Ken Rockwell on full frame!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barry Fitzgerald
  • Start date Start date
Ken is one of my favourites too. Always so enthusiastic and unimpressed at the same time (as well as seriously experienced). Somewhat like the little boy in H.C. Andersen's story about the emperor with no clothes. Maybe this is why so many (self-inflated) Nikon fanboys love to hate him:)

Rockwell's samples are all rather surprising, since the difference between DX and FF appear to be quite significant. Rockwell writes:
larger formats look so much sharper than smaller ones, even if they have the same resolution. The simple explanation is that we don't have to enlarge larger formats as much, which makes lens performance much less important. Even at much less than the limits of resolution, practical lens performance is much better with larger formats because the lens doesn't need to resolve as much as sharply to give the same great, or better, image.
I think this only points to FF as a new, soon-to-be much heated battle field between the manufacturers in the future. Canon were there first, but with no competition, they did not do very much about it (especially since their sensors were superior even at 1:1).

With Nikon and Sony (and more?) now following in the FF-footsteps, this battle ground will soon attract a lot more attention also from customers. It may even bring the price down.

A full-blown FF-system may also distinguish the big boys from the others in the future.

A obvious business opportunity for Sony to soon stand out from Oly/Pana/Pentax/Samsung.
 
Yeah, i did notice only Canon & Nikon were mentioned exclusivley.

Interesting indeed, but only telling us what we know already.

Ross....
 
Excuse my lack of knowledge here, but other than Canon and Nikon what other manufacturer have a full-frame offering?

Peter
 
Excuse my lack of knowledge here, but other than Canon and Nikon what
other manufacturer have a full-frame offering?
Not even Nikon, my friend, Not yet, but soon to come :)

My comments on Ken Rockwell and Canikon were more general btw - for instance he did a lot of comments on D300 and 40D ... but he did not so far mention the A700 even once.
 
Ken's testing methodology is suspect. If you look at Phil's D200 review, the RAW studio comparison with the 5D is really close. The 5D edges past the D200.

Yes, bigger pixels are easier on lenses. That doesn't mean Nikon (or anybody) else can't make better lenses.

--
http://srpluta.zenfolio.com/

The truth is rarely black and white.
 
It isn't very clear what point he is making. He has a 5D and it is
better but he doesnt use it because the D40 is lighter.
The spirit of Ken Roclwells writings is clearly that even today's sub-entry cameras (like the D40) will outperform most photographers needs in most assignments.

I agree with that and I like that non-snubbish, non-impressed attitude quite a lot as well :)
 
Interesting and rather entertaining report. I like his no nonsense approach to the facts. . . I'll take a full frame viewer with my next SONY please.
--
Paul Cassidy
----------------------------------------------------------->

 
Yeah, i did notice only Canon & Nikon were mentioned exclusivley.

Interesting indeed, but only telling us what we know already.

Ross....
Its what he uses... and knows... its an opinion site. I don't always agree with him but his pretty on with this one. Including the fact that all the pixel peeping gets in the way

BTW he thinks top LCDs are an obsolete technology.. so he may be a C/N user but is isn't always on the koolaid.

------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com
 
My comments on Ken Rockwell and Canikon were more general btw - for
instance he did a lot of comments on D300 and 40D ... but he did not
so far mention the A700 even once.
Do you really expect him to mention the A700? I mean, he said he
would not even try an A100 so would not comment on it.
My point excactly :)

One day, though, no new DSLR will be (p)reviewed without a direct reference til it's Sony counterpart ... one day, my firends ...
 
From looking at the pictures of the A700 it looks like there are a couple of buttons that were lacking on the A100 (and were reasons Ken R. said he would not review the A100)... the buttons are for (1) IS0 and (2) WB. It looks like on the A700 these two are buttons on the topside, on the right. I guess based on Ken's criticism of the A100 that you need to go into the menus to get at these two adjustments.

Peter
 
I don't always agree with him but his pretty on with this one.
Including the fact that all the pixel peeping gets in the way

BTW he thinks top LCDs are an obsolete technology.. so he may be a
C/N user but is isn't always on the koolaid.
It appears that only Canon and Nikon excists within Ken Rockwell's horizon, but apart from that he is indeed a refrreshing and knowledgable source of information and opinions :)
 
What Ken Rockwell is writing about is full frame cameras like the new Nikon D3. It relates the the sensor being the full size of 35mm film, that being 36mm wide, whereas cameras like all the other Nikon dSLRs and the A100 and A700 are smaller with sensors 24mm wide or so. Isn't this what is meant by full frame?

Others on this thread seem to be thinking it relates to how much of an object being is included in the viewfinder.

Or is it just me that is confused...

Peter F.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top