PeterN wrote:
On 3/8/2015 5:04 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 3/7/2015 9:16 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to
the D300s. What's your take?

In my case, it's the successor to the D300, which in turn was the
successor to the D70.

it may have been what you bought after owning a d70 but that doesn't
make it a successor.

the d300 was *not* a successor of the d70. it was the successor of the
d200 which was the successor of the d100.

the d70 was a consumer slr, which was succeeded by the d80, d90 and
then the d5000 series.

While there was a very noticable jump from the
D70 to the D300 there seems to be an even bigger jump from the D300 to
the D750.

that's because the d70 and d300 different product tiers and the d300
and d750 are not only different product tiers but also dx/fx.

There is a marked improvement in dynamic range which gives rise to
improved low light shooting at even moderate ISOs.

no ****. the sensor in the d300 is much better than what was in the
d70, plus it didn't have the electronic shutter that hobbled the d70.


It ain't the camera.

this discussion is.

As I have posted before, my daughter has sold her
images, taken with a D70 and a kit lens, for over $700. She has been
offered one per shows, but turned them down.

what your daughter has sold has absolutely nothing to do with the
sensor, it's resolution and dynamic range or how nikon classifies the
various models.

Uhm!
She still uses it, and her images are still selling.

still missing the point.

ten years ago, a lot of people sold photos from a d70. it was a very
good camera in its day, but those days are *long* gone. even a lowly
d3200 blows it away.

It's still the photographer, not the camera.

it's a bit of both.

There is no question hat a better photographer will take
better images with a lessr camera, than a lessor
phtographer will, with a ,ore expensive camera.

Only if the quality is judged as an average of all
pictures.

On a one by one basis, either photographer will get
better images with a better camera, just that the better
photographer will get a higher percentage of better
pictues.

On a bright sunny 16 day, a better photographer will
creating interesting permutations of the shadows and
highlights, that a less skilled photographer would not
even see.
A more expensive camera is capable of taking decent
pictures under circumstances where a lessor camera
simply doesn't have the capability.

And hence good photographers gravitate towards the
best equipment, because it does make a difference.
And that difference is huge.

If the images are evaluated on the basis of composition
and impact the better photographer will have a
significantly higher percentage of keepers, regardless
of the equipment used. Last year I was watching a well
known bird photographer working. He was discarding
images that if they were mine, would be hanging on the
walls. And yes, he does use the 800mm lens, that I don't
have. But it's more than the lens. He also has a
stronger sense of anticipation, and creative use of
existing lighting conditions, that I lack.

So this guy spend nearly 20 grand on an 800mm lens
that doesn't really do him any good at all, eh?

I don't think so, and obviously he doesn't think so
either.

No matter how much ability a photographer has, with
the wrong equipment the job won't get done as well
as it could be.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)