the early D100 days: take a CHEAP, consumer film camera's parts, and add digital components to it.

Again, you're comparing what you have and know to something you do NOT own, and are not familiar with. Why don't you tell us what it feels like to drive a Formula 1 race car at 190 MPH? Why don't you tell us what it is like to fly an F-15 fighter jet? I am sure you have driven a car. And probably flown in an aircraft. But are you familiar, truly familiar, with what top-level equipment is capable of? Again, no, you are just talking out of your ass. Have another bong hit.


----------



## JClishe (Jun 21, 2011)

jritz said:


> To the OP.  Honestly if you have to ask this question, I believe that you have no reason to go full frame.  If you knew the pros and cons of each format, knew what you wanted to shoot, and had the money to spend, you would have already gone FF.  Just do your research and either save your money for the big boy toys, or just go with the crop which will still suit you fine.



FINALLY. This was the first thing that came to mind after reading the original post. If you're debating a $1500 upgrade and you don't even know what benefits it will bring, than you have no valid reason to upgrade.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 21, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> If you really want to experience full frame and learn the basics, there's no better route than to pick up a 35mm SLR instead.



And this is where a large,large majority of younger people in their 20's, and many digital newcomers have zero experience; they have never,ever,ever, owned a full-frame camera...they have ZERO experience with anything except what they own now, today, which is typically either a beginner-level, or a consumer-level, crop-body d-slr. People whose tastes and budgets run to Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Burger King are everywhere, trying to convince others that PBR and BK are just great!! Fine beer, and a great 'restaurant'. Snort.

molested_cow, you are one of very FEW people here who has just recently made the transition from 35mm film slr and DIRECTLY to the Nikon D700 full frame as your first d-slr, so your experiences are vastly different than those who are shooting say, a Rebel XSi or a Nikon D3000. Your experience is very atypical of most serious enthusiasts, many of us whom had to go through multiple generations of APS-C-ONLY cameras before getting a digital full-frame camera. And yet, here we see multitudes of people who have never,ever owned, never even shot a SINGLE picture with a 24x36mm capture area, trying to appear to be authority figures on cameras. Laughable.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 21, 2011)

I realize that the DX option is just another feature to sell camera but my point still stands. Its an idiotic reason to choose a Nikon over a Canon. Thats like buying a Ferrari with 4 spare "donut" tires on it to save up for pirellis. Everyone with any sense knows that in that case you would upgrade glass first. If you don't know that, then you have no business buying a professional camera anyway. This is idiotic to buy a camera that can out resolve your glass, when buying great glass first can maximize the lower resolution of whatever camera you currently have. Sure there can be some special situations like if your only requirement was to gain better high iso noise handling for low light shooting, but these would not be a majority case to warrant this being treated as such a great and amazing feature to sway the majority of consumers in their purchase.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 21, 2011)

JClishe said:


> jritz said:
> 
> 
> > To the OP. Honestly if you have to ask this question, I believe that you have no reason to go full frame. If you knew the pros and cons of each format, knew what you wanted to shoot, and had the money to spend, you would have already gone FF. Just do your research and either save your money for the big boy toys, or just go with the crop which will still suit you fine.
> ...



It's their money. They should be able to do whatever they want with it. No one _needs_ a 60" Plasma TV, but that's not stopping people from buying them.


----------



## JClishe (Jun 21, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> IMHO, if you're making money off of your images then it's definitely worth the investment because your reputation will be on the line (at least on the technical part).  You want the pictures to have the best quality possible, full frame body and top of the line lenses.  So to me, it is not worth it as I don't make money off of my images enough to justify the price difference in lenses and body.



I don't agree with this. Based on your reasoning, a 1Ds Mark III would be worth the $2000 investment over the 1D Mark IV if you plan to make money off the images. There are plenty of sports photographers that make plenty of money off their images that would argue your reasoning.

You're making far too broad of a generalization. Bodies must be chosen based the photographers intended usage Vs technical specifications of the body Vs available budget. A full frame body will not always win, even if budget is unlimited.


----------



## JClishe (Jun 21, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> JClishe said:
> 
> 
> > jritz said:
> ...



No one _needs_ a 60" Plasma, but everyone knows why they _want_ one. The OP doesn't even seem to be able to articulate why he wants to spend $1500.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 21, 2011)

Here is another question that might help frame this current question. "Pocket Wizards? Are they really worth $350 when cheap, Chinese-made triggers are available for $40?" Look at the number of posts from frantic photography enthusiasts, perplexed, disappointed, and worried because their cheap triggers do NOT WORK right, or work only some of the time, or constantly go to sleep and need to be awakened by manually going around to each trigger and pressing a button, etc,etc.

Professional-level, top-grade equipment brings with it attributes that low-end, and even middle of the road gear simply cannot bring with it.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 21, 2011)

JClishe said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, if you're making money off of your images then it's definitely worth the investment because your reputation will be on the line (at least on the technical part).  You want the pictures to have the best quality possible, full frame body and top of the line lenses.  So to me, it is not worth it as I don't make money off of my images enough to justify the price difference in lenses and body.
> ...



I think you read my reasoning wrong.    lol


----------



## ausemmao (Jun 21, 2011)

Derrel said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > That's funny Derell. For having such a weak AF system, I get a lot of shots in focus. Must be a fluke. Or maybe I just know how to use my camera? Yeah, that's probably it.
> ...



The *D3s has an AF module straight out of a crop camera as well*, with a different CPU. Does that make it terrible?

The 5D has shortcomings, yes. That doesn't make it not worth its cost. It has a substandard AF system, but what does that matter if all you need is the centre point?


----------



## manaheim (Jun 21, 2011)

jritz said:


> To the OP. Honestly if you have to ask this question, I believe that you have no reason to go full frame. If you knew the pros and cons of each format, knew what you wanted to shoot, and had the money to spend, you would have already gone FF. Just do your research and either save your money for the big boy toys, or just go with the crop which will still suit you fine.



Totally disagree.  If he/she has the money, and wants better gear, then they should go for it.  You don't have to appreciate the power of what you have to justify purchasing it.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 21, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> JClishe said:
> 
> 
> > jritz said:
> ...



oops, should have read the next page. A couple of folks said this and I coulda just "liked" it. Ah well.


----------



## JClishe (Jun 21, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> JClishe said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



I read what you wrote.


----------



## KmH (Jun 21, 2011)

Overread said:


> Also don't Nikon mess up their shooters with that whole AF motor thing? I think Big Mike said it - Canon found a way to annoy everyone in 198something when they shifted to the EF mount -and Nikon found a way to annoy everyone till today with the AF motors thingy


Not at all.

In 1987 Canon, in one fell swoop, obsoleted everything they had made before they launched their EOS (Electro-Optical System). EOS eliminated not only a focus motor in the camera body, but also the motor that actuated the lens aperture. EOS eliminated all mechanical links between the camera and the lens.

Nikon eliminated the focus motor in entry-level bodies to make them more compact and appealling to women. The D40 was the first Nikon without a in-the-body focus motor. Nikon had been producing lenses with focus motors in them for some time before the D40 was introduced, so Nikon had a decent selection of AF-S and AF-I lenses for D40 buyers. In other words, Nikon didn't **** on their current, already established customer base, like Canon has done repeatedly over a 40 year period.

Remarkably, Canon introduced another new lens mount in 2003, the EF-S, that is not compatible with all their DSLR camera bodies. Nikon introduced the F-mount it still uses today, in 1959. Since then Canon has had - the R-mount, the FL mount (4/64), the FD-mount (3/71), the EF-mount in 1987, and the EF-S mount in 2003.

Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 21, 2011)

JClishe said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > JClishe said:
> ...



That's why I said you read it wrong, not that you didn't read it. lol


----------



## Overread (Jun 21, 2011)

Derrel said:


> And this is where a large,large majority of younger people in their 20's, and many digital newcomers have zero experience; they have never,ever,ever, owned a full-frame camera...they have ZERO experience with anything except what they own now, today, which is typically either a beginner-level, or a consumer-level, crop-body d-slr. People whose tastes and budgets run to Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Burger King are everywhere, trying to convince others that PBR and BK are just great!! Fine beer, and a great 'restaurant'. Snort.



*wonders if this self same argument works if one swaps cropsensor for fullframe and medium format for fullframe in the wordings. Esp considering that many older weddings were done with medium format gear as well as many other venues*



KmH said:


> Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.



Can't argue against that - Canon does seem to pay too much mind to their marketing and not as much to their market when it comes to development - esp with their technology segmentation (ie why does the 7D not have any manual audio recording control and why does the 5DM2 not have better AF ).
Oh and they, technically, have one more mount release between the EF and EFS - 1999 the MPE mount (basically the EF mount but with no AF motors)


----------



## KmH (Jun 21, 2011)

Macro (no AF) is a specialty segment for Nikon too.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 21, 2011)

regardless of the original post this has become a thoroughly enlightening (and amusing) thread! 

As a shooter of 35mm film for decades and user of multiple digital platforms I finally coughed up the extra $ to buy a full-frame camera, if not for the viewfinder only. 

The whole Nikon Vs. Canon debate is age old. I chose Nikon just for the fact that I can run almost any lens in the Nikon line up going back to the last century. I know lot's of guys who are trading in their Nikon's for Canon's and vice versa, though I'm lost as to why.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 21, 2011)

Trever1t said:


> As a shooter of 35mm film for decades and user of multiple digital platforms I finally coughed up the extra $ to buy a full-frame camera, if not for the viewfinder only..


You do realize that the D700 is only a 95% coverage in the viewfinder, yes?  The D3X & S are 100% though.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 21, 2011)

yes i do.


----------



## JClishe (Jun 21, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> JClishe said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



Again, I read what you wrote. 

You wrote "*IMHO, if you're making money off of your images then it's definitely worth the investment because your reputation will be on the line*"

You have no idea what kind of images the OP shoots, yet you tell him a full frame body is worth the investment.

You wrote "*You want the pictures to have the best quality possible, full frame body and top of the line lenses*.". 

Again, you have no idea what kind of images the OP shoots, yet you clearly imply that a full frame body would be better him.

My reply was that you are making generalizations that do not take into account the OP's intend use for his camera. I read what you wrote, and based on what you wrote, my reply is accurate. If, however, my reply doesn't accurately reflect how you feel about this topic, then the problem isn't that I read it wrong. The problem is that you wrote it wrong.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 21, 2011)

JClishe said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > JClishe said:
> ...




Oh God... lol

IMHO, you just need to take a chill pill.




RumDaddy said:


> . Not trying to be cocky or arrogant, but you would probably also be seriosusly impressed with my creativity and poses as well. A wedding is my natural envirement.
> 
> I was raised to do weddings.


----------



## JClishe (Jun 21, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> Oh God... lol
> 
> IMHO, you just need to take a chill pill.



Well you're definitely proving my implication that there's some opportunity for improvement in your communications.

BTW, I'd love to hear why you think I "read it wrong". If you can do that without a childish insult, that is.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 21, 2011)

KmH said:


> Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.



Have you looked at Canon's DSLR market share compared to Nikon?


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 21, 2011)

JClishe said:


> Well you're definitely proving my implication that there's some opportunity for improvement in your communications.
> 
> BTW, I'd love to hear why you think I "read it wrong". If you can do that without a childish insult, that is.




Did you even read the quote where the OP specifically stated that he shoots weddings?  That's my humble opinion and that's what I'd do if I get paid to shoot weddings and looking to upgrade from crop to FF sensor, and better lenses.  That opinion is shared by a few others.  I have some information of what he shoots based on his posts.  If you missed his post and disagree with my opinion then it's fine.  I'm not going to split hairs and call you out on it.  

All in a drama-filled day on TPF.


----------



## ausemmao (Jun 21, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.
> ...



"Mild zing reply about the majority of DSLR purchases not being by photographers, and mass market not being necessarily synonymous with quality"

:greenpbl:

This is meant to be tongue in cheek


----------



## Derrel (Jun 21, 2011)

Overread said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > And this is where a large,large majority of younger people in their 20's, and many digital newcomers have zero experience; they have never,ever,ever, owned a full-frame camera...they have ZERO experience with anything except what they own now, today, which is typically either a beginner-level, or a consumer-level, crop-body d-slr. People whose tastes and budgets run to Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Burger King are everywhere, trying to convince others that PBR and BK are just great!! Fine beer, and a great 'restaurant'. Snort.
> ...



Overread, YES, this DOES apply to medium format...in fact, one of this forum's young guns SwiCh!FX (I know I am spelling his user name wrong,sorry A.J. !) has just recently begun shooting a Mamiya 645AF. As I recall, the 6x4.5cm format is around 2.7 times greater in area than 24x36 FF. And YES, you are "wondering" if the same argument works: I call speak from my own, actual life experience, having shot 4x5, 120 rollfilm, in both 6x6 and 6x4.5 formats...YES, the depth of field grows shallower at each angle of view, as the film format grows larger. So, even keeping the same angle of view (for example 35mm lens on 1.5x APS-C; 50mm on FF 24x35; and 80mm on 120 rollfiml 6x6) the appropriate "Normal Lens" angle of view on each format has LESS depth of field on each increasing format size. If you would like to see what 6x6 format looked like, go to a record store that sells 1960's and 1970's vinyl albums; about 90% of all record album covers in that time period were shot on Hasselblad 6x6 cameras, for an obvious reason: Hassy 500 series was THE leader among top pros, and 2) the square format PERFECTLY matched the album cover's square shape.



KmH said:


> Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.





Overread said:


> Can't argue against that - Canon does seem to pay too much mind to their marketing and not as much to their market when it comes to development - esp with their technology segmentation (ie why does the 7D not have any manual audio recording control and why does the 5DM2 not have better AF ).
> Oh and they, technically, have one more mount release between the EF and EFS - 1999 the MPE mount (basically the EF mount but with no AF motors)



Canon is losing market share among discerning shooters in the PJ/news/editorial market,and the wedding/portraiture market as well...did you see the Tour De France 2008 photo coverage pool? Nikon D3's outnumbered Canons among top-level sports action shooters. Same thing with this year's NBA Finals...I was not too surprised to see how heavily Nikon-dominated the baseline shooters were for those very tightly-controlled,prized shooting locations. Canon was like one guy out of six...I recall my college PJ days when Nikon dominated, heavily, and there were eight of us with Nikon systems and two with Canon. One of the hot young Canon guys had a COMPLETE FD system with two F1-n bodies w motors, 24/1.4-L, 85 1.2-L, 300/2.8 L, 35/1.4-L, and a few other really,really nice Canon lenses. Then, he went to the then-astounding (but VERY slow-on-the-trigger-in auto metering) Canon T-90 bodies...the first really "modern Canon"...and then, within about a year, his entire fortune in camera gear was made obsolete when Canon pulled the EOS stunt on its users without so much as a word of warning... He was at first, incredibly disappointed that the T-90 had exceptionally loooong, slow delay between pressing the shutter and making the exposure in certain metering modes, which rendered them USELESS for his specialty, sports/action work. And by slow, I mean like 1/10 second. He was livid about that, since it rendered the touted "innovation" useless in actual professional use. 

The Canon F1-n is/was an instantly responsive, professional camera; the T-90 was touted as one, but it was actually kind of cheezy, and it lasted less than 2 years before being scrapped. When Canon obsoleted his lens mount, his investment in professional level lenses was suddenly made much,much less valuable on the resale market. Anyway...I've seen Canon's marketing department lead it astray several times over the last 30 years. Maybe it's the influence of their photocopier division spilling over to the camera guys...lol..or maybe it's the printer division playing tricks....or maybe it's the scanner division's influence...lol


----------



## molested_cow (Jun 21, 2011)

Derrel said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> > If you really want to experience full frame and learn the basics, there's no better route than to pick up a 35mm SLR instead.
> ...




Yes I know. When I first found out about cropped sensor, I was like WTF that's INSULTING!!!! I mean, I'd feel "cheap" to go for a cropped sensor just because I can't afford the real one... that's just psychological.
What bothered me was, why would I want a crop sensor that limits what I can get with my lens? It's like driving a Ferrari with speed limiter set at 60mph. That's why I waited for a decently affordable full frame (D700) before I jumped in. The D700 was considerably cheaper than its bigger brother, and being at the end of its run, the price has dropped even though I wished it had dropped more.

In any case, I'd still encourage any person who really want to learn the fundamentals about photography to start from 35mm. The learning curve is steep, but you will have much better understanding of why things are the way they are. The transition to digital is a piece of cake from there once you know the fundamentals well.

And yes I am still using Ai-S lens on my D700 and they work just fine with each other.

I've used some cropped sensor bodies. Canon XTi, 60D, Nikon D200 and D90. First reaction: WUT is this tiny view finder doing in there??!?!

If you want to do landscape and want the most out of your wide angle lens, full frame is the right way to go. If you want the best out of your 50mm prime, full frame is the way to go.
If you use telephoto for wildlife, use crop sensor that has high megapixel count. 

I hope eventually all DSLRs will get full frame, because that's what they are supposed to be.


----------



## JClishe (Jun 21, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> Did you even read the quote where the OP specifically stated that he shoots weddings?



I see nothing in this thread where the OP discusses what kind of shooting he does. I see the quote that you're referring to, but I have no idea where that came from, because I don't see it anywhere in this thread.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 21, 2011)

JClishe said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you even read the quote where the OP specifically stated that he shoots weddings?
> ...



Clicking the little arrows next to the name will take you to the quoted post, in this case, yes from another thread he made after this one.
If you review the OP's posting history, you will see he has been contemplating getting a 5DmkII for over a year, and has asked about it _numerous times_. :meh:


----------



## manaheim (Jun 21, 2011)

JClishe said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > JClishe said:
> ...



:LOL:  Wait... explain to me how "what kind of images he shoots" has any bearing on whether he should buy the best camera and lenses available vs. just going for whatever manages to expose light to "film"?


----------



## Gaerek (Jun 21, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.
> ...



I think that might have been part of the point he was trying to make. Marketing sells products. Just because a company sells a lot of camera's doesn't *necessarily *mean they make a better product. It could simply mean they market much better. How come people buy that cheap crap on infomercials? Not because the product is good, only because they are great at marketing a piece of s**t.


----------



## camz (Jun 21, 2011)

If it's possible, why don't you rent one and find out.  There's no replacement for hands on experience when making a decision when buying equipment.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 21, 2011)

Gaerek said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



I don't buy anything from infomercials.


----------



## Gaerek (Jun 21, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



Most conscientious consumers don't. I shoot Canon, so don't think I'm in agreement that Canon's marketing department is solely responsible for their success. They are, however, great at marketing. Nikon isn't as great at marketing. If I have to watch another commercial with Ashton Kutcher (or whatever his name is) trying to sell me a Coolpix or D5000, I think I might shoot myself. Those commercials are terrible...


----------



## Overread (Jun 21, 2011)

Lets face it only Canon has the L lens and the 1D series as well as the Rebel. Almost anyone gets that -
L = top range lens
1D series = top range body
Rebel = entry level body

however Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Oly - almost all the others lack a really clear market cut like that. Granted I'm a canon shooter so slightly bias, but I've never understood all the labels Nikon has for stuff - and they don't have their Nikkor range limited to top range glass (it seems to be everything unless I've got that part wrong).


----------



## manaheim (Jun 21, 2011)

Overread said:


> Lets face it only Canon has the L lens and the 1D series as well as the Rebel. Almost anyone gets that -
> L = top range lens
> 1D series = top range body
> Rebel = entry level body
> ...



Over, that almost sounds like you're suggesting that because Nikon doesn't have an obvious marketing/branding campaign around their top gear that their top of the line stuff isn't as good as Canon's...  I know you can't really mean that, right?

BTW, Nikon DOES put gold rings around their top-end glass. It's not NEARLY as obvious as the white lens thing Canon does, but it is there.


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2011)

manaheim said:


> Over, that almost sounds like you're suggesting that because Nikon doesn't have an obvious marketing/branding campaign around their top gear



Yes that's what he is saying.



> that their top of the line stuff isn't as good as Canon's...  I know you can't really mean that, right?



No that's not what I read from his response.



> BTW, Nikon DOES put gold rings around their top-end glass. It's not NEARLY as obvious as the white lens thing Canon does, but it is there.



So does Tamron 

So does Sigma

So does Tokina

So does Pentax ... well not only gold.. (other colors too)


I happen to agree with Overread.  To a person not familiar with Nikon line of equipment, the target market for any particular piece is not obvious.  To a person who is not familiar with Canon, its a bit more obvious.   And yes... I used to sell equipment and spent gobs more time explaining this and that when it comes to Nikon.  Heck.. when someone talks about the highest tier of Canon bodies, they simply say "1-series".  Can't get any more simple.   IMO, the only mistake in the Canon line is that its become too crowded.


Look at Leica's lenses:  Summarit > Summicron > Summilux (yeh.. they usually refer to design/max aperture but everyone knows the order)


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 21, 2011)

I bought some of those "Space Bags" off an infomercial once....they actually work great


----------



## JClishe (Jun 21, 2011)

manaheim said:


> :LOL:  Wait... explain to me how "what kind of images he shoots" has any bearing on whether he should buy the best camera and lenses available vs. just going for whatever manages to expose light to "film"?



So a full frame body is always the best camera to buy, regardless of what kind of photography a person does?


----------



## camz (Jun 21, 2011)

Well also many of us here picked up on Canon when it was light years ahead of the dslr market and have remained consumers ever since.  I've been wanting to switch to Nikon but I just couldn't get myself to change my Avatar .

In all seriousness though I am biased and have grown accustomed with Canon's functions since the 10D and I was actually shooting portraiture prior to that with the Olympus E10. I've rented Nikon gear but I couldn't get my head around it. What attracted me to Canon was it's clear cut functions and well layed out product distinction.  I couldn't find that comfort in any of the other products almost 10 years ago.  To me honestly, today I find the same distinction and clicking with Sony's praticals.  Will I switch...probably not.


----------



## Dao (Jun 21, 2011)

I know this is off topic, sorry about that.  

If money is not an issue and you like to have a better camera for portrait type shots, I will say ..... go for a FF camera and better lenses .. and lighting equipemnts too, PERIOD.

Thank you.   Now back to the topic.  Canon vs Nikon.


----------



## camz (Jun 21, 2011)

Sorry for the side bust OP


----------



## Overread (Jun 21, 2011)

> To a person not familiar with Nikon line of equipment, the target market for any particular piece is not obvious.  To a person who is not familiar with Canon, its a bit more obvious.



Exactly, and note I put the rebels in there as well, its not just the top line, canon's entry level rebel series is well known as such. Marketing with respect to informing the uninformed as to their products order and intended market is one thing we can't say canon does poorly - I will agree that I don't much like Canons approach to market saturation (2 entry level and now 2 mid level series of cameras) and that I really don't like the way marketing hobbles features in their cameras - esp at the mid range where you've the 5DM2 which really could do with a better AF system. I'd also like to see them expand on their Firmwire updates for bodies - just look at what was unlocked from the 300D and the 5DM2 with minor firemwire releases and heck even the rebels (with russian hacks) can get features such as spot metering. 
Nikon in this respect likes to give more to their customers (from what I can tell) or at least make it appear as such.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 22, 2011)

manaheim said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Lets face it only Canon has the L lens and the 1D series as well as the Rebel. Almost anyone gets that -
> ...



He's saying it's less obvious to establish the entry level, the pro-sumer and the professional tiers in the Nikon lineup. I don't know how you derived that he was talking about product quality, but you did a great job suggesting that his post was pertaining to such.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 22, 2011)

usayit said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Over, that almost sounds like you're suggesting that because Nikon doesn't have an obvious marketing/branding campaign around their top gear
> ...





camz said:


> Well also many of us here picked up on Canon when it was light years ahead of the dslr market and have remained consumers ever since. I've been wanting to switch to Nikon but I just couldn't get myself to change my Avatar .
> 
> In all seriousness though I am biased and have grown accustomed with Canon's functions since the 10D and I was actually shooting portraiture prior to that with the Olympus E10. I've rented Nikon gear but I couldn't get my head around it. What attracted me to Canon was it's clear cut functions and well layed out product distinction. I couldn't find that comfort in any of the other products almost 10 years ago. To me honestly, today I find the same distinction and clicking with Sony's praticals. Will I switch...probably not.



Wow... this is just weird.  Maybe this explains Canon users in a way that has never been clearly documented before.  You need a company to tell you whether or not you are their target market, rather than figuring it out based upon price and features.  (note, I have great respect for you two- Camz and Overread, so please take this as me using a bit of sarcasm to chide you in a friendly way)

It seems pretty clear to me... 70-300 4/5.6... $135... 70-200 2.8 VR2... $2500.  I'm pretty sure I can figure out without too much research which lens is right for me.  Hell, I'm pretty sure I could just guess.  I don't need them to splash white paint on it or come up with some name brand specifically for that second lens for me to understand which I'm going to be wanting or needing.





JClishe said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > :LOL: Wait... explain to me how "what kind of images he shoots" has any bearing on whether he should buy the best camera and lenses available vs. just going for whatever manages to expose light to "film"?
> ...



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.


----------



## usayit (Jun 22, 2011)

manaheim said:


> You need a company to tell you whether or not you are their target market, rather than figuring it out based upon price and features.



I don't know if you have marketing, sales, or customer front experience, but this is 100% correct.   People don't know how much sales and marketing plays in the business world.  The most widely market (and successful) products are not always the best (as Overread said alread) and sometimes the best products fail simply because they failed to market properly.

Every and I mean EVERY successful profitable well known product is carried to market on the backs of the marketing and sales department.  Period.    Apple, Microsoft, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Coke, McDonalds (who actually makes more money from real-estate), etc...   Some of the best designs come from companies that you nor I have never heard of but marketed via these well known brands; rebranding is a huge business.    HOYA for example is THE largest manufacturer of optics.   You would be naive to think that off the shelf glass elements from well known brands (nikon and canon included) cannot be traced back to Hoya.  If Hoya released their own branded lenses or cameras, it would fail miserably but rebranded under another is a different story.



Apple Computers is a MASTER at this.   The lines are well defined, their mission is well defined, customers know a Mac when they see it, and they are often duplicated/copied.  Even so much as to be brazen enough to tell the customers what is best for them rather than simply bend at every customer request.   Did you know that the original Ipod design (after much field questioning) had 4 extra buttons?  It still is a common design to create a dedicated button for each and every feature.  It was Steve Jobs and design team that removed the extra buttons from the design while everyone said WTF?   They were right... as the clean uncluttered design still prevails to this day.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 22, 2011)

usayit said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > You need a company to tell you whether or not you are their target market, rather than figuring it out based upon price and features.
> ...



Sure, and I _completely_ get this, but generally I've found camera folks to be more of the geekier set... or at least folks who will dive deeply into understanding what it is they need and all the individual knobs and dials they'll need to twist and turn to make it happen.  For these folks, branding seems like more of a secondary amusement and a way to go "yay team" than it does a way to understand what they should be buying.

But then, I did recently see a chart that showed Canon MASSIVELY out-selling Nikon (though I'm still not certain if that's just because Canon sells lots of non-Camera related stuff where Nikon doesn't really do that as far as I am aware)... and maybe that is because they absolutely get what splashing white paint on a lens does for marketing and Nikon totally doesn't.  (and I can totally see that, btw... it's clearly not Nikon's personality to worry about flare... hell, for some time before I bothered to look, I was convinced Nikon was a German company)

So if you take that to it's logical conclusion, it would make sense that a Canon person might be more likely to go "Well, man, I don't know what I'm supposed to be buying in the Nikon product set!  Where's the product line?  Where's the special distinguishing name or characteristic?"  It seems absolutely wacky to me, but then... I'm a Nikon person AND a geek by trade.  Branding and marketing isn't lost on me, but I don't need it to decide what I want to do... it just sometimes brings my attention to something I may be interested in.

In the end, I guess this gives me a very different way to look at the Nikon/Canon religious wars... and it makes it very very very interesting.


----------



## camz (Jun 22, 2011)

Chris the original discussion with Overread was how Canon product line conveyed an equated product distinction.  This is just a very small part of the picture that I wanted to share as I too had a similar perception.  

There are other plenty more variables and data points that were taken into consideration in my behalf for making a Canon decision back in 03. It's just I have grown accustomed to Canon since and that decision has deeply commited me into the investment of Canon gear.

Based on today's data points and variables, honestly if I would've started over today I would chose Nikon and this is what I recommend to all the starting photographers that ask me that question today regarding just photography.  Video is a different story...

But it doesn't really matter for me at this point - I don't think my pictures will improve one iota if I switch.  But it sure does make for interesting discussion .  We should just get some beers get together and talk rhetoricals


----------



## Overread (Jun 22, 2011)

It's not so much that its impossible to understand the Nikon line, but that its not easily viewable at a glance. As someone shooting nikon and well into the hobby the light marketing and product placement might seem silly since its all so obvious -- however for those on the outside. Either those new to the hobby or those in another brand, the product line up is more complicated because you've got to juggle lots of new info - for those new to the scene this is confusing because they are already trying to work out apertures and all the rest as well as the relative worth of these things to them -- for those in the scene but in another brand its confusing because they might start looking at 2nd hand. A 2nd hand middle or upper level body is often better than a new entry level - but when the brand lines are not clearly defined its confusing to work out what was were in the product line up (Esp since 2nd hand prices drop down). 

Also remember your entry level (your rebel shooters ) are not just geeks, like the computer, the SLR is no longer a pro and geeky thing - its a "cool" "hip" thingy now and many of these customers are your regular parents and people. So product placement to simplify things makes it a lot easier to sell them stuff


----------



## Overread (Jun 22, 2011)

camz said:


> Based on today's data points and variables, honestly if I would've started over today I would chose Nikon and this is what I recommend to all the starting photographers that ask me that question today regarding just photography.



TONY!
YouTube - &#x202a;What the Duck Animated Comic Strip 513&#x202c;&rlm;


----------



## camz (Jun 22, 2011)




----------



## usayit (Jun 22, 2011)

camz said:


> Based on today's data points and variables, honestly if I would've started over today I would chose Nikon and this is what I recommend to all the starting photographers that ask me that question today regarding just photography.  Video is a different story...



Back when Pentax introduced their first 135 body with the first automatic return mirror:

"Based on today's data points and variables, honestly if I would've started over today I would chose Pentax and this is what I recommend to all the starting photographers that ask me that question today regarding just photography."

Back when Minolta introduced the first successfully marketed integrated 135 AF body (minolta 7000),

"Based on today's data points and variables, honestly if I would've started over today I would chose Minolta and this is what I recommend to all the starting photographers that ask me that question today regarding just photography."

Back when Canon introduced massive jumps described in terms of USM, IS, etc...

"Based on today's data points and variables, honestly if I would've started over today I would chose Canon and this is what I recommend to all the starting photographers that ask me that question today regarding just photography."

Back when Nikon jumped ahead in terms of high ISO performance...

"Based on today's data points and variables, honestly if I would've started over today I would chose Nikon and this is what I recommend to all the starting photographers that ask me that question today regarding just photography."

Back when <insert reason here>:

"Based on today's data points and variables, honestly if I would've started over today I would chose <insert brand here> and this is what I recommend to all the starting photographers that ask me that question today regarding just photography."


When does it stop? "it doesn't"   That's the nature of the game.  At the root, photography doesn't change, people do and their perceptions do.  


In my retail experience, 9/10 the photog walking through that door about to switch systems is doing it for all the wrong reasons.  Did I tell them that? NO way.. I would have been fired.   Camera shops make HUGE profits from these people.  "So watcha going to do with the old system?"   "Let me take your troubles away and put them on consignment... ok?  For a measly 20% to 50% commission.."


----------



## camz (Jun 22, 2011)

Ok point taken.

But all that matters is what's current, should we just stop and hold our horses since change is inevitable?


----------



## Dao (Jun 22, 2011)

camz said:


> We should just get some beers get together and talk rhetoricals



Now. who is buying?


----------



## camz (Jun 22, 2011)

Dao said:


> camz said:
> 
> 
> > We should just get some beers get together and talk rhetoricals
> ...



usayit is


----------



## Gaerek (Jun 22, 2011)

manaheim said:


> 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."

Keep in mind, the weight and extra gear thing is important to him. He usually backpacks 20-75 miles when he goes shooting, so every ounce he can save on weight is important to him. He actually told me he'd be completely willing to use a Rebel instead, if it could shoot as many frames as a 7d. Mainly for the few ounces of weight he'd save.

Oh, also, not all L glass is white. Look for the red stripe.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 22, 2011)

Overread said:


> Lets face it only Canon has the L lens and the 1D series as well as the Rebel. Almost anyone gets that -
> L = top range lens
> 1D series = top range body
> Rebel = entry level body
> ...



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


----------



## manaheim (Jun 22, 2011)

Gaerek said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## KmH (Jun 22, 2011)

jake337 said:


> 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
> ...


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.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 22, 2011)

KmH said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is why Nikon dropped the double digit series(d90, d80, etc).
> ...



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


----------



## Derrel (Jun 22, 2011)

jake337 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 22, 2011)

jake337 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...


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


----------



## molested_cow (Jun 22, 2011)

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 (Jun 22, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2011)

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 (Jun 22, 2011)

manaheim said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



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 (Jun 22, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2011)

KmH said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



Sorry, I thought the d300 was grouped in there.


----------



## usayit (Jun 22, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2011)

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 (Jun 22, 2011)

manaheim said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



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 (Jun 23, 2011)

@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 (Jun 23, 2011)

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 (Jun 23, 2011)

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.


----------

