Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: valkyrie1965 on March 03, 2007, 06:25:27 pm
-
I am a photography student and I am ready to buy a good digital SLR. My photography interest include: landscape, action and portraiture. My instructor has recommended the Cannon. My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard. Price is not really an issue, but I want to be sure I don't regret my purchase. Any advice
-
I am a photography student and I am ready to buy a good digital SLR. My photography interest include: landscape, action and portraiture. My instructor has recommended the Cannon. My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard. Price is not really an issue, but I want to be sure I don't regret my purchase. Any advice
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok what do you mean by price is no factor ?
I would go with Canon. Perhaps because I own three of their cameras, but I really would consider the Canon 5D. Fantastic, and I think gives you most for your money. 1Ds series is to unknoen, sorry wouldn't spent so much money know there we know, that something new is coming this fall.
I don't know why your sister is saying Nikon is standard. As much as I know Canon rules pretty much.
If you go for a cheaper Model you really should think about Nikon, because the D200 is nice, too. But I really prefer FF.
-
My photography interest include: landscape, action and portraiture.
That about covers the whole scope. I'd say look around to see what the pros use. Most sports events are dominated by Canons. In my business, architectural photography, Canons overwhelmingly dominate DSLR usage because of the full chip and availability of perspective control lenses. Look at what people are using in the fields that interest you.
My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard.
This was certainly true about 20 years ago. Since the digital revolution though it has swayed back and forth in DSLR between Canon and Nikon with an overall edge to Canon IMO. Next year anything is possible as the technology and competition escalates.
Frankly I don't think you could go wrong with either system for your stated purposes. More than anything else your results will depend on your budget for high end camera bodies and good lenses and doing your homework for quality purchases. There are dogs in each system. Beyond that how you use your equipment will matter enormously and perhaps more than the differences in the two excellent systems.
FWIW, I own a ton of Canon equipment, all of which I have bought in the last year. I could do my work with Nikons, but there would be some compromises. For the foreseeable future it looks like I made the right choice for my work.
-
Go to a well stocked camera-store and 'try them on'. Even if you have to travel a bit to do that, it will be worth your while. You will spend a lot of time with the camera in your hand and whatever feels more comfortable, more intuitive and 'fits' better to you personally will be the one. Both brands have an excellent line up of different models and lenses. And there are other brands as well.
Even if money is not an issue, it might be thought to go for a less expensive outfit and see which of the three topics interest you more (or most). Maybe, you would prefer a Hasselblad with a digital back? Just kidding.
The best advice would be: Take your time and actually handle the cameras you are interested in and some you have not thought about.
Angela
-
Looking at what the pros use will not be very useful to you as a student. In cameras that cost anywhere from $500.00 to $1500.00 Nikon is a very clear leader if you are buying new. The ergonomics and features on a camera like a D80 are better than the digital Rebel.
The advantages that Canon gives you are: it's selection of sports lenses in the $2-10K range, it's ability to use exotic 3rd party wide angle lenses for architecture (costing $2-3K each), and that it is full frame (if you spend $3k or more on the body). None of these is an actual advantage for a student.
What about some extra lenses for the portraits (some of those fast, fixed ones)....
Nikon 50mm 1.4 $250.00
Canon 50mm 1.2 $1600.00
Nikon 85mm 1.4 1000.00
Canon 85mm 1.2 1700.00
My main point here is that the Pros are using a different set of criteria to make decisions on these cameras. The budget is very different. I know you say price is not an issue, but the quality of images from a D200 will be so similar to a 5d at half the cost that price should be an issue. The D200 will also squash the ergonomics and features of the Rebel series.
This is all IMHO of course. I see a lot of photography students using Nikons.
-
Hi
If you look at a canon 50 mm 1.4 oit goes for 275 or there abouts . It depends on the work you do. If you shoot in low light at all canon is a no brainer. It simpky has less noise then anything else out there. If low light means nbothing to you and do not shoot above 400 iso then there are pros and cons both ways . Nikon has the best mid level camera in terms oi weather seal the d200 . If you want fsat wide angle lenses go with canon and a full frame sensor. When I started shooting sports Sports Illustrated was 50- 50 nikon or canon Now Only one left shoots nothing but nikon most Shoot Canon .
Good luck Looking at what the pros use will not be very useful to you as a student. In cameras that cost anywhere from $500.00 to $1500.00 Nikon is a very clear leader if you are buying new. The ergonomics and features on a camera like a D80 are better than the digital Rebel.
The advantages that Canon gives you are: it's selection of sports lenses in the $2-10K range, it's ability to use exotic 3rd party wide angle lenses for architecture (costing $2-3K each), and that it is full frame (if you spend $3k or more on the body). None of these is an actual advantage for a student.
What about some extra lenses for the portraits (some of those fast, fixed ones)....
Nikon 50mm 1.4 $250.00
Canon 50mm 1.2 $1600.00
Nikon 85mm 1.4 1000.00
Canon 85mm 1.2 1700.00
My main point here is that the Pros are using a different set of criteria to make decisions on these cameras. The budget is very different. I know you say price is not an issue, but the quality of images from a D200 will be so similar to a 5d at half the cost that price should be an issue. The D200 will also squash the ergonomics and features of the Rebel series.
This is all IMHO of course. I see a lot of photography students using Nikons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Of the advice you've seen here so far, I think Angela's is the most important. "Ergonomics" isn't just a theoretical concept, it's what feels right to you, in your own hands. Both Nikon and Canon make excellent cameras and lenses (and both make some dogs.) If you spend some time at a camera store trying several models from each, you should pretty soon get a sense of what feels comfortable in your own hands.
I personally like full-frame, and I love my Canon 5D. I previously had a 10D which did very well, too. So I am personally solidly in the Canon camp, but that doesn't mean it's the best for you. My brother uses (and swears by) Nikons.
Good luck with your selection, and please let us know what you end up with.
-
"Ergonomics" are on part of a camera, but certainly not the biggest one or why else do so many of us still use something like 1D(s) Mk2 ;-)
-
I am a photography student and I am ready to buy a good digital SLR. My photography interest include: landscape, action and portraiture. My instructor has recommended the Cannon. My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard. Price is not really an issue, but I want to be sure I don't regret my purchase. Any advice
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The truth is that it is a very bad time to ask the question.
Although I am, among other things, a Nikon user, I'd say that the most universal answer today is probably to get a Canon 5D.
I am saying that now is a bad timing because there are very insistent rumours that Nikon is about to annouce their own full frame (or nearly so) based camera. My recommendation would then instantly switch to Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The truth is that it is a very bad time to ask the question.
Although I am, among other things, a Nikon user, I'd say that the most universal answer today is probably to get a Canon 5D.
I am saying that now is a bad timing because there are very insistent rumours that Nikon is about to annouce their own full frame (or nearly so) based camera. My recommendation would then instantly switch to Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Funny that I am working with a 5D and think that for outdoor use the Nikon D2x would be the better camera (weather sealed, faster, much better viewfinder, better display,..) General I find the picture quality of the 5D very good, but only with the best lenses (24-70 2,8 for example) and only if you dont get a lemon which happens in both camps frequently I fear. My new purchased 17-40 L never made it up to the optical performance of the 24-70 so I sold it. Waiting for that 16-35 II for 1700.-€, I am not sure if I will buy it for that price. (for super wide angle I do lot of stiching with really right stuff panorama plate, and that works very well).
If Nikon brings an almost full frame camera I predict that all Nikon users will start to find out the hard way, that Nikon is nothing better in wide angle performance than Canon. All optics of both companies were never designed for digital use, so unpleasant surprises will happen mainly below 28/24 mm optics. The main feature of a full frame sensor is ISO performance, which I needed when I purchased the 5D (weddings at candlelight for example - hard to do that with a Nikon). As I am now able to go back to more "outdoor" stuff again (never enjoyed the press/wedding stuff very much), I would say Nikon would suit me more. As mentioned ergonomics are important, I can work with Canon very well, but I had a D2X for testing a few days and liked it better (and actually I came from the Nikon D-100 camp, so I am used to Nikon too). Than there is the question of which optics you think you need, the more you go the wide angle the more you are better suited with Canon, but only with the expensive new 16-35 lens (look at threads about Canon users which adapt old olympus, leica or zeiss lenses to their cameras, they dont do it for fun, but because wide angle is a tough area with digital cameras). The more you go the Tele end, you will find advantages of the cropped sensor.
And also the Raw converter will have a very high impact on the quality of your files. DXO is amazing with landscape, architecture, but ACR is good with portrait, as it makes easier for a softer look (which is hard to get in DXO)
It is a hard decision, and the bad thing is, you might feel in a year that it was the wrong one, no matter what you did this time.
Good Luck !
Christian
-
Funny that I am working with a 5D and think that for outdoor use the Nikon D2x would be the better camera (weather sealed, faster, much better viewfinder, better display,..) General I find the picture quality of the 5D very good, but only with the best lenses (24-70 2,8 for example) and only if you dont get a lemon which happens in both camps frequently I fear. My new purchased 17-40 L never made it up to the optical performance of the 24-70 so I sold it. Waiting for that 16-35 II for 1700.-€, I am not sure if I will buy it for that price. (for super wide angle I do lot of stiching with really right stuff panorama plate, and that works very well).
If Nikon brings an almost full frame camera I predict that all Nikon users will start to find out the hard way, that Nikon is nothing better in wide angle performance than Canon. All optics of both companies were never designed for digital use, so unpleasant surprises will happen mainly below 28/24 mm optics. The main feature of a full frame sensor is ISO performance, which I needed when I purchased the 5D (weddings at candlelight for example - hard to do that with a Nikon). As I am now able to go back to more "outdoor" stuff again (never enjoyed the press/wedding stuff very much), I would say Nikon would suit me more. As mentioned ergonomics are important, I can work with Canon very well, but I had a D2X for testing a few days and liked it better (and actually I came from the Nikon D-100 camp, so I am used to Nikon too). Than there is the question of which optics you think you need, the more you go the wide angle the more you are better suited with Canon, but only with the expensive new 16-35 lens (look at threads about Canon users which adapt old olympus, leica or zeiss lenses to their cameras, they dont do it for fun, but because wide angle is a tough area with digital cameras). The more you go the Tele end, you will find advantages of the cropped sensor.
And also the Raw converter will have a very high impact on the quality of your files. DXO is amazing with landscape, architecture, but ACR is good with portrait, as it makes easier for a softer look (which is hard to get in DXO)
It is a hard decision, and the bad thing is, you might feel in a year that it was the wrong one, no matter what you did this time.
Good Luck !
Christian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The debate on weather seal can be quite subjective. A weather seal camera needs to work with a weather seal lens and a weather sealed flash system so far only Canon offer such solution. The typical weather sealed option also depends on how far the user willing to push their equipment to go, and under not-so-harsh condition, perhpas 5D works as good as cameras so called weather sealed. But if one push the camera to go beyond normal, then the weather seal issue has to address to all the compobets - lens, flash and so on, then just the body won't work.
I think we should not doubt the Canon 5D as of today offer the top image in a common package. The nice thing about Canon is that if offer a logical range of cameras from the very low bottom to the very top end on 135mm type DSLR, with not just shooting rate, body build, pixel count, resolution, but also sensor size. Every camera brans has their loyalty customers, but it is no wonder Canon has the biggest pie.
-
Funny that I am working with a 5D and think that for outdoor use the Nikon D2x would be the better camera (weather sealed, faster, much better viewfinder, better display,..) [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Christian,
That's my opinion too if landscape is the main application, but the OP also mentioned portrait.
The main value of the D2x for landscape is IMHO its APS sensor delivering both more DoF and a more uniform image quality with wide angle lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One more option??
The Fuji S5
The Fuji DSLRs are know for extended dynamic range and very natural skin tones. The new S5 is also a big improvement in the body itself, which I believe is a D200. About $1800.00. It's worth considering.
-
Looking at what the pros use will not be very useful to you as a student.
I couldn't disagree more. looking at what the pros use for a particular kind of photography teaches you allot about what features are optimum for a particular use and why. What is a better place to look? Some of the pros choices may be outside your budget but at least you have a sense of what you ultimately may need. Also, he did say that price was not a factor.
I teach at two universities and numerous workshops. Most students walk into entry level classes with (budget aside) less than optimum choices of cameras. The last place I would look for recommendations are students unless they are upper level or graduate students with some experience under their belt.
-
Any advice
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use nikon
Go for Canon 5d
Full frame view looks right with todays focal ranges
Buy only lenses that will cover full frame exept maybe an extreme wide zoom which will go in the bin in time
You can get great value with prime lenses
---
One advantage of Nikon however is that you can get ancient lenses very cheap
50 1.4 etc - if only there was a cheap old wide (there isnt)
The fact that they dont meter and dont have AF will help you progress from student to master very quickly
Id go Canon 5d and a 20 2.8 and a 50 1.8 and maybe a 135 or 180(?)
Or a nikon and an 18 and a 35 1.4 mF
What you need to be evaluatiing is the difference between the expensive 5d and cheap wide lenses and a cheaper nikon but expensive (or crappy) wide lenses
I dont think zooms help you learn and I dont think lenses with apertures smaller than 2.8 help you learn focus control either
You only need three lenses a wide a normal and a tele - get the tele last and learn to get up close and personal
My recomend
canon 5d 20mm or 24mm and 50mm
or on a real budget nikon (D100?) and 12-24 and 50 1.8 manual
With canon you wont ever need to upgrade from those lenses so could be cheaper in the long run
SMM
-
I was a Nikon user up until I shifted to FF Canons. Ergonomics are different, but you can learn to use a camera but can't change the camera's format so your decision will key you in to a specific system for some time to come - unless your budget really is unlimited. Although there are subtleties of the Nikons that I miss, one thing that I do like is not having to 'relearn' lenses - I much prefer to use '35mm' focal lengths on FF - something which is akin to 'mental ergonomics' in a way. As already stated, I'd stick to fixed focal lengths and keep things simple - 24/50/135 or 20/35/85, etc will cover an awful lot at not a hideous outlay. Lastly, if you are so minded, various adapters allow you to use Nikon lenses on the Canon FFs so you can hedge your bets (not G or DX lenses) and have access to loads of cheaper, older lenses (and find out whether Nikon w/as are as good/equal/better than Canon's at the same time) albeit at the expense of metering and focus automation. As has been already stated, this is not a bad way to learn.
-
What amazingly dogmatic suggestions you have received!
My dogmatic suggestions?
- Set a price range
- Study the options for body and lens combinations in that price range and see how they work for you. Read online reviews, study sample photos, including downloading and printing some if possible, try gear out in a camera store, and so on. Maybe borrow cameras from fellow students.
- Consider even other brands: many very good photographers are getting good results, with Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, and Konica-Minolta/Sony DSLR's.
- Focus on gear in your price range and maybe a bit beyond, not far more expensive gear of the same brand. Brand choice is not "till death do us part" so it is better to run a small chance of having to change brand later if you move to far higher price level than to hamper yourself with gear that is not a good fit now. (I have been through Pentax, Canon and Olympus so far in three decades of SLR usage.)
-
In the 70's and 80's Nikon was way ahead of canon, it probably outsold canon 3 to 1, today is the other way around. For how long? Funny that back then, the camera that made most money for me was a Pentax, (a 6x7)....
-
In the 70's and 80's Nikon was way ahead of canon, it probably outsold canon 3 to 1, today is the other way around.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
These things are changing quick.
The sales figures of DSLR in Japan for early 2007 give Nikon 49% market share while Canon is at 35%. Granted, this figure is probably strongly influenced by the success of the D40 and might not be representative of the overall levels of both companies.
The figures are probably different also in other geos, but it is pretty obvious that the clear lead Canon had 2 years ago has overall been reversed.
This shows that it is important to distinguish a possible technological lead in the high end and the way volume cameras are preceived by consumers and selling. Canon releasing tomorrow a 40MP 2ds with perfect corner sharpness and ISO 12800 would probably not impact their market share much until they implement the new technologies in bodies most people can afford.
The bottomline being that, for someone looking for pro grade cameras, the market share of the company producing the camera is IMHO irrelevant. The 5D would still be a great camera even if Nikon were to outsell Canon 2 to 1 like in the old days.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Two more things for the original poster to consider:
You said you were a student. Are you considering working for a school publication such as newspaper or yearbook, or might you in the future? If so, what sort of gear pool does your school have? Being able to borrow is always a good thing and can really help you out when you are saving your money at first.
I second BJL's advice about setting a budget, but don't just budget for a camera/lens. Remember all the little (or not so little) pieces of gear you might need/want: tripod, monopod, flash, bags, belts, vests, batteries, pocket wizards, another flash, some softboxes, memory cards, an extra charger, vertical grip, gaff tape, ramen to eat because you spent all your money on gear......the list goes on and on!
-
I second BJL's advice about setting a budget, but don't just budget for a camera/lens. Remember all the little (or not so little) pieces of gear you might need/want: tripod, monopod, flash, bags, belts, vests, batteries, pocket wizards, another flash, some softboxes, memory cards, an extra charger, vertical grip, gaff tape, ramen to eat because you spent all your money on gear......the list goes on and on!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
...fast computer, screen, calibration software and hardware, Raid 5 storage unit, DVD for backup, software,...
Regards,
Bernard
-
"What amazingly dogmatic suggestions you have received! ..... Consider even other brands: many very good photographers are getting good results, with Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, and Konica-Minolta/Sony DSLR's."
Speaking personally, the camera system I bought when I was a student (Nikon) keyed me into their system until Canon lured me away with FF digital 25 years later. I heard a UK statistic recently which was that we are more likely to get divorced than change our bank! I'd hazzard a guess that the camera system you go for as a student is likely to be the one you use for many years to come.
For what it is worth (and I know there will be objections), I personally know of no pros using anything other than Nikon or Canon dSLRs (ok perhaps one or two own a Leica M but I'm talking using not owning). I also know of none who have switched from Canon to Nikon but I do know a fair few who have switched from Nikon to Canon. Without wanting to be dogmatic, I see this as a trend for a reason - not that Canon are better than Nikon, but that the Canon FF probably fulfills more professional's requirements of a camera at this moment in time - in my own case this means fast wides and macros which remain physically the same size in use, together with the subtle differences in the final image. Other friends have other reasons for using Canon FF but my observations as to the shift from Nikon to Canon are not unique - I know this from talking to other photographers.
When selecting a camera/system do look at all available options, but also be aware of why photographers use the gear that they do.
-
"What amazingly dogmatic suggestions you have received! ..... Consider even other brands: many very good photographers are getting good results, with Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, and Konica-Minolta/Sony DSLR's."
Speaking personally, the camera system I bought when I was a student (Nikon) keyed me into their system until Canon lured me away with FF digital 25 years later. I heard a UK statistic recently which was that we are more likely to get divorced than change our bank! I'd hazzard a guess that the camera system you go for as a student is likely to be the one you use for many years to come.
For what it is worth (and I know there will be objections), I personally know of no pros using anything other than Nikon or Canon dSLRs (ok perhaps one or two own a Leica M but I'm talking using not owning). I also know of none who have switched from Canon to Nikon but I do know a fair few who have switched from Nikon to Canon. Without wanting to be dogmatic, I see this as a trend for a reason - not that Canon are better than Nikon, but that the Canon FF probably fulfills more professional's requirements of a camera at this moment in time - in my own case this means fast wides and macros which remain physically the same size in use, together with the subtle differences in the final image. Other friends have other reasons for using Canon FF but my observations as to the shift from Nikon to Canon are not unique - I know this from talking to other photographers.
When selecting a camera/system do look at all available options, but also be aware of why photographers use the gear that they do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104776\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree uterly with all of the above
I dont know any pros not N or C
I started with Nikon and am feeling very lured by Canon because of full frame
Trouble is I have endep up owning nikon lenses from 14-600
So it is an iportant desision right now to get right
And canon is where is is currenlty at !
SMM
-
I agree uterly with all of the above
I dont know any pros not N or C
I started with Nikon and am feeling very lured by Canon because of full frame
Trouble is I have endep up owning nikon lenses from 14-600
So it is an iportant desision right now to get right
And canon is where is is currenlty at !
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104781\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And - I believe the new 1D III and it's sensible co-released items indicated that Canon isn't about to yield the pro market. That is the most profound professional camera design conceived yet.
-
With Canons announcement of the 1Ds Mark III, we can assume there will be a 1Ds Mark III with similar features but likely twice the megapixels or more.
To me this puts Canon in first by a long shot. Only a BIG surprise from Nikon would put them back in the running.
-
I personally know of no pros using anything other than Nikon or Canon dSLRs
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=104776\")
Firstly, what pros use is not necessarily the measure of what a student or amateur should choose. Even serious amateurs might have very different needs than the stereotypical sports/PJ "pro". For me, all the Canon and Nikon "pro" options lead to kits that are far too big and heavy for my purposes.
Secondly, pro SLR usage includes a lot of non C+N MF gear.
Thirdly: [a href=\"http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/gallery.asp]http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/gallery.asp[/url]
And I imagine that Pentax and Sony could put together similar lists.
-
The bottomline being that, for someone looking for pro grade cameras, the market share of the company producing the camera is IMHO irrelevant. The 5D would still be a great camera even if Nikon were to outsell Canon 2 to 1 like in the old days.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are absolutly right!
cheers
-
Firstly, what pros use is not necessarily the measure of what a student or amateur should choose. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok my first camera was practica but then I went to nikon very quickly
If one assumes one is a student - studying to become professional - there are two reasons to go with pro kit
- Sensible simple purchases like a fast fifty are affordable by students and will stay in thier kit for years even when they are pro so no losses on selling or trading in
- When one assists or gets a work experience on a paper or whatever you already have a basic working knowliedge of the kit
(just look at all the asisting adverts that require knowledge of Canon, Phase One and Capture One)
SMM
-
Anyone want statistical analysis how likely this is due to pure chance?
85% in MR's expedition shot Canon, and 6x1DsIII + 3x5D + 2xRebels
dead in light drizzle. Most of the rest were shooting Nikon with no
problems.
My 5D had problems in the drizzle while my D2x kept working well.
Thanks,
Leping Zha
Ph.D. in Physics
-
Anyone want statistical analysis how likely this is due to pure chance?
85% in MR's expedition shot Canon, and 6x1DsIII + 3x5D + 2xRebels
dead in light drizzle. Most of the rest were shooting Nikon with no
problems.
My 5D had problems in the drizzle while my D2x kept working well.
Thanks,
Leping Zha
Ph.D. in Physics
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nice one. Now take the whole statistic and you will see that it is totally normal. For example if just one Nikon would have failed the rate would have been much worse.
-
I am a photography student and I am ready to buy a good digital SLR. My photography interest include: landscape, action and portraiture. My instructor has recommended the Cannon. My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard. Price is not really an issue, but I want to be sure I don't regret my purchase. Any advice
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Congratulations valkyrie1965: new member, one single post guaranteed to start a brand vs brand bun fight, and then no further posts in response to anyone's advice and comments.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think that we have been trolled.
I wonder if valkyrie1965 will now at last make a follow-up post, telling us about having being busy (with spelling lessons?) and objecting to my insinuation.
-
I am a photography student and I am ready to buy a good digital SLR. My photography interest include: landscape, action and portraiture. My instructor has recommended the Cannon. My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard. Price is not really an issue, but I want to be sure I don't regret my purchase. Any advice
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would prefer Canon 400 D. This is good enough, 5 D is four times more expencive; I didn't find four times more quality. 400 D has reasonable price plus nice opportunity to use old (but perfect) Leica R lenses with cheap adapter.
Whole my life I used to use Nikon(s) analogue instead of Canon. I preferred Nikkor lenses because of their sharpness (especialy in B/W photos). In digital world everything seems more similar. Only exception in this comparison I found is probably Nikon's nice zoom 18-200 or new Zeiss ZF series, but very expencive and without autofocus.
-
5 D is four times more expencive[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But what si the cost of
400d plus
14 2.8 or 16-35 (decent wide)
and
35 1.4 to get a (nice wide aperture lense portraits)
Versus
a 5d
20 2.8 (decent wide)
and
50 1.8 (nice wide aperture lense portraits)
Now the gap doesnt look so big especailly as the second set of primes are widely available used
SMM
-
But what si the cost of
400d plus
14 2.8 or 16-35 (decent wide)
and
35 1.4 to get a (nice wide aperture lense portraits)
Versus
a 5d
20 2.8 (decent wide)
and
50 1.8 (nice wide aperture lense portraits)
Now the gap doesnt look so big especailly as the second set of primes are widely available used
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Sigma 12-24 is poor at the edges but just fine with a crop format like the 400D. That gets you as wide as 20mm FF equivalent. The 50/1.8 on the 400D becomes a reasonably high quality portrait lens like the 85/1.8 but cheaper.
As a beginner, I'd go with the 400D, but not necessarily if price is not an issue. If price is not an issue, then you simply get the best for your purposes. The disadvantage of a 1D3 might be the weight factor. The 1Ds2 and 5D are likely to be replaced before the end of the year, so if price is not a problem and weight is not a problem, I'd go for the 1D3 and later buy the FF 22mp successor to the 1Ds2.
Up to 10 frames per second and ISO 6400 capability make the 1D3 very appealing.
-
Anyone want statistical analysis how likely this is due to pure chance?
85% in MR's expedition shot Canon, and 6x1DsIII + 3x5D + 2xRebels
dead in light drizzle. Most of the rest were shooting Nikon with no
problems.
My 5D had problems in the drizzle while my D2x kept working well.
Thanks,
Leping Zha
Ph.D. in Physics
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
{Emphasis added}
To do a real "statistical analysis" for pure chance, doesn't one also need to know something about the populations of photographers and cameras? Were the photographers and their equipment really random choices. I don't know, but I doublt it. LL seems quite biased toward Canon for what ever reason - good or bad or neutral, just not apparently random. Was each camera user using the same caution to keep their equipment dry? Not know as far as I know. (Didn't someone mention only three or so photographers even thought to bring a rain coat for themselves.) If the Mamiya film camera failed, would that mean the rate was 100% and only a fool would take one out on less that a sunny 16 day?
I doubt simply looking at the reported failure rates acurately determines the failure rate of either Nikon or Canon.
-
Firstly, what pros use is not necessarily the measure of what a student or amateur should choose. Even serious amateurs might have very different needs than the stereotypical sports/PJ "pro". For me, all the Canon and Nikon "pro" options lead to kits that are far too big and heavy for my purposes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What a pro uses may not be his photographic choice. Some pros are contracted by equipment makers to use their brand. So because Joe Pro uses Chuck's Fine Cameras doesn't necessarily mean Chuck's is where its happening, just Chuck made it worth Joe's time to promate his equipment.
Some pro staffers are simply provided with equipment and have bo choice.
-
Anyone want statistical analysis how likely this is due to pure chance?
85% in MR's expedition shot Canon, and 6x1DsIII + 3x5D + 2xRebels
dead in light drizzle. Most of the rest were shooting Nikon with no
problems.
My 5D had problems in the drizzle while my D2x kept working well.
Thanks,
Leping Zha
Ph.D. in Physics
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The number of Nikons on Michael's trip, from what I've read, is too small a sample for drawing any reliable statistical inference. Likewise 1 5D versis 1 D2x is at best a symptomatic outcome from which no valid statistical inference can be made. Maybe the D2x is designed more water resistant than the 5D, maybe it isn't. One would need more information about the design specs or many more of each used with the same exposure to the identical rain conditions to draw any meaningful statistical inference.
-
"What a pro uses may not be his photographic choice." - ALL the Pros I personally know buy their own gear so the decision is theirs.
This whole thread seems to miss the point which originally was what gear a student should buy. Now assuming this to be a serious question and that the student is studying photography with the intention of becoming a professional photographer (I can't think that you would study photography for any other reason, it was certainly my intention) then there are hard facts to be considered and these lead down the road to Nikon or Canon (as '35mm type cameras) - as I said before I simply don't know any pro using anything else. Of these I see Canon as the more used because it fulfills more requirements (certainly of the Pros I know). Concerns about which make is better, more water resistant, etc, etc, etc, are pretty irrelevant. If the questioner wanted advice or observations as to which equipment is most used (rather than just to stir up a discussion!) then that's my two-pennorth. As I said before, many will not agree and some will even think I'm anti-Nikon (and they will be wrong, I miss various aspects of my Nikons) but I was, and am, trying to answer the question objectively.
Photography is now far to easily diverted into discussions about technical spec and half-truths concerning performance. In the real world cameras are tools and we have never had it so good. But a student needs to consider what is relevant for work and especially if intending to assist, it is essential to be familiar with the most likely to be encountered gear. Sorry to apply the common sense approach!
-
I am a photography student and I am ready to buy a good digital SLR. My photography interest include: landscape, action and portraiture. My instructor has recommended the Cannon. My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard. Price is not really an issue, but I want to be sure I don't regret my purchase. Any advice
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
good digital SLR - either one
"[T]he fact that [Art Wolfe} lost all (or nearly all) of his Nikon stuffs in one shot gave him an opportunity to switch, and he went where the money was. I suppose he had to pay for his original Nikon stuffs, and when Canon offered him free stuffs, he took the opportunity." A pro who switched from Nikon to Canon.
"In a column in Outdoor Photographer about a year or so before he was killed, Galen Rowell expressed some irritation with Nikon and hinted that if they didn't come through with a better deal, that he was being courted by Canon and might jump ship. Later he said that all was well and he was staying with Nikon. Of course, he did not say what he asked for or what he got." A Nikon using pro.
"My instructor has recommended the Cannon." Why. Ask him.
"My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard." Do you trust her (more than Paul Kay or Canon)? Would she lie to you? Could she be wrong? Why does she think that?
Paul Kay says he "simply [doesn't] know any pro using anything else." Certainly narrows the field. (I know a pro who used Leica until Konica paid him enough to love them.)
Seems at least a couple pros don't pay full price for their equipment.
Like the man says, "Sometimes you gotta make up your mind. Choose one and leave the other behind."
++++++++++++++++++++++
My point is, perhaps Canon is winning the advertising battle. If selecting a camera is a popularity contest (The envelope please. w/drum roll) Canon.
-
Wrong comparison, this should be what is the difference between a student and an academic?
The student has the crapest camera he can afford as all his (or her) money is spent on going out, drinking, sex, drugs and otherwise debaucherous behavouir. Whilst the pictures are technically inferior they are original, emotional and full of presence because the student is in the right place at the right time.
The academic has the technically best equipment that he can get. Having no money left over he (invariably it is a bloke) sits at home with no friends and serious case of acne. As a final act of desperation he takes a bunch of still life pictures (stiched pano to get 100Mpixel). The final pictures are technically perfect but boring as ditch water.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter two tugs whether the camera is any good, you have to learn to be in the right place at the right time and sneak every opportunity you can get to find a decent image - that is the most important thing to learn as a student. If you can do that with a tin can and wet paper then who cares that a Cakon is a better camera.
-
When I was studying photography (and I never had any intention of ever going pro), I had a "student" roommate who had the best equipment Mommy could afford (which was Swedish). He is selling used cars now. While I had friends and no acne, I was probably an "academic" (responsible?).
I think DiaAzul is dead wrong, except to say the kind of camera doesn't make the photographer. Most of the "students" didn't finish school, or become pros. Just dropouts. But there were plenty of people at school with both very good equipment and photos who are pros now.
The ones I really felt sorry for spent all their money and time on rent, tuition, parties and cameras, then couldn't afford or have time to make photos. Never learned to budget anything and then stick to it. I would call it a lack of discipline.
I had an instructor who started every class with "Most people can't tell good photos from bad, but they do know [fill in the blank]." It was usually late for appointments, late with assignments, over budget or simply did the wrong assignment. Most of the time you could sum it up with "nonprofessional."
-
At the end of the day it doesn't matter two tugs whether the camera is any good, you have to learn to be in the right place at the right time and sneak every opportunity you can get to find a decent image - that is the most important thing to learn as a student.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105530\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
David, this is so true and important. It's really hard to advise people on gear. SO much depends on budgets, intentions, taste, etc.
That said, I don't quite agree with the folks who assume that just because the purchaser is a student anything that makes images will do. It's not that simple. Even a student - having reached the stage of developing a view on these things - should buy intelligently and if serious about photography in a forward looking manner.
Let us revert to the original question:
<<I am a photography student and I am ready to buy a good digital SLR. My photography interest include: landscape, action and portraiture. My instructor has recommended the Cannon. My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard. Price is not really an issue, but I want to be sure I don't regret my purchase. Any advice? >>
So, this is a person who already knows he/she wants a good DSLR, knows what kind of work he/she will be doing, says price isn't an issue and doesn't want to regret the purchase. That information in hand, I don't think this thread is of much assistance to him/her. Without being inappropriately prescriptive, we can guide him/her through a process of elimination with some questions and guidelines, such as (without pretending to be exhaustive):
1. Do you want a full-frame camera or a reduced size sensor? Check articles on L-L that describe the merits of each. This is THE FIRST question to address, because if the answer is "full-frame", that limits the choice to three cameras: Canon 1Ds, Canon 1DsMk11 and Canon D5. Kind of makes life simple®.
2. Do you want to have maximum choice of lenses, or will a more limited selection do? If you want maximum, Canon and Nikon have the largest line-up of matching lenses for their camera bodies. Sub-question: whose lens line-up do you think better responds to your needs now and down the road?
3. How robust does the build quality need to be? Does it need to work in very harsh climatic conditions almost without fail? Then the choice most likely comes down to Canon 1Ds, Canon 1DsMk11 and Nikon D2X. These are the models with the best weather sealing on the market - from what I read and hear. Maybe there are others, but I don't know them. If the answer is that the ultimate in rough handling is not necessary, a Canon 5D would be excellent quality period and all the more so for the money within the Canon line-up.
4. Most important, go to the camera shop and play with them, look through their viewfinders, try managing menus, try changing lenses, etc. Which do you relate best to ergonomically?
5. Post-capture software: which models give you the most flexibility for using common raw conversion programs such as Adobe Camera Raw? Are there still any advantages/disadvantages to one camera or another in this regard? Answering this would require a bit of web research for the latest turn-of-the-screw on that issue.
6. If you've narrowed down to a few models, think of which features and qualities are most important to you, and do some web-research, first through the professional reviews and then into the serious web-forums to get a feel for which ones are likely to respond best to what you consider most important.
7. Will your retailer let you "buy and try" for a couple of days, on the understanding that you will end-up with a final purchase? This is an important insurance policy especially for a first time buyer at the learning stage.
I'm sure there's more. Let's help this person by suggesting the tangible things that help make serious decisions.
-
I think you've all missed the point. The most important question here for the student is 'which format' do you prefer?' It's arse about face to start off with the question, 'which brand?' (Let's see if that brand I've selected has the format I want..... is a bit silly.)
If expense is not a major issue, the beginner should first decide which format and then look at the brand alternatives. With this in mind, Canon produces DSLR formats which are more than double the size (area) of any Nikon DSLR, as well as producing formats that are slightly smaller than Nikon.
If you want a format about double the size of the largest Canon DSLRs then you need something like a P45.
-
I think you've all missed the point. The most important question here for the student is 'which format' do you prefer?' [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105547\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray LOOK ABOVE at Question #1 in my post.
I did not miss the point one iota!
Cheers,
Mark
-
I think Mark's list of questions is excellent.
I would add one point, from personal experience: Whatever camera you end up with, start with only one lens in the focal length that you think you will use most. Don't buy any second lens unless and until you have experienced a real need for it (i.e., missed shots because you didn't have the right lens.)
When I was starting out, with a fixed-lens camera, I got pretty good pretty quick (pats self on back.) As soon as I "graduated" to an SLR with more than one lens, my seeing got much weaker for a while, because I was so distracted by the possibilities of different lenses. A couple more times that I moved up to fancier (more versatile) equipment, I sort of lost my way for a while again.
Bottom line: Learning is much faster if you keep your equipment simple and push its limits before upgrading, IMHO.
-
Ray LOOK ABOVE at Question #1 in my post.
I did not miss the point one iota!
Cheers,
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105551\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry! I'll rephrase that. You've all missed the point except Mark .
-
1. Do you want a full-frame camera or a reduced size sensor? Check articles on L-L that describe the merits of each. This is THE FIRST question to address, because if the answer is "full-frame", that limits the choice to three cameras: Canon 1Ds, Canon 1DsMk11 and Canon D5. Kind of makes life simple®.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would actually strongly disagree with that being the first question, and in fact doubt its relevancy at all in selecting a camera. Given the list of subject matter the more important aspects are frame rate, auto-focus capability, ability to work well with studio lighting, metering capabilities, possible file size for landscape and portraiture (dependent upon final output requirements), lens range, viewfinder, ergonomics, etc.... People get too hung up on whether a camera is full frame, cropped or any other dimension. There is far more to a camera than whether it is FF, 1.3x, 1.5x or 1.6x that it becomes one of a series of factors in choosing a camera and not THE deciding factor.
It is for each photographer to determine for themselves which is the most appropriate ranking of features - which is why there is always so much controversy over which is the best camera. You can't know the answer to this until you have been using an SLR for a number of years and even then you will realise there is no perfect camera for every situation (that is why photographers own so many bags).
Going back to my original theme it is more important to get the non-camera related fundamentals sorted out first. Find a cheap(ish) starter camera - doesn't matter what brand - and then get some experience. Only then can you make sensible decisions about what works and doesn't. By the time two or three years pass the camera market will haave moved on (everyone will be lusting after the lated Apple iCamera) so spending a lot of money today when you don't know where you want to be in three years time is crazy.
As an addendum, the two most important things to learn after where to stand are ROI and COS - Return on Investment and Cost of Sales. Until you have a good understanding on your business model excessive investment in camera equipment doesn't make business sense - buy someting second hand if needs be and its is cheap and value for money.
-
The student probably wanted pro advices, since she went to LL. I am talking as an amateur. In one sense, however, we are all more or less "amateurs", considering the digital revolution during the last few years. Nobody really knows if it is wise to buy gear from Canon, Nikon or some other, perhaps smaller brand in a 10-15 years perspective. We`ll all be surprised by developments in sensors, lenses, focus issues, post processing etc, since digital photography is still in its infancy.
For me money was an issue, and in October 2005 I got a Canon Digital Rebel (350D) and a Sigma 30 f/1.4 (like a "normal" 50 mm on "full frame" or film camera), and tried to learn photography with one prime lens. Six months later I got a small 24 & 50 mm (I like "street photography" and casual portraits). I didn´t regret this path. I think I learned the ABC of photography better then if I`d started with a wide zoom, a normal zoom and a tele zoom.
But if money wasn´t an issue, and I should buy a camera today, focusing on "landscape, action and portraits" (as the student says), this is what I would do:
I would get a Canon 5D (full frame for landscape), buy a 35 mm f/1.4 and focus on landscape for 4-6 months, learning to see with a moderate wide angle lens, learning the elementary but important secrets of depth of field/bokeh, and really get familiar with the perspective from this lens.
Then I would get a 85mm f/1,8 or 1,2 (money no issue?), try to learn portrait photography (and more about bokeh) and try to shoot some indoor and outdoor action with it.
Then, after 8-12 months, I would buy a 200 mm (or 300 mm) to learn the perspective of a tele lens (and for action/sport & landscape, birds, wildlife etc).
And then, if I was curious (and I probably would be very curious!), I would get a zoom lens, to see if it was of any advantage to me.
To make it really simple, I would consider using only ONE LENS FOR ONE YEAR, say a 50 mm f/1.4 or 1.2 (on the same Canon 5D) instead of the three mentioned above. But with those three lenses I imagine I could take most of the pictures worth taking, and learn most of the ways of seeing, in photography terms, worth learning.
If, however, weather sealing was an important issue, I would go for the high end Nikon, or Pentax K10D (perhaps not Canon right now, since they probably will come up with a new one quite soon), and lenses equivalent of moderate wide angle, moderate tele, and a more far reaching tele.
And if weather sealing and full frame wasn`t so important, but size was, I would go with anything smaller, from Canon or Nikon or Pentax, or the recently announced Olympus cameras. They all have excellent lenses, some stronger on the tele side (Canon), some better on wide angle (Nikon? Olympus? Pentax?), some more compact (Pentax) etc.
I think the biggest danger for someone with money to spend on gear, is to get too much too fast, and never really learning how to use it.
In any case, the "student" starting this thread (is she really a student, or just someone who wanted to see if she could trigger a fight at LL with her title "Nikon vs. Canon?"??) have got too many advices – and here I offer my two cents...!
But this thread is probably read by a few former film photographers who wants to buy his or her first DSLR, as well as people starting with a digital camera without former experience with film cameras. My advise for the latter is a camera that fits the bill and the purpose of your needs, and ONE to THREE prime lenses.
It could be a Pentax, or perhaps a Panasonic.
(Or should I go for a Sony, since MY sister says that Sony is THE INDUSTRY STANDARD?)
Paul
-
I don't see any reason why NOT to buy a decent zoom lens from the start. One learns alot about composition using a zoom lens and it is more versatile and convenient than a series of primes. I have only one prime which is reserved for situations where I need very wide aperture.
David, your point about sensor size not being important we'll have to agree to disagree about I guess. Your second paragraph begs the question - this person is asking for our advice - doesn't want to be told to spend a few years finding out. That will happen regardless. The remainder of your post is about being a photography student and doesn't answer the question asked.
Returning to your issue about the importance of sensor size, we're talking purely hardware here, not who should buy it when, and size does matter. It is a major differentiator of choice of cameras, making it efficient to start there; it has pixel quality implications; this, combined more importantly with the pixel count has implications for preservation of flexibility in cropping and print dimensions, it has ergonomic implications in respect of what you see through the viewfinder, and it has advantages for wide-angle photography and generally is a more consistent format relative to the broadest selection of lenses. So I don't dismiss this factor at all. It was very expensive to obtain until Canon put the 5D on the market at a much more reachable price point for many photographers - but it's still not cheap. The reason why most digital cameras aren't *full frame* has nothing to do with technical merit and everything to do with the cost of the sensor. Digital photography wouldn't have exploded commercially the way it has without the science of small sensor production, but that doesn't make the CHOICE of which to buy a trivial one.
Finally, let me say, I'm not interested in re-opening a tired debate about the merits of sensor size with all the pixel-peeping implied therein. Many people make excellent photographs with all kinds of sensors - but for reasons I've stated above that doesn't make it an inconsequential consideration when chosing equipment.
I can also reflect my own experience. At the time the Canon 20D first came out I was looking at a choice of buying that or a used 1Ds. I had the luxury of playing with both cameras before buying. I saw excellent prints made by a world-class professional from raw files shot with both cameras and I decided to buy the used 1Ds, heavier as it is. Sensor size was one important factor. Since then, both larger and smaller sensors and their firmware have improved in quality.
Given the same choice with today's equipment, personally I would buy a 5D hands-down. The ergonomics are good, the viewfinder and LCD screen really good, and the image quality with a good sample of an L lens simply superb. But that's me for myself - I wouldn't urge that choice on anyone else - each person needs to think through the criteria for the choice of hardware relative to their own means, needs and preferences as they perceive them at the time they want to buy a camera.
-
Hi Guys
What a really restrained and pleasent debate. This is my first post; it will not be my last but I am still going through the wealth of knowledge here. This particular debate really vindicates my decission to use this forum as my primary source of information. I note that the origional poster has not given any feedback yet. Pardon my suspicions but Norwegion beasties come to mind.
Regards - Brian
-
Sorry I missed the point entirely. I thought the original poster had aleady decided to buy a good DSLR, and wanted advice on whether it should be a Canon or Nikon (Nikon vs. Cannon).
Given that, many decisions have already been made. Nikon or Canon? Answer draws many differring opinions, but I am pretty sure the answer isn't format or brands other than Nikon or Canon.
-
Howie, my interpretation of the original request is that it mentions Canon and Nikon, but does not necessarily limit the range of choice to those two brands. We don't know that many decisions have been made, but we do know that price is not a binding constraint and the person's mind is open to advice. I as well don't think format is THE answer, but rather PART of the issue list to consider.
Time for Valkyrie to let us know what else we can say helpfully!
-
Mark, I was just going by the name of the post - "Nikon or Cannon". Given that question, I still don't see how the answer could Sony.
"Do you want chicken or fish?"
"I'll have the roast beef." Wrong?
-
Howie, OK I ignored the title and just went straight for the content of the post. But, hey, you know, if I go into a restaurant intending to eat chicken or fish and the staff are really persuasive about the qualities of the roast beef I may just change my mind .............!
-
Howie, OK I ignored the title and just went straight for the content of the post. But, hey, you know, if I go into a restaurant intending to eat chicken or fish and the staff are really persuasive about the qualities of the roast beef I may just change my mind .............!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see your point. Especially if you ask what kind of fish is that and they say carp. Any piece of chicken might seem better. Maybe you just thought you wanted fish or chicken.
But if you go to KFC, don't wait for beef. It's chicken or fish. And I have never understood why I would go to a steak house to order chicken.
OK then, a Nikon or Canon DSLR? I'll have a 4x5 film camera.
-
Not a bad choice Howie. There's a guy here in Toronto with a glitzy studio down by the waterfront where the rent has to be steep who uses a 5*7 view camera and produces the most gorgeous wall-size "platinum prints" (he says) that sell framed in the range of 3500 ~ 4500 dollars EACH. Well, film is ALMOST dead, but not quite!
-
I also think we've been trolled. How many "photography" students would misspell "Canon" twice?" Once might be a typo, twice probably isn't. As for price being no object, it's always an object: if Mom is going to buy you any kit you want, tell her it's $10,000, then buy the cheaper one and send the money you save to Meals on Wheels. There are hungry people out there. For somebody who's thinking about a "Cannon," I doubt that it makes any difference which system you buy into.
And for a student who is interested in landscapes, action photos and portraiture, why not go for something more creative? I'd suggest doing cross-category stuff like action-landscapes, or landscape-portraiture.
By the way, for those who haven't seen it, the latest issue of Aperture magazine has a section devoted to the photography of Jessica Lange.
JC
-
I also think we've been trolled. How many "photography" students would misspell "Canon" twice?" [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Could be - but the evidence? If Valkyrie doesn't know how to spell Cannon the first time why shouldn't he/she mis-spell Cannon the second time? Anyhow, trolled or not its been a bit of fun.
-
I would actually strongly disagree with that being the first question, and in fact doubt its relevancy at all in selecting a camera. Given the list of subject matter the more important aspects are frame rate, auto-focus capability, ability to work well with studio lighting, metering capabilities, possible file size for landscape and portraiture (dependent upon final output requirements), lens range, viewfinder, ergonomics, etc.... People get too hung up on whether a camera is full frame, cropped or any other dimension. There is far more to a camera than whether it is FF, 1.3x, 1.5x or 1.6x that it becomes one of a series of factors in choosing a camera and not THE deciding factor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105604\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You have a point of course, David. It's not perhaps so clear-cut as deciding on a format first (money not being a major concern).
At present, the D2X has an image quality and enlargability approximately on a par with the 5D, though both are different format cameras. However, I foresee that Nikon will not be able to maintain this image parity with the larger format Canons in the future as pixel density increases. A full frame 35mm sensor with the pixel density of the 400D would be 26mp.
The main investment when choosing a brand is the lenses which one gradually accumulates. Camera bodies and their features and functionality are improving year by year. People tend to get caught in a particular system because of the value of their lenses.
A student who opts for a Nikon without regard to format might, a few years down the track, regret not being able to switch without great expense to that 26mp 1Ds4 which he thinks he needs for his new large format printer.
-
The main investment when choosing a brand is the lenses which one gradually accumulates. .............People tend to get caught in a particular system because of the value of their lenses.
A student who opts for a Nikon without regard to format might, a few years down the track, regret not being able to switch without great expense to that 26mp 1Ds4 which he thinks he needs for his new large format printer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, I think this is right-on. It is also one of the reasons why I opted for a used 1Ds instead of a new 20D, at the time; the 1DsMkII was already on the market and I saw the trend: increasing MP-count, allowing more cropping/greater enlargement, and obviously the larger the sensor the more likely there will be yet greater MP-count while preserving high quality. So anyone looking down the road and thinking they may want this flexibility should take sensor size into account, amongst other things. That said, one can always switch systems and sell used lenses, but there is a loss as well as a nuissance factor doing the transactions and getting accustomed to another camera system.
But getting back to John Camp, it really is strange that Valkyrie hasn't responded to any of this yet. Maybe we are being trolled...........
-
i always think it interesting when someone starts a thread like this, more than a week ago, dozens of really informative posts follow, and the original poster neither weighs in with a more refined definition of his needs or a mere thank you to all the folks that tried to help him. kudos to all for adding their $.02; personally i often wonder "why bother?"
-
It looks to me as if we were baited - someone with poor spelling skills up to mischief trying to get a nasty debate started - we won!
-
You have a point of course, David. It's not perhaps so clear-cut as deciding on a format first (money not being a major concern).
At present, the D2X has an image quality and enlargability approximately on a par with the 5D, though both are different format cameras. However, I foresee that Nikon will not be able to maintain this image parity with the larger format Canons in the future as pixel density increases. A full frame 35mm sensor with the pixel density of the 400D would be 26mp.
A student who opts for a Nikon without regard to format might, a few years down the track, regret not being able to switch without great expense to that 26mp 1Ds4 which he thinks he needs for his new large format printer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The good thing though is that the really expensive lenses can often be used both with APS and FF sensors.
I don't believe that Nikon has plans to let Canon get a significant lead in resolution. If APS really cannot manage resolutions in the 16-22 MP range, then they will go for FF.
Regards,
Bernard
-
yea, first clue: a student for whom "price is not really an issue;" not any student i ever knew!!
second clue: a sister "in the business" who says nikon is the industry standard. well respected, fine equipment manufacturer (god, if the new 16-35 can match the optical quality of the nikon 17-35 we'll all be in canon FF heaven!), industry leader, heavy market share hitter, . . . but industry standard?
i think we'e been had!!
-
i think we'e been had!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, but it did make for an interesting and quite civilized discussion. Probably more civilized than the OP was hoping for.
-
Yes, but it did make for an interesting and quite civilized discussion. Probably more civilized than the OP was hoping for.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well Eric, we should become sponsors of some sort of cross brand temporary exchange programe, shouldn't we? I let you use my rusty d2x for one week while you send me your 5D?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well Eric, we should become sponsors of some sort of cross brand temporary exchange programe, shouldn't we? I let you use my rusty d2x for one week while you send me your 5D?
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you throw in one or two of your nifty mountain prints, I'll be sorely tempted.
Best,
Eric
-
"If APS really cannot manage resolutions in the 16-22 MP range, then they will go for FF."
This is probably THE question. Interestingly, I have a lens designer friend whom I asked about this a couple of years ago. His comments, based purely on his experience and very rough maths at the time, were to suggest that building lenses capable of working with 15~16MPixel + APS sensors MIGHT not be an economically viable option! This was apparently based on the QC issues which would potentially arise from the extremely tight tolerances he foresaw being needed.
I just put this in here as it was something that I found very interesting and it certainly swayed my decision making. We live in fascinating times though and I suspect that both Canon and Nikon have their futures mapped out very carefully for the next few generations of digital cameras - Oh to be a fly on their walls!
-
if money is not an issue go for the 1Ds Mark II.
-
if money is not an issue go for the 1Ds Mark II.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106326\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nah - you're under-achieving. If money is not an issue why not go for a P45 set-up? That would take the Valkyries for a ride, wouldn't it?
-
I let you use my rusty d2x for one week while you send me your 5D?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
I think you left out a letter in the adjective preceding the word "d2x."
Best,
Paul
-
Re trolling, the clue is the username. IME if someone puts a number after their UN it's usually a DOB, which makes valkyrie 42 years old.
- DL
-
Re trolling, the clue is the username. IME if someone puts a number after their UN it's usually a DOB, which makes valkyrie 42 years old.
- DL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, Don. I think you've discovered the Fountain of Youth! I think I'll change my username to EricM1978 (sounds so much better than EricM1939.)
- Eric19--
-
Whether troll or not, I've loved reading everybody's opinions. I teach college photography and I love that this fight exists even amongst those with no real photographic experience. My Dad shot with Nikon. I shoot with Canon. I tell my students to buy a camera that they can afford, that feels good and that they can grow with. I almost always suggest Canon or Nikon. IF Canon releases an entirely new line this year I'll probably be saying "Nikon? What's a Nikon?". I like the d200, but the 5d is great. I hate the XTi, but the D80 is good for beginners. But please, don't try and compare the 2Dxs with the Ids Mark II, or now with the Id Mark III. And besides, any photographer who enjoys low light has got to go CMOS
-
The good thing though is that the really expensive lenses can often be used both with APS and FF sensors.
I don't believe that Nikon has plans to let Canon get a significant lead in resolution. If APS really cannot manage resolutions in the 16-22 MP range, then they will go for FF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106225\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That requires a certain leap of faith, Bernard. One might presume that Nikon will rise to the challenge and at some point begin producing full frame sensors rather than play second fiddle to Canon. However, Canon is one of the few camera manufacturers that actually make their own sensors. They have a great wealth of experience in FF sensor production, which is growing year by year, and I think it is unlikely they'll be selling their FF sensors to Nikon.
I'm reminded here of the Kodak 14n difficulties. There's no doubt it would be possible for Nikon to eventually produce a camera with a FF sensor, but would it be possible for them to produce one that is as good as the future range of Canon FF cameras?
-
............ but would it be possible for them to produce one that is as good as the future range of Canon FF cameras?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106669\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good question........but what are the latest rumours about Canon FUTURE FF cameras? Any fresh gossip from out there in Japan, Bernard?
Cheers,
Mark
-
Canon is one of the few camera manufacturers that actually make their own sensors. They have a great wealth of experience in FF sensor production
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106669\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course Nikon would not have to make its own larger sensors; it could get them from its collaboration with Sony: shared design efforts, fabrication by Sony, probably on steppers made by Nikon, which is a major stepper maker. I see no reason why Sony would not be capable of scaling up from its successful 15.7x23.5mm format sensors (both CCD and CMOS) to 24x36mm if there were signs of adequate demand at adequately profitable price.
What would be the barriers to up-sizing? The only one I see is the added difficulty and cost due to the need for multiple exposures in the stepper, due to the 26x33mm chip size limit stated by Canon again in its 1DMkIII white paper. And numerous companies are capable of fabricating such sensors (Panasonic; Kodak; Dalsa; Tower Semiconductor in Israel and the English fab. who between them made the sensors for the Kodak 14/N, SLR/N and SLR/C; etc.) so I see little reason to think that a huge chip maker like Sony would have any fundamental problems.
Then again, my fantasy is Nikon/Sony launching high end models using a sensor format of about 24x31mm to 24x33mm: whatever is the largest that can be fabricated without that special multiple step process and is compatible with 24x36mm equipment like lenses. The width limit comes from Canon's mention of a 26x33mm size limit in fabrication; the 24mm height is the maximum for full backward compatibility with 35mmm lenses and such. The lower width (31mm) allows for the possibility that the sensor might ned to have a mm or so of "non-image recording" area near the edges of the 26x33mm maximum total chip size.
Being a few mm narrower than 24x36mm could bring a major cost advantage; a cost advantage that Canon seems to be pursuing with its persistence in using a 1.3x crop format for its top selling pro models.
-
Of course Nikon would not have to make its own larger sensors; it could get them from its collaboration with Sony: shared design efforts, fabrication by Sony, probably on steppers made by Nikon, which is a major stepper maker. I see no reason why Sony would not be capable of scaling up from its successful 15.7x23.5mm format sensors (both CCD and CMOS) to 24x36mm if there were signs of adequate demand at adequately profitable price.
BJL,
I agree in principle here, but I suspect there might be a large number of trade secrets and patents involved in the refinement of such a sensor which gives Canon an advantage. Clearly I'm not familiar with the detail of the production processes and integration of the sensor into the camera to produce the exceptionally low noise/high ISO performance that is now a trade-mark of Canon DSLRs, but I'd be willing to stick out my neck and say it's not just as straightforward as having the machinery to stamp out the sensors.
The issue of adequate demand and adequate profitability might be another stumbling block. What would motivate Nikon to start looking at FF sensors for their cameras is a loss of market share to Canon due to, for example, a 22mp successor to the 5D being available at a reasonable cost of, say $2,000.... at least this sort of thing. In order to wrest back that loss of market share, Nikon would have to come up with a FF sensor design at least as good as what Canon is offering.
This simply might not be possible. The Kodak 14n line was not a success even though it was cheaper than the Canon 1Ds and marginally higher resolution.
Then again, my fantasy is Nikon/Sony launching high end models using a sensor format of about 24x31mm to 24x33mm: whatever is the largest that can be fabricated without that special multiple step process and is compatible with 24x36mm equipment like lenses. The width limit comes from Canon's mention of a 26x33mm size limit in fabrication; the 24mm height is the maximum for full backward compatibility with 35mmm lenses and such. The lower width (31mm) allows for the possibility that the sensor might ned to have a mm or so of "non-image recording" area near the edges of the 26x33mm maximum total chip size.
If there would be significant cost savings in producing a 24x31mm sensor compared with a 24x36mm sensor, I don't understand why it is not being done. The area of such a sensor is only marginally less than that of a FF 24x36mm sensor. There would not only be full compatibility with all 35mm lenses but the corners of the frame would be subject to slightly less vignetting.
Perhaps the reason is the very odd aspect ratio which would result, 1:1.29, which is slightly squarer than the 4/3rds aspect ratio. Perhaps this is seen as a marketing disadvantage. Perhaps there are too many people who consider DSLRs to be status symbols, who would be uncomfortable with the thought that the reason for the very odd aspect ratio of their status symbol is merely to reduce production costs. Just guessing .
-
Nikon does make a sensor, the LBCAST, which has some advantages over CCD and CMOS. They've used it in the D/H series, but only up to ~4mp. Wikipedia reports rumors of an 8mp LBCAST in the next generation D3H, which would compete with 1DMIII as a news and sports shooter.
When Nikon first announced the LBCAST, it was assumed that it would be a main-line sensor; I don't know if that's out of the question now, or not, or if there are problems fabricating a FF version of it; but since it was around four or five years ago, and Nikon is still using it, I would assume that some development has continued.
Kodak and Nikon have cooperated in the past. Kodak has a very good CCD chip in the new M8, 10 mp at 1.3x. If they went FF with that and got ~18-19mp, it would compete quite nicely with the next generation 1DsIII, which is expected in around 22mp. The fly in that particular ointment is that Kodak could be preparing that FF chip for a new Leica R.
I think that Canon's new camera top-line model will have everything including the kitchen sink attached to it; their weak spot might be the lens line-up, especially at the wide end. There are rumors of a new series of lenses, made especially to handle the higher resolution of a ~22mp sensor, but there have been rumors of that since rumors were invented.
The next Nikon/Canon bodies may be the end of the serious mp competition, and the beginning of serious competition in other areas -- DR, low-light, selectable/multiple frame sizes for different kinds of shooting, perhaps (if they don't have it -- I don't keep up) a blue tooth/cell phone connnection for direct transmission of news photos to an editing receiver. All for the greater glory of converting a photographer into a camera pointer.
JC
-
Interesting post John, but I hardly think some-one paying around 8K for a 1DsMkiii would have the profile of a "camera pointer" - that kind of dough usually signifies a more serious-minded photographer!
A distant dream of mine - a Leica Summicron lens attached to a DSLR 20+ MP FF camera - that would blow the world away!
-
Nah - you're under-achieving. If money is not an issue why not go for a P45 set-up? That would take the Valkyries for a ride, wouldn't it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106329\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nah - you're under-achieving. Book time on the Hubble Telescope.
-
Nah - you're under-achieving. Book time on the Hubble Telescope.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That made my day!
-
Interesting post John, but I hardly think some-one paying around 8K for a 1DsMkiii would have the profile of a "camera pointer" - that kind of dough usually signifies a more serious-minded photographer!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106966\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For a particular kind of pro -- a newspaper guy -- the expense isn't in the camera, it's in the photographer's salary. At a modest-sized metro paper, a photographer on an average salary will cost the paper ~$100,000 a year, when you include the paper's share of social security, medical insurance and pension; compared to that, an $8,000 camera that will last for several years is small potatos.
Like this: suppose you were able to shoot and download each series of shots on a continuing basis, via cell phone. That means that an editor could sit at a computer and watch the shots streaming in. Say it's a political rally of modest importance or a football game: they know they've got space for one shot on the inside metro for the political rally, and when a shot streams though that's "good enough," they cut the photographer off, and move him to the next assignment -- say, the closest house fire. Meanwhile, at the football game, they know they're going to use three shots in color: they want one close-up of a quarterback being chased or caught, one pass reception, one touchdown. As they get each one, they could check it off and maneuver the photographer around the field to maximize his chances of getting the next one. I worked for newspapers for quite awhile, and believe me, this type of situation would be very attractive for editors who are pushed both for time and material. I bet you could squeeze a couple of extra assignments per day out of a photographer: his camera would become a kind of monitoring device that would not only tell you what your guy is doing, but would tell you when you could move him on. It would also remove most of his judgment, and there are a lot of editors who would like that, too. That's where the "camera-pointer" line comes from.
JC
-
I suspect there might be a large number of trade secrets and patents involved in the refinement of such a sensor which gives Canon an advantage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can see no way that designing a larger sensor requires extra "trade secrets" other than the fabrication issues that I mentioned above, which a number of sensor makers clearly know how to handle. As far as designing as opposed to fabrication, larger photosites are clearly no problem, and once the individual photosite is designed, filing out a larger design by using adding more rows and columns of them seems rather trivial. I have to think that the issue is purely a business decision based on balancing costs (both development costs and unit manufacturing costs) against the expected sales potential.
Perhaps the reason is the very odd aspect ratio which would result, 1:1.29, which is slightly squarer than the 4/3rds aspect ratio. Perhaps this is seen as a marketing disadvantage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The aspect ratio does not have to be so odd: the range I suggested includes options for 5:4 and 4:3 shapes (24x30, 24x32), rather common choices in larger formats for both sensors and prints.
But maybe there is a strong conservative force at work in the 35mm based world, demanding images of the shape that is familiar from 35mm film, no matter how easy it is to crop. And even if this is achieved by limiting the camera to what is essentially a crop from what could be achieved with a "taller" frame: one of the same width but greater height. For example, Canon persists with a 3:2 frame format of 28.1x18.7mm in the EOS-1 D MkIII even though the fabrication size limits mentioned by Canon would almost certainly allow a taller format like 28.1x20mm and probably up to about 28.1x22mm. The total chip size limit mentioned by Canon is 33x26mm, so even if 28.1mm is the maximum active area width due to losing 3.9mm at the sides, the same 3.9mm lost vertically would allow up to 28.1x22.1mm. It would be too much of a coincidence for the maximum possible width and height for the active area come out to be in 3:2 proportion when the 33x26mm limit is quite a different shape (1.27:1).
Keeping the 1D series crop format at exactly is a mystery to me when Canon keeps making the point that this is about the largest sensor size currently possible without the cost penalty of multiple step fabrication. Firstly, a taller frame could easily be used with a 3:2 crop mode and crop lines marked in the VF, so nothing is lost compared to a frame that is less high but no wider. Secondly, there are many professional photographic situations that benefit from less wide shapes like 4:3 and 3:2, and when cropping to those shapes, the extra height would give a somewhat larger format. And isn't bigger always better, at least if the extra cost is not too great and the lenses available all cover the larger frame?
A final note: it is hard for me to see a rational basic for the facts that
- one area of high end photography (everything larger than 35mm format) uses almost exclusively on 4:3 and/or 5:4 formats, with even square sometimes seeming more popular than 3:2;
- another area of high end photography (35mm and the 1.3x crop, along with "APS-C" DSLR formats) uses 3:2 formats exclusively; and
- at smaller formats still (FourThirds and compact digicams) the dominant format shape choice swings back to 4:3 sensor shape, with the 3:2 format digicams of years past now gone from the market.
Some of this has to be a largely irrational attachment to the familiar.
-
For a particular kind of pro -- a newspaper guy -- the expense isn't in the camera, it's in the photographer's salary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe, but camera costs are probably independent of salary costs, and so saving a few thousand on each camera is still significant to the accountants. I see this when I have to justify the cost of a new office computer to my employer, even though the total cost of my desired options is about one month of my salary every few years.
But I do believe that there are other reasons for even expensive cameras like the EOS-1 D MkIII, D2Xs and D2Hs using formats smaller than 35mm film: the combination of the resolution/telephoto lens size advantages of having pixels that are not too big with the operating speed (frame rate etc.) advantages of not having too many pixels to read out and process.
-
I can see no way that designing a larger sensor requires extra "trade secrets" other than the fabrication issues that I mentioned above, which a number of sensor makers clearly know how to handle. As far as designing as opposed to fabrication, larger photosites are clearly no problem, and once the individual photosite is designed, filing out a larger design by using adding more rows and columns of them seems rather trivial. I have to think that the issue is purely a business decision based on balancing costs (both development costs and unit manufacturing costs) against the expected sales potential.
I must admit I just can't see how you could be right here. A CMOS sensor consists of various components at each photosite to process the signal. The design of many of those components will be patented. It's even possible the technique that Canon has used to reduce the gap between each microlens, in the 400D and later in the 1D3, is a patented process which Nikon or Sony cannot use. That doesn't mean of course that they cannot achieve the same result through a different process, if that's possible. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes.
Unless Nikon already have a high pixel count, prototype FF sensor they are working on, it's not going to be good enough to simply use the same processes and designs, but with larger photosites. They'll have to bestow a usable ISO 6400 capability on a pixel no larger than a D2X pixel, just to catch up with Canon. I'm assuming here, of course, that the successors to the 5D and 1Ds3 will have increased pixel count and be at least as good as the 1D3 in terms of low-noise/high-ISO capability.
Some of this has to be a largely irrational attachment to the familiar.
Definitely. Irrational attachment to the familiar is a strong force which seems very prevalent in human affairs .
-
Unless Nikon already have a high pixel count, prototype FF sensor they are working on, it's not going to be good enough to simply use the same processes and designs, but with larger photosites. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thom Hogan is looking for a ~22mp FF in the next Nikon D3x.
JC
-
Thom Hogan is looking for a ~22mp FF in the next Nikon D3x.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
He may be looking, but will he find it? Anyhow, if he has inside information and you've heard it, surely Canon has too..............this could be interesting!
-
A CMOS sensor consists of various components at each photosite to process the signal. The design of many of those components will be patented.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, as I indicated before
1) Sony already has the technology to make good DSLR sized photo-sites, in both CMOS and CCD. In fact Sony is making CMOS photosites slightly smaller than anything from Canon: 5.5 microns in the D2X and D2Xs vs 5.7 microns in the 400D, and 7.2 to 8.2 in Canon's FF models. I have not compared per pixel performance between the D2Xs and the 400D, have you?
2) A Sony/Nikon 24x36mm format sensor would probably have larger photo-sites that the D2Xs, as that 5.5 pixel pitch would give about 30MP, beyond what is generally expected at the next generation of Canon FF. Indications are that 30MP would be too far for Canon to go with its next FF model, at it would likely over-reach the resolution limits of many Canon lenses. (Not to mention rather uncomfortable upper limits on the DOF possible at apertures big enough to limit diffraction adequately and thus get the full 30MP worth of detail.)
... it's not going to be good enough to simply use the same processes and designs, but with larger photosites. They'll have to bestow a usable ISO 6400 capability on a pixel no larger than a D2X pixel, just to catch up with Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Firstly, the point about needing "pixels no larger than a D2X pixel" is not true as explained above: pixel pitch of about 7.2 microns wold be enough to "catch up with Canon" as far as current offerings, and I very much doubt that the next generation of 24x36mm sensors will have pixel pitch as small as the 5.5 microns of the D2X.
Secondly, talk about needing good ISO 6400 performance is taking the high ISO obsession to an extreme. Larger formats in particular are far more about high resolution and good dynamic range at low to moderate ISO than handing extremes of sensor underexposure (low light, high shutter speed shooting). Even Canon persists in making its high ISO, high frame models in formats smaller than 35mm, like the new 1D MkIII. And even the 20D, 30D and D200 offer higher frame rates than any FF model.
If Nikon goes to a format larger than DX, I envision it being for the type of photography served by the 1Ds series. (How often do you feel the need for ISO 6400 at apertures f/2.8 or bigger? At smaller apertures (higher f-stops) than that, the big format, big pixel noise advantage is illusory).
Thirdly, referring back to the comparison of the D2X's 5.5 micron photo-site design from several years ago to Canon slightly larger and more recent 400D photo-sites, how much of a high ISO performance gap is there? (Actually, I interested to see how Panasonic goes in pushing the limits of noise levels, highlight headroom and dynamic range with its new 4/3" format nMOS sensors with 4.7 micron pixel pitch. The nMOS design supposedly allows larger electron wells than CMOS at the same pixel pitch, helping to allow smaller pixel spacing. For some time now, Canon CMOS has had the largest minimum pixel pitch, for whatever reason.
I'm assuming here, of course, that the successors to the 5D and 1Ds3 will have increased pixel count and be at least as good as the 1D3 in terms of low-noise/high-ISO capability.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do not see much basis for that.
The 1DMkIII pixel size is the same as in the 1DsMkII, so going beyond the current 16.5MP of the 1DsMkII would require smaller pixels than the 1DMkIII. In particular, to be consistent with your above talk about Nikon needing pixels no larger than 5.5 microns, you should surely be looking at that same pixel pitch from Canon, meaning photosites about half the area of those 1DMkIII. Why should we expect that Canon will anytime soon be able to go so far below 1DMkIII pixel size while still matching the 1DMkIII in terms of low-noise/high-ISO capability?
-
The 1DMkIII pixel size is the same as in the 1DsMkII, so going beyond the current 16.5MP of the 1DsMkII would require smaller pixels than the 1DMkIII. In particular, to be consistent with your above talk about Nikon needing pixels no larger than 5.5 microns, you should surely be looking at that same pixel pitch from Canon, meaning photosites about half the area of those 1DMkIII. Why should we expect that Canon will anytime soon be able to go so far below 1DMkIII pixel size while still matching the 1DMkIII in terms of low-noise/high-ISO capability?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BJL,
We could go back and forth like this till the cows come home. Neither of us, presumably, has inside knowledge of current prototype developments in either camp. It's always possible that Nikon, with or without collaboration with Sony, which is after all a competitor, might trump Canon at some future date and come out with a FF 35mm camera which is considered better than any Canon model in all aspects that count. Who knows!
My point basically is, if you are trying to choose between the 2 systems and format is an issue for you (which I think it should be), then going with the company that already has a superb track record in that larger format (having decided the larger format has more appeal) makes more sense than opting for a company that has no track record in that larger format.
However, there's no guarantee that such a decision will prove to be right in, say 5 years' time, after having accummulated thousands of dollars worth of Canon lenses. But I know which decision I'd make .
-
In very practical terms, for all those interested in FF format, or larger, the next big decision point about system preference will come with the first model to supercede the 1DsMkII. If it's Canon, the main decision will be the user-value of the extra pixels relative to the cost; if it's any one but Canon - that raises major issues about investments in lenses and other peripherals. It's hard to predict technology, being on the receiving end; but the track record suggests it will be Canon. Assuming the format remains the same size, the pixels will need to be smaller. That in turn raises questions about "pixel quality" (i.e. hardware and firmware)which won't really be answerable till the erstwhile camera is tested - again, because the vast majority on the receiving end simply don't know what is up their sleeves at the moment. There may be breakthroughs in materials technology, sensor design, manufacturing technology and signal processing that we'll learn about only when they appear. As usual - it's a conundrum for people entering the market or contemplating an upgrade - how long do you wait relative to the unknowns of what's coming and when!
-
In the meantime I save my money AND buy printer stuff .
-
It's hard to predict technology, being on the receiving end; but the track record suggests it will be Canon. Assuming the format remains the same size, the pixels will need to be smaller. That in turn raises questions about "pixel quality" (i.e. hardware and firmware)which won't really be answerable till the erstwhile camera is tested - again, because the vast majority on the receiving end simply don't know what is up their sleeves at the moment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107379\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep, this is obviously speculation at this stage, but we can already anticipate a few more things:
1. There will be no agreement on the measurment of noise for the next high end DSLRs. Some will like the Canon noise better, some will prefer the Nikon noise better. Overall, most people will not bother checking and will just assume that the Canon is less noisy because it is a Canon,
2. There will be no agreement on the measurment of DR for the next high end DSLRs. Some will prefer the smoother curve of the Canon with more noisy shadows, while others will prefer the more contrasty Nikon with cleaner shadows,
3. The comparisons, if any, will typically be done using a neutral RAW converter like Lightroom or ACR. It appears at the present time that those converters are benchmarked using Canon cameras and then extended to cover Nikon as well, the end result being that few Nikon shooters are happy about the default conversions delivered by ACR/Lightroom, while Canon users are overall very happy. There will therefore be no fair comparision of the RAW image quality of these 2 bodies,
4. There will also be no agreement on how to measure the physical resistance of the bodies (resistance to light rain for instance...),
-> We will probably see statements about the Canon superiority that will not be backed up by actual detailed comparisons, because of these issues, and also on the basis that pixel peeping is something of the past.
All in all, Nikon has been slowly taking back the upper hand in overall DSLR sales (at least in Japan and the EU), and I foresee a strong resistance from Canon in the high end, both in actual product and also in the marketing dept.
The only real question to my eyes being: is the Nikon going to be superior enough that some key Canon shooters have no choice but to acknowledge it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
Re your point 3 - is this because Canon has been less secretive about the recipe than Nikon - remember all that stuff about the proprietary algorithms when the D2X came out?
On the whole what you describe looks like a menu for some exciting debates to come - I wouldn't for a moment assume that pixel-peeping is "something of the past"; at best it is "dormant" - just waiting for the next good opportunity to demonstrate it is live and well. Anyhow, fine, from time to time the industry needs a good pixel-peep doesn't it - keeps 'em on their toes, which is just what we consumers need most - competition.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Hi Bernard,
Re your point 3 - is this because Canon has been less secretive about the recipe than Nikon - remember all that stuff about the proprietary algorithms when the D2X came out?
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello Mark,
Most probably so. It is pretty ironic that in some circles, the willingness of Nikon to keep control on the RAW conversion will probably do them a diservice since their camera will only be evaluated with a third party RAW converter.
In all fairness though, those who bother to check the abilities of a top level DSLR should do it using the best availalbe RAW converter, and not a standard one. It will probably end up being different tools for both bodies.
Doing so requires to:
1. Acknowledge that ACR/Lightroom might not be the best converter for all applications,
2. Bother identifying the best tool for each DSLR, and then bother learning how to use it.
In a way, comparing the D3x and the 1dsIII using lightroom is like doing a comparison of image quality using Sigma lenses on the ground that you want to compare sensors...
Completely stupid since nobody will use these bodies with Sigma lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Completely stupid, but it will happen anyhow on the grounds that the conversion parameter should be a constant between the two comparators. In principle though you are right - each technology should be evaluated using the tools that the professionals would use to derive the best results it can yield - after spending the 1000s they will cost to buy - ouch - my money for the mega-megapixel DSLR is now being "identified" bit by bit.
-
Neither of us, presumably, has inside knowledge of current prototype developments in either camp
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed: so I will disregard your previous attempts to argue how difficult it would be for Nikon to come up with a competitive larger than DX format option.
My point basically is, if you are trying to choose between the 2 systems and format is an issue for you (which I think it should be), then going with the company that already has a superb track record in that larger format
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is completely different from your previous point, which was essentially a claim that Nikon needed to have pixel pitch no greater than 5.5 microns (28.6MP in 24x36mm format) with noise as good as Canon is promising for its still unreleased 1DMkIII sensor with 7.2 micron pixel pitch (16.5MP in 24x36mm format). Could you at least admit that those were totally biased terms of comparison, before shifting to a completely different line of argument?
In fact, I am trying a new policy: when a person's arguments are refuted, and the response is to change to completely different arguments in support of exactly the same conclusion, my interpretation is that the person is working backwards in defense of an entrenched belief, casting around for arguments to support it (i.e. to "prop it up"). That is more like religious or political debate that rational, open-minded scientific discussion, so I intend to drop out of of any discussion which goes in that direction.
-
Agreed: so I will disregard your previous attempts to argue how difficult it would be for Nikon to come up with a competitive larger than DX format option.
That is completely different from your previous point, which was essentially a claim that Nikon needed to have pixel pitch no greater than 5.5 microns (28.6MP in 24x36mm format) with noise as good as Canon is promising for its still unreleased 1DMkIII sensor with 7.2 micron pixel pitch (16.5MP in 24x36mm format). Could you at least admit that those were totally biased terms of comparison, before shifting to a completely different line of argument?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are nitpicking. BJL. Since we have agreed that neither of us have any inside information of what's currently on the drawing board, and even though that point was not made at the beginning of the discussion, it must have been quite apparent to both of us. Any precise statements about future pixel pitch of FF sensors should have been understood in this context, as guesswork but based upon a reasonable prediction of trends.
It is not unreasonable to expect that the 1Ds3 will have a 22mp sensor, followed by a 5D successor with a similar (or even greater) increase in pixel count, causing Nikon to attempt to capture lost ground by introducing its first FF sensor with 28mp, or thereabouts. I say this is a reasonable predicition because Canon already have a DSLR with the pixel pitch of a 26mp FF sensor (the 400D) and probably are already working on a 1Ds4 and a 3rd generation 5D with pixels counts approaching 30mp.
These companies have some sort of road map, don't they? If you have been in the business of producing FF sensors for several years, as Canon have, then you've probably got a fair idea of what products you are going to roll out for the public in, say 3 years' time.
It might be reasonable to presume that Nikon has been doing at least some work on its first FF sensor, but it's not going to pass muster if it's a 16 or 22mp camera in 3 years' time when Canon is offering 30mp DSLRs.
If Nikon is working on a FF sensor that has a pixel pitch significantly bigger than 5.5 microns, then they'd better release it soon or the game is lost .
-
I seem to recall a statement from Nikon that they had no intention of developing a 24*36 format. Of course they can change their minds, but that would be the clearest evidence to date of their intent. As for Canon, we don't have any idea yet - as far as I know - whether the next 1Ds will be 22, 26 or something else. Anyhow, idle speculation is fun.
-
I seem to recall a statement from Nikon that they had no intention of developing a 24*36 format.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Me too, but arguably it was hedged with words like "no current plans". Nikon does seem to have kept up with some 24x36mm sensor R&D, and stories of prototypes being field tested have popped up from somewhat credible sources, like our host Michael Reichmann some years ago and Thom Hogan more recently. Of course not all prototypes lead to products.
I am inclined to bet against 24x36mm from Nikon, but not at extreme odds.
-
On the matter of a FF Nikon, I tend to think it will happen. I base this on the feeling that Nikon is very proud of its optics and would not like to put out a camera system where they, the optics, are found to be wanting.
However, there is an undeniable loss of market share because of this (probable) high-minded attitude and it will have to be addressed. How to do that without blowing the reputation of the optics? I think the answer will be in a firm, clear declaration from Nikon that getting results on digital as good as on film, at the extreme wide-angle end of the spectrum, is simply not possible. This will be explained as an unavoidable result of the physical shape of any sensor know to date.
As none of the other, competing manufacturers have been able to produce outstanding wide-angle results on FF either, there will be no shame in declaring that a FF body is being introduced in order to allow Nikon photographers to make use of the FF advantages within the focal lengths where it functions well.
No loss of face and huge sighs of relief.
Just an idea, but I think it is the future; are we all that enslaved to the super-wide? And if so, why?
Ciao - Rob C
-
Just an idea, but I think it is the future; are we all that enslaved to the super-wide? And if so, why?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good question! Perhaps it's because the super-wide gives us a perspective in one glance that we cannot achieve by looking at the real scene, without turning our head from side to side.
There are certain things the eye can do that the camera (in a single shot) cannot.
When the eye gaze moves from a bright part of a scene to a dark part of the same scene, there's an almost instantaneous enlargement of the pupil to take in the detail in the dark part of the scene. The camera has a fixed aperture. To mimic this effect of the eye, we have to take multiple shots at different exposures and digitally blend the images.
When viewing a really wide-angle scene, the eye cannot take in the full width of the panorama, in full detail, without some head turning. We get an experience of the vast width, without turning our head, but detail is lost (significantly) in our peripheral vision.
Dynamic range limitations of DSLRs fall short of what the eye can see clearly. Wide-angle lenses do not.
When trekking recently in Nepal, I started out with the Canon 24-105mm lens attached to my 5D. This seemed to be the most versatile combination.
However, the landscape scenes in Nepal are sometimes so vast and wide that 24mm on FF 35mm is not wide enough.
Fortunately, I was carrying the Sigma 15-30mm zoom, so when the occasion arose, I would change lenses. However, having changed lenses for a particular scene, it did not make sense to change back to the 24-105mm untill the occasion required it.
Here's a problem. When trekking in Nepal, one can never predict what's round the bend.
I'll use a few shots here to illustrate my point.
The first is a scene of a suspension bridge. I changed from my 24-105 to the Sigma 15-30 to take this shot. I'm quite pleased with it. I used f16 to get maximum DoF without serious loss of resolution. I guessed the hyperfocal distance and my guess appears to be fairly accurate. I took only one shot, I was that confident.
[attachment=2160:attachment]
Let's examine this shot. It's a Sigma lens on a FF camera. How are the corners?
Not too bad! There's some resolution loss in the extreme corners, but really not a major issue. Below is a 100% crop of the bottom left corner.
[attachment=2161:attachment]
What about the distant horizon, I hear you claim?
It's also quite good. And to think, I did all this without reference to DoF charts.
Here's a 100% crop of the distant horizon. If you think this crop is better than the whole scene, I will understand.
[attachment=2162:attachment]
However, having an ultra-wide lens on a FF camera can be a disadvantage. What happens if 5 minutes later a photographic opportunity occurs which requires a longer focal length?
Basically, you're stuffed. This was a major problem in Nepal, so I fixed the problem by carrying 2 cameras around my neck, the 20D with 24-105 lens and the 5D with 15-30 lens.
As a matter of interest, shortly after I took the shot of the bridge, I came across the following scene, still having the 15-30mm attached to my 5D.
I remember the internal decisions I went through. If I change lenses, I might miss the shot. This guy is running at a fairly fast pace.
I decided to stick with my inappropriate lens and wait till the horseman reached the right distance. The trade-off is, I only got one shot. And here it is, at 30mm, the maximum focal length of my lens.
[attachment=2163:attachment]
For those of you who are very concerned about composition, you might have noticed in the horeseman shot there's a boring, blank area of sky in the top left corner.
Not so! There are interesting power lines there.
[attachment=2164:attachment]
Oops! I forgot to mention. The first shot of the brdge was at f16 and 15mm. The second shot of the horseman was at f30 and f8.
-
Perhaps there's another consideration here. Now that photoshop CS3 has provided a superb 'auto stitch' feature which certainly seems to handle 2, 3 or 4 images with great aplomb, perhaps Nikon users can simply stitch images to get the really wide-angle effect.
On the other hand, if one adopts the same procedure with a FF camera, one gets an even wider effect.
Ultimately, it's pixel size and pixel quality that counts, and there full frame has the advantage.
I'm afraid BJL is in a state of denial.
-
Ultimately, it's pixel size and pixel quality that counts, and there full frame has the advantage.
I'm afraid BJL is in a state of denial.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Count me in as well, I have never seen a 5D shot topping my d2x at low ISO in terms of detail.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is such a huge number of factors that influence perceived image quality - many whose impact would vary according to the kind of image and its final output format, that it would take quite an ingenious amount of well-directed testing to determine exactly the right circumstances in which "FF" necessarily delivers superior perceived image quality relative to the D2X format - and I say that objectively as a Canon 1Ds user. The THEORY of the full frame - larger pixels, less noise etc. makes sense on the surface of it, but there is clearly much more under the hood than that. One thing though that is PROBABLY beyond dispute - the larger the sensor the more pixels of a given size can be crammed into it, so FF has the on-going potential of delivering more information than smaller sensors, but from that point onward one gets into the murky waters of quality in respect of what usage and viewing conditions.
-
Count me in as well, I have never seen a 5D shot topping my d2x at low ISO in terms of detail.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah! But what about at high ISO, eh!?
-
Ah! But what about at high ISO, eh!?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108744\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They are all yours. Less than 3.141592654% of my images are shot above ISO100.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ultimately, it's pixel size and pixel quality that counts, and there full frame has the advantage.
I'm afraid BJL is in a state of denial.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, what facts have I denied according to you?
I have never denied that, all things being equal, larger photosites have advantages such as greater dynamic range, so that larger sensors can offer some combination of higher DR and greater total image detail ("lines per picture height") --- in exchange for increased sensor costs and such.
Nor have I denied that at equal ISO, large pixels will likely give higher S/N ratios when used with equal exposure time and aperture ratio --- in exchange for needing a lens of greater focal length and larger aperture size, meaning a lens of greater size and weight that gives (possibly disadvantageous) lower DOF.
If I denied all that, I would probably be using a format like 1/1.8" or smaller instead of far larger, bulkier, 4/3" format gear.
These are essentially same differences as seen between different film formats, but digital technology makes the differences easier to quantify and measure.
Some people (naming no names) seem to be in state of denial about the possible disadvantages and costs associated with achieving those larger format advantages, such as greater size, weight and price, and seem to ignore the balancing of pros and cons that go into format choices, both by camera users and camera makers. (For example, Canon, Nikon and Olympus have never pursued the ultimate in IQ by making cameras in formats larger than 24x36mm).
-
I have never denied that, all things being equal, larger photosites have advantages such as greater dynamic range, so that larger sensors can offer some combination of higher DR and greater total image detail ("lines per picture height") --- in exchange for increased sensor costs and such.
Nor have I denied that at equal ISO, large pixels will likely give higher S/N ratios when used with equal exposure time and aperture ratio --- in exchange for needing a lens of greater focal length and larger aperture size, meaning a lens of greater size and weight that gives (possibly disadvantageous) lower DOF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108767\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good! Perhaps I misunderstood you.
-
They are all yours. Less than 3.141592654% of my images are shot above ISO100.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108759\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you had a 5D (and especially a 1D3), you might increase that percentage.
I also have very few Canon D60 images taken at ISO 800. I was even reluctant to use ISO 400 with that camera.
-
Ray, I would like to know what focal lengths and apertures you are commonly using at high ISO speeds with the 5D.
I ask because I can see the speed advantage of using a larger format and larger focal lengths to achieve good IQ at the combination of high ISO with low f-stops, but see no point if one ends using long, slow lenses, getting combinations like 400mm, f/5.6, ISO 3200. Because smaller formats and pixels can offer about equally good options like about 300mm, f/4, ISO 1600 or 200mm, f/2.8, ISO 800.
Likewise for any combination of ISO 200 or faster with f/4 or slower, compared to the alternative of half the ISO speed and twice the lens speed (f-stop), using with a format and pixels about 1.4x smaller and a lens that is about 1.4x shorter and one stop faster.
In general, I see little or no high ISO IQ advantage in using a larger format (larger pixels and longer focal lengths) in situations that then involve using telephoto lenses slower than f/2.8, and even more so, slower than f/4, which leads to declining AF performance.
-
Ray, I would like to know what focal lengths and apertures you are commonly using at high ISO speeds with the 5D.
BJL,
I haven't done an analysis, but my most used lenses with the 5D would be the Sigma 15-30 and Canon 24-105. Many of the shots I took in Italy where I was using the 20D required a high ISO because of the restrictions on use of tripod and flash in museums and churches.
It's always an advantage to have a faster lens if you can afford it, but generally lenses for FF 35mm are just as fast as lenses for smaller formats such as the Olympus 4/3rds, are they not?
If we're talking about different size sensors with roughly equal pixel count, such as the D2X and 5D, then it's true you can use a shorter focal length, a wider aperture and a lower ISO to get a similar picture quality provided you have a lens with a wider aperture.
I doubt that I've taken any shots at 400mm, f5.6 and ISO 3200. On the 5D, picture quality at ISO 3200 is apparently no different to ISO 1600 underexposed one stop, and my 100-400 IS zoom is noticeably soft at f5.6. F8, f11 are what I use most with this lens.
Of course I'm aware of the telephoto advantages of the cropped format and I still use my 100-400 zoom with the 20D because of the 20D's higher pixel density. However, the day I get a FF Canon 22mp camera will be the day my 20D becomes fully redundant.
-
... my most used lenses with the 5D would be the Sigma 15-30 and Canon 24-105. Many of the shots I took in Italy where I was using the 20D required a high ISO because of the restrictions on use of tripod and flash in museums and churches.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The wide end is certainly where I would expect larger sensors (and the related ability to use lenses of larger entrance pupils that gather light faster) to be beneficial. Then again, I have found ISO 800 adequate for hand-held church and museum photos even without IS, so I would think that with systems that offer stabilization of wide angle lenses through in-body IS, even ISO 400 or less should be plenty. Which is to say, every DSLR system except the two that headline this thread!.
... generally lenses for FF 35mm are just as fast as lenses for smaller formats such as the Olympus 4/3rds, are they not?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, they are not for equal FOV. As you should well know, once one allows for the longer focal lengths needed for equal telephoto reach (equal angular resolution) when using "FF" sensors with their larger pixels, the available minimum f-stops are in general higher. (And in the cases where equally low minimum f-stop is available in a suitably longer telephoto, the lens is far heavier and more expensive.)
You cannot claim the better performance at equally high ISO of larger pixels and sensors while ignoring the longer focal length needs that go with it.
Specifically, Canon's current 35mm format lens system does not offer equally low minimum f-stops at the focal lengths needed to get the same FOV, or the same angular resolution after possible cropping (i.e. cropping to roughly equal pixel counts). Not only does equal uncropped FOV require focal lengths at least 50% longer than with mainstream DSLR formats and 30% longer than with Canon's own 1.3x crop models, but with cropping to equal pixel counts, the 8.2 micron pixels of the 5D require using focal lengths
- 36% greater than with a D40x, D80 or D200 ( or A-100 or K10D),
- 49% greater than with a D2X.
- 75% greater than with 10MP 4/3 format cameras
Even if you could afford the huge price step up to the 1DsMkII, the focal length increases needed are 20%, 30% and 50%.
Bearing this in mind, I see no equal f-stop Canon "FF" lens alternatives to using those smaller format DSLR bodies with lenses like
- Nikon 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, or zooms matching a 200-400/4, 70-200/2.8 or 80-400/4-5.6 near the long end. Or even a zoom matching the long end of a cheap 70-300/4.5-5.6 telephoto!
- Olympus 150/2, 300/2.8 or zooms lenses matching the minimum f-stops of the longer part of the zoom range of the 50-200/2.8-3.5, 35-100/2, 90-250/2.8. Or even the forthcoming low end 70-300/4-5.6.
-
BJL,
You seem to have forgotten we're talking about trends and the future. There seems to be a significant lag between the pixel density of the cropped formats and the same pixel density implemented in the FF formats. The 1Ds2 has the same pixel density as the D60, my first DSLR. Even if the D60 had the same sterling noise performance of the 1Ds2, which it doesn't, there would be no circumstances whatsoever in which the D60 could offer any image IQ advantage whatsoever, with any lens, over the 1Ds2.
-
Go outside, take picture, print picture, show picture, enjoy picture, screw the brand ...
Repeat as desired ...
-
BJL,
You seem to have forgotten we're talking about trends and the future.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110426\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, we were not: you were talking about the good ISO 3200 performance of your actual 35mmFF camera, with your actual lenses, and I responded by asking and talking about the actual demonstrated advantages and disadvantages of actual cameras and sensors in different formats. In particular, I am not interested in comparisons between imagined future Canon products (28MP! clean ISO 6400!!) to the performance limitations of products from several years ago in other brands (the Nikon D2Xs with its sensor from 2004).
There seems to be a significant lag between the pixel density of the cropped formats and the same pixel density implemented in the FF formats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110426\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed there is:
1. the pixel spacing of 35mm format sensors is persistently larger than in smaller format sensors at the same time, or even from several years earlier, and
2. the pixel size gap in percentage terms is increasing with time, or in other words, the pixel count gap is decreasing in percentage terms.
The 1Ds and 14/n had about twice the pixel count of the smaller formats, which were then at 6MP. In fact the 14/n has the same pixel size as the D100. Now the pixel count gap from 10MP mainstream models is only about 25% (5D) to 65% (1DsMkII), and relative to the maximum pixel count in APS-C, the D2Xs, the gap is only about 5% to 30%.
So the gap in focal lengths needed is growing, getting fairly close to the factor expected based on sensor size alone. Comparisons between lenses of equal focal length become less and less relevant, if they ever were relevant (I doubt that it is at all common for people to use larger format DSLRs with higher pixels counts and then crop down to the pixel count possible with a far less expensive smaller format camera). Using the 5D with the same focal length as gets the job done in DX or 4/3 and cropping to get the same FOV gives only about 5.5MP (DX format) or 3.4MP (4/3 format).
I can see why the arguments in favor of 35mm format digital are consolidating on wide angle to normal performance and high dynamic range at low ISO, more like the traditional advantages of larger film formats, which were never much touted for telephoto and high shutter speed situations.
P. S. In deference to djgarcia, my points are addressed to comparisons of formats; brands only appear when specific examples must be mentioned.
-
BJL,
Have you ever tried simplifying your arguments?
What I understand from your above post is that you are merely re-stating the traditional advantage of the smaller format, ie. the opportunity to get the same DoF plus faster shutter speed by using a wider aperture with a shorter focal length.
Comparing the D2X with the 5D with a specific example; if I'm in a low light situation and need to use the widest aperture of my lens, say f1.4, then the D2X will give me approximately the same DoF and the same general image quality at ISO 800 as the 5D at f2 and ISO 1600, using a lens 1.5x the focal length on the 5D.
However, the advantage here is not always clear-cut. It's dependent upon the possession of lenses of equivalent focal length (for the smaller format) that actually are faster, and it's also dependent on the requirement (in relation to the subject) of as much DoF as possible.
For example, if I'm photographing (without flash) a section of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel where DoF may not be an issue, I can also use f1.4 at ISO 800 with the 5D, or use a faster shutter speed that's maybe needed because it would be a hand-held shot, in oder to get better image quality than the D2X can provide; either better in respect of less noise or sharper because I was able to use a faster shutter speed.
(This argument is based on remembered evidence that the 5D at ISO 1600 produces images that are at least as sharp and clean as the D2X at ISO 800).
There are also a couple of other points that are worth mentioning in circumstances where the same zoom lens is used with both FF and APS-C cameras. Lenses are generally not sharpest at full aperture. Even expensive primes like the Canon 85/1.2 are not too hot at f1.2. At apertures faster than f5.6, sharpest results are usually achieved by stopping down. Furthermore, when the shallowest DoF possible is required, FF is generally better (using the same zoom lens or equivalent prime which is equally fast.)
Finally, it's pretty obvious that pixel counts continue to increase on both formats. As they do, the telephoto advantage of the smaller format diminishes as the greater pixel density of the smaller format struggles to extract more detail from existing lenses. Of course, new lenses are being developed, but the quality is not increasing at the same rate as the increases in pixel count.
-
"Even expensive primes like the Canon 85/1.2 are not too hot at f1.2."
No but it is f/1.2! If a lens is slower its image quality may be better (?) but its still slower. Without wanting to appear rude (I really don't) I've seen this argument too often and its not valid. If you buy an ultra fast lens to use wide open then at least you CAN use it wide open because it has the fast maximum aperture - I have L primes from 24 to 135 and ALL are used wide open when I want/need to.
Secondly, its worth also pointing out that smaller than FF cameras may also be at a lens design disadvantage when it comes to fast wides simply because they still carry forward the design of 35mm film lens mounting dimensions - which are probably not the ideal requirements for lens designers and fast wides (I exclude the Leica M8 which should have a clear advantage here - but of course isn't an SLR).
Does anyone remember the Olympus Pen series of solid but diminutive half frame SLRs? I wonder.....
-
As they do, the telephoto advantage of the smaller format diminishes as the greater pixel density of the smaller format struggles to extract more detail from existing lenses. Of course, new lenses are being developed, but the quality is not increasing at the same rate as the increases in pixel count.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No intend to get involved in a Canon vs Nikon debate, but I just cannot agree with this last point. This just isn't proven.
How do you explain that Michael concluded after comparing the Leica M8 with a Canon G7 that both cameras deliver sharp results at low ISO? The sensor of the G7 has a surface that is about 10 times smaller, and there a pixel density 3 times higher.
This shows very clearly that there are lenses able to resolve at least 3 times more than current 35 mm lenses.
Regards,
Bernard
-
This shows very clearly that there are lenses able to resolve at least 3 times more than current 35 mm lenses.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110546\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
.........and that very crowded sensors with small pixels can still deliver very high quality images?
But even so, there must be a point at which bigger is better; and at that point will the lenses or the sensor be the critical constraint on resolution?
-
No but it is f/1.2! If a lens is slower its image quality may be better (?) but its still slower. Without wanting to appear rude (I really don't) I've seen this argument too often and its not valid. If you buy an ultra fast lens to use wide open then at least you CAN use it wide open because it has the fast maximum aperture - I have L primes from 24 to 135 and ALL are used wide open when I want/need to.
Why should the point not be valid? If there's a trade-off in image sharpness then that's a disadvantage. Are you saying you don't care about image resolution and sharpness?
My remarks were made in the context of comparing a low noise (at high ISO) FF 5D with a slightly higher-noise, cropped format D2x. With the D2X you can use a faster aperture and lower ISO to get, according to BJL, the same image quality and same DoF. My point of dispute was that you wouldn't if the sharpness of the lens at full aperture is less than it is when stopped down one stop. Seems a perfectly valid point to me, in relation to different format cameras that fit the same types of lenses.
-
How do you explain that Michael concluded after comparing the Leica M8 with a Canon G7 that both cameras deliver sharp results at low ISO? The sensor of the G7 has a surface that is about 10 times smaller, and there a pixel density 3 times higher.
This shows very clearly that there are lenses able to resolve at least 3 times more than current 35 mm lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110546\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
You are shifting the debate to comparisons of format extremes here. It does appear to be the case that very small lenses can be made that are diffraction limited at apertures of f4 to f5.6. A lens that is diffraction limited at f4 has double the resolution (at the same MTF) of a lens that is diffraction limited at f8.
For some reason, it doesn't appear to be either possible or economical to produce 35mm lenses or APS-C lenses that are even nearly diffraction limited at f4, perhaps because there's so much glass for the light to pass through.
There are also severe limitations of such lenses in small P&S cameras. Shortest equivalent focal length of the G7 lens is 35mm. Widest 35mm equivalent apertures for DoF purposes are f11-f19. You can't get a shallower DoF than f11 (35mm equivalent) on the G7.
-
"Seems a perfectly valid point to me, in relation to different format cameras that fit the same types of lenses."
So what equivalent exists for a 24mm f/1.4 L lens on a 1.5x or 1.6x camera (from any manufacturer? I accept that a 50/1.2 will equate to the same fov as an 85/1.2, but shorter, fast, FF lenses are difficult to equate to on smaller sensors. Of course I care about sharpness (and bokeh, etc.) but if you haven't got a fast enough lens to shoot the image 'cause it doesn't exist, then you have to use what is available - and believe me the Canon L fast primes are pretty good wide open (I haven't lost a sale from any, lets put it that way!). And test resolution doesn't tell you everything about a lens either!
We tend to forget that cameras and lenses are tools to do a job (ie they are not an end in themselves) and if you ask me, we never had it so good! As I've said before, Nikon and Canon both produce superb cameras and lenses - both have their advantages and disadvantages, and I would class neither as better, just different. As I've also said before, if I were a student (I think that's where this thread started) I'd lean towards Canon as more commercial photographers are using them than Nikon, and to get an assistant's job this might be the better camera to be familiar with
-
BJL,
Have you ever tried simplifying your arguments?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Given how you so massively misinterpret what I have been trying to say above, perhaps I should. I suggest in particular you re-read my post #111 in this thread, in which I say in part
... I can see the speed advantage of using a larger format and larger focal lengths to achieve good IQ at the combination of high ISO with low f-stops, but see no point if one ends using long, slow lenses, getting combinations like 400mm, f/5.6, ISO 3200.
...
In general, I see little or no high ISO IQ advantage in using a larger format (larger pixels and longer focal lengths) in situations that then involve using telephoto lenses slower than f/2.8, and even more so, slower than f/4, which leads to declining AF performance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It should be clear that I am talking about claiming a high ISO advantage for larger formats in situations where that high ISO speed is used in conjunction with a relatively slow lens (or a lens stopped down to a slow aperture for adequate DOF), meaning apertures of about f/4 or slower. This applies to all the zoom lenses that you have mentioned using (Sigma 15-30, Canon 24-105 and 100-400) except for the slightly faster f/3.5 at the wide end of the Sigma.
In that situation, the claimed high shutter speed/low light advantage is illusory, as a somewhat smaller format can achieve very similar results at the same shutter speed with a suitable combination of shorter focal length, lower aperture ratio and lower ISO speed. For example changing from 35mm format, f/4 [or f/5.6] ISO 3200 to "APS-C" format f/2.8 [or f/4], ISO 1600.
I have already said that the larger format has a speed advantage when it can use the combination of high ISO and low f-stop. So why do you use low aperture ratios like f/1.4 vs f/2 in your attempted counter-example?
Finally, note that I am not claiming in this thread any image quality advantage for a smaller format, nor denying that larger formats have some IQ advantages; my point is only to dispute _some_ claims of IQ advantages for larger formats, based on the persistent and often false assumption of using equal f-stop and ISO speed with a larger format and greater focal length.
I am avoiding comparisons of imaginary future products, so will simply say this: regardless of how sensor and photosite technology develops, the only way to get any advantage from using a larger format is to use a larger focal length, and that requires either (1) higher f-stops, and thus either higher ISO speed or lower shutter speed, or (2) larger, heavier and probably more expensive front lens elements and less DOF. Option (3) of using equal pixel size and equal focal length and cropping is of course simply a more bulky and expensive way of reproducing what could be done with a smaller format.
-
"Even expensive primes like the Canon 85/1.2 are not too hot at f1.2."
Does anyone remember the Olympus Pen series of solid but diminutive half frame SLRs? I wonder.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Firstly, please learn to use the quote button, so we know who you are quoting and from which post.
Secondly, I wonder what you are wondering about: why very cheap 35mm film cameras, film and processing eventually displaced smaller formats that had no significant cost advantage, while persistently very expensive 35mm format DSLR's are still confined to about 0.3% of the total digital camera market, under 3% of the DSLR market, and probably under a third of the professional digital camera market? (The 1.3x crop format 1D models dominate the latter.)
Two factors seem to explain it: different price and performance trade-offs with digital than with film. With digital
(1) the cost disadvantage of 35mm format vs the dominant smaller formats like DX, EF-S, 4/3 etc. is far greater than that between 35mm film and smaller film formats,
and
(2) the image quality is far better at any given format size, so the visible IQ differences between 35mm format digital and smaller DSLR formats is far less than between 35mm film full frame and 35mm film half-frame.
-
I am a photography student and I am ready to buy a good digital SLR. My photography interest include: landscape, action and portraiture. My instructor has recommended the Cannon. My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard. Price is not really an issue, but I want to be sure I don't regret my purchase. Any advice
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My god look what you've started.
-
It should be clear that I am talking about claiming a high ISO advantage for larger formats in situations where that high ISO speed is used in conjunction with a relatively slow lens (or a lens stopped down to a slow aperture for adequate DOF), meaning apertures of about f/4 or slower. This applies to all the zoom lenses that you have mentioned using (Sigma 15-30, Canon 24-105 and 100-400) except for the slightly faster f/3.5 at the wide end of the Sigma.
In that situation, the claimed high shutter speed/low light advantage is illusory, as a somewhat smaller format can achieve very similar results at the same shutter speed with a suitable combination of shorter focal length, lower aperture ratio and lower ISO speed. For example changing from 35mm format, f/4 [or f/5.6] ISO 3200 to "APS-C" format f/2.8 [or f/4], ISO 1600.
I have already said that the larger format has a speed advantage when it can use the combination of high ISO and low f-stop. So why do you use low aperture ratios like f/1.4 vs f/2 in your attempted counter-example?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BJL,
You're obfuscating here. One uses the lenses one has or can afford to buy. If you are buying into a new system, whatever the format, then the range and type of lenses available for that format should also be a consideration.
I understand where you are coming from. You own an E1 and you probably have a lens or two (probably zoom) that is faster than a Canon zoom of equivalent focal length. If so, that clearly helps towards removing any IQ disadvantage of the smaller format. I've always thought it a pity that Olympus has decided against making their Zuiko lenses compatible with Canon cameras. A bit of vignetting in the corners of a 400D image could be tolerated for the sake of a sharper image elswhere.
-
So what equivalent exists for a 24mm f/1.4 L lens on a 1.5x or 1.6x camera (from any manufacturer?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are you arguing with me or against me? You should ask BJL this question.
-
Count me in as well, I have never seen a 5D shot topping my d2x at low ISO in terms of detail. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Who cares about extremely subtle differnces of image quality esp. compared to missing elements of a pictue due to the crop sensor.
I find this argument aboutminor pixel differnces a bit farcical to an extent becuse if you look at a lot of the great photographs of the past, most would be rejected by the image quality fascism that can occur on LL.
Unlike you I shoot at higher ISOs and recently, a Nikon using collegue struggled to get pics with his D2X, whereas I managed to get shots OK with my 5D. I had a more usable high speed ISO and a faster wideangle lens, so I had at least 2 stops advantage over him - we were shooting dancers and I was using 1/160thish at f2.8. He was considering buying a Canon after that.
-
Good point, JJJ. We should consider the whole system. Available lenses, maximum aperture, effective DoF (in the standard 35mm terms) as well as ultimate image quality.
There are pros and cons for all formats.
-
BJL,
You're obfuscating here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How so: I am simply stating a fact about using lenses of relatively high minimum f-stop with larger formats, compared to the option of using shorter but "brighter" lenses with smaller formats. I think the obfuscation comes form people who insist over and over again on comparing low light ability solely on the basis of comparisons at equal ISO, ignoring likely variations in f-stop choices.
One uses the lenses one has or can afford to buy. If you are buying into a new system, whatever the format, then the range and type of lenses available for that format should also be a consideration.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I completely agree, or as you say in another post,
We should consider the whole system. Available lenses, maximum aperture, effective DoF ... as well as ultimate image quality.
There are pros and cons for all formats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110731\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And if buying 35mm format limits one to doing most of one's photography with slowish lenses like a 15-30/3.5-4.5, 24-105/4, and 100-400/4-5.6, whereas with a somewhat smaller format one could afford lenses a stop or so brighter (especially with over a thousand dollars more to spend on lenses from savings on the camera body!), then the high ISO advantage of the larger sensor does not translate into any IQ advantage at equal shutter speed under equal lighting conditions when using those relatively slow lenses.
At the risk of sounding snobbish, I hope never again to buy a lens slower than f/4 at any focal length, for the sake of good AF performance and the ability to use a TC without losing AF entirely, as happens with a TC on the 100-400/4-5.6, doesn't it?
On the other hand, if I was more interested in in-door low light wide angle photography without flash, a tripod, or stabilization, I would be more interested in a larger format. But once even wide angle lenses are stabilized by in-body stabilization, I see little need for high ISO in that situation.
-
In response to a comment about 24mm f/1.4 lenses in 35mm formats having no equivalent in smaller formats
Are you arguing with me or against me? You should ask BJL this question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110694\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, are you really still ignoring the fact that I completely agree with you that larger formats have an advantage when they can be used with fast, low f-stops lenses?
If I saw no advantages to larger formats over smaller ones, I would not be using a format more than four times larger in sensor area than 90% of digital cameras now sold.
-
Who cares about extremely subtle differnces of image quality esp. compared to missing elements of a pictue due to the crop sensor.
I find this argument aboutminor pixel differnces a bit farcical to an extent becuse if you look at a lot of the great photographs of the past, most would be rejected by the image quality fascism that can occur on LL.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We both agree that the 5D has cleaner high ISO, that the 5D is overall a very good camera and that FF has some advantages over APS for some applications. With today's technology, my view is on the other hand clearly that APS sensors have advantages for landscape.
All I am saying is that, at low ISO that I use 99% of the time, the D2x has best in class image quality and is in many ways an even better camera than the 5D.
I am not sure how trying to use what I see as the best tool around for my type of shooting gets to be image quality fascism... I understand that having different views on an issue can be felt as being disruptive, but "promoting diversity" and "facism" are concepts that are 180 degrees from each other.
For me, high ISO quality is only next to strap color in the irrelevant features list, and that it because I don't use a strap.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And if buying 35mm format limits one to doing most of one's photography with slowish lenses like a 15-30/3.5-4.5, 24-105/4, and 100-400/4-5.6, whereas with a somewhat smaller format one could afford lenses a stop or so brighter (especially with over a thousand dollars more to spend on lenses from savings on the camera body!), then the high ISO advantage of the larger sensor does not translate into any IQ advantage at equal shutter speed under equal lighting conditions when using those relatively slow lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah! Now I see your point. It's purely an economics one. Instead of splashing out on a 5D body, you're implying that I might have been better off buying a faster lens, such as a 70-200/2.8 IS with 2x extender, or a 300/2.8, or 24-70/2.8 or a 16-35/2.8.
As a matter of fact, when the full details of the 5D were released after much speculation as to what format it was, I was rather disappointed to learn that it was 12.8mp on a FF sensor. I was sort of hoping the camera would be a 12.8mp cropped format because I'd already bought the EF-S 10-22mm lens.
However, 12.8mp are better than 8.2mp when you have a wide format printer (as I have) and the EF-S 10-22mm, although roughly equivalent to the Sigma 15-30, is no faster and marginally less sharp.
As I've mentioned before, the availability of the right lenses can affect one's choice of camera. If the EF-S 10-22mm lens was a sharper and faster lens, say f2.8, and, if Canon had offered in addition to the 5D a 12.8mp cropped format body at a lower price than the 5D, I would have bought the cropped format. But they didn't so I couldn't.
-
While for me the biggest issue that pushed me into retiring my faithful 10D in favor of the FF 5D was that BIG, GLORIOUS, VISIBLE FINDER!!!
The extra megapixels were really just a bonus. I was tired of looking down a long tunnel to see the image. And, fortunately, I hadn't yet invested in any of the S-series lenses. My existing lenses all work fine on my 5D.
-
And if buying 35mm format limits one to doing most of one's photography with slowish lenses like a 15-30/3.5-4.5, 24-105/4, and 100-400/4-5.6, whereas with a somewhat smaller format one could afford lenses a stop or so brighter (especially with over a thousand dollars more to spend on lenses from savings on the camera body!), then the high ISO advantage of the larger sensor does not translate into any IQ advantage at equal shutter speed under equal lighting conditions when using those relatively slow lenses.
At the risk of sounding snobbish, I hope never again to buy a lens slower than f/4 at any focal length, for the sake of good AF performance and the ability to use a TC without losing AF entirely, as happens with a TC on the 100-400/4-5.6, doesn't it?
I have nothing slower than f2.8 and a big sensor, so not sure what your point is. Finding Fast apertures to go with smallers formats is quite hard, esp. at the w/a end.
On the other hand, if I was more interested in in-door low light wide angle photography without flash, a tripod, or stabilization, I would be more interested in a larger format. But once even wide angle lenses are stabilized by in-body stabilization, I see little need for high ISO in that situation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IS has no effect on subject movement, so high ISO will still be essential.
-
While for me the biggest issue that pushed me into retiring my faithful 10D in favor of the FF 5D was that BIG, GLORIOUS, VISIBLE FINDER!!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Still pokey compared to my OM4, which is also half the size.
-
Why should the point not be valid? If there's a trade-off in image sharpness then that's a disadvantage. Are you saying you don't care about image resolution and sharpness?
My remarks were made in the context of comparing a low noise (at high ISO) FF 5D with a slightly higher-noise, cropped format D2x. With the D2X you can use a faster aperture and lower ISO to get, according to BJL, the same image quality and same DoF.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you stick to the brighter tones, they might be more similar, but once you get deep into the shadows, the D2X is an order of magnitude noisier than the 5D. The D2X does not have any high-ISO readout optimization. The read noise is the same level in electrons at all ISOs on the D2X. It starts out about twice as strong as the the 5D at ISO 100, and is about 12x as strong at ISO 1600. Nikon seems to be short on ideas about how to tame read noise.
I've read comments on how Nikon has caught ip to Canon in the low-light area, comparing the D80 to the XTi, yet examining their RAW files, the D80 has 4x-5x times the read noise as the XTI at ISO 1600. Most of the samples in the comparisons are well-exposed, and overlook the fact that the D80 tends to expose very high, and the XTi very low, so you need to use -EC on the D80 and +EC on the XTi to properly compare them in the same lighting.
-
Deleted due to double post.
-
If you stick to the brighter tones, they might be more similar, but once you get deep into the shadows, the D2X is an order of magnitude noisier than the 5D. The D2X does not have any high-ISO readout optimization. The read noise is the same level in electrons at all ISOs on the D2X. It starts out about twice as strong as the the 5D at ISO 100, and is about 12x as strong at ISO 1600. Nikon seems to be short on ideas about how to tame read noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Didn't realise there was such a big difference in noise levels between the two cameras, John.
It's no wonder Bernard has taken so few high ISO shots with his D2X .
-
We both agree that the 5D has cleaner high ISO, that the 5D is overall a very good camera and that FF has some advantages over APS for some applications. With today's technology, my view is on the other hand clearly that APS sensors have advantages for landscape.
Not clear to me. As APS is restrictive in certain areas without doing anything a FF sensor cannot do.
All I am saying is that, at low ISO that I use 99% of the time, the D2x has best in class image quality and is in many ways an even better camera than the 5D.
I can take images you cannot with your camera, the converse is not true. So hardly a better camera. I've a D2x using friend who was struggling at a dingy event and was considering a 5D afterwards. As I got shots, where he couldn't. Though Nikon does have a better flash system it seems.
I am not sure how trying to use what I see as the best tool around for my type of shooting gets to be image quality fascism... I understand that having different views on an issue can be felt as being disruptive, but "promoting diversity" and "facism" are concepts that are 180 degrees from each other.
Wanting the best tool for the job is fine, but I was generally referencing a certain trend on here towards ever finer pixel counting over simply taking pics, without worrying about the minutae of image quality. And sometimes the technically poorer quality picture is actually better. I used to use Recording film in Acuspeed, a recipe for grain, but it gave amazing images in the right conditions [dingy!]. A graining picture that actually catches the moment is often a lot better than a less graing but very blurred image. There are different types of sharpness!
For me, high ISO quality is only next to strap color in the irrelevant features list, and that it because I don't use a strap.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Most people use a strap and shot at higher than 100ISO, so your needs are in the minority I'd say.
-
Not clear to me. As APS is restrictive in certain areas without doing anything a FF sensor cannot do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I can tell you that I see a very clear difference in DoF when using my Mamiya ZD compared to the D2x. If the D2x had the same image quality as the Mamiya, the Mamiya would gone in seconds no questons asked.
But OK, I am not trying to convince anyone, great for you if you have found the perfect tool for your applications.
Most people use a strap and shot at higher than 100ISO, so your needs are in the minority I'd say.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's where I feel comfortable, never been much of a crowd follower.
This being said, most photographers with a speciality belong to one minority or another. Out of those many specialities, there is a very significant portion where high ISO is just not needed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Didn't realise there was such a big difference in noise levels between the two cameras, John.
Well, let's just understand this in context. It is the *read* noise that is so much higher. If you're not down in the shadow areas, read noise is not all that significant. The difference is in pushability. The 5D would seem slightly cleaner in a well-exposed 1600, but in a push to ISO 25000 on both cameras, the D2X is going to be much worse.
It's no wonder Bernard has taken so few high ISO shots with his D2X .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The old electric fence phenomenon, perhaps. Or, he may just do landscapes, architecture, or studio work where high ISOs (and pushing them further) may not be necessary.
Personally, I have to shoot things that move in real light, hand-held, and must have high-ISO performance.
-
Just out of curiousity, could the sensor be made any larger than 36*24 in dslr's without vignetting or lens redesign?
-
Hi,
Some interesting info on spectral response of a couple of dslrs can be found in http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...070213153138180 (http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/article.php/20070213153138180). Especially D80 looks quite different from the majority. I believe the measurements were done from dng-files.
To be speculated,
J
-
I have been wading through this forum and am glad to read the many differing viewpoints from you peoples
I am also looking for my first prodidge.slr and if these questins haven't been covered yet ....I guess I'll find out soon
Budget matters, I take my camera into wild places, so weather and dust seals are important, I would also love to create fine art prints ,
including studio shots
Have heard that full frame sensor ican be a challenge to a lens, and non ffs catch the sweet spot.
plenty of you have said go for the 5D, The dpreview users consistently call it a dust trap .
2DXs seems attractive on many counts incl image quality the only down seeming to be noise at and above 400 iso.
The Canon IDs mk2 seems affordable to me yet seems more for action and sport than fine quality poster sized images
Any Comments
p.s what does it mean to be trolled ? sounds like some of you enjoy
regards Sukh
-
Apology I meant that the Canon ID mk2 as being affordable Not the IDs Mk2
sukh
-
Hi,
Some interesting info on spectral response of a couple of dslrs can be found in http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...070213153138180 (http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/article.php/20070213153138180). Especially D80 looks quite different from the majority. I believe the measurements were done from dng-files.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110969\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The chart for the 400D is TOTALLY wrong. All DSLRs with RGB bayer CFAs and a hot cut mirror are least sensitive to red. ALL. This graph is totally backwards.
There's some bad reverse-engineering at image-engineering.
-
Hi,
The chart for the 400D is TOTALLY wrong. All DSLRs with RGB bayer CFAs and a hot cut mirror are least sensitive to red. ALL.
What's really interesting is that the graphs are basically very similar except for the D80. M8 shows less pronounced difference between the channels. Are the sensors so different or is the signal processing to the raw file different? If they all happened to be wrong, might they still be comparable between each other?
Cheers,
J
-
I have nothing slower than f2.8 and a big sensor, so not sure what your point is. Finding Fast apertures to go with smallers formats is quite hard, esp. at the w/a end.
IS has no effect on subject movement, so high ISO will still be essential.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Many do, for weight and/or cost reasons, with lenses like the 24-104/4 and 100-400/4-5.6. Like Ray, with whom I was originally discussing this. (And many situations call for stopping down to f/4, f/5.6 and beyond.)
IS has no effect on subject movement, so high ISO will still be essential.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With (fast) moving subjects at wide to short telephoto in low light, yes, I see that is relevant to some people. But not to many others like me.
As I have said several time before, I am not dismissing all the advantages of larger formats over smaller ones (or I would be using 1/2.5"!), just some exaggerated and misplaced claims of advantages.
-
Hi,
What's really interesting is that the graphs are basically very similar except for the D80. M8 shows less pronounced difference between the channels. Are the sensors so different or is the signal processing to the raw file different? If they all happened to be wrong, might they still be comparable between each other?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Looking at them again, it would seem that they are using converted images, where the response is affected by white balance, because the area under the curves is basically similar, in the visible light range. The narrower peaks go higher, and the wider responses don't go as high.
These figures are not very meaningful, then, as they don't reflect the sensitivities of the cameras, but the cameras after they are compensated for their sensitivity differences!
-
Ah! Now I see your point. It's purely an economics one. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, mostly economics, but sometimes of weight as well as cost: many of us would prefer not to carry a 400/2.8 (or even maybe a 400/4 or 300/2.8) even if someone else were paying. And at long enough focal lengths, f/2.8 (or even f/4) is not available at any price. So once each of us reaches the longest focal length at which about f/4 or faster is possible, I tend to think that increasing telephoto reach (angular resolution) might most often be best done by increasing sensor resolution (reducing pixel size). Maybe by cropping from a still large sensor, maybe with a smaller format body at least for the telephoto end of things.
However, 12.8mp are better than 8.2mp ...
...If the EF-S 10-22mm lens was a sharper and faster lens, say f2.8 ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Both very valid factors. I was thinking a bit before your post that 12.7MP vs 8.2MP (within the Canon options at least, or within the price level of the 5D) is probably more important overall to the desirability of the 5D than the much talked about high ISO and high DR. And to be slightly cynical, Canon's possible holding back of EF-S format a bit to maintain unique selling points for 35mmFF. Will there be a 10-12MP high end EF-S model to replace the 30D once there is a higher resolution replacement of the 5D? (maybe 16.5MP, using "1DMkIII pixels").
-
And to be slightly cynical, Canon's possible holding back of EF-S format a bit to maintain unique selling points for 35mmFF. Will there be a 10-12MP high end EF-S model to replace the 30D once there is a higher resolution replacement of the 5D? (maybe 16.5MP, using "1DMkIII pixels").
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? And I bet that this 12 MP APS sensor will have high iso noise and DR very similar to those of the 5D today.
People will say that this is the result of improved sensor technology and processing.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Both very valid factors. I was thinking a bit before your post that 12.7MP vs 8.2MP (within the Canon options at least, or within the price level of the 5D) is probably more important overall to the desirability of the 5D than the much talked about high ISO and high DR. And to be slightly cynical, Canon's possible holding back of EF-S format a bit to maintain unique selling points for 35mmFF. Will there be a 10-12MP high end EF-S model to replace the 30D once there is a higher resolution replacement of the 5D? (maybe 16.5MP, using "1DMkIII pixels").
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think threads like this are useful in 'fleshing out' many of the factors that have a bearing on technical image quality, the pros and cons of particular formats with differing pixel densities and differing noise performance in relation to different camera/lens combinations, but the one unknown factor which tends to throw a spanner in the works, especially with regard to making the best personal economic decisions, is what's round the corner.
Many of us either cannot afford to buy (or cannot justify the purchase of) whatever system is currently on the market that best meets our requirements for the particular type of photography we may be interested in at a particular time, so we have to make some sort of assessment as to the significance of such pros and cons in relation to the general type of photography we think we'll be engaged in.
For example, right at the moment, a good combination of cameras for a wide range of (effective) focal lengths from wide angle to telephoto, would be the 12.8mp 5D and the 10mp 400D. But how would one feel if in 6 month's time Canon released a 22mp upgrade to the 5D with ISO 6400 capability and no more noise than the 5D currently has at ISO 3200?
That one 22mp camera could do everything the other 2 could do, and some. There would be no need to mess around changing cameras with the 100-400 IS zoom in order to get a longer effective reach and possibly lose the photographic moment in the process, and the extra ISO performance would allow use of f8 in circumstances where f5.6 would previously have been used.
And of course, needless to say, at shorter focal lengths 22mp is always going to be better than 12.8mp for large prints. The difference in pixel count is great enough to be noticeable. It's unlikely we'd have the same confusion that sometimes existed when the 5D resolution was compared to that of the 1Ds2. 16mp versus 12.8 is subtle. 22mp versus 12.8mp is not, I would think.
-
You should probably make tha 16.7 MP vs 12.8 MP, if you're going to use decimals ...
-
You should probably make tha 16.7 MP vs 12.8 MP, if you're going to use decimals ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're right, but I can't always remember the differences between the total number of pixels and the effective number of pixels. I tend to forget things easily that I don't think are significant .
-
For example, right at the moment, a good combination of cameras for a wide range of (effective) focal lengths from wide angle to telephoto, would be the 12.8mp 5D and the 10mp 400D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is more like it: choosing amongst actual options. (For my more modest print size goals, a good current choice would be a 10MP body, giving me an effective built-in 1.4x TC when cropped to the 5MP that I find quite adequate for many wild-life shots.)
But how would one feel if in 6 month's time Canon released a 22mp upgrade to the 5D ... That one 22mp camera could do everything the other 2 could do, and some.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But if we must speculate about future products, an equalization of pixel sizes available in Canon's EF-S and EF mount offerings seems very unlikely; there has been no sign of Canon moving in that direction, or of any format from "1.3x" up matching the pixel size of smaller formats. You are imagining a jump from the 5D/30D pixel count ratio of about 1.5 and pixel spacing ratio of 1.3 to roughly equal pixel size and pixel count ratio of around 2.5. And that with the 30D sensor being the older of the two, and so probably with more room for progress.
The actual pattern in pixel sizes and counts has a curious split at "1.3x" (EOS-1 D series, Leica R back and M8).
- From digicam formats like 1/1.8" up to 1.3x, roughly the same maximum pixel count, with larger formats putting the extra real estate almost entirely into larger photosites.
- From 1.3x upwards, a reversal to almost invariant pixel size, with larger formats offering higher pixel counts.
-
You're right, but I can't always remember the differences between the total number of pixels and the effective number of pixels. I tend to forget things easily that I don't think are significant .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since the ".8" in 12.8 is significant but the ".7" in 16.7 is not, I take it you own a 5D?
-
But if we must speculate about future products, an equalization of pixel sizes available in Canon's EF-S and EF mount offerings seems very unlikely; there has been no sign of Canon moving in that direction, or of any format from "1.3x" up matching the pixel size of smaller formats. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't see how you can justify such claims, BJL.
The 1Ds followed closely on the heels of the D60. The difference in pixel density (and the significance of that) was duly noted by owners of the D60 and politely ignored by owners of the 1Ds who simply didn't want to admit that a much cheaper Canon DSLR might in some circumstances produce a sharper or more detailed image than the flagship model.
However, that discrepancy of pixel density was soon rectified in the 16.7mp successor to the 1Ds, the 1Ds MkII. Of course, in the meantime, the pixel count of one of the cropped formats has increased to 10mp and the others to 8mp.
Whilst I don't think it likely that the pixel density of the 400D will be matched in the next upgrade to either the 5D or the 1Ds2, it will not be atypical if Canon matches the pixel density of the 20D with a 22mp full frame.
The interesting question is, will Canon produce two FF models with 22mp? Perhaps the successor to the 5D will be a mere 16.7mp, in which case it's unlikely I'll be getting one.
-
Since the ".8" in 12.8 is significant but the ".7" in 16.7 is not, I take it you own a 5D?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Correct. However, from a purely objective point of view, the 0.8 in 12.8 really is more significant than the 0.7 in 16.7. We're looking at 6.25% for the 5D against 4.19% for the 1Ds2.
-
Completely agree. Doesn't mean I'm going to let you emasculate my hard-earned 4.19% ...
-
The 1Ds followed closely on the heels of the D60. The difference in pixel density ... was politely ignored by owners of the 1Ds ...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We agree of course.
However, that discrepancy of pixel density was soon rectified in the 16.7mp successor to the 1Ds, the 1Ds MkII.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Two and a half years after the D60; not so "soon".
... in the meantime, the pixel count of one of the cropped formats has increased to 10mp and the others to 8mp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly my point: by the time the 1DsMkII arrived, 2 1/2 years after the D60, EF-S format already had the 20D with higher pixel density than the 1DsMkII. EF-S (and other sub-35mm formats) have always offered a higher maximum pixel density that 35mm offers at the same time, and I see no trend of this gap closing.
Whilst I don't think it likely that the pixel density of the 400D will be matched in the next upgrade to either the 5D or the 1Ds2, it will not be atypical if Canon matches the pixel density of the 20D with a 22mp full frame.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree that it would not be atypical for the next 1Ds model to do so. But a 22MP 1DsMkIII was not what you speculated about in your previous post, and nor is the current 8MP of the 30D what it would probably be competing with for pixel density available in high end EF-S models. The 30D still being at 8MP is an aberration given that everything around it is at 10MP and up, so 10MP or more in a high end EF-S format body seems likely soon. (Unless Canon shoots itself in its "EF-S" foot in an effort to prop up sales of entry-level 35mm format, accelerating Canon's recent decline in DSLR market share.)
Perhaps the successor to the 5D will be a mere 16.7mp, in which case it's unlikely I'll be getting one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah good; back to reality. The idea of jumping from 12.7MP in the 5D (it is not 12.8 you know!) to 22MP in a replacement only about two years later would be unprecedented, and to match a likely 10MP+ 30D successor would need 26MP, more than double the pixel count of the 5D. That would be a truly unprecedented increase in a single Canon upgrade step, or within two years.
For reference, here are some Canon models in chronological order of announcement date,with each new high of pixel density marked ***.
May 2000: D30 with 10.5 micron pixels
Sep. 2001: 1D with 11 micron pixels
Feb. 2002: D60 with 7.6 micron pixels ***
Sep. 2002: 1Ds with 9 micron pixels
Aug. 2004: 20D with 6.4 micron pixels ***
Sep. 2004: 1DsMkII with 7.2 micron pixels
Jan. 2004: 1DMkII with 8.2 micron pixels
Aug. 2005: 5D with 8.2 micron pixels
Aug. 2006: 400D with 5.7 micron pixels ***
Feb, 2007: 1DMkII with 7.2 micron pixels
In each case it takes two years or more from when a new smaller pixel spacing arrives in EF-S format before a 35mm format model matches or passes that pixel spacing, and by the time that happens, EF-S format already has a more recent sensor with smaller pixel spacing than that new 35mm model. And 1.3x lags behind 35mm. And "entry level 35mm" (5D) lags behind everything else.
-
In each case it takes two years or more from when a new smaller pixel spacing arrives in EF-S format before a 35mm format model matches or passes that pixel spacing, and by the time that happens, EF-S format already has a more recent sensor with smaller pixel spacing than that new 35mm model. And 1.3x lags behind 35mm. And "entry level 35mm" (5D) lags behind everything else.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay! Point taken. However, (there's always an however ) trends do not necessarily continue forever. The big attraction of Canon's APS-C format is that it uses existing 35mm lenses. The fact that greater pixel densities have been able to capture more detail from the central part of the image is a clear indication, up till now, that good 35mm lenses still are not the weak point in the chain. But, I would suggest that from now on, they will increasingly become so.
If one were to check dpreview records, one would probably find that the 10mp 400D is capable of close to double the resolution of the 3mp D30, using a good prime. Is it conceivable that a 40mp cropped 35mm format would be capable of double the resolution of the 10mp 400D? Not even nearly, I would suggest.
At some point, Canon will have to decide if it's going to create a separate format for its APS-C cameras with high quality and expensive EF-S lenses that don't fit FF 35mm bodies, because increasing pixel densities of the smaller format will become increasingly irrelevant with current 35mm lenses.
-
If one were to check dpreview records, one would probably find that the 10mp 400D is capable of close to double the resolution of the 3mp D30, using a good prime. Is it conceivable that a 40mp cropped 35mm format would be capable of double the resolution of the 10mp 400D? Not even nearly, I would suggest.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When we get to these levels of resolution, if we ever do, the main limiting factor is going to become the shooting environment, rather than the body-lens combo itself.
Shooting handheld will stop to be an option, and very sturdy tripods and heads will become mandatory. In the end, all the advantages of a small and light format will be lost... The bodies with few pixels but more DR/less noise will provide better images 95% of the time.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Shooting handheld will stop to be an option, and very sturdy tripods and heads will become mandatory. In the end, all the advantages of a small and light format will be lost... The bodies with few pixels but more DR/less noise will provide better images 95% of the time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
As regards resolution there can be no disadvantage in having too many pixels. It may be the case that in order to realise the greater potential for sharper images, faster shutter speeds may be required for handheld shots, or use of a tripod, but under the same shooting conditions a 40mp camera cannot produce less sharp images than a 10mp camera, assuming everything else is the same, such as sensor size, RAW capability etc.
My concern would be that any increase in resolution flowing from such large pixel counts would be too slight with current 35mm lenses to justify the inconvenience of slower speeds in processing such large files.
Dynamic range and noise issues are less clear because they are dependent upon technological advances. Also, whilst the noise and DR of individual, small pixels might invariably be less than that of individual larger pixels, for any given size print the noise and DR might be the same.
We should not forget how good the Canon G7 is. A sensor the size of Canon's 20D, with the pixel density of the G7 would be around 88mp. For such a camera, we would need EF-S lenses significantly better than BJL's Zuiko lenses .
-
Bernard,
As regards resolution there can be no disadvantage in having too many pixels. It may be the case that in order to realise the greater potential for sharper images, faster shutter speeds may be required for handheld shots, or use of a tripod, but under the same shooting conditions a 40mp camera cannot produce less sharp images than a 10mp camera, assuming everything else is the same, such as sensor size, RAW capability etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
You are correct, but considering how many people judge cameras by looking at images 100% in PS, the 40MP will probably be perceived by many as being less sharp... even if the actual detail ends up being exactly the same or slightly better at a given print size.
Regards,
Bernard
-
The problem with lenses and making comparisons with them in the sense of different format sizes is that this is nothing new or confined to digital.
I remember well that when I bought into the last Pentax 67 system I had high hopes for much more impressive transparencies than I was getting with Nikon 35mm; this was, in fact, despite knowing that 35mm lenses are so sharp because only a tiny image circle is being used.
Well, I should have saved my money. Though much more impressive transparencies resulted on 6x7, this was only because of tonality in the sense of smoothness; as I've said here before, the colour of Velvia through 35mm Nikon glass was, to me, far superior to the colour of Velvia through Pentax 6x7. Worse, the things were simply never as crisp, despite always being shot on a huge Gitzo tripod. There was no way, if you chose to cut out a 36mmx24mm piece from the 6x7 that it matched the straight 35mm frame from 35mm Nikkor lenses.
This was also borne out for me doing the same thing in the darkroom with Hasselblad lenses and Nikkors.
I think that we are in danger of asking for more than can be delivered by the optical manufacturers.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Lens designers will have to consider more than just the possibilities of optical design - the economics and quality control of lenses needed to provide sufficient data for higher Mega Pixel chips will, I'm sure, become a limiting factor very soon.
And why do we need ever increasing MPixels? We seem to be expecting a 35mm type body to deliver an image that would have required a far larger format in the past (on film). Why? Are we now entering a similar phase to that of cars - most can exceed national speed limits and certainly existing road conditions, so why do we really need ever faster cars? Could we be in danger of falling into the same trap with digital cameras? How many users really need the 1DS MkII and really push its capabilities - and I mean in reality, actual output of images that is. I've said it before, and no doubt will again, I have never lost an image sale due to inadequacies in the image (either digital or film). This could of course be down to my abilities with inferior equipment (but no, I'm not THAT good!. Or is it because I taylor my images to meet my market (this is more like it). The same has to be true of MPixels, lenses, etc. If you really, truly need a better system (rather than just thinking that you do) then move to something bigger!
This has been a fascinating thread, but to my mind the gist is that both Canon and Nikon make exellent cameras each of which has its pros and cons. What the future will hold we can only guess, but I for one would prefer to believe that the final viewed image will still be more important than the technology behind it.
-
I for one would prefer to believe that the final viewed image will still be more important than the technology behind it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111842\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a very paradoxical statement, Paul. What do you mean by this? The final viewed image, which wouldn't exist without the technology behind it, is more important than the technology that made it all possible???
-
I think that we are in danger of asking for more than can be delivered by the optical manufacturers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lenses of similar quality to the Zuiko lenses designed for the Olympus 4/3rds system, with just a slightly bigger image circle, would be fine for the Canon 30D and 400D format. Unfortunately, EF-S lenses of that quality would result in the 400D producing images on a par with (and perhaps better than) the more expensive 5D with lesser quality 35mm lenses.
-
Paul
I think you are quite correct suggesting that quality control might prove to be more of a problem for manufacturers. It seems that variations of quality within the same lens type can be very wide - naturfotograf.com's proprietor has made some startling statements about the number of lenses of the same type that he has tested prior to finding one worth keeping. That he has had the opportunity to go this route is great, for him, but don't we all wish we could just ask the local friendly dealer for a box of lenses so that we could try them all and select the one that worked!
I'm told that Leica lenses go through a greater, more severe set of tests prior to release for sale - I'd have thought that existing legislation on the theme of fitness for purpose would have forced them ALL to play fair, but then again, how do you fight Goliath? Don't mention slings - ths is 2007 and the lawyers are far more powerful than that!
You have a point with cars, but really, I think that that's more just a matter of male stupidity and the need to impress other, equally dumb males. If these guys have the money and are willing to blow it, then other than the fact that they are helping us die earlier, what's the harm? With photography, I think it's somewhat different. The quest for mega pixels is more to do with the fear of reaching a point when the available/affordable printers start to outstrip the ability of the camera to keep up with them. This, again, I think is probably more of a 'digital' mindset than it ever was with film; it's quite possible that with film, and the reality of the wet darkroom, one was quite happy to accept that a smaller film would print up to whatever size with accepted characteristics and that a larger film would do so in a different manner. Within those long-established norms, there wasn't such an anxiety or fear of inadequacy, of getting left behind, unlike in this digital medium where something newer and better is always expected 'next show'.
Frankly, I have long been of the belief that film and digital photographers are powered by different motives and inclinations. I, for one, doubt if I would ever have considered a career in photography if I'd been confronted from the start with the digital world. Yes, I've had to adapt, as far as it goes, but that's not to say that I believe the medium now holds the same fascination for me as it once did. Could just be age - but I don't really think it's as simple as that.
Ciao - Rob C
-
I think you are quite correct suggesting that quality control might prove to be more of a problem for manufacturers. It seems that variations of quality within the same lens type can be very wide - naturfotograf.com's proprietor has made some startling statements about the number of lenses of the same type that he has tested prior to finding one worth keeping. That he has had the opportunity to go this route is great, for him, but don't we all wish we could just ask the local friendly dealer for a box of lenses so that we could try them all and select the one that worked!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rob,
I guess it all boils down to what the final cost of the lens is going to be and what the public perceives as good value. Before finally accepting an EF-S 10-22mm zoom for my 20D, I tested a copy of that lens in 3 different countries, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia. The first lens I actually bought in Australia before thoroughly testing it; just a brief test in the shop. I later discovered it had an autofocussing problem at close distances; returned it but the store didn't have another copy of the lens available to offer me and I'd already arranged to travel overseas and couldn't wait for a replacement.
Whilst in Singapore, I tested another EF-S 10-22mm in the shop, using my laptop to view the results. The store manager could clearly see that the lens was not nearly as sharp as my Sigma 15-30 at 22mm. I didn't buy it of course.
The third lens that I tested in Kuala Lumpur seemed reasonably okay. No focussing problems and the lens was almost as sharp as my Sigma, so I took it.
Who knows, if I'd continued testing lenses from different batches in different countries, I might have eventually found one that was decidedly sharper than my Sigma. But at what cost to myself in time and trouble?
-
Ray -
Yes, testing many lenses in the wan hope of finding a good one is not on; also, it is almost criminal that one should know that it is the way things are but also feel powerless in the face of it all. I have no sympathy with any manufacturer who has the ability, but not the desire, to weed out the trash before going to market with his wares.
What do they call these things, class actions? Quentin?
By the way, doesn't it seem sort of strange that a thread started by a possible troll has turned out to be one of the longer ones?
Ciao - Rob C
-
By the way, doesn't it seem sort of strange that a thread started by a possible troll has turned out to be one of the longer ones?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just goes to show that we don't need much encouragement to express our views, eh?
-
Just goes to show that we don't need much encouragement to express our views, eh?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112222\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tooo trooo!
Rob C
-
What's a "2Dxs"?
How could you comment on a camera which isn't yet released (1D Mark III)? Have you beta tested it, or just commenting based on specs?
Actually if you mean D2X, it compares very well with Canon's best depending on what you do with your camera. I have Canon D30, 10D, 1D, 1DS and 1D Mark II along with Kodak DCS-760, Sigma SD10, Sigma SD14 and Nikon D2X.
The D2X is my first choice for wildlife because of the autofocus speed and accuracy, 1.5x crop, excellent buffer and versatility. My 1D used to be my favorite action camera - still very good. My 1Ds I like for some landscape work but it never goes in my bag for shooting widlife. My favorite dSLR for IQ is my Sigma SD14.
Different strokes for different folks and use the tool which works best for the task at hand.
The choice of tool among the best from Nikon and Canon pretty much boils down to ergonomics and personal preference. CMOS does better at high ISO but for many of us high ISO is not terribly important. Personally, if I have to shoot wildlife at over ISO 400 I don't waste my time. On the other hand when I was shooting action and sports my favorite tool was my Nikon based Kodak DCS-720X for low light high ISO work. So for action sports in natural no-flash low light conditions, high ISO is very important. For the event or wedding photographer who shoots perhaps 50% of his work where flash isn't allowed then high ISO thus Canon would prevail. For a wildlife shooter who prints large high ISO is pretty much wasted as it is for a landscape or portrait photographer.
There is no "right" answer to the OP's question - just choose what works for you because the skills as a photographer far outweigh the minor differential in equipment.
Lin
I really don't think it matters for a photography student whether they choose Nikon or Canon. They should try each and choose the one which feels right to them. Each has it's own set of advantages and disadvantages
Whether troll or not, I've loved reading everybody's opinions. I teach college photography and I love that this fight exists even amongst those with no real photographic experience. My Dad shot with Nikon. I shoot with Canon. I tell my students to buy a camera that they can afford, that feels good and that they can grow with. I almost always suggest Canon or Nikon. IF Canon releases an entirely new line this year I'll probably be saying "Nikon? What's a Nikon?". I like the d200, but the 5d is great. I hate the XTi, but the D80 is good for beginners. But please, don't try and compare the 2Dxs with the Ids Mark II, or now with the Id Mark III. And besides, any photographer who enjoys low light has got to go CMOS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Personally, if I have to shoot wildlife at over ISO 400 I don't waste my time. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why is that? With the 5D there's a slight loss of resolution at ISO 1600. With the 1Ds2 there's vitually no loss of resolution but slightly more noise than the 5D at ISO 1600. I'm not sure about the 1D3 which has upped the ante to ISO 6400, but I'd be surprised if there's any objectionable noise or loss of resolution with that camera at ISO 1600.
What is more objectionable than a slight trace of high ISO noise is loss of resolution due to a shutter speed that's too slow.
-
I really don't think it matters for a photography student whether they choose Nikon or Canon. They should try each and choose the one which feels right to them. Each has it's own set of advantages and disadvantages
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Earlier in this thread I tried to give some reasoning as to why Canon may be a more useful choice currently. These were not based on whether they were better or worse than Nikon, but on the potentiality of which it might be more useful to be fully conversant with if trying to get assisting positions after studying. I know of assistants who have specifically gone for Canon precisely to get work (which they have).
Whilst the thread has been very interesting and has shown just what a superb choice of equipment we have today, many of the choices we have to make are based on not merely our desires to own specific equipment (I'd love an M8 - despite all its apparent flaws - as I've owned several M Leicas, but am realistic enough to appreciate that it would be a substantially underused and expensive luxury which I have trouble justifying), but on factors over which we have less control. In an ideal world it would be nice to own one or even several of each cameras and lens systems, but I have enough trouble carrying all the equipment I want to use now, to say nothing of the workflow implications. In reality most of us are keyed into a single system for a very long time once we have made that initial, important decision.
On the ISO point - I have had substantial trouble changing my mindset on using low ISOs (a hangup which derives from film days I know!), and do find the low noise, high ISO settings to be surprisingly good when I actually steel myself to use them. I wonder how many others feel the same?
-
Like my 1DS, neither the 5D nor the 1DS2 are suitable for my wildlife photography use but there is "objectionable" noise at even ISO 800 with both. As far as ISO 1600 or higher, it's fine for event photography where it's possible to use noise reduction in post and where print size requirements are not critical but useless when tight crops and enlargement are desired. ISO 6400 is rarely useful even with the finest low light cameras such as the Kodak DCS-620X. How the 1D3 will fare is yet to be seen, but judging from Canon's own released shots from this camera I sure hope it can do better.
Best regards,
Lin
Why is that? With the 5D there's a slight loss of resolution at ISO 1600. With the 1Ds2 there's vitually no loss of resolution but slightly more noise than the 5D at ISO 1600. I'm not sure about the 1D3 which has upped the ante to ISO 6400, but I'd be surprised if there's any objectionable noise or loss of resolution with that camera at ISO 1600.
What is more objectionable than a slight trace of high ISO noise is loss of resolution due to a shutter speed that's too slow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Like my 1DS, neither the 5D nor the 1DS2 are suitable for my wildlife photography use but there is "objectionable" noise at even ISO 800 with both. As far as ISO 1600 or higher, it's fine for event photography where it's possible to use noise reduction in post and where print size requirements are not critical but useless when tight crops and enlargement are desired. ISO 6400 is rarely useful even with the finest low light cameras such as the Kodak DCS-620X. How the 1D3 will fare is yet to be seen, but judging from Canon's own released shots from this camera I sure hope it can do better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting perspective. It reminds me of the situation I was in when I first acquired a Canon D60. The ultimate resolution of a 6mp camera is less than fine grained 35mm film can offer, with a good scanner.
But the freedom from noise or grain that ISO 100 can offer, with a mere 6MP DSLR, gives the impression that the digital image is somehow closer to MF.
I was very reluctant to use ISO 400 with my D60, not because it was bad compared with film, but because the noise at ISO 400 reminded me of the grain with even low ISO film.
When I jumped from the D60 to the 20D (I don't believe in intermediate upgrades), I was surprised that the 20D produced better images at ISO 1600 than the D60 at ISO 400. Better resolution and better color saturation.
I've completely got over this reluctance to use high ISO. Some people haven't. It's probably a hangover from past experiences.
-
I've completely got over this reluctance to use high ISO. Some people haven't. It's probably a hangover from past experiences.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good high ISO is great, but I will always keep trying to use low ISO if allowed by the image's type. That will remain the better option.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Good high ISO is great, but I will always keep trying to use low ISO if allowed by the image's type. That will remain the better option.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't some Nikon DSLRs have some sort of ISO bracketing, Bernard? This is a long overdue feature missing on Canon cameras. It is of course better to use the lowest ISO consistent with appropriate shutter speed for the scene but correct f/stop for desired DoF. Choosing the appropritae f stop is often easier than ensuring an adequate shutter speed. F stop is consistent in its effect on DoF. Shutter speed is not consistent in its effect on image sharpness. Take 6 handheld shots at 1/30th (with a 50mm lens, no IS), and some will be sharper than others. One out of the 6 might even be perfectly acceptable.
ISO/shutter speed bracketing would solve this problem, ie. 3 automatic shots at ISO100 and a 30th, ISO 200 and a 60th, and ISO 400 at a 125th would be a better option than 3 shots at a 30th.
Using a trpod doesn't always solve the problem when there is subject movement, but I understand that your shots, Bernard, seem to be mostly of static landscapes, which is why I guess you are not particularly interested in high ISO performance.
-
Don't some Nikon DSLRs have some sort of ISO bracketing, Bernard? This is a long overdue feature missing on Canon cameras. It is of course better to use the lowest ISO consistent with appropriate shutter speed for the scene but correct f/stop for desired DoF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure, they do and I use the function when I need to.
Using a trpod doesn't always solve the problem when there is subject movement, but I understand that your shots, Bernard, seem to be mostly of static landscapes, which is why I guess you are not particularly interested in high ISO performance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's true, most of my images are of static landscape where long exposure time are often not a problem, or can sometimes even be a desired feature.
It is true that excellent high ISO would help in some occasions though.
Regards,
Bernard
-
This is really stupid, and I can't believe I'm actually posting to this. However, I just can't resist.
To say that generally one manufacturer is better makes no sense. If you don't start with some pretty well defined parameters or requirements, then the entire discussion is meaningless. I suppose someone could look at relative market shares between Canon and Nikon, and at any point in time, it will change. If you look at comparable cameras for a given set of features and price, you could identify what camera is selling more. Without some kind of framework, it means nothing.
Next, take all the comments with skepticism. You have "hacks" from both companies posting their hype. Some people actually search for this kind of forum and try guerrilla-marketing techniques to spread their FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). Others are trying to rationalize their decision to buy one over another.
I have experience with both Canon and Nikon products. They’re both excellent. I switched from a Canon EOS 850 to a Nikon D70s and was very happy, even though it meant new lenses. I recently added a Nikon D2Xs after trying several other products. I have the resources to buy any product that offered a value, and I was prepared to spend over $8000 or $9000 for a camera body. The D2Xs was well below my budget and met all my requirements better than anything else. That analysis was only relevant for me.
-
By the way, one of the highly respected experts in the field of photography is Ken Rockwell. Before the guerilla marketers overwhelm the reader with their hype, you should read Ken’s piece here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm)
Tom
-
My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=104461\")
Nikon as the industry standard? Not on your life. Perhaps in the past it was the popular choice. I too was a Nikon user since 1976. F, F2, FE-2, F3, F100, etc., etc. My last set-up right before digital consisted of a Nikon kit, MamiyaRZ kit, and an Arca-Swiss 6x9/4x5 kit.
In 2003, I sold all of that and went with the Canon 1Ds. Never looked back.
By the way, one of the highly respected experts in the field of photography is Ken Rockwell.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Respected? Your'e being sarcastic I hope. Look here to see Ken using what he refers to as "left handed camera Nikon custom made for him". Yeah- right.
[a href=\"http://www.kenrockwell.com/]http://www.kenrockwell.com/[/url]
-
If you don't start with some pretty well defined parameters or requirements, then the entire discussion is meaningless. I suppose someone could look at relative market shares between Canon and [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We have started with some well defined parameters. We're talking about 35mm photography; not P&S, not MF or LF.
Of course Nikon produces high quality equipment. I'm sure you can find some Nikkor lenses that are better than Canon equivalents. Each manufacturer has it's strengths and weaknesses, but in my view Nikon has got itself into a bind for opting for the sub-35mm format.
You might have noticed there's a general principle running through all photography; the larger the format, the higher the quality.
-
By the way, one of the highly respected experts in the field of photography is Ken Rockwell.
Nice use of irony.
That article is uninformed and useless.
-
You might have noticed there's a general principle running through all photography; the larger the format, the higher the quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That was the case in the days of film, when grain was obvious in A4 prints from 35mm film. But these days your statement is too simplistic to have much meaning.
-
That was the case in the days of film, when grain was obvious in A4 prints from 35mm film. But these days your statement is too simplistic to have much meaning.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not at all. The principle is similar but the format differences across the spectrum of digital cameras are now often much smaller than was the case in the days of film. We now have a plethora of different digital formats varying in size to such a small degree that other factors, such as pixel density and noise handling, might be more significant than format size.
These other factors also used to minimise the differences between film formats. One would not see much differences in image quality between 35mm used with a fine grain, high resolving film and 6x4.5 format used with a lower resolving, coarser grain film.
The full frame 35mm format is 2.5x the area of the Nikon cropped format; great enough to make a difference. For Nikon to match the image quality of the 1Ds3, expected later this year and expected to have a 22mp sensor or thereabouts, it will either have to move to a larger format or pull some rabbits out of the hat.
Can you show me some examples of a current, latest model, digital camera that produces higher quality images than a current, latest model larger format digital camera?
-
To say that generally one manufacturer is better makes no sense. If you don't start with some pretty well defined parameters or requirements, then the entire discussion is meaningless.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that you will find that assumptions were made early on in the discussion that a student would be best advised to gain experience in the camera system most likely to be encountered when seeking work (perhaps as an assistant) after graduating. In my own experience (and other posters) this leads to the Canon 1D series, simply because these are the cameras most likely to be encountered in this situation. I'm not sure that many posts actually say the Canon are better than Nikon, most point out that there are differences and that there are more advantages in the circumstances in learning the Canon 1D series inside out rather than the Nikon system.
On the note about formats, the more I use my FF Canons, the more I am appreciating them as filling a niche midway between 35mm and 645 film - in my own rather simplistic and arbitrary way!
-
Can you show me some examples of a current, latest model, digital camera that produces higher quality images than a current, latest model larger format digital camera?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
M8 vs. D2x or 1DsII (only at low ISOs in the latter)?
JC
-
M8 vs. D2x or 1DsII (only at low ISOs in the latter)?
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117453\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well first of all, John, these 3 cameras are an example of the small differences in format which, from an image quality point of view, can be over-shadowed by technological factors which blur the advantage of the larger format.
Whilst there's a significant difference in format size between the D2X and the 1Ds2, the M8 is about midway between the two formats. Nevertheless, it's understandable that the M8 might produce marginally higher image quality than the D2X, but I think any claims that the M8 produces better image quality than the 1Ds2 would be very contentious.
Can you point me to some reliable comparison images which illustrate the magnitude of such differences?
-
The full frame 35mm format is 2.5x the area of the Nikon cropped format; great enough to make a difference. For Nikon to match the image quality of the 1Ds3, expected later this year and expected to have a 22mp sensor or thereabouts, it will either have to move to a larger format or pull some rabbits out of the hat.
Can you show me some examples of a current, latest model, digital camera that produces higher quality images than a current, latest model larger format digital camera?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=117363\")
From a theoretical standpoint, it is possible for a smaller format camera to best a larger format camera if the smaller format has more resolution in terms of pixels/picture height than the larger format and the lens of the smaller format camera has sufficient resolution to match the sensor. Of course, to avoid diffraction limitations, you might have to shoot at a larger aperture with the smaller format camera.
[a href=\"http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html]Bjorn Rorslett[/url] did a shootout between the Nikon D2X and the Canon EOS 1Ds MII where he claimed that the Nikon came out on top even with less resolution, but this test is disputed by some. Since his web site does not support direct links, go to the D2X review and then to section 8, taking on the competition.
In practice, the larger sensor has an advantage in lower noise at high ISO. At base ISO, noise is not a problem with the D2X. However, I agree that if Nikon wants to match the resolution of the much anticipated Canon MIII, they will have to use a large sensor and improve its noise characteristics.
Bill
-
Can you show me some examples of a current, latest model, digital camera that produces higher quality images than a current, latest model larger format digital camera?
The point I was making is that your statement was too simplistic, and hence not very meaningful. If it was meaningful, then no-one would buy the Nikon D2x and everyone would instead buy the Canon 5D.
In many respects the Nikon D2x can produce 'higher quality images' (whatever that means) than a Canon 5D. Clearly at high ISO the 5D wins hands down. If dynamic range is your requirement, then the Fuji S5 Pro can outdo both of them. For many people the 'telephoto factor' of the smaller format provides higher quality images 'cos they can't get close to the subject.
-
Bjorn Rorslett (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html) did a shootout between the Nikon D2X and the Canon EOS 1Ds MII where he claimed that the Nikon came out on top even with less resolution, but this test is disputed by some. Since his web site does not support direct links, go to the D2X review and then to section 8, taking on the competition.
I would not along with his claims 100%, but he certainly makes a good argument that the two cameras are in many respects comparable. But at high ISO the Canon walks over the Nikon. Well, actually at moderate and high ISO.
-
Can you point me to some reliable comparison images which illustrate the magnitude of such differences?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=117463\")
[a href=\"http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/16678-m8-1dsmarkii-comparison-test-studio.html]http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/...est-studio.html[/url]
I really don't think the M8 is better than the D2x or the 1DsII. I just think they're different. The M8 is 10mp compared to 12+ for the D2x and 16 for the 1DsII. You could make a very good argument that the 1DsII is at least a full stop better than the M8 at high ISOs; of course, you could make the agument that the top Leitz glass is at least a stop better than the top Canon.
JC
-
Both Nikon and Canon are great, and its personal taste what you choose for a tool (I, for example, could never go with Canon, not even in digital video, I couldn't stand the XL-1, but that doesn't mean it is not good).
Pentax, a much smaller company, doesn't have the marketing punch, and so its new entry and midlevel SLRs do not get the attention they deserve in a Nikon-Canon bi-polar photography world.
Too many people shoot test charts instead what is out there (in the world) through what is in there (the vision in your mind).
What counts most is the photographer and his vision.
-
We have started with some well defined parameters. We're talking about 35mm photography ...
You might have noticed there's a general principle running through all photography; the larger the format, the higher the quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
since Nikon does not make 35mm format DSLR's, I dispute your first statement. We are talking about DSLR photography, and two companies that offer a total of four different formats of DSLR.
As to the "bigger is better" idea: surely, in choice of an SLR brand, bigger format size alone is not the decisive factor; there are many other factors beside format size. After all
1. If format size alone were decisive, neither Canon nor Nikon would be in the race, but only Hasselblad, Mamiya and maybe the new Rollei based systems.
2. Offering a choice of 35mm, 645 and 6x7 format in the film era did not make Pentax the first choice of professionals.
3. You at one point chose Canon DSLR's with 15.1x22.6mm sensors over Nikon DSLR's with somewhat larger sensors, and before I believe the announcement of Canon's first 35mm format DSLR.
You will probably be quick and correct to point to compensating advantages of the smaller format options from Canon (and perhaps even Nikon) over those larger format options in areas such as cost, lens selection, frame rate, shutter lag, portability and in particular telephoto reach, but a lot of those same factors also often weigh against 35mm format in favor of smaller DSLR formats.
P. S. Perhaps I should take it back about the telephoto reach disadvantage of DMF: current DMF backs with 6.8 micron pitch Kodak sensors offer higher resolution in l/mm than any Canon 35mm for 1.3x format DSLR, and new Dalsa sensors at least match Canon's, so DMF cameras can probably match or slightly outperform those Canon models for resolution by using the same focal length and cropping. But any of the D2Xs, 40D, D40x, D80, D200 or 30D is ahead on telephoto reach with a given focal length. (Not to mention the current DSLR l/mm resolution leader, the Olympus E-410.)
-
The point I was making is that your statement was too simplistic, and hence not very meaningful. If it was meaningful, then no-one would buy the Nikon D2x and everyone would instead buy the Canon 5D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you are wrong. My statement is simple but true. I'll repeat it. "There's a general principle running through photography; the larger the format the better the quality." The word general qualifies that it's not an immutable law without exception, but a tendency.
I've even seen comparisons between 35mm film and 4x5 format film where the 35mm image quality was virtually as good at the same enlargement, just a bit more obvious grain. How was that achieved? By using a very sharp and expensive 35mm lens at f5.6 with the 35mm format, as opposed to a standard lens at f22 with the 4x5 format in order to get equal DoF for both shots, a reasonable requirement I think when comparing image quality from different formats. Different film was also used; T-Max 100 with 35mm and Tri-Ex 400 with the 4x5 format.
I think it is understood that there are many factors other than format size that influence image quality; lens quality being just one of them. You didn't think, Slough, that I was trying to say that format size is the only thing that matters, did you?
My remark was directed only at raw image quality with which this site seems to be mostly concerned. When I first came across LL, Michael's contentious review of the Canon D30 was the main topic. How could a 3mp sub-35mm format produce 8x12 prints that actually looked better and sharper than 35mm film?
Since those days it seems that Michael and half the contributors to this site have moved up from sub-35mm to FF 35mm to sub 6x4.5 format, and the reason is, I would suggest, because the larger formats (tend to) offer better image quality.
You'll also notice that the great majority of cameras models out there, the very small format P&S, hardly get a mention on this site. Why is that? Because the format is too small to allow the standard of image quality that readers of this site are mainly concerned with.
-
I think you are wrong. My statement is simple but true. I'll repeat it. "There's a general principle running through photography; the larger the format the better the quality." The word general qualifies that it's not an immutable law without exception, but a tendency.
This is very true generally, and to be generally true one must compare apples to apples, such as 35 mm TRI-X with good lenses to 4x5 TRI-X with good lenses or some equivalent in DC. AND compare them in a print size that differentiates the quality i.e at 4x5 they may be all but indistinguishable but at 16x20 the difference is pretty obvious. This is important because a big part of the reason to use larger formats is to make big prints that have all the tactility of small format, small prints.
-
since Nikon does not make 35mm format DSLR's, I dispute your first statement. We are talking about DSLR photography, and two companies that offer a total of four different formats of DSLR.
BJL,
You probably have more knowledge of other manufacturers products than I do. I confess I tend to be a bit 'Canon-centric'. Do Nikon no longer make 35mm lenses?
As to the "bigger is better" idea: surely, in choice of an SLR brand, bigger format size alone is not the decisive factor; there are many other factors beside format size.
Yes, of course there are, but most of these other factors are not restricted only to implementation in the smaller format. At the end of the day, whatever electronic tricks are employed by the smaller format to overcome its format size disadvantage, the same (or similar) enhancements can probably be used with the larger format to widen the gap even further.
Imagine a P45 with the low noise characterisics of the Canon 1D3.
-
This is very true generally, and to be generally true one must compare apples to apples, such as 35 mm TRI-X with good lenses to 4x5 TRI-X with good lenses or some equivalent in DC. AND compare them in a print size that differentiates the quality [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117596\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Kirk,
Of course the enlargements were big enough to differentiate the quality. You wouldn't go to this trouble in comparing different formats and make the huge blunder of comparing postcard size prints. They'd be 200% enlargements of highest resolution, drum-scanned images.
I'm afraid I can't remember the precise details. It was a comparison done by the Photodo team. I doubt whether the quality of the lens was an issue for the 4x5 format. At f22 there was probably no better lens available or even possible given diffraction limitation at f22.
At f5.6 there also may not have been a better lens available at the time, but there is now certailny the possibility of a better lens since I'm very sure that that lens was not diffraction limited at f5.6.
The choice of different film types for each camera was based on the principal that at f22 the 4x5 format would not need the high resolving power of a T-max 100. Also, slow shutter speeds are clearly a disadvantage of the larger formats. An ISO 400 film helped redress that problem.
-
In practice, the larger sensor has an advantage in lower noise at high ISO.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bill,
You've completely ignored the noise characteristics of all the cameras that currently produce the highest image quality, the sub-6x4.5 format with CCD sensors. They do not have lower noise at high ISO.
-
You'll also notice that the great majority of cameras models out there, the very small format P&S, hardly get a mention on this site. Why is that? Because the format is too small to allow the standard of image quality that readers of this site are mainly concerned with.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117588\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that' s right.
I've argued before that there is a "good size" for art work to fit in contemporary living rooms of people who have enough money to spend on decent art. That size is not specific, but it's bigger than 8x10 or 11x14. Generally, with paintings made for average settings, it's ~30-48 inches, 75-120cm, in the longer dimension. I think that photos (especially of the kind of most valued on a landscape forum) will tend to go to that size, when the resolution gets good enough. Any bigger than that, and you're talking about a purpose-built wall or room, made to hold art, and most people are not interested in that or not rich enough to do it.
In any case, to get that 30-48 size, you'll need the very high end of 35mm, or MF.
JC
-
I've argued before that there is a "good size" for art work to fit in contemporary living rooms of people who have enough money to spend on decent art. That size is not specific, but it's bigger than 8x10 or 11x14. Generally, with paintings made for average settings, it's ~30-48 inches, 75-120cm, in the longer dimension. I think that photos (especially of the kind of most valued on a landscape forum) will tend to go to that size, when the resolution gets good enough. Any bigger than that, and you're talking about a purpose-built wall or room, made to hold art, and most people are not interested in that or not rich enough to do it.
In any case, to get that 30-48 size, you'll need the very high end of 35mm, or MF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with that. It's why I splashed out on an Epson 7600 a few years ago. A4 and A3+ prints are too small for me if you want to produce a work of art to hang on your wall, or any one else's wall. They are too small because, in order to appreciate them, you have to walk up close and peer at them or even clamber over furniture to get a good look.
-
Incidentally, how has the number of views of this topic escalated to over 90,000. I vaguely recall that a few weeks ago it was around 10,000 plus.
Has someone hacked into the system?
-
BJL,
You probably have more knowledge of other manufacturers products than I do. I confess I tend to be a bit 'Canon-centric'. Do Nikon no longer make 35mm lenses?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=117597\")
Ray, are you playing dumb? Your words were "35mm photography" and my words were "35mm DSLR, in each case with a clear meaning of a photographic device (lens plus sensor/film etc.) using 24x36mm format, _not_ a reference to the maximum coverage of some of the lenses used, which is routinely a lot larger than the format with lenses giving narrower than normal FOV.
If one uses a medium format lens on a 35mm SLR recording an image 24x36mm, one is doing 35mm photography with a 35mm format camera; one is _not_ doing medium format photography simply because of the size of the image circle of the lens.
In fact, I claim that in general, there is no single "natural format" for normal and narrower FOV lens designs; there is only a maximum usable format limited by coverage.
This is most clear with view cameras, where users of 4"x5" format seem to have no qualms about using lenses that also cover 8"x10" format: the superfluity of image circle size (even beyond needs of camera motions) is apparently not a problem. And AFAIK, no-one calls a 4"x5" view camera a "crop camera" simply because it can be and often is used with lenses that also work with 8"x10", and no-one claims to be using 8"x10" format when using such a lens with 4"x5" film.
Another excellent example involves a camera that I believe you own: most or all Mamiya lenses for its RB67 and RZ67 systems produce maximum rectangular image sizes higher and wider than their focal length, and so wider than normal angular coverage, even lenses considered as "telephoto" because they give a narrower than normal FOV when used with 6x7 format. All those Mamiya "67" lenses from 90mm up cover 4"x5" format, and all from 180mm up cover 8"x10".
[a href=\"http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=15]http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=15[/url]
-
That's a very puzzling response, BJL. I might ask the same question of you. Are you playing dumb?
We all know that image circles are generally larger than the format with which the lens is used. The relevant question here is, 'how much is image quality compromised towards the edges when such a lens is used with a format for which it was not designed?'
I can think of a number of examples of lenses that are marketed as 35mm lenses but in my opinion are only suitable for the APS-C formats. Those who bought a Sigma 14/f2.8 for their D30 would have been very disappointed when later using this lens with a full frame 35mm. The 3 copies of the Sigma 12-24mm zoom that I tested in a store in Bangkok some time ago suffered very noticeable resolution fall-off towards the edges of my 5D sensor. By my standards, this lens is not suitable for the 35mm format.
I've also experienced severe vignetting with lenses that one would expect to have a large image circle, such as a Sigma 400/5.6 prime with Minolta mount which I used before switching to Canon. To escape from noticeable vignetting I had to stop down to f11. Mirror lenses are notorious for peripheral light fall-off. I once hired a Minolta 500/f8 just to try it out. I decided there was too much vignetting and didn't buy it. But this mirror lens would have been fine on APS-C format.
As you probably know, Nikon do not recommend using their DX lenses with full frame 35mm. I got the impression that Nikon had made a major move towards replacing their 35mm lenses with DX lenses.. Having checked their website, I see this is not the case. They appear to have no more DX lenses than Canon have EF-S lenses; just 4 that I could see.
A major advantage of smaller formats is their lower weight and bulk. If you are going to use the smaller format with lenses designed for a larger format, then you are losing that advantage. It's not an ideal situation.
As regards the naming of these smaller formats, I think you are making a big issue out of nothing. Have you ever been confused by my terminology? I prefer the term 'cropped 35mm format' because that term is the most meaningful. It conveys the information that the format is smaller than 35mm yet the camera is designed to be used with 35mm lenses. One could use the term APS-C format which also imlies a format smaller than 35mm, but not necessarily a format that takes 35mm lenses.
The fact is, APS-C is 25.1x16.7mm. There are no DSLRs with a sensor of these dimensions, although Nikon is fairly close at 23.7x15.7.
-
You'll also notice that the great majority of cameras models out there, the very small format P&S, hardly get a mention on this site. Why is that? Because the format is too small to allow the standard of image quality that readers of this site are mainly concerned with.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117588\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's an interesting question actually.
Playing the devil's advocate, I would say that the following image would be hard to distinguish from a 1ds2 at A3. If anything, the corner image quality would probably be better on this image, and there would be more DoF (something needed for this given image).
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/498681010_559caf9d69_o.jpg)
This was shot with a Ricoh GX100.
My guess is that the reason why people don't speak much about small cameras here because they shoot mostly - like me of course - with more expensive types that overall perform better accorss the range.
My view though, is that there is a sweet spot for each and every piece of gear, and that when used at their sweet spot, some compact cameras of the latest generation can produce totally outstanding results.
Regards,
Bernard
-
What lens did you use on the 1Ds2, a coke bottle bottom? Is corner sharpness the only quality to consider in image quality? Not that the 1Ds2's corners wouldn't be sharp, given an adequate lens ...
(http://improbablystructuredlayers.net/Special/_E9C2926.jpg)
-
My view though, is that there is a sweet spot for each and every piece of gear, and that when used at their sweet spot, some compact cameras of the latest generation can produce totally outstanding results.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes. I think that's true. My P&S camera is the 7mp Sony DSC T30. The sensor size is only 5.76x4.29mm. Really tiny. General scenes are not too impressive to my critical eyes. There's often an obvious smudging of fine detail, especially of foliage.
However, this camera has an amazing macro mode. The following shot of an unidentified spider on my laundry screen door would not have been possible with any of my Canon DSLRs without elaborate set up.
This is a hand-held shot at 1/20th sec, f3.5, ISO 80, with exposure bias of -1.
I think it's just great. Wow! You can see individual strands of spider web as well as the eyeballs of this curious little creature.
[attachment=2498:attachment]
-
What lens did you use on the 1Ds2, a coke bottle bottom? Is corner sharpness the only quality to consider in image quality? Not that the 1Ds2's corners wouldn't be sharp, given an adequate lens ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
An that adequate lens was?
Corner sharpness is of course not the only thing to consider in image quality, but... I hate to see a great print with soft corners.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Bill,
You've completely ignored the noise characteristics of all the cameras that currently produce the highest image quality, the sub-6x4.5 format with CCD sensors. They do not have lower noise at high ISO.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=117601\")
Ray,
Well, they have lower noise than they would have had with smaller pixels. The cameras using these sensors are not designed for low light action photography, and high ISO performance is not a main factor is their design. Consider the [a href=\"http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/SENSORS/name/ISSFullFrameProductFamily]Kodak KAF 39000[/url] sensor. It has a diagonal size of 61 mm and a pixel size of 6.8 microns as compared to the 8.2 microns in your Canon 5D. Since it has a relatively small pixel size and is not designed specifically for good high ISO performance, it is not surprising that it does not have stellar performance at high ISO. Read noise is about 16 electrons (at 24 MHz) as compared to around 3 in your Canon.
Sports Illustrated photographers are more likely to use the 1D MII (or MIII) for their action shots at night, but I think they use the medium format cameras for their swimsuit shots. As Michael likes to say, horses for courses.
Bill
-
Since it has a relatively small pixel size and is not designed specifically for good high ISO performance, it is not surprising that it does not have stellar performance at high ISO. Read noise is about 16 electrons (at 24 MHz) as compared to around 3 in your Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bill,
Of course, if it's not designed for good high-ISO performance then it's no surprise it doesn't have it. These things don't happen by accident. However, these MFDBs are very expensive items. I'm sure the manufacturer would have thrown in good high-ISO performance as a bonus, if it were possible.
After all, to get the same DoF as 35mm you need to stop down one stop resulting in a slower shutter speed than you would use in the same circumstances with 35mm. This is the reverse situation to the APS-C format of the D2X which also doesn't have the same low noise capability at high ISOs as the 5D. However, owners of the D2X have a partial remedy. For the same DoF they can stop up in aperture and lower ISO accordingly.
I'm not a sports shooter, but I sure appreciate the low noise of my 5D, as I would if I used a 400D with just 5.5 micron photosites.
-
An that adequate lens was?
Corner sharpness is of course not the only thing to consider in image quality, but... I hate to see a great print with soft corners.
Leica 21-35 in the above image ... and I absolutely agree with you, Bernard. Soft corners can be a real downer in the wrong image. I always wonder though why sharpness is way too often the only attribute mentioned when comparing.
Cheers!
-
I always wonder though why sharpness is way too often the only attribute mentioned when comparing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118046\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's quite understandable to me, provided one defines sharpness as the capacity to resolve detail. Most other technical attributes of the image can now be manipulated to your heart's content in Photoshop. But one thing you cannot do is create detail that wasn't captured.
-
Most other technical attributes of the image can now be manipulated to your heart's content in Photoshop.
When viewing web browser jpegs sure, no big difference. You can try and make a cheapo lens look like a million bucks. But the look, feel and personality of a lens, not to mention flare control and such, take a little more than a few slider adjustments to emulate when you start making serious prints, IMHO. I haven't seen any Schneider styling plug-ins for PS, at least not yet ... but who knows?
-
But the look, feel and personality of a lens....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I say! You're getting a bit romantic here aren't you? A lens is an inanimate object.
Sure, there are some nice characteristics of some lenses which might be a bit time consuming to emulate in PS. Bokeh for example. Flare would be a major flaw in any design. The first few batches of the Canon 24-105 IS zoom had such a flaw and many buyers returned their lens for a replacement.
My Sigma 15-30mm is subject to flare problems because it has a bulbous, protruding front element and a fixed lens hood designed for the widest angle of 15mm. This problem can be solved by providing an additional shade to the lens when shooting too close to the sun.
You'll have to provide me with some examples of lens personality that cannot be emulated in PS before I can accept this argument .
-
I say! You're getting a bit romantic here aren't you? A lens is an inanimate object.
...
You'll have to provide me with some examples of lens personality that cannot be emulated in PS before I can accept this argument .
What can I tell you, Ray ... I am a hopeless romantic! For me photography is both a romance and an adventure. But not to worry, I don't try to make out with my equipment - I just treat it with love and respect .
Cheers!
-
What can I tell you, Ray ... I am a hopeless romantic! [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You've already told me. Now show me 2 images; one taken using a lens with personality and the other taken with a plain Jane, high resolution lens, sharp from corner to corner, but with no personality.
-
You've already told me. Now show me 2 images; one taken using a lens with personality and the other taken with a plain Jane, high resolution lens, sharp from corner to corner, but with no personality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No can do Ray - all my lenses have personalities ... bye!
-
No can do Ray - all my lenses have personalities ... bye!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hhmm! I see you don't want to pursue this. Pity! I was looking forward to proving you wrong .
-
Hhmm! I see you don't want to pursue this. Pity! I was looking forward to proving you wrong .
Too much work, no ROI - I'd rather shoot and print. But you win by default .
-
Ray, maybe my main point got lost in the details: many lenses will work very well with a range of format sizes, up to a (fuzzy) maximum where edge and corner performance declines.
So it is slightly misleading to talk of a lens being for a single format, except through the incidental facts like it having a lens mount used only on cameras of one format. Thus, it makes little sense to say that one is doing 35mm photography simply because the lens one uses is capable of being used with a 35mm format film frame or sensor. To re-iterate, if I were to use a 35mm format lens though an adaptor on my 4/3" DSLR, I would not be doing 35mm photography.
The relevant question here is, 'how much is image quality compromised towards the edges when such a lens is used with a format for which it was not designed?'
As you probably know, Nikon do not recommend using their DX lenses with full frame 35mm.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117801\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No disagreement there: all your examples are about the problems of using a lens with a format larger than it can handle well, or larger than it can handle at all due to design limits like vignetting. That has nothing to do with the reverse situation we were talking about, of using a (Nikon) lens designed to handle 35mm format with a sensor of smaller format.
P. S. I am interested, but not overly surprised, by your judgement that the Sigma 12-24 is not very well suited to use with 35mm format. If true, that undermines the idea of a larger format advantage at ultra-wide, since there are good wide zooms for 4/3 and APS-C formats that are as wide as any other other zoom usable with 35mm format, and the reportedly excellent Olympus 7-14 for 4/3 is indeed as wide (114º) as any rectilinear prime lens I know of for 35mm (e.g. the Canon 14/2.8). And AFAIK medium format offers nothing wider than the 114º of 14mm in 35mm format.
Then again, I guess that the future of ultra-wide lens design will change considerably, relying more on software correction of distortion and moderate corner light fall-off, allowing a shift in design emphasis to sharpness as the dominant criterion for corner performance, while minimizing light fall-off and barrel distortion become somewhat lower priorities. Nikon, Olympus and Hasselblad/Fuji have all dabbled with this approach, at least through explicit software support for it.
-
Ray, maybe my main point got lost in the details: many lenses will work very well with a range of format sizes, up to a (fuzzy) maximum where edge and corner performance declines.
So it is slightly misleading to talk of a lens being for a single format, except through the incidental facts like it having a lens mount used only on cameras of one format. Thus, it makes little sense to say that one is doing 35mm photography simply because the lens one uses is capable of being used with a 35mm format film frame or sensor. To re-iterate, if I were to use a 35mm format lens though an adaptor on my 4/3" DSLR, I would not be doing 35mm photography.
Of course, BJL, you know I've been using 35mm lenses for a long time with a smaller-than-APS-C camera. You might even recall when the first rumours of the 5D appeared causing great speculation on this forum about the details and sensor size, I expressed a hope that it would be the same size as the cameras I already had, the D60 and 20D. In other words, a direct competitor to the D2X at a lower price and with all the advantages of the cropped 35mm format.
But it wasn't to be and the fact that 18 months later Canon is still unable to provide a 12mp APS-C format indicates that the technology is (was) not quite there that would enable them to do this whilst maintaining their low-noise-at high-ISO standards. But who know what they have in the pipeline!
The fact is, I would prefer to use the smaller-than-APS-C format for advantages of weight and longer telephoto reach, but I'm not going to compromise quality for the relatively marginal lower cost and weight. My 5D plus Sigma 15-30mm lens weighs 1.65Kg. My 20D plus Canon 10-22mm weighs 1.25Kg. That 400gm difference would be noticeable when hiking all day in Nepal with a couple of cameras around one's neck. But 12mp on a big sensor are better than 8mp on a small sensor, so I chose the heavier option even though the effective focal lengths are almost identical for both cameras.
I can only assume that the very small number of Canon EF-S lenses and Nikkor DX lenses available after all these years is a clear indication that the APS-C formats are a transitionary stage. It does not make sense to consistently use heavier than needs be lenses designed for a larger format if a just slightly heavier, bulkier and more expensive option is available that can provide improved quality. With battery and strap, my 20D weighs just 125gms less than my 5D. That weight saving is insignificant to me, unless it's combined with a lighter lens.
P. S. I am interested, but not overly surprised, by your judgement that the Sigma 12-24 is not very well suited to use with 35mm format. If true, that undermines the idea of a larger format advantage at ultra-wide, since there are good wide zooms for 4/3 and APS-C formats that are as wide as any other other zoom usable with 35mm format, and the reportedly excellent Olympus 7-14 for 4/3 is indeed as wide (114º) as any rectilinear prime lens I know of for 35mm (e.g. the Canon 14/2.8). And AFAIK medium format offers nothing wider than the 114º of 14mm in 35mm format.
I should mention that my Sigma 15-30 is pretty good to the edges. This was the lens I used for comparison when testing the 3 Sigma 12-24mm copies in the store.
The resolution fall-off, even at some distance from the edges, was so obvious with the 12-24 (comparing both lenses at 15mm), that I got the impression that this is how an EF-S or DX lens would appear when used on FF 35mm and is why Canon even prevent one from fitting an EF-S lens to a full frame body.
The serial numbers on 2 of the lenses, from memory, were quite close, indicating that 2 of the lenses could have come from the same batch. The 3rd lens, however, had a significantly different serial number.
Nevertheless, it's quite possible that all 3 lenses were the remainders of cherry picking. All lenses, including the 15-30, were equally good in the centre.
By the way, if the term MF photography can include all formats from 6x4.5 to 6x9cm, even though all lenses might not be interchangeable between the formats because of different fittings, I think the term 35mm photography could encompass all the roughly APS-C formats that not only can fit 35mm lenses but are probably more often used with 35mm lenses.
-
RAY SAID:
"I can only assume that the very small number of Canon EF-S lenses and Nikkor DX lenses available after all these years is a clear indication that the APS-C formats are a transitionary stage. It does not make sense to consistently use heavier than needs be lenses designed for a larger format if a just slightly heavier, bulkier and more expensive option is available that can provide improved quality. With battery and strap, my 20D weighs just 125gms less than my 5D. That weight saving is insignificant to me, unless it's combined with a lighter lens."
You guys watch the development in digital photography much closer then I do. But I find your statement interesting, Ray. I guess that even Nikon doesn`t know if they`ll stick to their format yet. Pentax is the only cameramaker that I know of, that make small lenses for their digital format (but so they did also for film cameras - I`m thinking about their Pancake-lenses).
I would hope that the new compact camera from Sigma (with an APS-size sensor) is more then an isolated event.
If we could choose between compact cameras with the tiny sensors and with APS sensors, and if a couple of camera makers could make small DSLRs with compact prime & zoom lenses for APS sensors, and then perhaps Canon and Nikon in the end concentrated on full frame for DSLRs, we would have real choises.
But I guess a lot of this is more a matter of changing tastes then technology: most people seem to prefer compact cameras that are too small and DSLRs/lenses that are too big. There isn`t much in the middle. Perhaps more people will realise that they don`t need huge cameras & lenses, as they may realise that they don`t need a SUV to drive the kids to school.
Paul
-
But it wasn't to be and the fact that 18 months later Canon is still unable to provide a 12mp APS-C format indicates that the technology is (was) not quite there that would enable them to do this whilst maintaining their low-noise-at high-ISO standards.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118304\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon's keeping the 30D at 8MP when every product above, below and beside it has gone to a higher pixel count could have various explanations, of which your suggestion is one, but is far from proven. ("Above" like the 1DMkIII, "below and beside" like Canon's own 400D, Nikon's D200, D80 and D40x, Sony's A-100, Pentax's K10D, Olympus' E-410 and forthcoming E-510.)
Other possible explanations include Canon "throttling back" a bit on the high end of EF-S format in order to push as many Canon customers as possible up to the 5D, protecting 5D sales against poaching by an EF-S body that many might consider close enough in performance to the 5D at a far more attractive price, and waiting until a higher resolution, higher frame rate 5D replacement is ready before releasing a 10 to 12MP 30D replacement.
Just to tease you Ray, I will also mention the possibility that Canon's CMOS technology is approaching its smallest viable pixel pitch, limited by the fact that its photosites lose more space to non-light gathering components than competing technologies like Sony's CCDs and Panasonic's NMOS. So maybe Canon CMOS DSLR sensor pixel pitch will bottom out at higher values than those alternatives, at least until Canon modifies its technology in a substantial way, say to NMOS (which allegedly requires less components and electrical contacts per photosite than CMOS.)
By the way, if the term MF photography can include all formats from 6x4.5 to 6x9cm, even though all lenses might not be interchangeable between the formats because of different fittings, I think the term 35mm photography could encompass all the roughly APS-C formats that not only can fit 35mm lenses but are probably more often used with 35mm lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118304\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Medium format" is an inherently broad term, referring to everything smaller than view camera formats (4"x5"and up) and larger than what use to be called "miniature format": 24x36mm. 35mm instead has developed a specific and well established meaning in still photography: 24x36mm. For example, no-one ever referred to Canon's APS film SLRs as "35mm format" even though all lenses for them were EF lenses (and third party EOS mount lenses) also usable on 35mm film cameras, and you are of course familiar with the usage of "APS-C" to distinguish the common smaller than 24x36mm DSLR formats.
-
Other possible explanations include Canon "throttling back" a bit on the high end of EF-S format in order to push as many Canon customers as possible up to the 5D, protecting 5D sales against poaching by an EF-S body that many might consider close enough in performance to the 5D at a far more attractive price, and waiting until a higher resolution, higher frame rate 5D replacement is ready before releasing a 10 to 12MP 30D replacement.
BJL,
I'm sure there are many reasons and issues that are taken into consideration when Canon is working out its road map and developing strategies to maximise its profits, but the evidence in the roll out of their recent models would suggest that they simply were not ready to roll out a 12mp APS-C camera 18 months ago.
If they had been able to, whislt maintaining the low noise of the 20D, that would surely have pulled the rug from under Nikon. I can't imagine Canon deliberately foregoing that opportunity. The D2X has the advantage of a slightly larger sensor, but still has higher high-ISO noise than the 20D on a pixel per pixel basis, which is understandable because the pixel pitch is still smaller than the 20D's and Canon seems to have slightly better noise-handling technology than Nikon.
Over a year after the introduction of the 5D, we have the 10mp 400D with improved spacing between the microlenses. Noise and dynamic range is more or less on a par with the 20D & 30D, but it's still not 12mp. Since the dynamic range of the 400D appears to be very slightly less than the 20D at high ISO (ie. Canon is struggling to maintain performance with this increased pixel count), it's reasonable to deduce that a 12mp 400D was not technologically possible, at the time, without compromising noise and DR to a degree that would be noticeable, a situation which Canon seems to have a policy of avoiding.
However, technology marches on and I'd be surprised if we don't get our 12mp upgrade to the 30D before the end of the year.
Just to tease you Ray, I will also mention the possibility that Canon's CMOS technology is approaching its smallest viable pixel pitch, limited by the fact that its photosites lose more space to non-light gathering components than competing technologies like Sony's CCDs and Panasonic's NMOS.
Whenever I check out camera reviews at dpreview, I always pay special attention to the noise comparisons. At ISO 1600 and above, Canon is still the champion.
While we're on the subject, is there any fundamental, 'violation of the laws of physics' reason why all the on-chip processors on a CMOS sensor cannot be positioned on the reverse side of the sensor to allow more room for the photodiode?
"Medium format" is an inherently broad term, referring to everything smaller than view camera formats (4"x5"and up) and larger than what use to be called "miniature format": 24x36mm. 35mm instead has developed a specific and well established meaning in still photography: 24x36mm. For example, no-one ever referred to Canon's APS film SLRs as "35mm format" even though all lenses for them were EF lenses (and third party EOS mount lenses) also usable on 35mm film cameras, and you are of course familiar with the usage of "APS-C" to distinguish the common smaller than 24x36mm DSLR formats.
The reason why MF is an inherently broad name is because there are about 5 different formats without a specific name, so a generic name seems appropriate. (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 and 6x9).
Since the introduction of DSLRs we now also have about 4 or 5 different 'miniature' formats, all without specific names. I'm merely suggesting that 35mm might be as good a generic name as any because every other name that's currently in use is essentially inaccurate, except 'cropped format 35mm' which is a bit cumbersome but still the best term in my view. The term APS-C is clearly just as inaccurate as 35mm. In fact more inaccurate because there are no APS-C size digital sensors, but there are 35mm digital sensors. As I mentioned before, APS-C is 25.1x16.7mm, according to dpreview's 'sensor size' glossary.
-
Okay after 12 pages of advice, you probably don't need anything more...but I will try to give some anyway.
I always loved Nikon (film)...but had to switch to Canon after I had to upgrade from a Nikon D100 because I needed a full size sensor and a much faster camera.
Nikon never came out with a full sensor, which I tought was a little arrogant...but then a photographed a worldwide campagn for Nikon..for their new Nikon D2Xs and must say this was a great camera with wonderful colors (no I don't get paid to say this! I wish)....but I moved from Canon to Leaf, because my work requires bigger files (really not needed, but in fashion and commercial photography a "bigger" one really helps to ask more money!)
If you have enough money buy the Canon Ds1MkII just because you can...if you shoot mainly outdoors and landscapes etc....I probably would buy the best Nikon I could get for my money...I love the color accuracy right our of camera.
Make sure you buy a monitor color callibration system. In the end of the day if you images sucks composition wise, even the best camera in the world won't make it better....and if the image is fantastic..no one is going to ask you which camera you shot it with...if they do you can lie and tell them it was a canon (just because it is an expensive camera)
goodluck
-
Okay after 12 pages of advice, you probably don't need anything more...but I will try to give some anyway.
I always loved Nikon (film)...but had to switch to Canon after I had to upgrade from a Nikon D100 because I needed a full size sensor and a much faster camera.
Nikon never came out with a full sensor, which I tought was a little arrogant...but then a photographed a worldwide campagn for Nikon..for their new Nikon D2Xs and must say this was a great camera with wonderful colors (no I don't get paid to say this! I wish)....but I moved from Canon to Leaf, because my work requires bigger files (really not needed, but in fashion and commercial photography a "bigger" one really helps to ask more money!)
If you have enough money buy the Canon Ds1MkII just because you can...if you shoot mainly outdoors and landscapes etc....I probably would buy the best Nikon I could get for my money...I love the color accuracy right our of camera.
Make sure you buy a monitor color callibration system. In the end of the day if you images sucks composition wise, even the best camera in the world won't make it better....and if the image is fantastic..no one is going to ask you which camera you shot it with...if they do you can lie and tell them it was a canon (just because it is an expensive camera)
goodluck
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Color accuracy is something that can be dealt with in post processing or RAW conversion. Noise and resolution is something different. Noise reduction always seems to reult in some resolution offset, however slight.
-
I am a Minolta man.
But if I had a choice I DO go for Canon camera without any hesitation.
-
I waa a nikon guy for over 20 years! mi first "pro" camera was a nikon F, the best camera I ever had was a nikon F2s, I used to laught at pros that had canon in the old days, (the 70s), nikon F2 was so much better than canon F1 back then! also used by 80% of the pros. today, is the other way around, I use a 1ds mkII and a 1 ds, just like 80% of my competicion.... about canon wide angles... thats another story.
-
Canon ... simply were not ready to roll out a 12mp APS-C camera 18 months ago.
However, technology marches on and I'd be surprised if we don't get our 12mp upgrade to the 30D before the end of the year.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If that is what you meant, I agree: 18 months ago, the 8MP sensor of the 20D was still young and highly competitive. I was one of those who approved of Canon's decision to upgrade other parts of the design in the 30D. However, with the flurry of 10MP models sine then, that 8MP sensor looks unusually old and even a bit behind the curve, unusual for Canon, so I was wondering more about why Canon is still using that 8MP sensor at the top of the EF-S line.
Whenever I check out camera reviews at dpreview, I always pay special attention to the noise comparisons. At ISO 1600 and above, Canon is still the champion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That you put so much emphasis on high ISO noise in assessing DSLR quality is not news to me! But it does seem extremely one-dimensional. There is a striking contrast to film evaluations, where usability at high Exposure Index was very far from a dominant factor in film choice amongst serious amateurs and professionals.
Especially if one is interested in mainstream gear with a mainstream priced standard zoom as the main lens (so not a f/2.8 zoom), because then Canon's offerings like the 17-85/4.5.6 IS EF-S are between 2/3 and 4/3 stop slower than competition like the Nikon 17-70/3.5-4.5, Sony/Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5, Pentax 16-45 f/4, Panasonic/Leica 14-54/2.8-3.5 OIS and Olympus 14-54/2.8-3.5, so Canon DSLR's in many situations need to use a higher ISO the get the same shutter speed. The 17-85 has the advantage of in-lens stabilization, but so does the Panasonic f/2.8-3.5, while Pentax and Sony have in-body stabilization, and Olympus will soon with the E-510.
(I wonder why some people who claim to care greatly about the low light/high shutter speed performance of different DSLR systems so doggedly ignore differences in lens speed options between systems, especially amongst mainstream priced options and wen comparing different sensor sizes? Maybe for the same reason that some 4/3 zealots insist that all lenses of equal minimum f-stop are equally fast, trying to ignore usable ISO differences?)
About naming: the naming "APS-C" by now very well established for the dominant DSLR formats of the EF-S, DX, DA and DT systems, so I really see no little value in lumping such formats under the vaguer and more misleading term "35mm". Already "APS" and "APS-C" are inaccurate enough!
-
That you put so much emphasis on high ISO noise in assessing DSLR quality is not news to me! But it does seem extremely one-dimensional. There is a striking contrast to film evaluations, where usability at high Exposure Index was very far from a dominant factor in film choice amongst serious amateurs and professionals.
BJL,
I can't speak for professionals. I've always been an amateur even though I sell the occasional print. But as I recall, when using film, there was often a conflict between the desire to get the sharpest result with the best tonality, and an adequate shutter speed with adequate DoF.
I'd avoided using high ISO films for most of my life because of excesive grain and degraded tonality which was always more apparent on the miniature 35mm format. After I took up photography with renewed interest when the digital darkroom became feasible, I learned that high ISO films had recently been improved. I tried some Kodak and Fuji ISO 400 & 800 films to photograph lorikeets and rosellas in my garden. I didn't particularly like the grainy results and reduced DR. Whatever improvements had been made were still not great enough for me.
During the last couple of years of using film before I switched to the Canon D60, Royal Gold ISO 25 negative film was my favourite film, despite its slow speed limitations. The fastest film I used that didn't seem to compromise quality was Ektachrome 200.
So for me, the superior performance of DSLRs at high ISO was always a major benefit of the digital camera. In the frequent debates between film versus digital that used to be so common a few years ago, comparisons were always made using the sharpest and finest grain films the were in general use at the time. There would have been no contest at ISO 400.
Canon's offerings like the 17-85/4.5.6 IS EF-S are between 2/3 and 4/3 stop slower than competition like the Nikon 17-70/3.5-4.5, Sony/Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5, Pentax 16-45 f/4, Panasonic/Leica 14-54/2.8-3.5 OIS and Olympus 14-54/2.8-3.5, so Canon DSLR's in many situations need to use a higher ISO the get the same shutter speed.
We've been through this before. I accept that a camera such as the D2X, used with a lens that is one stop faster than an equivalent Canon lens used on a FF body such as the 5D, should not be at a disadvantage regarding noise and shutter speed. But your argument here hinges upon a very selective choice of lenses.
A quick perusal of the Canon website shows the following lenses covering a range from 14mm to 200mm at apertures of f2.8 or faster.
14/2.8; 24/1.4; 28/1.8; 35/1.4; 16-35/2.8; 24-70/2.8; 17-55/2.8; 70-200/2.8.
I rest my case .
-
Ray, when you responded to me, you edited out the crucial first part of my sentence, referring to the lenses predominantly used by mainstream users of EF-S, DX, 4/3 and such DSLRs:
Especially if one is interested in mainstream gear with a mainstream priced standard zoom as the main lens (so not a f/2.8 zoom), because then Canon's offerings like the 17-85/4.5.6 IS EF-S are between 2/3 and 4/3 stop slower than competition like ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119015\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
None of your examples is close to being a mainstream lens choice with such cameras; only one even covers the standard moderate wide to moderate telephoto range, and it, the 17-55/2.8, is priced far above mainstream level.
As far I know, all of your zoom lenses are slower than f/2.8 and you use only a single prime f/2.8 or brighter, so you should be aware that the f/2.8 lenses which you cite are well outside the DSLR lens choice mainstream.
-
Ray, when you responded to me, you edited out the crucial first part of my sentence, referring to the lenses predominantly used by mainstream users of EF-S, DX, 4/3 and such DSLRs:
None of your examples is close to being a mainstream lens choice with such cameras; only one even covers the standard moderate wide to moderate telephoto range, and it, the 17-55/2.8, is priced far above mainstream level.
As far I know, all of your zoom lenses are slower than f/2.8 and you use only a single prime f/2.8 or brighter, so you should be aware that the f/2.8 lenses which you cite are well outside the DSLR lens choice mainstream.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BJL,
That's a fair point. I've always conceded the point that smaller formats are generally both cheaper and lighter. Quality comes at a price.
However, there are exceptions and some overlapping. It would be interesting to compare the D2X and Nikkor 35/f2 with the Canon 5D and 50/f1.4 (or even 50/f1.8 II), in low light situations without flash.
I would suggest for this combination the larger format (5D) has all the advantages; cheaper, lighter and able to produce better quality, lower noise images.
-
You 2 could perhaps ask Michael to create a new forum section to discuss this topic even more in depth?...
Comon Ray, why don't you acknowledge the superiority of Nikon once for all?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You 2 could perhaps ask Michael to create a new forum section to discuss this topic even more in depth?...
Comon Ray, why don't you acknowledge the superiority of Nikon once for all?
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I sometimes wonder if I am actually biased in favour of the Canon system just because I happen to own such a system . I doubt it, but I do consider myself lucky that I switched from Minolta to Canon a few years ago, before I had bought too many Minolta mount lenses.
I could have chosen Nikon who had already released their first DSLR, the D1, about the time I was making that decision. As I recall, it was Canon's range of image stabilised lenses that tipped me in favour of the Canon system as opposed to Nikon, and I've never regretted that decision.
In fact, my first Canon camera was a second hand 50E that someone had traded in for a D1. A short time later, Canon released its own first DSLR, the 30D, which was not only significantly cheaper than the D1 but produced better quality images (didn't it?).
-
You 2 could perhaps ask Michael to create a new forum section to discuss this topic even more in depth?...
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wish you hadn't said that, Bernard. I'm afraid you could get them started again on "f-stop limits for full sensor resolution, a bit higher due to interpolation?" That thread was like getting your brain taken out with an ice-cream scoop.
-
Wish you hadn't said that, Bernard. I'm afraid you could get them started again on "f-stop limits for full sensor resolution, a bit higher due to interpolation?" That thread was like getting your brain taken out with an ice-cream scoop.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=121112\")
Oops, you are right, I might have woken up a pair of sleeping Nyarlathotep here...
Cheers,
Bernard
p.s.: just in case [a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyarlathotep]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyarlathotep[/url]
-
Oops, you are right, I might have woken up a pair of sleeping Nyarlathotep here...
Cheers,
Bernard
p.s.: just in case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyarlathotep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyarlathotep)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can always learn something new on the LL forum.