its my understanding that a major player in the poor performance of WA lenses on FF digital isn't JUST from the lens itself. You have to think about how the digital sensor works, compared to film. Film doesn't care what direction light it hitting it at, but digital sensors (want) to pick up light optimally, from straight-on. So in the corners, when the light is coming in at an extreme angle, the sensor doesn't see the spectrum as well.
ISO1600 wrote:
its my understanding that a major player in the poor performance of WA lenses on FF digital isn't JUST from the lens itself. You have to think about how the digital sensor works, compared to film. Film doesn't care what direction light it hitting it at, but digital sensors (want) to pick up light optimally, from straight-on. So in the corners, when the light is coming in at an extreme angle, the sensor doesn't see the spectrum as well.
I think the same. And the exaggerated vignetting can be fixed in PS.
But it seems that the CA is poorer on the digital FF, too according to reports by many. I'm wondering why.
I don't think this is a sign that Canon is moving to complete FF. They are just promoting a unique product in the market. Who wouldn't want to move their installed base of $1500 cameras up to double the price point? They are the only mfg in a position to do this at this time.
Look for Canon competitors to introduce crop frame web sites, touting the advantages of their own offerings like longer reach, no crappy corners and lower cost.
At least Canon is in the enviable position to play both sides.
Not sure why this would upset someone. I say bring it on, FF for everyone, even at $199. Just fix the corner weaknesses of the glass.
Venus wrote:
What are they going to do with the thousands of angry 20D users if they dumped all the smaller sensors and only produce FF in future?? Many might jump ship and cross over to Nikon. Hopefully these guys at Canon wouldn't be so impetuous.
if they move to FF and keep the price down for ex 30D, i think more than 1 nikon user will move to canon. If they intend to attract more users, this is the way.
Nikon is not able to offer a FF digital camera at least for the next 2 years.
And moreover they sold a lot of DX lenses. it would be a shame if they move to FF.
Compare the price of the 20D to that of the 1DII. Only a small fraction of the difference is for the larger sensor.
I'm also sure that the mark up for 1 series features is even bigger on the 1DsII than it is on the 1DII. Therefore, I have every reason to believe that, if they had included 1 series features and build quality on the 5D, the markup would have been somewhere between that on the 1DII and the 1DsII.
Les
Canon appears to completely revamp assembly processes with each new model, so you can't really directly compare their street prices to determine how much of that is the cost to produce--and certainly not how much is the cost to produce any given component.
That's like trying to determine the difference in costs of the engine in a 1972 Honda Civic compared to the engine cost in a 2005 Honda Accord.
Agree with your comments below, 100% - I still pull a couple books from my collection and re-read them every year....I devoured them all repeatedly when I was a kid...
Some of his best writing, however, is probably found in "Double Star", and "Time Enough for Love", the latter reaching into the over-sentimentality of his late writing in some places, however...
RDKirk wrote:
I've read the novel perhaps 40 times since I was 16. When I was in the military, I kept copies to loan to clueless lieutenants. I even had margin notes in some of them. I started my daughter on Heinlein when she was 12, reading "Have Space Suit--Will Travel" to her as she sat in my lap. She read ST when she was 14, pronouncing it "awesome." She's a freshman in college this semester, but has been participating in a "Roughnecks" online fanfic for the last four years.
So that should tell you what I thought of Verhoeven's abortion. OTOH, the later CGI television series "Roughnecks: Chronicles of the Starship Troopers" started from the movie, but seemed to have been written by people who actually read and respected the novel. ...Show more →
I've got a 1D2 - at first, the 5D looked like the ideal 2nd camera to complement my setup - but what I really want is higher sensor resolution, along with more megapixels in a full frame camera - the primary interest being resolution for ever-larger prints.
now I'm thinking that in 12 -18 months, the 1- series will have a new lineup, and I'd rather wait, unless I've got money to burn, to see what Digic III does and what the sensor will be.
You have to think about how the digital sensor works, compared to film. Film doesn't care what direction light it hitting it at, but digital sensors (want) to pick up light optimally, from straight-on. So in the corners, when the light is coming in at an extreme angle, the sensor doesn't see the spectrum as well.
That may be true but if so then why do the Zeiss and Olympus WA's out-perform the Canon WA's and have largely overcome the corner vignetting problem?
Canon needs to produce a serious wide angle lens for their full frame cameras.
I beleive good WA primes would be commercially successful, particularly with the FF owners. Like I said, I would even be encouraged to spend some more for a FF if a good WA made it worth it the extra $$.
Edited by Phil Bonner on Sep 11, 2005 at 08:46 AM GMT
Steve Lau! Seriously, are you getting results or different characteristics with larger format lenses that you can't with your 35mm collection? I can see getting tilt/shift/swing with a properly engineered adapter, but aside from that....
Also, wrt the problems at the corners of digital sensors, is there any indication that those have been addressed with any part of the new sensor in the 5D?
Steve_T90 asked:
Also, wrt the problems at the corners of digital sensors, is there any indication that those have been addressed with any part of the new sensor in the 5D?
These problems are not so apparent with decent WA lenses like the Zeiss, Leica and Olympus WA's.
I more inclined to blame the comparatively poor Canon WA lenses rather than the sensor technology.
Phil Bonner wrote:
These problems are not so apparent with decent WA lenses like the Zeiss, Leica and Olympus WA's.
I more inclined to blame the comparatively poor Canon WA lenses rather than the sensor technology.
Which seems pretty logical, but allegedly the Canon WA's didn't look so bad in the days of film because of the light-angle issues that some talk about. I'm just wondering what part of the sensor creates those issues -- microlenses?
On the other hand, maybe the problem was there with film but unobserved since fewer people either printed at large sizes or viewed at 100%??
Steve_T90 wrote:
Which seems pretty logical, but allegedly the Canon WA's didn't look so bad in the days of film because of the light-angle issues that some talk about. I'm just wondering what part of the sensor creates those issues -- microlenses?
Steve_T90 wrote: Steve Lau! Seriously, are you getting results or different characteristics with larger format lenses that you can't with your 35mm collection? I can see getting tilt/shift/swing with a properly engineered adapter, but aside from that....
No, actually the Hasselblad lenses are in general no match to the top Canon lenses. Although they are not miles apart, the difference can be seen easily. The main reason for me to use the adpater is to have access to some of my exotic lenses (e.g. Imagon) and all the Hasselbald accesseries (e.g. bellow, macro, filters, etc.). It is also fun to use the old equipment again.
Since the MF lenses have a biggger circle of confusion (?), they may address some of the corner issues of FF digtal cameras with WA lenses. But, the widest MF lens I have is just a 50mm .
Peter de Weerdt wrote:
Time will tell what full frame will do. But pushing a feature isn't a good sign. Something that is obviously above the rest of the market don't need no push. Buyers would pull the things hard enough if it is above the alternatives.
Peter
I do think the FF difference is something Canon feels they need to advertise if they intend to market 5D and future sub-$3000, sub-$2000 FF cameras to the masses. The concept is not so obvious to the entire photography market, especially to the people who are finally thinking about getting into DSLR.
It might be hard to imagine for those who frequent this site, but overhearing the sales conversations at the local camera shops where the Rebel XT is sold along with 1D2 and other bigger sensor bodies, and the number of times buyers ask "what does 'crop' and 'full frame' mean?", I don't have much confidence that the masses out there shelling out the money for DSLRs really know what the concept of sensor size/crop factor is all about. All they care about right now in a DSLR: 1) they can switch lenses, and 2) they can avoid the shutter lag of their P+S digicams.
Maybe Canon is hoping 'full frame" will become a hot topic amongst photographers beyond the small group of pros and serious amateurs? I think they may have a potential selling point to the masses and potential novice DSLR users if they can get the message out to the masses that "the full-frame camera will now cover a view area like your old 35mm film camera: no more clipped family portraits." We can all debate the pros and cons of a 1.6X crop or a full frame with good points for and against, but to the amateurs out there contemplating their first DSLR, a sales pitch like "you will capture more people in a group shot or more of Grand Canyon when you take a picture" is a pretty basic but convincing argument.
eh pparker i was curious about the same thing. about a new size sensor being made thats larger than 35mm. although if they did do this they would have to make a whole new line of lenses with a larger imaging circle
jimhsu wrote:
We can all debate the pros and cons of a 1.6X crop or a full frame with good points for and against, but to the amateurs out there contemplating their first DSLR, a sales pitch like "you will capture more people in a group shot or more of Grand Canyon when you take a picture" is a pretty basic but convincing argument.
And what trumps that argument is that cropped sensors get more zoom. If an amateur doesn't know a lot about photography, the first thing they look for is zoom and megapixels.
MPerdomo wrote:
And what trumps that argument is that cropped sensors get more zoom. If an amateur doesn't know a lot about photography, the first thing they look for is zoom and megapixels.
Cropped sensors don't get more zoom, they get exactly the same amount. They gain on the telephoto end and lose on the wide end but the amount of zoom is the same.
mickr7an wrote:
Cropped sensors don't get more zoom, they get exactly the same amount. They gain on the telephoto end and lose on the wide end but the amount of zoom is the same.
Yeah, I know that, but I wasnt good in getting my point across is that all a salesman has to say is that cropped SLRs are cheaper and get more "zoom", and they will be all over it
Steve Lau! 
Seriously, are you getting results or different characteristics with larger format lenses that you can't with your 35mm collection? I can see getting tilt/shift/swing with a properly engineered adapter, but aside from that....
.