Nikon vs. Cannon

[Kirk Gittings]

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.

[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.

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.

[Ray]

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.

[Ray]

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.

[John Camp]

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

[Ray]

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.

[Ray]

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]

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]

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]

[Ray]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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).



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

[djgarcia]

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 ...

[Ray]

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]

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[bjanes]

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]

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

[Ray]

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.

[djgarcia]

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!

[Ray]

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.

[djgarcia]

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?

[Ray]

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   .

[djgarcia]

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!