Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 16, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    No point in releasing another 24mp DX camera. They need to do something that will justify the $1800 this camera will cost. True, the body alone might, being better than the D610 body, but boosting the mp to 40 would give ita truly unique position and would not seriously hamper noise control since3 year old m4/3rds cameras do very well at 16mp. But imagine the resolution the thing would have with a telephoto at 40mp!
    RichA, May 16, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Tim Conway Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    No point in releasing another 24mp DX camera. They need to do something
    that will justify the $1800 this camera will cost. True, the body alone
    might, being better than the D610 body, but boosting the mp to 40 would give
    it a truly unique position and would not seriously hamper noise control
    since 3 year old m4/3rds cameras do very well at 16mp. But imagine the
    resolution the thing would have with a telephoto at 40mp!

    Yeah but what really would you need 40MP for? Even shooting for billboards
    generally requires less. It would be nice for extreme crops, though. lol
    Tim Conway, May 16, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > No point in releasing another 24mp DX camera. They need to do something that
    > will justify the $1800 this camera will cost. True, the body alone might,
    > being better than the D610 body, but boosting the mp to 40 would give it a
    > truly unique position and would not seriously hamper noise control since 3
    > year old m4/3rds cameras do very well at 16mp. But imagine the resolution
    > the thing would have with a telephoto at 40mp!


    the d9300 is nothing more than a rumour.
    nospam, May 16, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014051614494345108-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >> No point in releasing another 24mp DX camera. They need to do something
    > >> that will justify the $1800 this camera will cost. True, the body alone might,
    > >> being better than the D610 body, but boosting the mp to 40 would give it a
    > >> truly unique position and would not seriously hamper noise control since 3
    > >> year old m4/3rds cameras do very well at 16mp. But imagine the resolution
    > >> the thing would have with a telephoto at 40mp!

    > >
    > > the d9300 is nothing more than a rumour.

    >
    > An April 1 rumor at that.


    it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
    will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
    d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
    digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.

    however, it is still a rumour with no guarantee of actually happening
    and bashing the specs of a product that doesn't yet exist is stupid.
    nospam, May 16, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/16/2014 6:14 PM, nospam wrote:

    > it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
    > will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
    > d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
    > digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.
    >


    My D300 has four digits. It's a DX.

    Does that mean my D800 is also a DX?

    Yeah! I know I'm picking on words/


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 16, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > > it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
    > > will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
    > > d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
    > > digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.
    > >

    >
    > My D300 has four digits. It's a DX.


    no it doesn't.

    > Does that mean my D800 is also a DX?


    no.

    > Yeah! I know I'm picking on words/


    no, you're just confused.
    nospam, May 16, 2014
    #6
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/16/2014 6:38 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
    >>> will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
    >>> d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
    >>> digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.
    >>>

    >>
    >> My D300 has four digits. It's a DX.

    >
    > no it doesn't.
    >
    >> Does that mean my D800 is also a DX?

    >
    > no.
    >
    >> Yeah! I know I'm picking on words/

    >
    > no, you're just confused.

    Any confusion is caused by your alleged statement of fact.

    >

    Last time I counted, there are the same number of digits in D300 and
    D800. According to you they are both either DX or both FX, since they
    both have the same number of digits.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 17, 2014
    #7
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014051615473518024-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > > it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
    > > will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
    > > d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
    > > digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.

    >
    > Where on earth did you come up with that idea of what the Nikon
    > numbering system represents?


    by looking at how they are naming their cameras.

    > So the D100, D200 & D300(S) are FX cameras are they?


    those are old.

    originally 1 digit was pro (initially dx but later fx when it became
    feasible), 2 digit was entry level/midrange dx and 3 digit was prosumer
    dx, but they soon ran out of 2 digit numbers and the 3 digit space was
    quickly becoming crowded, plus they wanted fx for prosumers.

    that's why they introduced the 4 digit series for entry level/midrange
    dx cameras, leaving 3 digit for fx and keeping 1 digit for pro.

    it's very straightforward.

    the d300s was released almost five years ago, just after the d5000 came
    out which was the first of the 4 digit series. the d300s was basically
    a minor update to the d300 (from 2007), so it didn't make sense to
    rename the d300s at that time since it was really just a bump.

    since that time, there have been *five* full frame 3 digit cameras
    (d600, d610, d700, d800, d800e) and *zero* dx 3 digit cameras. zero.

    the current naming scheme is 1 digit pro, 3 digit fx and 4 digit dx. 2
    digit are legacy cameras.

    > What does that make a D70, D90, D3, or D4?
    >
    > Time for a *nospam* fact check.


    it's not me who needs to fact check and you should read more carefully
    too.
    nospam, May 17, 2014
    #8
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>> it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
    > >>> will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
    > >>> d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
    > >>> digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> My D300 has four digits. It's a DX.

    > >
    > > no it doesn't.
    > >
    > >> Does that mean my D800 is also a DX?

    > >
    > > no.
    > >
    > >> Yeah! I know I'm picking on words/

    > >
    > > no, you're just confused.

    >
    > Any confusion is caused by your alleged statement of fact.


    are you actually blaming your inability to count on me?

    you also need to read more carefully before you spew.

    > Last time I counted, there are the same number of digits in D300 and
    > D800. According to you they are both either DX or both FX, since they
    > both have the same number of digits.


    those cameras are 5 years apart. you do realize that since the d300
    came out, fx appeared and is now affordable by non-pros, right? and
    that nikon needed to give them names?

    nikon ran out of 2 digit numbers and released a number of prosumer fx
    cameras, deciding to use the 3 digit space for fx and 4 digit space for
    dx.

    very simple, but apparently it's still too complex for you.
    nospam, May 17, 2014
    #9
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014051618050813496-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > > the current naming scheme is 1 digit pro, 3 digit fx and 4 digit dx. 2
    > > digit are legacy cameras.

    >
    > ...and Nikon announced this naming policy where and when?
    > ...or is this just an assumptive projection on your part?
    > Please cite.


    they don't need to announce anything. just look at what they're doing.

    there is no reason why a high end dx camera positioned above the d7100
    (or its likely successor, the d7200) would be called a d400.

    for the past 5 years, nikon has been using 4 digits for dx and 3 digits
    for fx.

    there have been *no* 3 digit dx cameras since then. none. every single
    3 digit camera since the d700 has been fx, other than the d300s and
    only because it was a minor update to the 2007 d300 and it's long been
    discontinued anyway.
    nospam, May 17, 2014
    #10
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014051618362031968-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >>> the current naming scheme is 1 digit pro, 3 digit fx and 4 digit dx. 2
    > >>> digit are legacy cameras.
    > >>
    > >> ...and Nikon announced this naming policy where and when?
    > >> ...or is this just an assumptive projection on your part?
    > >> Please cite.

    > >
    > > they don't need to announce anything. just look at what they're doing.
    > >
    > > there is no reason why a high end dx camera positioned above the d7100
    > > (or its likely successor, the d7200) would be called a d400.
    > >
    > > for the past 5 years, nikon has been using 4 digits for dx and 3 digits
    > > for fx.
    > >
    > > there have been *no* 3 digit dx cameras since then. none. every single
    > > 3 digit camera since the d700 has been fx, other than the d300s and
    > > only because it was a minor update to the 2007 d300 and it's long been
    > > discontinued anyway.

    >
    > So to summarize, this is all your idea.


    nope. it's nikon's idea. i'm just summarizing it.
    nospam, May 17, 2014
    #11
  12. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 May 2014 18:36:20 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2014-05-17 01:31:52 +0000, nospam <> said:
    >
    >> In article <2014051618050813496-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> the current naming scheme is 1 digit pro, 3 digit fx and 4 digit dx. 2
    >>>> digit are legacy cameras.
    >>>
    >>> ...and Nikon announced this naming policy where and when?
    >>> ...or is this just an assumptive projection on your part?
    >>> Please cite.

    >>
    >> they don't need to announce anything. just look at what they're doing.
    >>
    >> there is no reason why a high end dx camera positioned above the d7100
    >> (or its likely successor, the d7200) would be called a d400.
    >>
    >> for the past 5 years, nikon has been using 4 digits for dx and 3 digits
    >> for fx.
    >>
    >> there have been *no* 3 digit dx cameras since then. none. every single
    >> 3 digit camera since the d700 has been fx, other than the d300s and
    >> only because it was a minor update to the 2007 d300 and it's long been
    >> discontinued anyway.

    >
    >So to summarize, this is all your idea.


    You begin to see what bothers me? nospam will make an initial
    statement that is an incomplete description of what he means.
    Challenged, he will add information, but say that you should have
    understood what he meant (but did not say) the first time.

    It will be *your* fault for not understanding the first incomplete
    statement. Never his fault. Never "I should have added...".

    Eventually, he will say "it was always about the past 5 years" and/or
    "You need to learn to read".




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, May 17, 2014
    #12
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014051619073575244-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >> So to summarize, this is all your idea.

    > >
    > > nope. it's nikon's idea. i'm just summarizing it.

    >
    > Please a Nikon cite, otherwise there is nothing to back your
    > questionable assertion, and it will prove to be a figment of your
    > imagination.


    it's not my imagination.

    all the evidence supports what i've said.
    nospam, May 17, 2014
    #13
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > You begin to see what bothers me? nospam will make an initial
    > statement that is an incomplete description of what he means.
    > Challenged, he will add information, but say that you should have
    > understood what he meant (but did not say) the first time.
    >
    > It will be *your* fault for not understanding the first incomplete
    > statement. Never his fault. Never "I should have added...".
    >
    > Eventually, he will say "it was always about the past 5 years" and/or
    > "You need to learn to read".


    there was absolutely nothing incomplete about what i said.

    anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention to
    nikon's naming would immediately understand it and agree with it.

    nevertheless, i was asked to clarify, so i did.
    nospam, May 17, 2014
    #14
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014051619535020591-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >>>> So to summarize, this is all your idea.
    > >>>
    > >>> nope. it's nikon's idea. i'm just summarizing it.
    > >>
    > >> Please a Nikon cite, otherwise there is nothing to back your
    > >> questionable assertion, and it will prove to be a figment of your
    > >> imagination.

    > >
    > > it's not my imagination.
    > >
    > > all the evidence supports what i've said.

    >
    > What evidence?
    > I know evidence when I see it. I used to be a real evidence hound
    > before I retired, and I see no evidence to support your speculation
    > here.


    then you need to look more closely, since what you provide below is all
    the evidence that's needed, despite some minor errors.

    > You might consider this generalization of mine:
    >
    > Dx: Pro FX high-end DSLR w/grip body: D1, D2, D3, D4 (I omitted the
    > various suffixes).
    > Dxx: Earlier consumer DX DSLR: D60, D70, D80, D90, etc.
    > Dxxx: Prosumer high-end DX & FX DSLR w/o grip body: D100, D200, D300,
    > D700, D800, D600, D610
    > Dxxxx: Consumer DX DSLR; D3000, D5000, D5100, D5300, D6100, D7000,
    > D7100, D7300, etc.


    what's to consider? it's not a generalization and it's the same as what
    i said.

    nikon could have planned it all a bit better, but they didn't.

    > The exception here is the Df FX.


    it is an exception, one without a digit at all, which doesn't negate
    anything. it is targeting a very specific niche, those who want to
    pretend they still have a film camera.

    > That is as good as, and about as *Nikon official* as your speculation
    > without a defining citation which you don't seem able to come up with.


    it's not speculation. you've presented the same proof as i did.
    nospam, May 17, 2014
    #15
  16. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <2014051619535020591-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > I know evidence when I see it. I used to be a real evidence hound
    > before I retired, and I see no evidence to support your speculation
    > here.
    >
    > You might consider this generalization of mine:
    >
    > Dx: Pro FX high-end DSLR w/grip body: D1, D2, D3, D4 (I omitted the
    > various suffixes).
    > Dxx: Earlier consumer DX DSLR: D60, D70, D80, D90, etc.
    > Dxxx: Prosumer high-end DX & FX DSLR w/o grip body: D100, D200, D300,
    > D700, D800, D600, D610
    > Dxxxx: Consumer DX DSLR; D3000, D5000, D5100, D5300, D6100, D7000,
    > D7100, D7300, etc.


    Below is a more complete list, where you can see that the D300S is the only
    combo-breaker in the bunch. D* became FX with the D3, and D*** became FX
    with the D700, but the D300S with DX was released after it.

    Other than that, they've been pretty consistent. Maybe FX will creep into
    the Midrange at one point - depending on the rate of progress vs. the death
    of the SLR :)

    Either way, as it is - D**** is DX and D*** is FX in Nikon's lineup since
    the last five years at least.

    High-end Professional
    - D1 DX 1999
    - D1X DX 2001
    - D1H DX 2001
    - D2H DX 2003
    - D2X DX 2004
    - D2HS DX 2005
    - D2XS DX 2006
    - D3 FX 2007
    - D3X FX 2008
    - D3S FX 2009
    - D4 FX 2012
    - D4S FX 2014

    High-end Prosumer
    - D100 DX 2002
    - D200 DX 2005
    - D300 DX 2007
    - D700 FX 2008
    - D300S DX 2009
    - D800 FX 2012
    - D800E FX 2012
    - D600 FX 2012
    - D610 FX 2013
    - Df FX 2013

    Midrange
    - D70 DX 2004
    - D70S DX 2005
    - D80 DX 2006
    - D90 DX 2008
    - D7000 DX 2010
    - D7100 DX 2013

    Upper entry-level
    - D5000 DX 2009
    - D5100 DX 2011
    - D5200 DX 2012
    - D5300 DX 2013

    Entry-level
    - D50 DX 2005
    - D40 DX 2006
    - D40X DX 2007
    - D60 DX 2008
    - D3000 DX 2009
    - D3100 DX 2010
    - D3200 DX 2012
    - D3300 DX 2014
    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 17, 2014
    #16
  17. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <2014051620395279879-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck wrote:

    > > Andreas Skitsnack:
    > > You begin to see what bothers me? nospam will make an initial
    > > statement that is an incomplete description of what he means.
    > > Challenged, he will add information, but say that you should have
    > > understood what he meant (but did not say) the first time.

    >
    > > It will be *your* fault for not understanding the first incomplete
    > > statement. Never his fault. Never "I should have added...".

    >
    > > Eventually, he will say "it was always about the past 5 years"
    > > and/or "You need to learn to read".

    >
    > That seems to be the way this thread is going.


    I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. Here's what nospam said:

    nospam
    05/17/2014 <160520141814238125%>

    "it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that
    the d9300 will be the d400 people have been wanting, with
    higher specs than a d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement.
    since nikon has been using 3 digits for fx and 4 digits for
    dx, it wouldn't be called a d400."

    nospam is essentially saying that this supposed new camera will not be
    named D400 if it's DX, since Nikon has an all-FX 3-digit lineup.

    It seems that to counter this, people have brought up past 3-digit Nikon's
    from the past that weren't FX, and Andreas is trying to claim that it
    wasn't at all obvious that nospam was talking about *current* cameras, but
    must have included every camera Nikon ever made.

    Well, *all* D* cameras were DX from the beginning, so it's impossible for
    nospam to be in reference to a historical perspective.

    D*** have been FX since the D700 (with the only exception of D300S). Based
    on that, it's really quite logical to assume that Nikon wouldn't introduce
    a D400 with a DX sensor.

    Having said that, I suppose it's equally logical to assume that D1** - D5**
    is DX and D6** - D9** is FX, but it still doesn't seem likely.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, May 17, 2014
    #17
  18. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014051620514935690-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >>>>>> So to summarize, this is all your idea.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> nope. it's nikon's idea. i'm just summarizing it.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Please a Nikon cite, otherwise there is nothing to back your
    > >>>> questionable assertion, and it will prove to be a figment of your
    > >>>> imagination.
    > >>>
    > >>> it's not my imagination.
    > >>>
    > >>> all the evidence supports what i've said.
    > >>
    > >> What evidence?
    > >> I know evidence when I see it. I used to be a real evidence hound
    > >> before I retired, and I see no evidence to support your speculation
    > >> here.

    > >
    > > then you need to look more closely, since what you provide below is all
    > > the evidence that's needed, despite some minor errors.

    >
    > I provided no evidence. I provided my personal speculation based on
    > Nikon's naming history.


    do you think they pick names at random?

    there is very clearly an unmistakeable pattern to their naming scheme.

    > >> You might consider this generalization of mine:
    > >>
    > >> Dx: Pro FX high-end DSLR w/grip body: D1, D2, D3, D4 (I omitted the
    > >> various suffixes).
    > >> Dxx: Earlier consumer DX DSLR: D60, D70, D80, D90, etc.
    > >> Dxxx: Prosumer high-end DX & FX DSLR w/o grip body: D100, D200, D300,
    > >> D700, D800, D600, D610
    > >> Dxxxx: Consumer DX DSLR; D3000, D5000, D5100, D5300, D6100, D7000,
    > >> D7100, D7300, etc.

    > >
    > > what's to consider? it's not a generalization and it's the same as what
    > > i said.

    >
    > It isn't what you said. You expelled DX DSLRs from the Dxxx category,
    > which is what started us down this road.


    no i didn't. i did not expel anything nor did i say that every 3 digit
    name was fx.

    i said that nikon has been using 3 digits for fx and 4 digits for dx,
    which is exactly what they've been doing.

    obviously an fx slr would have to exist for any name to be an fx slr,
    so the early 3 digit slrs could never have been fx (nor were the early
    1 digit pro slrs fx either).

    > > nikon could have planned it all a bit better, but they didn't.

    >
    > Who is to say? Maybe they did.


    it's possible, but there's no sign of that being the case.

    the d70 was the first 2 digit slr, a less expensive d100. why start
    with 70? the d40 was released after the d50 and its successor was the
    d60. not much logic there and it basically cut off d10, d20 and d30
    from being a possibility. they incremented the d70 to d80 and then d90,
    which used up the rest of the 2 digit numbers. now what? what comes
    after d90? d100, but that was used already and has another digit
    anyway.

    certainly someone must have known they'd release more than a handful of
    low/midrange dx slrs.

    > >> The exception here is the Df FX.

    > >
    > > it is an exception, one without a digit at all, which doesn't negate
    > > anything. it is targeting a very specific niche, those who want to
    > > pretend they still have a film camera.

    >
    > I agree.
    >
    > >> That is as good as, and about as *Nikon official* as your speculation
    > >> without a defining citation which you don't seem able to come up with.

    > >
    > > it's not speculation. you've presented the same proof as i did.

    >
    > Actually I have presented no proof oyjrt than my own little brain storm.
    > ...and it is certainly not the same as you presented since you haven't
    > presented any proof, or citation from Nikon, so we are both making
    > groundless speculation, but I think mine looks pretty good.


    mine also looks pretty good, and oddly enough, it's the same.
    nospam, May 17, 2014
    #18
  19. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014051701201197865-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > ...and we still need a D400 and eventually a D500, they are holes in
    > the list which need filling.


    you might think the hole needs filling but that doesn't mean nikon sees
    it that way.

    it's been 5 years since the d300s came out so obviously nikon is not in
    any particular rush.
    nospam, May 17, 2014
    #19
  20. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/16/2014 8:44 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> it's more than an april 1 rumour. thom hogan has said that the d9300
    >>>>> will be the d400 people have been wanting, with higher specs than a
    >>>>> d7100 or the expected d7200 replacement. since nikon has been using 3
    >>>>> digits for fx and 4 digits for dx, it wouldn't be called a d400.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> My D300 has four digits. It's a DX.
    >>>
    >>> no it doesn't.
    >>>
    >>>> Does that mean my D800 is also a DX?
    >>>
    >>> no.
    >>>
    >>>> Yeah! I know I'm picking on words/
    >>>
    >>> no, you're just confused.

    >>
    >> Any confusion is caused by your alleged statement of fact.

    >
    > are you actually blaming your inability to count on me?
    >
    > you also need to read more carefully before you spew.
    >
    >> Last time I counted, there are the same number of digits in D300 and
    >> D800. According to you they are both either DX or both FX, since they
    >> both have the same number of digits.

    >
    > those cameras are 5 years apart. you do realize that since the d300
    > came out, fx appeared and is now affordable by non-pros, right? and
    > that nikon needed to give them names?
    >
    > nikon ran out of 2 digit numbers and released a number of prosumer fx
    > cameras, deciding to use the 3 digit space for fx and 4 digit space for
    > dx.
    >
    > very simple, but apparently it's still too complex for you.
    >


    You are right. I do not know the difference between "...nikon has been
    using...," and is now using. the difference confuses me.




    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 17, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Beowulf

    where to have discrete color prints made?

    Beowulf, Aug 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,534
    Bryce
    Aug 30, 2003
  2. n
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    537
  3. Mike Warren

    How could I have made these pictures better?

    Mike Warren, Aug 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    713
    Ray Fischer
    Aug 27, 2005
  4. jazu

    Rebel XT, made in Japan, made in Thailand

    jazu, Dec 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,025
    John Turco
    Dec 12, 2006
  5. Gordon
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,345
Loading...

Share This Page