While I am no expert on the techincal field, this seems a well written summary Julia.
I never cared for disputes between Endians (I hope you read that book, and know what I mean), I just eat eggs.
really? I tried one in 2000... It was not Canon, but a Contax, to refresh your memory.
yep. market has spoken, and Canon made FF into 400D.
sometimes these forums look a bit claustrophobic. I'm sure you can easily google all I wrote, and find it explained better, with schemes and illustrations.
Kodak in their dSLRs skipped microlenses, and got into even more severe problems.
Are you aware of the following feature found in the D200: it is the first Nikon dSLR for which the ergonomics can be customized to the user's preference (custom setting f6, p. 172 in the English version of the manual). Therefore if you don't like the press-and-hold system, you can change it.
Or maybe because they see banding in only a handfull of pics out of thousands of shots w/o problems, as is my experience. I would consider a camera with banding present in 10% of the shot as defective.
...however, that doesn't change the need to employ two hands for the purpose of changing either ISO, WB or Quality settings.
As did I. And since it was the 3rd D200 I sampled over the course of eight months that produced images marred by banding (the first two show a higher rate of incidence based on the number of shots made - in both cases less than 30 as I sampled the cameras in-store to check the image quality), I consider the design itself fundamentally defective. I don't buy into the idea that a brand new $1700 camera should have to be sent back to the manufacturer for 'repair' just to minimize a problem that should not exist to begin with.
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D200-vs-Canon-EOS-5D-Head-to-Head-Review-.htm
LOL, you may have "tried" the Contax N Digital in 2000, but it didn't actually make it to the market until some time in 2002! And by then, it was no comparison to the Canon 1Ds. On a scale of 1 to 5, Chasseur d'Images gives the 1N Digital a 1, the lowest possible rating.
Uh, hello!? The 400D is an entry-level DSLR that was never supposed to be a FF camera in the first place.
Unlike some companies, Canon is able to offer a wide selection of frame formats allowing them to design cameras that are tailored to the unique needs and desires of different markets. For example, their's 1.3x for the sports/pj market, and their's FF for the studio/portrait market. Take the 5D, for example. Canon says that the 5D is designed to be a "lightweight DSLR with a full-size 12.8 megapixel CMOS sensor" that "fills the niche that many wedding photographers have been craving for. It answers the need for a camera that is light and easy to manage...yet despite its smaller size" still offers a full size high resolution sensor capable of very low noise levels even at high ISO.
With FF, you have the option of deciding to crop out those "nasty bits" yourself. But chances are, you'll look at the edges of the image and realize they look fine and are much ado about nothing. You may even find that those edges are no worse than what you get from a DX lens on a DX sensor. And in the end, those so-called "nasty bits" aren't nearly as "nasty" as some people make them out to be. If you want to go big, better to go full frame and leave the option of ridding the "nasty bits" (if they show up at all) up to you. Leave the power in your hands, rather than surrender that power to the camera.
Contax April 2002 shipped, 1Ds - September 2002 announced
Does not matter, was an important milestone.
hello you back. so you have a limited understanding of what market is.
LOL. you even do not know how right you may be. and unlike some car makers, other car makers are able to offer a wide selection of cars. so what?
looks more like different needs, as many of my fellow Canon users have 3 to 5 different bodies, 2 of them having different formats. you know, some shoot wildlife, landscapes, weddings, sports, portraits, candids, architecture... - pretty much everything they are payed for.
yes, it is - if it is a versatile and mature FF. ah, we are not there yet...
yes, the only choice with Canon, same as with anything else photographic judging by these forums is to spend more money on less then perfect tools
There you go again, making the biased judgement that FF is not versatile or mature yet, and therefore is unworthy of considering. Basically, what you really mean is, it'll be "versatile and mature" when Nikon finally gets around to offerring FF!!! But since Canon is the only one that offers it, to you it's "not there yet". Nevermind that Canon FF digital bodies are already in heavy use by some of the most demanding photographers and publications in the world.
Oh, so you think that when Canon finally is able to offer a "versatile and mature FF" camera, then they will stop offering 1.3x and 1.6x cameras, as if crop-sensored cameras are simply place-holders until then? Nope. Different sensors for different needs. You seem to be operating under a "one size fits all" philosophy where 1.5x is the "one size that fits all" sensor right now, but when FF becomes "versatile and mature" (whatever that means), then FF is going to be the "one size fits all" sensor for all. But obviously, that's a limiting and dictatorial philosophy, denying consumers the opportunity to make the choice for themselves. FF is here and now (and it's not waiting to reach YOUR arbitrary, idealistic vision of "versatility and maturity"), just as 1.6x and 1.3x are here and now.
...shouldn't the MTF of a lens be independent of the recording medium? Or am I misunderstanding the application of MTF? I would expect the lens' MTF to be constant, but that film and digital would be variously capable of capturing the modulations (contrasts) resolved by the lens - and I would expect there to be difference between the response of a digital sensor and film. Am I completely wrong about that?
of course it should. I mean combined MTF (lens + media), and specifically the way how the curves bend depending on the distance from the cener of the media. They bend very differently.
Yep. But since the distance from the center of the 24x36mm frame to the corner is 22mm, and the distance from the rear element of any lens is on the order of 40mm, at smaller f stops, the angle of incidence is 30 degrees or so from perpendicular. For FF.
Yep. This is another reason cramming large numbers of pixels into an APS-C sensor is a dumb idea.
Again, there are no sharp angles . Nothing anywere close to 45 degrees. So these hypothetical sharp angles aren't causing anything, since they simply don't exist.
Uh, the wide angles for FF digital were all designed for film. Some are better (the Zeiss 21/2.8 makes nice sharp corners at f/5.6) and some are worse (the Canon 17-40/4.0 needs to be stopped down to f/11), but they were all designed for film.
In real life it is. All the film vs. FF digital tests with the same wide lens I've seen have shown that they perform worse on film than digital.
This might be true. But it's something more Nikonistas than Canoninstas will know about (because of the finer pixel pitches, although the 400D will change that).
the key word(s) is (are) IMHO.
