tomasis wrote:
I believe you misunderstood me. Did you have a opportunity to try out both 1d markI and Canon 20D with 300mm/2.8, 70-200, teleconverter under moto, gocart races? I did it. It was huge difference to control one of those bodies, while waiting for capturing. Thanks to larger viewfinder and other stuffs (appreciated by pros), I did have fun with 1D. 20D was the nightmare but I was able also to take nice shoots too. But at much lower percentage of suceed shots, also I did have to use manual mode. It was not such case with 1D.
The same photographer is able to take better photos with better equipment. Isnt simple?...Show more →
Cannot say I shot gocart races, mine using/testing such products came when I was shooting Tigers at play, in a refuge. And I will freely admit that the 1D gave me a better opportunity to get a good shot. Funny tting though, the guy I swapped camera's with, just to test, still didn't get any reall keepers with my 1D. Meanwhile I did get some nice photos from the 20D.
Better equiptment almost never allows for better photos, because it is the person behind the camera that takes them. A 1D with 8fps may give you a better hit rate in sports or motion, but it doesn't let you take better shots. I've got some very nice action photos taken with an Old Olympus digital P&S. When I moved to the EOS D30 it made taking good pictures easier to do, it didn't mean I took better pictures.
Next thing you will tell me is that a chef actually makes better dishes if he has "better" cookware.
Mark Jamison wrote:
Cannot say I shot gocart races, mine using/testing such products came when I was shooting Tigers at play, in a refuge. And I will freely admit that the 1D gave me a better opportunity to get a good shot. Funny tting though, the guy I swapped camera's with, just to test, still didn't get any reall keepers with my 1D. Meanwhile I did get some nice photos from the 20D.
Better equiptment almost never allows for better photos, because it is the person behind the camera that takes them. A 1D with 8fps may give you a better hit rate in sports or motion, but it doesn't let you take better shots. I've got some very nice action photos taken with an Old Olympus digital P&S. When I moved to the EOS D30 it made taking good pictures easier to do, it didn't mean I took better pictures.
Next thing you will tell me is that a chef actually makes better dishes if he has "better" cookware. ...Show more →
If we know pretty well that it is true. Why do you keeping telling this? I said that I was able to get some nice shots wih the 20D anyway.
Though I was not clear about my earlier comments I talked only about technical aspects because those thins are discussed here. You didnot seem to able understand and tried explain at more simple way.
If Im that stupid, Id buy 20D because it has higher megapixels than D70 which Im using now. Why didnt I buy 20D? because I believe that 20D will make me better photographer..
tomasis wrote:
If we know pretty well that it is true. Why do you keeping telling this? I said that I was able to get some nice shots wih the 20D anyway.
Though I was not clear about my earlier comments I talked only about technical aspects because those thins are discussed here. You didnot seem to able understand and tried explain at more simple way.
If Im that stupid, Id buy 20D because it has higher megapixels than D70 which Im using now. Why didnt I buy 20D? because I believe that 20D will make me better photographer..
Did we lose something in translation here? Why did you buy the D70 if, as you say, the 20D would make you a better photographer? Did you mean the other way around?
chemprof wrote:
Did we lose something in translation here? Why did you buy the D70 if, as you say, the 20D would make you a better photographer? Did you mean the other way around?
Gerald
Didnt you even notice my apparent irony at my comment? and it is already OFF topic.
Pavel wrote:
THis is the begining of the digital age only. As the 8x10 view cameras got marginalized by 35 mm and swept away so will smaller sensors make the 24x36 size into a footnote to history in thirty years. Convenience is where it's at. If Canon does not get on the ball and see the change - eventually you will see as many white lenses at football matches in the year 2034 as you currently see view cameras at these events. Sure the view camera gives you a great picture - but ....
Are you seriously proposing that the difference in convenience/ease of use between a 1Ds and a D2X, for example, are the same as the difference between 4x5 and 35mm? With all due respect Pavel, that argument is bunk. If you have used a view camera, you should realize exactly how ludicrous this line of reasoning is…
A view camera has a totally different workflow and process than any 35mm camera. I can take a decent picture in less than a second with my Elan IIe. It takes me at least 20 minutes to get a single exposure off my Toyo 45A. The FPS is not so hot either. Last I checked though, all dSLRs, 1.0x or cropped, have fast AF, metering, digital recording and playback, rapid fire shutters, IS/VR lenses, bright viewfinders, and competent auto-flash systens; find me a view camera that has any one of those features!
1.0x sensors are not, as you suppose, condemned to a future of bulk and inconvenience. If you want to talk about size of cameras, look at the 5D. It’s got a 1.0x sensor, yet is about the same size as a D200 with a 1.5x sensor. The 1Ds II is only marginally larger than the D2x. In fact, I have yet to see significant gains in weight or performance from the crop sensor systems. The D2x weighs the same as the D1x, and the D200 weighs about the same as the D100. The DX lenses are still not featherweights, and neither are the new E-series Zuikos. If the crop sensor is the path to smaller and more convenient cameras for everyone, why is it that a D2x with a 17-55mm DX lens isn’t that much lighter than a 1Ds II with a 16-35 attached? Why are there no DX telephotos? Why does the 200mm f/2VR weigh as much as the now discontinued 200mm f/1.8L? Why does the E-1 weigh about as much as a 5D?
Let’s face it. The weight reductions that might be possible with ‘crop sensor’ lenses have not yet been properly realized. Given the slow pace of lens technology development (relative to cameras) it might be a very long time before we see a real benefit in this area.
If anything, Canon has proven with the 5D that your argument about size and convenience is moot. They did something that most 1Ds owners did not imagine was possible; put a 1.0x sensor in a body that is not much larger than the D200 or 20D. And now, you are telling me that the 1.5x sensor is the only way to build smaller camera bodies? You’ll forgive me if I pass on the Kool-Aid you are drinking.
And insofar as your ‘reach’ argument… well that also falls on its face when you consider that, if the next 1Ds ships with a 20MP or denser sensor, you can just as easily get the ‘reach of your D2X using the ‘crop’ tool in Photoshop.
Don’t get me wrong; I like crop cameras, and am hardly bound to the religion of full frame. Heck, I use a crop camera! But your entire argument ignores the fact that there are image quality advantages to larger sensors; my eyes were recently opened to that fact as I compare files from our 20D vs. our 1D Mark II, which has a larger sensor with the same resolution. Your claim that 1.0x cameras exact a toll in convenience for their image quality enhancements is very poorly argued; it sounds more like a content Nikon user defending his choice than an objective evaluation of the tools we currently have available.
Arka ... As I think is obvious ... I say that I was "stretching the examples" to illustrate the differences more clearly. And again - as I thought was pretty obvious to the more astute I was not comparing the 35 vs view camera to the difference between a FF slr of the future versus a crop camera of the future once those lens advantages are realised. No - I was making the point that historicaly the tide has gone in favor of the factor that brought "EASE OF USE ... you know the convenient route.
Just as the superior image quality of view cameras still were not enought to make them mainstream or the popular choice .... neither will the tini, tini weeny image quality step up off 24x36mm digital size make it a resounding choice of the masses in the future.
You need to be a real stickler to see any differences already and the crop quality is so superior to the quality of the 5D images it makes it into a joke.
Here: Pictures are worth fifty words, right. These are "borrowed" from Steves-digicams review. 100% crops from the samples he posted in his review of the D2x and the 5D.
The 5D was used with a pretty good "L" lens - the 17-40. I had that lens until recently and it was superb with the 1.3 crop of the 1D. On FF .... well I suspect that those that care about image quality will have to wait for some updated glass. Perhaps in a few years?
FF in this stage ... is an embarassement today in respect to quality of the corners of the image. You gen't remember how I was a FF believer. Well I've admited I was wrong. I guess I was thinking of film.
Oh and for the reach argument. The crop is not stricktly a crop. It behaves as a magnification is some respects.
You have to consider the llpair ability of lenses aren't near good enough to make a crop look like a zoom lens when you get caried away.
Perspective as you know is simply a factor of distance to subject. Any good beginer photograhy book will point that out. So the distance you stand back affects perspective and we all shoot for a framing in mind. Using your analogy why don't you just shoot everything with a wide angle and crop? I've also had the 1D's focus fall down when you are standing back too far with a inadequate magnification. The focus points are bigger than the little red squares - if you have a small object it can be a hard time getting the sensor that is cleanly over it ( and everything else in the background too) to pick up on what you think you are focusing on.
Now I agree that the miniaturization of lenses has not brought the windfalls we can look forward to - yet. I just prefer that road. When it does pay off we can have a lens with the same apparent reach with only 2/3rds the mass. AMEN I say.
Pavel wrote:
Arka ... As I think is obvious ... I say that I was "stretching the examples" to illustrate the differences more clearly. And again - as I thought was pretty obvious to the more astute I was not comparing the 35 vs view camera to the difference between a FF slr of the future versus a crop camera of the future once those lens advantages are realised. No - I was making the point that historicaly the tide has gone in favor of the factor that brought "EASE OF USE ... you know the convenient route.
But your argument doesn’t work, because the differences in ease of use between cropped and uncropped cameras are too marginal to be valid selection factors for most photographers. I use the term ‘selection factor’ to define some characteristic that makes one system obviously preferable to another for a certain range of uses. There are many ‘selection factors’ that led to the increased ‘fitness’ of 35mm film vs the view camera. Those factors simply do not exist in the dSLR world, and I seriously doubt they ever will. The historical analogy you’ve used, even as a stretch, is unconvincing.
Just as the superior image quality of view cameras still were not enought to make them mainstream or the popular choice .... neither will the tini, tini weeny image quality step up off 24x36mm digital size make it a resounding choice of the masses in the future.
But neither will the ‘teeny tiny’ differences in weight or usability drive people to the crop sensors. In fact, if you could, without weight penalty or significant increase in cost, have the insignificant increase in image quality that comes from a 1.0x sensor, I think most working photographers would take the step up in sensor size.
You need to be a real stickler to see any differences already and the crop quality is so superior to the quality of the 5D images it makes it into a joke.
[snip]
FF in this stage ... is an embarassement today in respect to quality of the corners of the image. You gen't remember how I was a FF believer. Well I've admited I was wrong. I guess I was thinking of film.
You are cherry picking a limited set of examples to define the failure of an entire system, and that’s hardly fair. Now, I grant you that many FF shooters move to a 1.0x format so that they can shoot ‘really wide.’ In this area, the problems of Canon lenses are well known, and I would hope that Canon is aware of them as well. However, if you look at any of Canon’s system lenses above 24mm, and you’ll find that all of them perform admirably within the system. And keep in mind that 24mm is quite wide in the 1.0x format. To argue that 1.0x is a failure because Canon’s ultra-wides are mediocre is a pretty harsh approach to looking at a very broad system. Kind of like if I came into a Nikon forum and said that, since the D2H is noisy at ISO 800, the whole DX concept is fatally flawed and doomed to eventual obscurity.
If, (and this is a big if), Canon were able to produce a single wide angle lens that could perform as well as a Carl Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon, your entire argument against 1.0x sensors and image quality is completely invalidated. Given that I am happy with my 1.25x camera, I am not holding my breath for that announcement. However, I think you too casually dismiss the fact that, for the very real advantages that 1.0x sensors can provide above 24mm, they exact a very small penalty in weight (though the cost penalty is still quite severe.)
Arka C.
Edited by lordarka on Feb 02, 2006 at 04:06 AM GMT
Arka, I agree with all that logic.
My only dissent is not with any of what you have said - it is with the carte-blanche statements to the superiority of the image from a FF sensor. I mean to point out how that is not valid and when it is it is small. More often the image quality gain is lost in the corners.
If you recall I was a BIG time FF proponent. I had to concede that on the sum of it the FF cause as it exists today is a let down and have found that it is the croped sensor approach that is the "sweet" spot.
Should conditions change ... so will my mind. Now the 17-40 lens is one example and I chose it because frankly it is shocking. It would be worse however if you were to mount a lesser lens like canons non-L 24 or perhaps a sigma 15-30 which is imminently viable on a 1.3 crop sensor.
The wides I was expecting to perform poorly ... but I have to admit not to that strong a degree. What really moved me to do an about face on the issue and buy into the Nikon system rather than upgrade to a 5D was not the wides. I hardly shoot wide. It was what my eyes were showing me from the results of my shooting with a mk2 (1Ds) and the 70-200 f 2.8.
It was not nearly as obvious as the 17-40 ... but you know what ... neither was it stellar. It certainly was inferior to the 1D and the same lens. The owner of the 1Ds even admitted as much.
Once upon a time the only high megapixel body was the 1Ds ... and so FF went along with the quest for pixels. Nowadays when the two can be separated I believe it is just as viable - and marginally better for the ultimate in image quality across the whole field - to go with a non FF solution.
There are no tradeoffs anymore with that approach. I think it's the winning formula.
Kudos to Nikon for having the panache to not cave in to marketing lullabies.
From what little I know the problem with the 5D is not with the "FF" sensor, but with not so good lenses below 35mm. I'm replacing my 20D with 5D in the next few days and I'll be interested to see what happens at the wide angles.
As far as this thread goes, it would really help if those who used both the Nikon DX sensors and the Canon "FF" sensors would chime in.
Rsg-1 ... absolutely. It's just that it's a package of sorts. I don't even think it is the FF dimension exactly that makes the lenses look so shabby. The same with film is stellar.
I belive that it is as Olympus has figgured out first. That digital sensors need to get the light at less oblique angles and so the mount has to be wider ... basically a whole redesign of the lens.
I had an Olympus E-1 and still shoot with it time to time. It isn't marketing hype. There is really something there as far as the quality of the lenses - especially the wides at the edges. Simply the best there is. Period.
On that front I believe further that we would see worse results with FF with nikon than Canon.
The mount is narrower and that simply does not work well with lenses and sensors together at those dimensions.
Perhaps that is a prime motivator for Nikon keeping out of the FF rat race. I doubt many want to see the F mount changed so Nikon shooters can pray at the alter of FF.
Let's all remember what the original digital pain was with Crops. No wides. nowadays with 10 mm lenses ... who cares anymore?
Tomasis. Ok and I agree that images can look very good with less than perfect technical excellence. However it does still point out to a very poor performing lens/body combo, don't you agree. On the next shot .... the bride and groom for example ... that pleasing fuzziness may make the bridesmaids unrecognizable. You'd have to reach for a Nikon then
From what little I know, and from rumors, Canon is working on better wides keeping in mind the "affordable" 5D with a "FF" sensor. Supposedly these lenses will soon be available, but as Arka said, its a big if. At this time, I'm willing to take that gamble since I'm very pleased with the sharpness of the Canon lenses that I own. In the last year, Canon's lens QC has improved and recent copies of the 16-35 and 24-105 IS are superb on the "cropped" bodies.
If the 5D doesn't work out for me, then I'm getting rid of it and all my Canon L lenses and switching to the Nikon D200.
Pavel, why not bring out both high end systemes of Canon and Nikon? hehe
Frankly speaking, to utilize the most out of the system, one needs to be aware of disadvantages and advantages of every system to get appropriate pictures.
Dx sensor doesnt mean the ultimate way to go for all photographers IMO
Now thats funny!
Sony learnt how to build sensors from canon.
Huh what a load of codswallop.
Just because you think it does not mean it is true.
Guys research is paramount and it's amazing how little research any of the canon users contributing to this thread have done.
What the hell do you teach your children I feel so sorry for them having to go home from school to listen to your tripe!
Cheers,
Jasin.
jasin wrote:
Now thats funny!
Sony learnt how to build sensors from canon.
Huh what a load of codswallop.
Just because you think it does not mean it is true.
Guys research is paramount and it's amazing how little research any of the canon users contributing to this thread have done.
What the hell do you teach your children I feel so sorry for them having to go home from school to listen to your tripe!
Cheers,
Jasin.
I don't know if Canon users teach their kids about cameras...
If I had any children, I would instead teach them what codswallop means....
Some research:
I know you love this stuff Arka good to see you.
Steven Sasson, an engineer working for Eastman Kodak, is credited with developing the first digital camera, an 8-pound toaster sized box that captured a black-and-white image on a digital cassette tape at a resolution of .01 megapixels. Sasson's masters supervisor, Gareth Lloyd, set him an open ended assignment. The question was simply 'Could we build a camera using solid-state imagers?' At that time (1970s) the CCD had just come out, and people were curious about its applications. Before that time television cameras had converted images into analog electrical signals, cameras aboard robot space probes had digitized photographs using vacuum tube components and relayed them back to Earth, and Texas Instruments had designed a filmless but analog-based electronic camera in 1972. No one, however, had attempted a completely solid-state digital-video device.
For his device, Sasson used an analog-to-digital converter adapted from Motorola Inc. components, a Kodak movie-camera lens and the tiny CCD chips introduced by Fairchild Semiconductor in 1973.
Sony marketed Mavica, the first filmless camera in 1981. Mavica worked off magnetic disks and was based on television technology that inherently limited image quality.
Cheers,
Jasin.
