Fullframe vs. 1.3x frame?

[JKeena]

Could someone please help me understand the technical differences between the two? I've switched to Nikon last year with the D200 but held onto my Canon 1D MKII just because of the high 8.5 FPS I need to shoot skateboarding sequences. However, now that Nikon has the D3 and the D300 in the works, I feel I can let go of my Canon and replace my FPS needs with one of Nikon's new bodies (as well as carry only 1 brand of lenses! finally!).

SOOOO the D300 can get 8FPS with the vertical grip. Now that makes the D300+vert grip almost everything I need compared to the pricier D3. The last big difference being the full frame versus the DX 1.3 format. Can someone argue the tech difference for me? The major thing would be not buying all new non-DX lenses, obviously, but ASIDE from that point... I know it's 'all about the glass' so do I NEED a D3, or just WANT it?

I'm not a tech wizard by any means so any help would be great!

Thanks!

[Franglais]

Could someone please help me understand the technical differences between the two? I've switched to Nikon last year with the D200 but held onto my Canon 1D MKII just because of the high 8.5 FPS I need to shoot skateboarding sequences. However, now that Nikon has the D3 and the D300 in the works, I feel I can let go of my Canon and replace my FPS needs with one of Nikon's new bodies (as well as carry only 1 brand of lenses! finally!).

SOOOO the D300 can get 8FPS with the vertical grip. Now that makes the D300+vert grip almost everything I need compared to the pricier D3. The last big difference being the full frame versus the DX 1.3 format. Can someone argue the tech difference for me? The major thing would be not buying all new non-DX lenses, obviously, but ASIDE from that point... I know it's 'all about the glass' so do I NEED a D3, or just WANT it?

I'm not a tech wizard by any means so any help would be great!

Thanks!

First one correction - lets get the sensor formats right:

D3 = FX or "full-frame" = 1x
Canon 1DMkII = APS-H = 1.3x
D200 & D300 = DX or APS-C = 1.5x

Plus : The bigger the sensor the more light it can capture so the overall sensitivity/image quality compromise is better.
Minus: Bigger sensor = bigger and more expensive the camera and lenses

Wait for the tests. Then decide if the extra performance of the D3 is really worth it

[readingr]

Could someone please help me understand the technical differences between the two? I've switched to Nikon last year with the D200 but held onto my Canon 1D MKII just because of the high 8.5 FPS I need to shoot skateboarding sequences. However, now that Nikon has the D3 and the D300 in the works, I feel I can let go of my Canon and replace my FPS needs with one of Nikon's new bodies (as well as carry only 1 brand of lenses! finally!).

SOOOO the D300 can get 8FPS with the vertical grip. Now that makes the D300+vert grip almost everything I need compared to the pricier D3. The last big difference being the full frame versus the DX 1.3 format. Can someone argue the tech difference for me? The major thing would be not buying all new non-DX lenses, obviously, but ASIDE from that point... I know it's 'all about the glass' so do I NEED a D3, or just WANT it?

I'm not a tech wizard by any means so any help would be great!

Thanks!

Why didn't you just buy a Canon 5D which is full frame? A lot cheaper than the Nikon D3 and all your lenses would have been compatible.

Roger

[another view]

Like Charles said, Nikon DX is 1.5x. Canon has 1x (full frame), 1.3x and 1.6x.

If cost were not an issue, I don't know if (personally) I'd choose full frame. I really haven't found any disadvantages to 1.5x other than selling and replacing some lenses with smaller focal lengths. On the tele end of things, my 80-200 f2.8 is like* a 300 f2.8. I sold my 20-35 and bought a Sigma 10-20 which is now a lot wider than I had. Newer cameras, compared to the Fuji S2 I'm familiar with, have much brighter viewfinders although I haven't seen one yet that compared to a Nikon F5. Still, pretty good, and if you liked the F100 you shouldn't have any problem with the D200.

"like* a 300 f2.8" - realize that it's not a 300 f2.8 but a 200mm lens that's cropped to the point of giving you a 300mm angle of view. To put it another way, shoot with a 200mm lens on a 35mm camera or full frame DSLR and make an 8x12 print. Then get out the scissors and cut from each side to make a 5x7 print. That's basically how it works. On the wider end of things, a 19mm DX lens is roughly the equivalent angle of view of a 28mm lens on full frame but the perspective is a whole lot different. The 19mm lens still has the perspective and distance exaggeration of a 19mm lens with a 28mm angle of view. Although this difference in perspective is still there comparing 200 and 300mm lenses, it's more obvious (IMO) with very wide lenses.

[JKeena]

Right right right... D3= fullframe, 1DMKII= x1.3, and D200 = 1.5.

Sorry, I haven't used my Canon in a WHILE so I wasn't even thinking straight. I didn't go with the 5D because my boss and girlfriend both had Nikons which meant I got to use A LOT more lenses if I switched to THEIR brand. AND I ended up liking the layout of the Nikons much better.

I guess I will have to wait for the tests comparing the sensors. I figured that the bigger the sensor the less compromised the quality of the image. But I'm very unsure of if that difference is worth the money. Thanks for the input!