Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: D700 IQ  (Read 49498 times)

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5677
D700 IQ
« Reply #100 on: August 22, 2008, 04:36:51 PM »

Quote
I just wish that Olympus had struck up an agreement with Canon instead of Kodak.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you had not noticed, Kodak has been dumped, and in fact that was already in progress with the design of the first consumer level 4/3 body, the E-300, which adopted the porro-prism VF needed for the subsequent rangefinder-shaped Panasonic/Leica models. Unlike Kodak, the electronics giant Panasonic seems to be becoming a roughly equal partner, and might even be the lead player with products like video-capable Micro FourThirds.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9386
D700 IQ
« Reply #101 on: August 22, 2008, 11:14:27 PM »

Quote
If you had not noticed, Kodak has been dumped, and in fact that was already in progress with the design of the first consumer level 4/3 body, the E-300, which adopted the porro-prism VF needed for the subsequent rangefinder-shaped Panasonic/Leica models. Unlike Kodak, the electronics giant Panasonic seems to be becoming a roughly equal partner, and might even be the lead player with products like video-capable Micro FourThirds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216736\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You are right. I haven't been following the corporate developments behind the 4/3rds system. My comment was directed at a perceived shortcoming of the Olympus 4/3rds system with regard to total image resolution and noise at high ISO.

If that latest rumour about the Canon 50D is factual, then such a camera with sensor cropped to a 4:3 aspect ratio and fitted with the Zuiko range of lenses would be superb.  
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9386
D700 IQ
« Reply #102 on: August 23, 2008, 12:26:43 AM »

Quote
P. S. To Ray: the distinction of EF-S and DX as "cropping" rather than just being a different, smaller format depends on how well suited the lens system available for them is. With a sufficient range of EF-S/DX lenses, along with longer focal length lenses that work quite well with both those formats and 35mm, "cropping" just become another word for "also compatible with some lenses designed for another, larger format". Pentax 35mm film cameras can also use Pentax MF lenses, but no-one calls them "cropping" on that basis. On the other hand, all currently available DMF systems are to varying degrees "cropping" as their lens systems have at best been minimally adapted to the FOV needs of sensor formats smaller than the MF film formats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is also a distinction to be made between a format that can incidentally accept lenses designed for a larger format, and a format that, at least initially, totally relies upon lenses designed for the larger format. It took a while before Canon brought out their first EF-S lens and it wasn't a particularly good lens.

We should not forget that the difference in sensor area between the Canon cropped format and 35mm is almost as great as the difference in area between 35mm film and the smallest MF film, 6x4.5 (comparing actual exposed film area).

I don't think that 35mm film for still photography would have been so successful if the users had to rely upon lenses designed for 6x4.5.

If Canon and Nikon were to design top quality lenses for their cropped formats, which were actually sharper (on average) than the full frame equivalent focal lengths, then the 'cropped format' system would become almost as expensive as a full frame system, for the serious photographer. It's the lenses which are the major cost. As I recall, my 17-55/2.8 zoom cost as much as the 40D body.

In fact, for the serious photographer, it's the availability of good lenses which is a major drawcard when choosing a system, at least for me.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5677
D700 IQ
« Reply #103 on: August 23, 2008, 03:36:23 PM »

Quote
... a format that, at least initially, totally relies upon lenses designed for the larger format. It took a while before Canon brought out their first EF-S lens and it wasn't a particularly good lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216784\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed about the early days of DSLRs: clearly the early DSLRs were all cropping, and even the first few DX, DA and EF-S lenses did not change that much. But today the measure is the adequacy of current lens offerings. I would rate EF-S as quite good for most of the amateur market (but with weaknesses like no 180º fish-eye and a gap in suitable f/2.8 zoom lens coverage between the 17-55 and 70-200); Nikon DX is maybe a bit more complete, but still not at the level of what is available for FX format (e.g. no f/2.8 wide zoom, and that same gap between f/2.8 zoom options).

In a sense the Pentax DA format system is the most complete and self-sufficient APS-C lens system, as Pentax has realigned almost all of its lenses to the format, including the pairing of 16-55/2.8 DA and 55-135/2.8 DA, and recently even long focal length Pentax lenses have all been designed specifically for DA format.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9386
D700 IQ
« Reply #104 on: August 23, 2008, 09:42:12 PM »

Quote
I do not agree that 'all' full frame DSLR sensors, in themselves, are less sharp at the edges - Nikon's D3 sensor technology has proved this. This notion is still banded about as Canon sensors do take a nose dive at the edges of the frame, even when using prime telephoto lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216878\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nick,
You've raised some interesting concerns about the edge performance of the sensor itself. After perusing the real-world MTF charts at Photodo it becomes very clear that just about all lenses take a dive in MTF response towards the corner of the full 35mm frame, but not necessarily at the middle of the short edge, which is only 18mm from the centre. Some lenses are still very good up to 18mm from the centre, at least at F8. The Canon 50/1.4 is one such lens.

I recall some months ago there was a thread comparing the resolution of the 20D with the 40D, using the same 50/1.4 lens supposedly focussed on the same spot in the same scene. I've failed to find the thread after a few searches, but as I recall there was a strange anomaly in the test results. Although focussing appeared to be the same in both images and over-all resolution was very similar, one image was clearly less sharp at the edges, but I can't remember which camera was soft at the edges.

For some time I've been casting an envious eye at a D700/14-24mm combination, but have held off because I've got an order in for a Canon/Nikkor adapter.

I now wonder if the excellent corner to corner resolution of this lens might be compromised with a 5D sensor.
Logged

Hägar the horrible

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
    • http://www.andidietrich.com
D700 IQ
« Reply #105 on: August 26, 2008, 04:21:27 AM »

I dont think sensors ar less sharp at the edges than in the center. I suggest you try to mount an old Hasselblad medium format lens to your DSLR with an adapter. All over the image is not sharper than a 35mm lens, though you most likly dont see the same sharpness fall off with the MF lens.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up