--
Yeah it is.
Well good lenses, like the 50 mm f/1.4, the 100 mm f/2.8 Macro, the 135 mm f/2 L resolve pretty amazing detail. They have to go a long way to fighting noise, tonal range, sensor blooming, and a host of other digital nasties before they can make pixels small enough to outresolve a good lens.
Again, I don't think this is very realistic. There's a reason 35 mm has been the dominant format for such a long time. It provides very, very good quality, definately good enough for most uses. Medium format has always been an option when 35 mm isn't good enough, but most people didn't take it. My 5D is unquestionably better than 35 mm films, except maybe the slowest B/W. In other words what we have now is better than has ever been required for most uses; nobody is going to be "forced into" larger formats.
Nah. Canon has sold 30,000,000 lenses. That was the news a month or two ago. Those lenses are what keep most of us married to the Canon system. Those lenses are what keep people who own them from checking out Sony's in-body IS or Nikon's ergonomics. Canon has more incentive than anybody to stick to the 35 mm format.
You only get the full-frame low-light advantage when you can allow DOF to get shallower.
320mm..that'S the focal length alone..now you have the higher res of the 5d vs the higher pixel density of the Xt..
--
I did.
but then you put the 300mm lens on the 20D and the 5D is beated again.
--
I have to agree with Digic. When I moved from a D60 to a 5D, I saw an immediate improvement with my wildlife images. Even the ones I had to crop heavily. Better focus, better ISO sensativity, and a severe crop, beats any misfocused shot.
what you did is to shoot the same scene with the same FRAMING..not at the same focal length.
--
you went from 6mp old sensor to 12mp..that'S double. if you go from 8mp 1.6x crop factor to the 5d you won't notice the same thing.
then maybe the focusing was your problem..
Very good odds as the rumored 1DSMK2 camera is supposed to be exactly that !!and what are the odds of that hapening?
Diffraction isnt a real problem NOW BUT if you want higher resolution it WILL be in a 1.6 crop camera. I was referring to diffraction problems not in current canon pixel density but in the much higher pixel density of D2X.
Agree
nonsense
----Crop sensors will stay because of lower costs. So you can always
sell an EFS lens to somone like that.
--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
Uh, so you're saying there's no benefit at all to 13 versus 8 million pixels, to better ISO performance, to using wider lenses, or primes as they were intended ... to being able to use a 135/2 L instead of an 85/1.8 to shoot portraits?
you're out of context..you jump into a conversation without knowing all the facts..I was refering to wildlife.
--Uh, so you're saying there's no benefit at all to 13 versus 8
million pixels, to better ISO performance, to using wider lenses,
or primes as they were intended ... to being able to use a 135/2 L
instead of an 85/1.8 to shoot portraits?
Just from reading this thread, it seems like you have something
against the 5D, as if it killed your dog or something.
This was 19 mm through the 5D. I would have been able to stand in
the same position with a Rebel XT. Please explain to me why the
Rebel would have done a better or at least equal job; what you
said above?
but then if they put as many pixels as there are in a 1.6x crop camera..you will lose the advantages that you are so liking.Very good odds as the rumored 1DSMK2 camera is supposed to beand what are the odds of that hapening?
exactly that !!
Bingo. There you go. When the lens is "too long" all benefits of a cropped sensor vanish. And here we have proof that this does in fact happen.
No, actually, I'm not. The thread is called "why should folks go fullframe?" and your statement was just as clear. The only time the 5D is ever better than the Rebel is when you're not standing in the same place with both of them.
--Diffraction isnt a real problem NOW BUT if you want higher
resolution it WILL be in a 1.6 crop camera. I was referring to
diffraction problems not in current canon pixel density but in the
much higher pixel density of D2X.
Agree
nonsense
----Crop sensors will stay because of lower costs. So you can always
sell an EFS lens to somone like that.
--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm
again you're out of context..you and don't know all the facts. I was refering to the 400mm F5.6.. it was too long because it did not have a zoom possibility.
but the bingo does not happen often with wildlife ..that's the problem and that is why most wildlife photographers prefer some crop factor.
so you're showing me tiny resize web images as a proof? you can't be serious
))what point? that at web size you can't see the difference between a 5d shot and a XT shot? I am glad for you that the web is your ultimate goal..it is not mine
when you are not..but when you are into wildlife..and not pet dog..you are focal length limited.
I don't care about the noise.. I rarely have to use ISO 800 anyway.
