P.S. Canon users are not all fan-boys/girls, some of us care about photography.
Believe me C Jam, I know that. That is why I was talking about the "full frame religion". Though I do find it funny that on the Canon forum, those who prefer cropped DSLRs are told they are wrong for wanting a cropped DSLR, because full 35mm frame is apparently better at every type of photography, for every photographer in existence.
At least for nature phorographers the 4/3 from Olympus is a brilliant standard. The crop multiplier equals to 2x. As a consequence, 300mm f2.8 in 4/3 format equals to 600mm f2.8 in 35mm format. Mamma mia! That is a pretty long telephoto lens with a wide aperture. However, the price is very high. How many hobbyists can afford to a telephoto lens that costs about 7,000 euros?
Of course you could also utilize cropping, but white balance metering, exposure metering, and AF system operate much better when the target fills the frame. Besides, 5.5Mp in 4/3 format is much more than 12,8Mp in 35mm format.
If Canon does in fact continue to persue the 35mm size sensor route I don`t think it`s unreasonable for 5D users to expect them to solve any FF wide angle lens situation that presently exists. I mean last I knew Canon hasn`t dropped out of the lens business .
And meanwhile there are other lenses available to allow them an enjoyable experience with that big sensor. Aren`t some of us DX users also hoping for some cropped primes?
Regardless, the 5D camera is selling quite well and most users like it so lets make the most of our cropped sensors from Nikon and let them enjoy what they prefer.
John
MPerdomo wrote:
...That is why I was talking about the "full frame religion". Though I do find it funny that on the Canon forum, those who prefer cropped DSLRs are told they are wrong for wanting a cropped DSLR, because full 35mm frame is apparently better at every type of photography, for every photographer in existence.
I agree - that's why I also hang out in the Nikon forum.
Unfortunately for photogs who happen to use canon, the perceived technological advances made by canon in the past 5 years have attracted a lot of techie geeks who tend to gauge the quality of a system by the latest and greatest technology - not the actual photographic merits of a photographic system (of course, they have no way of knowing, they're not photographers). Honestly, IMO it has hurt the canon system as much as it has helped it, and we may start to see this more in the coming years.
So, to quote you, we do indeed have a "full frame religion" because there is no other reason many of these people have purchased canon other than the perceived idea that FF/Canon is better. And they've spent a lot of money.
To be fair, there are real considerations like pixel pitch (optical resolution vs. sensor resolution) that need to be addressed in smaller format sensors for the future - at the current time, FF offers more pixels with a larger pitch than crop sensors so 12-16 megapixel FF sensors are still within the optical resolution of most lenses. At the same time, nikon's doing okay with the D2X (smallest pixel pitch of the major DSLR's) so only time will truly tell...
-C
Edited by C Jam Blues on Nov 10, 2005 at 12:28 PM GMT
So when we switched to digital the frame formats discussions ( Full, DX, 4/3 ) must concern the idea of the digital is making simulation of those formats. Very flexible. There is no any physical film formats now. Even todays sensors are just makin simulation of ISO via software.
of coarse Canon, Nikon or else would like to protect their old lenses for compability but via some multiplier coefficiant. So FF has advantage for that. So they have produced it. But people is wrongly beleive that this is the end point. No ! Canon 5D is not sharp as 20D because of sensor.
Anyway I beleive in near future we will see also 16/9 format sensors. Those years are just about funny for format decision.
SamppaM wrote:
At least for nature phorographers the 4/3 from Olympus is a brilliant standard. The crop multiplier equals to 2x. As a consequence, 300mm f2.8 in 4/3 format equals to 600mm f2.8 in 35mm format. Mamma mia! That is a pretty long telephoto lens with a wide aperture. However, the price is very high. How many hobbyists can afford to a telephoto lens that costs about 7,000 euros?
Of course you could also utilize cropping, but white balance metering, exposure metering, and AF system operate much better when the target fills the frame. Besides, 5.5Mp in 4/3 format is much more than 12,8Mp in 35mm format....Show more →
You forgot Nikon and some Canon have crop factor, too.
Take 20D + 300 f2.8 IS + 1.4X, what do you get out of the faster f2.8 Olympus 300mm anyways?
Faster shutter speed? Bump up the ISO on the 20D
DOF? 420mm f4.0 on 20D is probably pretty close to 300mm 2.8 on E-1. You get IS with the Canon, and nice to save some money.
Alternatively you can use Canon 400mm f2.8 IS, which is no doubt heavier but offer a whole lot more possibilityes.
I personally would rather spend my money on Nikon D200+ AF-S 300 f2.8 VR + 1.4 TC, or just shoot in D2X 2X crop mode.
IIRC D2X + AF-S 300 f2.8 VR cost about as much as E-1 + 300mm f2.8.
I don't think there's any weight and size advantage to the 4/3 system with the products avaliable today.
Anyways... For those who's happy with the 4/3 system, well more power to you. It is certainlly attractive to me at some point, but not much so after the D200. (I wanted the weather seal on E-1).
Another point is that Nikon has a lot of DX format body and lenses so this point that they will continue to produce DX and also FF. So maybe there will be only two format from Nikon in next years.
sl1200mk4 wrote:
Let's get rid of the AA filter first...
Agreed. I often wonder about that - but perhaps it isn't totally possible with a bayer pattern sensor? Course, software could probably take care of color aliasing (like the Leica DMR).
Regardless, it may be where the tech is headed in the short term.
sl1200mk4 wrote:
You forgot Nikon and some Canon have crop factor, too ...
The 4/3 format still gives additional 150mm (600mm vs. 450mm) that is quite a lot. The point was that the 4/3 format is a good choice especially for nature photographers. However, the lenses based on the 4/3 format are still very expensive. D200 + 300mm f2.8 VR is much cheaper combination than E-1 + 300mm f2.8. From my point of view Nikon is at this moment the best option if you consider both price and quality. However, if the price tag was irrelevant, I would purchase Olympus.
SamppaM wrote:
The 4/3 format still gives additional 150mm (600mm vs. 450mm) that is quite a lot. The point was that the 4/3 format is a good choice especially for nature photographers. However, the lenses based on the 4/3 format are still very expensive. D200 + 300mm f2.8 VR is much cheaper combination than E-1 + 300mm f2.8. From my point of view Nikon is at this moment the best option if you consider both price and quality. However, if the price tag was irrelevant, I would purchase Olympus.
Please read my post again, I said with the 1.5/1.6X crop + 1.4 TC. In which case Both Nikon and Canon system gives a bit more reach.
Yes, the aperture is a stop slower, but like I said before you end up with similar DOF and shutter speed can easily be compensated by using faster ISO. You get IS/VR as a bonus.
Why do you think that Olympus have to make a 35-100 f2 zoom? They need smaller aperture for more DOF control AND need to compensate for the poor ISO performance. As it turns out, the optical solution is so much more expensive than putting bigger sensor in the camera, because you pay a premium on every single lens. I think there's is little doubt that APS + dedicated lens is probably one of the best comprimises that we have today.
Perhaps they thought that people won't care much the DOF as much, perhaps they thought that enough "new"/"avid" photographer/DSLR buyer will buy into the "designed for digital" system.
Well, if anything I see more nature photographer with Canon gears more than both Nikon and 4/3.
so my point is that there is no one answer as answers are the current level of human kind technology. 
