Pavel wrote:
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.
I am happy to acknowledge that it should not be any kind of holy grail.
Okay, now it makes more sense.
Dunno about the post being flame bait or legit question, from the OP. But, it has been a question in my mind. I've seen some incredible comments from 5d users, about the "magic" of FF. What magic? I've read all the propaganda, ad nauseum... Seems to me that the magic boils down to higher resolution, and somewhat better high ISO performance.
Obviously, the APS format is making some headway into higher res and ISO performance as well. Otherwise, FF pretty much the same as any other camera. If all of my shots were at 200mm equivalent and below, then I could see a benefit to having FF, for slightly better subject isolation on shots that required that, etc. But, until the FF cost penalty is substantially reduced, I don't see it as being a significant competitor to APS, especially to users that have need for telephoto. I like what APS format gives me and hope that it's always available.
I also tend to agree with Mark's post on a 1.3x format. Such a compromise would negate some issues on both DX and FF cameras. I've often wondered why Canon didn't offer it in more bodies, specifically the 5d, where the costs might have been several hundred less.
I so wish I had everything and everyone figured out as well as you do dude
In your mind (humor me please , I have read a Lot of your commentary on numerous threads), many D2h users jumped at the first chance to get a D2x and you said you had "predicted" it even tho some of those users (but not as many as you think) , had extolled that 4MP were enough for most of the work they did with that camera. Qualifiers be damned , you took the ball ad naseum and ran with it and contiune this trend now as the first thoughts of nikon making a 35mm size camera rear their head again. In your mind the ones that make make the choice toward that camera are as predictable as the folks getting rid of the D2h in favor of the D2x. How is it that your crystal ball only works to slam Nikon users and not Canon?
A respondent in this thread has wondered why canon didn't make the 5D in a 1.3 format, sheesh it is painfully obvious that the ONLY reason the 5D is selling is Because it is full frame. On most any other merit it would be a laughable camera choice esp considering the upcoming D200.
As for me and full frame, my eyes are not getting any younger , the main reason i got rid of the D70 was VF size and brightness, and that factor alone if the VF was compelling enough might make me consider it when and if it happens. But the other "benefits" will be just what they in truth are now, shaky at best. DX does a great job for me , it is me that is the limiter of my creative vision and not my camera
SamppaM wrote:
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.
Wow... the E-1 is about the same price in Canada, but you guys pay twice as much over there in Europe for the D2X. That's crazy.
In Canada at least, the price of a D2X + AF-S 300 f2.8 VR is about the same as the E-1 + 300mm f2.8.
I always felt that in Canada we get screwed for photo equipments, but I guess I was wrong...
I notice in the Canon forum, people are more rabid than ever extolling the virtues of "full frame", as if it's something magical that will somehow make photos better or something.
My position on full frame is that it would be nice to have, but im not going to pay the ridiculous premium over APS, and while I dont have a "full framed" camera, ill just deal with the different format by altering focal lengths i use.
John, I am humoring you - you've done the same favor for me in many threads, I will admit. I am however not sure what you said in the last coment so I find it hard to try to respond except to say that we aren't all that far apart in our views - not as much as it can seem at times. For the statement that the D200 would be a camera that would be a clear victor up against the 5d or the 20D for that matter - you are running with something here. A camera that has not been used by any of us yet. Has a small amount of resolution over the 20D and a small amount under the 5D so lets just agree to say - so what! Other than that compared to the 20D it has all the same main attractions. Same crop, same fps, same focu aproach, same build style same medium quality viewfinder compared to the best there is. So what you must mean is that it is in the subtle things where you declare it the champ and thus it is by no means likely to be a certain thing with everyone. Yet to declare them a tie you get frothy at the mouth. I don't get it. btw that statement takes nothing away from the D200 - unless one holds the ridiculous position that the 20D is a piece of Cr*p. And that would be ridiculous. I see two subtle advantages to the D200 over the 20D personaly. The weather sealing and being able to throtle the 5fps down. Oh and the spot meter. None of which is much of a thing to many. Heck the Olympus E-1 has had weather sealing in a $1000 dollar camera for six months now. On the other side the 20D is going for (at B&H) $1199. That is against the similar spec'd D200 at 1699. You know that is a different price class and the $500 or 41 percent is a huge factor to many people. It's time for you perhaps to take a more ballanced view of this.
As I've pleaded with you in the past - read the good as well as the slams in what I say. If you can try to humor me more and not read as much negative into the context of my problems with Nikons. Try to maybee think that some of them may be valid even. I know that may be hard as a canon guy in the nikon forum seems suspect enough in the first place. I slam the canons often enough - and you must know that by now as you've eluded to my past posts, eh?
The newly posted positive 5D review on Dpreview is sure to be a boost for the 35mm sized sensor format.
The potential of a sensor this size has to be obvious but presently Nikon`s D2X can come very close and the D200 is promising too but Canon is running away with clean high ISO`s and resolution .No way can anyone expect to match their clean high ISO`s . I know it`s not everything but it`s what most shooters want and Canon is delivering it .
If and when the price of a 35mm sensor body comes down enough to make significant cuts into the DX segment Nikon will have to emerge with a contender in this big sensor arena but right now the lower cost of a DX sensor system is the compelling factor to the masses and both Canon and Nikon are cleaning up with it. Brand loyalty aside it`s plain to see benefits from all formats but how long will they all be available?
John
jmcfadden wrote:
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
J
Jim,
Thanks for the response. Just to clarify, the exit pupil to film plane distance is partially a lens design issue as well, within the confines of the mount. Canon right now has the widest mount of all the 35mm SLR systems, hence its ability to use different brand lenses with adapters. I wonder if the answer to FF corner issues, is a system lens that is optimized for the sensor ala Olympus, but Nikon or Canon etc..
It seems to me that Digital will require the largest mount possible relative to the sensor size. Would it not make sense to make lenses that project an image circle that is considerably larger than the sensor? Also these lenses would obviosly have to have the resolving power for the associated sensor.
FYI, many photogs that I know are wishing for a Nikon FF alternative - myself included. I will move to whoever solves the wideangle problem first, at the pixel count that I need. Competition is a good thing!
Full Frame..Full Frame..Full Frame..Full of Crap......
Cheez..............will this never end! FF (FF meaning the holy 36mm x 24mm sensor) fanatics feel that the DOF issue is of monumental importance is justifying their frenzy over FF. Landscapers swear by FF. Portraitures feel nothing else will give them that fine edge of control as much as a FF sensor.
Will the measurebators please learn something about photography before trying to make a determination of which format is KING! You can design, engineer, philosophize something to death, but if you don't know how to use it, what good will it do you?
Personally I believe that all the top end camera's have more than enough resolution to satisfy every photographer and most every Pro (Pro, being defined as someone that makes a full time living taking photographs). Hell at times I think there is too much resolution. I am tried of my 2 gig CF cards being eaten up with 12 megapixel images and holy cow on having to process them all, my harddrives are bursting at the seams and my DVD burner is on overtime.
Now for you measurebating pixel heads. Now when you look through your viewfinder WYSIWYG, No More No Less. We are talking here about the Pro lines, semi-pro and others, you get a little more than what you see, but you get the idea. All you want is for the sensor to capture, as accurately as possible, what you see. For the landscapers wishing for something more, it just ain't happening. Oh, you would like more pixels! I doubt seriously that unless you are printing wall murals that you can see the difference between a 10 megapixel capture vs a 16 megapixel capture. Funny thing about printer's, they seem to do their own thing interpolating an image. They don't do a pixel for pixel print. For you DOF fanatics during portraits and believe that 1 or 2 inches difference if DOF will either make or break you prize winning capture or that you will end up selling it for bazillons of dollars. Get a Life and learn how to use your FEET, APERTURE or LENS SELECTION to adjust your point of focus and DOF, to get that earth shattering Bokeh that you so dream about.
As for me, if Nikon ever comes out with a so called FF sensor, I won't be standing in line for one. Now give me what I have along with 16 bit color depth and greater dynamic range and I will be standing in line for one (even though it will eat up my CF cards quicker). That way I can be like the BIG BOYS with their MF digital backs. Although I have the X I still use the D2H more than it. The reason is simple. Most of my photography isn't intended for public display, but are captures for either me, my family or friends. Post processing is fast and the pictures will easily make excellent 11x14 prints. Now when I am out taking photographs for public display and/or for sale then I will put up with the extra post processing involved using a higher megapixel camera. BTW for those who may not know, I do have a FF 14 megapixel sensor, Nikon compatible camera, I just find their really isn't any need for it any longer.
Pavel wrote:
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.
-- well, maybee just a tini teeni bit. It is however based in the mild frustration, resulting in a painfull rolling of the eyes - when just after I started to think that the Nikon guys had it right - pixels aren't all that and then to see so many dump the D2h for the D2x as fast as could be. Then to hear about the magnificent detail etc ... well Gary .... it can be a bit much to bear sometimes.
trolling ... that can be such a hard to define thing though .... don't you think?
Nice depth of field but in all seriousness I wish I could post a couple of shots that I've seen by this guy who made use of every missing millimeter of dof in portraits that really stood out because of it.
Let me go look for it and post a link if I can find it.
the 500dollars buys you a camera with a shutter rated at over 100K cycles, weather sealing, a CCD sensor, they Cost more to make and I actually prefer the look. A grip that was made to Work , not a flukey add on thing. A VF Bigger than the 20D and brighter, RGB histogram, instant Everything. Deep and fast buffering. Wanna really know the tale of this camera , as the guys over in the canon forum , if they could send in their 20D to canon and get all of the above how much would they be willing to pay.
See Nikon isn't a camera of the month club subscription, where tiny incremental steps are lauded as "progress" , look at the differences between say the 10D and the 20D in all aspects, then look at the differences between the D100 and the D200. The differences are amazing between the Nikon cameras and just a bit of speed really between the 2 canon offerings. Yes it is true Nikonians have gnashed their teeth about slowness and I am one of them, so I would prefer a 2 year cycle instead of a 3.5 year cycle and can hope the next iteration will be more along that timetable.
As for the D2h, sheesh can you give that one a rest or at least give one concrete example of someone you know was a true apologist that dumped that camera without your approval to do so ? I know for me it was a sad day when I got rid of mine to go to the X and in truth I am considering getting 2 D200's and getting rid of this camera if the reports are true about this new tool. I had to sell it as the studio I was shooting for wanted bigger native output for printing
Pavel wrote:
Nice depth of field but in all seriousness I wish I could post a couple of shots that I've seen by this guy who made use of every missing millimeter of dof in portraits that really stood out because of it.
Let me go look for it and post a link if I can find it.
then all you would be showing is One guy using a proper tool for His vision.
A large percentage of people do Not make use of it well , but they claim they have to have it. You know the type I am speaking of they have 4 copies of the 85mm 1.2 but they never post a real picture they have taken of anything unless you are into seeing images of brick walls
as for the shooter you will post a link for hurray for him and if I were doing that then perhaps I would get something for the job , even a canon
John, I'd call you that "true appologist" but enough already.
You have the ability to say the VF is better on the D200 with a straight face? It is magnified more so according to the laws of physics the viewfinder should be dimmer. have they been altered by the addition of the Nikon logo on the front ... if so I need to get one
The mirror size is the same so the VF dimmensions will be as well, and smaller by a wide degree than that of the 5D. Take a look through a Nikon F6 to see how good FF viewfinder can be.
I don't know what you value in focus abilities but for me the fact that the D2x has nine cross sensors versus one for the D200 makes enough difference that I would be sticking with the D2x and putting up with any comparative minuses. Well except the iso thing. Thats a tough one. I've seen just one sample of iso 1600 from the D200 and I have to say the stuff looked good. Real good. About like the 20D and that is good enough for the next five years as far as what I'm looking for.
In the end - lets remember that the camera isn't out yet. Ok?
... and .... nuf said. ( by me )
Hey a coment of a personal nature. I checked out your site and the re-design is really nice. ( yes I'm trying to butter you up a bit but it's a fact too! )
I wish though that you had more galleries available off the main page rather than just the one. Am I missing something here, or is there no way to see some of your older work?
Real good shots. ( you know - for a Nikon guy )
then you are really just wrong, I was and have been very consistent about the D2h, even when you at various times were very interested in that body. My point was always that for the target market 4mp was and is even now "enough" , and I never questioned others decisions to go for the X, I leave those prognostications to you as I cannot pretend to know what others needs are with respect to their needs. For folks like Mr. Steele he is using the tool for the right job and by his own admission, the H gets used with more frequency than the X for various and sound reasons.
Now as for the 5D , FF and viewfinders. I serously hope you do not think that the 5D VF is inthe same league as a F5. Again Canon could have done better there, but they did not want to upset the 1DsMKII sales anymore than they already have
I have to tell you the VF in my D2x is better by far than my friends 1DMKII and that was his experience as well
So I am out too, if Nikon ever gets around to making a larger sensor which I have no idea about when and if that will ever happen would it be OK if I at least took a look at it ?
The street price of E-1 is only about 600-800 euros 
