papageno wrote:
"Trouble is, I need a full system of lenses, and no full system exists for the 24x36mm sensor."
What planet are you on? Nikon, Canon, Leitz even Perntax and Minolta would beg to disagree........
I'm right here on Earth; I guess you're on some planet where they don't have any reading comprehension skills?
Neither "Perntax" (Pentax?), nor Minolta or Nikon, make a DSLR with a 24x36mm sensor, and Leitz doesn't even make cameras (although their family name is still used on Leica lenses).
Canon does make a few cameras with 24x36mm sensors, but their lens system does not include any wide angles that provide acceptable image quality with the "full frame" sensor.
sl1200mk4 wrote:
Let's get rid of the AA filter first...
Funny, I just shot a model this weekend with two Nikon D2h shooters, and both of their sets of images were sharper all around. Comparing the same subject matter, and lenses (I used my 16-35L and 85L, while the other two guys used their 17-35afs and 58noct f1.2 lenses, respectively), this shoot has confirmed what has I have suspected and have been rather loudly predicting all along...
Canon definitely results in mushier images.
Some think it's the AA filter, some think it's softer glass, some say pixel pitch... Well I think it's the combination of all three. I observe that their iso 200 images, while they have the noise of my iso 400, definitely enlarge better, even with their measley 4mp files. I just printed out some 12x18's from the shoot just to be sure that I wasn't imagining it. Yup. Nikon stuff is sharper.
we wear the moniker of "idiots" very well over here , along with our flame retardant suits , we are used to having the cognescenti , wink and nod to us all the time about how if we "really" knew anything we too would have the putty colored lenses on our cameras. BTW what's wrong with your eyes , haven't you see the sea of white lenses and bowed down to kiss the ring lately
Canon does tend to produce a softer image by default. I wonder if that's what gives their 70-200 f2.8 IS a different flavor of bokeh (or at least contributes to) compared to my 70-200 f2.8 VR.
I think we all know that there's no end to this argument and probably we won't see the end of it in the next few years. We'll just have to wait and see. If anything I think the introduction of the Sony R1 shows to a certain degree that there are definitive advantages of having a bigger sensor (provided that you have the lens to match). Would like to see if others follow that foot step. There's also the 9MP Cypress APS CMOS out there. Things can get interesting.
mauriceramirez wrote:
Funny, I just shot a model this weekend with two Nikon D2h shooters, and both of their sets of images were sharper all around. Comparing the same subject matter, and lenses (I used my 16-35L and 85L, while the other two guys used their 17-35afs and 58noct f1.2 lenses, respectively), this shoot has confirmed what has I have suspected and have been rather loudly predicting all along...
Canon definitely results in mushier images.
Some think it's the AA filter, some think it's softer glass, some say pixel pitch... Well I think it's the combination of all three. I observe that their iso 200 images, while they have the noise of my iso 400, definitely enlarge better, even with their measley 4mp files. I just printed out some 12x18's from the shoot just to be sure that I wasn't imagining it. Yup. Nikon stuff is sharper.
molson wrote:
In theory, a 24x36mm sensor in a 35mm-based DSLR is a great idea. Trouble is, I need a full system of lenses, and no full system exists for the 24x36mm sensor. Canon offers a partial system, but they have no useable wide-angle lenses.
The good news for Canon fans is that they are reported to be actively working on a new line of lenses to work with their "full frame" sensors. The bad news is, it will likely entail yet another new, incompatible lens mount system.
OK, I'll bite,
Just out of curiosity, where did you hear the rumour about the Canon Lens mount?
Just out of curiosity, where did you hear the rumour about the Canon Lens mount?
it doesn't take much to believe this , they screwed themselves with EOS, they just did not think deeply enough about the exit pupil to film plane dimension and the width of the mount is crazy as well. If they want to make the FF deliver then Something has to be done
Would a 1 " x 1 1/4 inch sensor be concidered full frame. It appears to me to be a reasonable compromise. It eliminates the far extreme edges and the optical foibles that go with being near the limit of the image circle and the full sensor would be used with the traditional paper sizes.
mpov wrote:
Personally, I don't see a reason for people to have a "stand" on this at all. If it floats your boat to buy a FF camera, then do it.
The most interesting thing about the 5D to me is that it further demonstrates that Canon is clueless about the importance of maintaining lens compatibility. They sell lenses designed for their lower end cameras that cannot be used on their higher end cameras, thus discouraging people with investments in those lenses from upgrading.
Amen!
There is something to be said about consistancy thru your DSLR line-up.
I think you boys may understand thsi issue better when Nikon finaly gets a full frame sensor one day and you lose your "we have the best" glasses. FF is not as much where the sensor size is the same as 35 film - I mean it has to be that for the old lenses but where you don't have to use a conversion factor on your lenses.
The Olympus users are all about pretending their system is FF and they like to quote how the lenses are designed for the sensor size - like it really was the holy grail. Bunk! You take a 50 mm lens and you get the same field of view as a 100 mm lens. That isn't full frame in my book.
Imagine what it's like to be in a canon users shoes for a moment and contrast it to where you had to imagine giving up your Nikon for an Olympus. The Oly has a 2x conversion. I've heard more than one canon and Nkon user make remarks about the Olympus 4/3rds system along the lines of "it's not a good system because of that pathetic size sensor." They are limited for the future many also say as the small die size will bite them later.
If that is your sentiment by chance or if you were to stretch the example further and find that you have a superior feeling about the nikon way over that of the system that would use a point and shoot size sensor in a ficticious slr - then you sir are a hypochrite here.
Consider the difference shooting an Olympus setup versus a Nikon kit. You pick it up and the first thing you notice is that despite the expense and engineering Oly puts in - the view through the viewfinder is a step in the wrong direction. The viewfinder is small. It's so small that it's imposible to fucus properly and you just don't see the detail through it that you are accustomed to with your Nikon. Then take some pictures. great if you stay at iso 400 and below but horid compared to what you are used to above that. You would on the other hand love the quality of the lenses and how much smaller they are when it comes to carying them, especially the long stuff and the wides are the best there is in the corners. The wide angle lenses that I've seen are fantastic - put others to shame.
So it's all about trade offs. Which set do you want. Are you happy with Olympuses trade offs - they come squarely from the choice of sensor size. Are you happy to have to take a portrait where you use a 30 mm lens for a head and shoulder shot. If you shoot it at F 2.8 you get depth of field about what you would expect at f 5.6 for the same framing. Yuck.
Are you happy with Nikons choices which are in the middle of the two camps or do you want to go all the way to Canons set of limits and plusses?
I don't feel there is a right or wrong way. Just don't pretend it's all the same!
Nikon users are so happy to exagerate the problems with canons wide angles. Well keep in mind that the 17mm is really 17. On the Nikon it's a 26. Many don't even consider that a wide angle lens! I happen to love the extreme narow depth of field portraiture that can only be had with a 5D and the 85 1.2. If you like it too, and shoot with a D2x - sorry there is nothing you can do outside of a few hours in photoshop to get quite the same look - not in 35 slr equiptment anyway. So you compromise a bit.
On the other hand I value using a 300 and getting a 450's reach out of it. With a 5D I am simply out of luck.
Horses for courses - the Brits say. We should as well. It's not religion. It's a tool for the job. Try it before you think you are not making any tradeoffs.
But like megapixels before the D2x - I suspect that the hardcore Nikon relegious folowers will only understand when Nikon gives it's users the choice. I expect mass amnesia and a feeling of superiority to reign after that day. The day is coming though it may be a long while - so don't invest too much in those dx lenses. So you can play with the big boys.
Pavel, my only beef with your argument is that I don't really buy equipment because it is the best, I buy it because it works for me and what i do, and why i sold some of my nicer gear to buy cheaper stuff that works better for the things I found myself shooting.
Perdomo .... I can't argue with that at all ... in fact the opposite ... it seems wise.
I need to stress that I like a few aspects of FF ... but really it's not for me all in all. In the end I like the Nikon way best as it gives the nicest compromises for me .... but I understand that many may feel different and that in that case they have a valid point as well.
If it's about the ergonomics.... I must be one of those closet nikion guys ..... I just need a bit more time and a bit of the Nikon kool-aid. Where do I get some
I`d bet If Nikon had brought out a FF for $3,295.00 the support from Nikon users would have been overwhelming especially if they made known intentions to retain the DX format. Choice is always good.
The truth is the D2X is close enough at this point to compete with Canon`s top dogs . (Dreview and other pro reviewers back this up)
What has to be considered now is that the 5D is almost 2K less than the D2X , the potential that exists for Canon`s 35mm sized sensors , the extremely good high ISO from them , and that Canon is committed to the 35mm sensors for their whole lineup.
sl1200mk4 wrote:
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.
You did not get the point. I was comparing the systems without teleconverters. Some nature photographers use teleconverters only if there are no other options. Teleconverters have serious drawbacks. The image quality drops, the AF system becomes slow, and the wide aperture is lost.
If you apply 1.4x teleconverter with Olympus, the total focal length (in 35mm format) becomes 300x2x1.4 = 840mm! In case of Nikon, the result would be 300x1.5x1.4 = 630mm. The difference equals to 190mm that is quite a lot.
sl1200mk4 wrote:
Well, if anything I see more nature photographer with Canon gears more than both Nikon and 4/3.
Of course you do. Canon has approximately 60% market share. However, Windows has approximately 90% market share, but still the majority of the professional photographers prefer Mac. High market share does not indicate that the system would be superior (unfortunately).
SamppaM wrote:
You did not get the point. I was comparing the systems without teleconverters. Some nature photographers use teleconverters only if there are no other options. Teleconverters have serious drawbacks. The image quality drops, the AF system becomes slow, and the wide aperture is lost.
If you apply 1.4x teleconverter with Olympus, the total focal length (in 35mm format) becomes 300x2x1.4 = 840mm! In case of Nikon, the result would be 300x1.5x1.4 = 630mm. The difference equals to 190mm that is quite a lot.
Of course you do. Canon has approximately 60% market share. However, Windows has approximately 90% market share, but still the majority of the professional photographers prefer Mac. High market share does not indicate that the system would be superior (unfortunately)....Show more →
Fine... No TC... Then how about D2X + AF-S 300 f2.8 VR? D2X got the 8fps 2X crop mode...
Can E1 shoot in "expendable mode" and go wider with their lens (say 1.5X crop)? Doubt that...
IMHO there are good reasons why 4/3 isn't all that popular.
Speaking of shooting portraits... Hack if Nikon comes out with a FF DSLR, then I will get one. Makes my 70-200 a better portrait lens, and even shallower DOF.
Pavel wrote:
I think you boys may understand thsi issue better when Nikon finaly gets a full frame sensor one day and you lose your "we have the best" glasses.
So it's all about trade offs. Which set do you want. I don't feel there is a right or wrong way. Just don't pretend it's all the same!
Nikon users are so happy to exagerate the problems with canons wide angles.
But like megapixels before the D2x - I suspect that the hardcore Nikon relegious folowers will only understand when Nikon gives it's users the choice. I expect mass amnesia and a feeling of superiority to reign after that day. The day is coming though it may be a long while - so don't invest too much in those dx lenses. So you can play with the big boys....Show more →
Heh, I read your post 4 times and I'm still not sure what your main point is.
So, I'll address some of the points I left in your quote above.
I don't think we need to have a FF camera to understand the issue. I will be extremely unhappy if Nikon stops producing the DX format. I've seen posts that claim Canon will move entirely to FF, throughout the dslr line. I'm willing to wager a rather large sum of money, that will not happen any time soon, if ever. As resolution and noise characteristics are improved in the APS-C format, there are fewer legitimate reasons to go FF. Cost will likely be a very significant difference, in the 2 formats, for a long time.
Yes indeed, it is all about tradeoffs. They are different formats, each with different problems and strengths. Pick your poison, but your choice doesn't make it the "best" choice for anyone but you. Then, substitute the word "your" for "my" and "me" in the previous sentence.
Some Nikon users are happy to exaggerate problems with Canon, on about the same levels as some Canon users are happy to exaggerate problems with Nikon. Nikon probably has about as many religious zealots as Canon. No?
As for your advice on not buying DX lenses, so that I "can play with the big boys." Big Boys? Well, thanks but, no thanks. I can make my own mistakes. FF doesn't suit my style or needs better than DX. YMMV.
FF is a different format. There's nothing "wrong" with it, if it suits your needs. The same applies to the DX & 4/3 formats. Format size isn't nearly as limiting in digital, as it was in film. Technology has changed that restriction, so now, there are a lot of other factors involved. Nikon could easily have put a 12mp sensor in the d200. As it is, the 10mp sensor is pretty close to the 12mp 5d, but the price is not. Which one is better? Well, that pretty much depends on your needs and budget, doesn't it?
sl1200mk4 wrote:
Fine... No TC... Then how about D2X + AF-S 300 f2.8 VR? D2X got the 8fps 2X crop mode...
Can E1 shoot in "expendable mode" and go wider with their lens (say 1.5X crop)? Doubt that...
I totally forgot the crop mode. Indeed D2X enables even longer telephoto lenses than E-1. I have not tested the crop mode, but 400-800mm f4 VR in 35mm format sounds pretty cool (200-400mm f4 VR). On the other hand, D2X is still pretty expensive. The street price in Finland is about 4,500-5,000 euros The street price of E-1 is only about 600-800 euros
It is a shame that D200 does not include the crop mode. There are plenty of pixels (10,2Mp) available.
Kerry, much of that was said with my sarcastic toungue in cheek. It was a reaction against what I percieved as holier than thou smugness among a small percentage of shooters that I think have an axe to grind against canon. Not based on the merits but simply against the differences. As long as we acknowledge that FF has a place for some - I am happy to acknowledge that it should not be any kind of holy grail. Heck I personaly like the compromises in the 1.5 crop best myself - with a small regret about some aspects of increased depth of field.
just as you seem to feel, both sides have merit and both sides have minuses. Choose your poison with that knowledge and there is nothing to argue about. Oh and the "big boys" coment was just meant as bait. I know I shouldn't ... but I got to where I thought this post was more flame bait (again) rather than a true question. Put it down to Canon defensiveness
It was a reaction against what I percieved as holier than thou smugness among a small percentage of shooters that I think have an axe to grind against canon. Not based on the merits but simply against the differences. As long as we acknowledge that FF has a place for some - I am happy to acknowledge that it should not be any kind of holy grail. Heck I personaly like the compromises in the 1.5 crop best myself - with a small regret about some aspects of increased depth of field.
just as you seem to feel, both sides have merit and both sides have minuses. ...Show more →
All things being equal, I actually really like 1.3x crop over 1.5x crop (or full frame). However, 1.3x doesn't have the wideangles designed for it that the DX format has. The 1.5x is a nice round number (as in easy to mentally picture what it will do to a lens' focal length), large enough to have decent noise characteristics, has the lenses to make up for losing the wides, etc, etc.
Like you said, it's a compromise, just like pretty much everything in photography, or life for that matter.
, we are used to having the cognescenti , wink and nod to us all the time about how if we "really" knew anything we too would have the putty colored lenses on our cameras. BTW what's wrong with your eyes , haven't you see the sea of white lenses and bowed down to kiss the ring lately 
..... I just need a bit more time and a bit of the Nikon kool-aid. Where do I get some 
Well, thanks but, no thanks. I can make my own mistakes. FF doesn't suit my style or needs better than DX. YMMV. 
The street price of E-1 is only about 600-800 euros 