Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Pavel wrote:
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.
Well, I don’t know if it is an unqualified statement. I would agree that differences are subtle, and often irrelevant. Today, the 1.0x advantage is modest at best, and perhaps imperceptible in most cases. Nikon has done great work with their sensors and dedicated optics. However, all things being equal, a larger sensor can present an imaging advantage; we’ve noticed it between the 20D and 1D Mark II; the same files on the 1D Mark II hold slightly better detail, particularly in the shadow areas.
You can decry the optics in the Canon system, but still doesn’t undermine the inherent soundness (or lack thereof) of the approach. I for one don’t believe that the Canon lenses above 24mm perform all that poorly on 1.0x sensors, and given that they don’t weigh or cost much more than their DX or non-DX Nikon counterparts, the whole discussion seems to be much ado about nothing. DX is not a panacea either, and as resolutions get denser, the smaller sensors might also create problems of their own, especially at higher ISO. Either design approach has potential and plainly evident pitfalls.
Kudos to Nikon for having the panache to not cave in to marketing lullabies.
Why would you say that? In the realm of sensor size, if there is any company today that stands out from the pack, it is Canon. After all, everyone but Canon seems to have committed themselves to cheaper cropped sensors. Initially, everyone assumed that the crop sensor was a prophylactic, soon to be superseded by larger 1.0x sensors. You are arguing that Nikon’s decision to turn the prophylactic into a usable system somehow makes them a trendsetter? I don’t think so… Olympus thought of it too. Further, I don’t think Nikon even said that they were not providing a 1.0x option some day.
Nikon sings their own marketing lullabies to system adherents. We hear them repeated in here ad infinitum, just as we hear Canon marketing speak over in that other forum…
Nikon has decided to not deliver you a 1.0x camera, and they have spun that into an advantage. Canon does deliver you a 1.0x camera, and they have spun that into an advantage. Who’s right?
The effort by any company is to showcase weaknesses and downplay competitive disadvantages, or spin the disadvantages into something else, is fundamental to their marketing. At this time, Nikon does not offer you a sensor larger than 1.5x. You perceive that as a good thing, which is good for Nikon. Many people don’t share your view. This is good for Canon. Clearly, each side has particular strengths. Otherwise, Nikon could not charge what it does for its cropped DX lenses, and Canon could never charge what it does for the 5D.
Arka C.
|
