Reading mode: Light Dark

FF is the future

Go to last post
M Lammerse said:
Nikon always stated that FF has no real QUALITY benefit over DX.
If it would be, the D200 would have been FF already.
If FF would be a real benefit over DX crop factor cameras', we would
have seen them of Pentax, Olympus and Fuji already. A shame that in
the 'pro war' only is watched at Canon and Nikon.
Click to expand...
Michel, everybody knows FF is better wrt noise and resolution. But, much more expensive right now, and there is the problem with lenses, since digital more unforgiving in some aspects.

Regarding other brands, do not fool yourself. Pros have chosen Canon and Nikon from the 60's on as their cameras. Others would not invest in FF since they don't havea pro follow anymore. They compete only in the prosumer market, and not with very good results. Usually Canon+Nikon have more than 80% share of DSLR sales. Nikon just overcame Canon in Japan with the 40/40X.

Best, Petrus.
--
rhlpetrus
 
I don't know why nobody talked about the staff testing before. I heard from a friend who knows a technician working in Nikon HK that they had already tested a new camera (in HK office) that has 1.1 crop. But they kept their mouth so closely shut that I couldn't even get to know the other details such as ?mp etc.
--
Edward Lai
 
If what you say is true than the people at Canon made a serious mistake in producing their "best camera ever" with a 1.3 crop.

Compare a image made with the 17-55mm f2.8 lens at 17mm setting and f2.8 and a D2x to an image made under identical conditions with the 5D and the 24-70mm f2.8 lens at its 24mm setting at f2.8. Until you do this (and I look at thousands of images each week shot with the D2x, D200, Mark II, and 5D under identical lighting conditions at weddings) you will not have a clue as to why there is no real benefit for FF for 99% of the pictures people take on a daily basis.

FF helps Canon sell cameras but it also hurts their user base. With 3 different sensors and crop factors there are lenses that will only work on APS-C cameras but not APS-H or FF cameras. For FF there has been only the 16-35mm f2.8 II lens added to the Canon lineup for FF cameras since the 5D was introduced. And this was not really a new lens so much as a fix for the old lens that had significant problems.

All one has to do is read all the posts about lenses vignetting on the FF cameras to realize that FF digital sensors have problems with lenses designed for FF film cameras. To date only the 16-35mm f2.8 II has been released by Canon to correct the problems caused by FF sensors with the pre-existing lenses.
 
rhlpetrus said:
I'm starting this new thread to renew the debate on FF x crop (and cp
from my post on the 1.1 x FF thread).

1) Nikon has to go to FF for the pro market. Otherwise, it will be
always seen as "second best" wrt Canon.
Click to expand...
Are you a Pro??

I gather not, but I am, and you don't know what you are talking about!!

I'm doing my job, and have been doing it with a Crop Body since 2001.

I have yet to see a Photo shoot I couldn't complete due to the fact that I had a Crop Body. But what do you know, you are not a Pro!!
rhlpetrus said:
2) But: Leica went with 1.3 crop with the M-8. One reason maybe that
even their famed optics couldn't handle the high expectations of the
Leica owners for quality (resolution, CA, etc) on a FF.
Click to expand...
You still don't know what you are saying!
rhlpetrus said:
3) See this page (and others) of the DPreview of the Canon 1D2-MkII:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DsMkII/page23.asp
Click to expand...
I alos shoot a 1DMKIIn, and it's still a Crop Camera, and you still don't know what you're saying!!
rhlpetrus said:
Read the comments there. It seems that the DX2, with "just" 12MP and
1.5 crop, has an edge regarding edge performance ;-), due to existing
lens limitations and digital unforgiveness.
Click to expand...
And you are contradicting yourself!!
rhlpetrus said:
4) FF becoming the standard for DSLR, with the resolution and quality
of sensors improving, lenses will become the main issue. In other
words, lenses will have to be redesigned and, in fact, will become
larger and heavier, looking like Hasselblad lenses, especially the
faster ones. And very, very expensive.
Click to expand...
HUH???
rhlpetrus said:
5) Lens engineers will have to go back to the drawing boards. And, in
less than 5 years, the whole pro-DSLR field will habe been radically
renewed. Since Nikon has always had the edge on optics over Canon (my
opinion), they are well posted for that.
Click to expand...
Double HUH???
rhlpetrus said:
6) 1.5 crop and DX will be the Nikon mass-market medium, and it has
proven good enough for Nikon to regain the lead in Japan with the
D40/40x.
Click to expand...
You are no making any sense!!
rhlpetrus said:
7) The D200 will survive for a while, maybe a D200x with 12MP CMOS
and DX 1.5, but the intermediate semi-pro Nikon body will be, in 2-3
years, either 1.3 crop or FF, not DX 1.5.
Click to expand...
And you know that??? You must work for NIkon, oh wait, you don't!!
rhlpetrus said:
8) Where did this weird idea of 1.1 crop come from?
Click to expand...
Not from you, and not from Nikon, because unless it comes out on an official Nikon Press Release, it's jut stupid internet Gossip, and if you believer everything you read on the net,...... Never mind!!
 
If you need the quality that the DX format can't give you then you have to move up to medium format digital.

I have severals DX bodys (Nikon and Canon) and a Canon 5D.

The diference in quality is so small that I don't consider a real upgrade going from DX to FF.

But have you seen the files from a digital medium format?

That is quality, it's amazing. that is a big improvement over DX and FF

Joao Sobral
 
Eric Sorensen said:
As a 5D owner, I've seen prints from a d2x that have QUITE A BIT MORE
DETAIL than my own prints blown up to about the same size.
Click to expand...
You realize that the "more detail" you think you see in a d2x picture is only DOF, right? The d2x picture is a smaller pixel crop of the middle of a FF picture. And your 5D is 13MP spread out over the entire FF sensor. This is why when people compare the 5D to crop sensor dSLRs they find the 5D to show less detail, when it's actually just the true DOF of the 35mm system they are seeing shine through in the 5D. :)
 
Joao Sobral said:
But have you seen the files from a digital medium format?

That is quality, it's amazing. that is a big improvement over DX and FF

Joao Sobral
Click to expand...
Yes, from a Hasselblad H3D, it is really amazing. And Mamiya is using the same format, 48x36mm, at about the same price as the canon 1Ds (info from another post, not first-hand).

Best.
--
rhlpetrus
 
no, I'm not a pro. But you are, right? A bit rude too, right?
--
rhlpetrus
 
Bernie Ess said:
The DR and noise
Click to expand...
DR is lack of noise.

btw MkIII seems to me less noisy then 5D. not sure that low noise is just a frame size advantage ;)

many times I heard complaints on the lack of color subtleties on high ISO shots from many "noiseless" cameras. guess it boils down to your customer's acceptability criteria.

--
Julia
 
I'd put a big ? in the subject. I learned something from almost all posts, subject not closed yet, it seems, tks to all.

--
rhlpetrus
 
Julia Borg said:
DR is lack of noise.
Click to expand...
Only for a very small part. It is more a quality of the sensor. The Fuji S3 pro (I sold it now) is basically more noisy at ISO 400 and above than my EOS 5d, but there is no way the 5d can reach the superior DR of the S3. Same for MF backs: They are quite noisy at higher ISOs, but at lower ISO there DR is up to 12 stops or useable DR, nothing a Canon can touch....

Bernie
 
Julia Borg said:
Julia Borg said:
You realize that the "more detail" you think you see in a d2x picture
is only DOF, right?
Click to expand...
even when it is more details in focal plane? :)
Click to expand...
Yes. To compare the 2 cameras on an even level, you would need to have the 5D be a 1.6x sensor. Now you do understand? There is about a 1 to 1.5 stop difference in DOF between FF and aps-c sensors. With a aps-c/dx sensor you are taking all your MP from the middle of the picture where detail/DOF is greatest. FF you have the whole view with less DOF.
 
rhlpetrus said:
I'd put a big ? in the subject. I learned something from almost all
posts, subject not closed yet, it seems, tks to all.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately your exit strategy sounds a little disingenuous. Maybe that's not your intention, but when you support your enquiry with statements like:
rhlpetrus said:
Now, the debate I'm interested here is if Nikon will be back as "the"
main force in the pro 135 format business in the coming years, as it
once was, or if it has given it up.
Click to expand...
... IMO, it goes against any mitigating attempt to put a ? mark in the subject line. If you really are open to learning you might try taking the assertiveness and prejudice out from your statements. Just a suggestion ... :-)

the born 2 design
design guy
 
That you were wrong. It is the ability to record data without blowing them out (highlights) or without letting them drown in deep black. This has only for a part something to do with noise, for the most part to record a light spectrum from shadow to highlight.

Bernie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top