Ken Rockwell on full frame!

Henry Richardson said:

Ken writes tongue in cheek most of the time. As he says very
regularly, the camera doesn't matter:

Click to expand...

I think he is very clear... he explains the sense of "your camera does not matter" saying that first of all you have to think about lighting, composition, shooting and PP techniques and so on. Once you master all these concepts, that do not depend on the camera, you can start worrying about the camera. He says it clearly in the beginning of the FF article.

I think he tries to explain to the thousands of amateurs out there that just keep on comparing camera reviews that they should first focus on learing photography, because everyone can take wonderful pictures even with a cheap compact camera, and this is absolutely true. Of course, once you master all the basic concepts, you can improve your results by using cameras that will give you better colors, less noise, more sharpness and so on. He does not say that a canon 5D is not better than a compact P&S camera. He just tries to explain that if you don't know how to make (and compose) photos, the 5D will not help you, while a great photographer with a cellphone will take pictures that are better than yours. I agree with him.

tompabes2 said:

He does not say that a
canon 5D is not better than a compact P&S camera. He just tries to
explain that if you don't know how to make (and compose) photos, the
5D will not help you, while a great photographer with a cellphone
will take pictures that are better than yours.

Click to expand...

Excactly. And all true.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

tompabes2 said:

He just tries to
explain that if you don't know how to make (and compose) photos, the
5D will not help you, while a great photographer with a cellphone
will take pictures that are better than yours. I agree with him.

Click to expand...

Man ... I need to buy that cell phone!

http://www.pbase.com/frenske

In the same way that a dSLR with an apsc sensor and a cheapo kit lens will out perform any prosumer digicam that has ever been made. Take that concept and apply it to the apsc--> full frame and you can make the same arguments.. it may not be as drastic, but, its still there.

tompabes2 said:

Henry Richardson said:

Ken writes tongue in cheek most of the time. As he says very
regularly, the camera doesn't matter:

Click to expand...

I think he is very clear... he explains the sense of "your camera
does not matter" saying that first of all you have to think about
lighting, composition, shooting and PP techniques and so on. Once you
master all these concepts, that do not depend on the camera, you can
start worrying about the camera. He says it clearly in the beginning
of the FF article.
I think he tries to explain to the thousands of amateurs out there
that just keep on comparing camera reviews that they should first
focus on learing photography, because everyone can take wonderful
pictures even with a cheap compact camera, and this is absolutely
true. Of course, once you master all the basic concepts, you can
improve your results by using cameras that will give you better
colors, less noise, more sharpness and so on. He does not say that a
canon 5D is not better than a compact P&S camera. He just tries to
explain that if you don't know how to make (and compose) photos, the
5D will not help you, while a great photographer with a cellphone
will take pictures that are better than yours. I agree with him.

Click to expand...

tompabes2, you would do well to read what he actually says, rather than re-interpreting it.

Here is a quote from Ken:

"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need."

The right equipment can also make it possible to get the image.

He does tend to suffer from foot in mouth disease. Maybe we should create an exclusion zone around him?

Lin Evans said:

nm66photog said:

Technician said:

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

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

Ross....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Member said:

Are there any other makers of full frame cameras, I think not!

Click to expand...

It seems like there may be - I believe Contax may have been first.....

Click to expand...

How long has it been in production, can I buy it right now from Contax and can I buy a new Kodak 14 from Kodak, I think not! Kodak or Contax do not make FF 35mm size digital cameras now. Hey, I can't buy a Nikon D3 right now either.

Member said:

Member said:

Ken is correct on all accounts on FF, I know because I have a Conon
DRebel and 5D along with the A100. The 5D is far superior in IQ and
color.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have those three cameras and it is true and the two APS camera are very good performers too and the 5D is still better.

Member said:

That's a sample size with an "N" of three cases. This is not exactly
statistically significant. There are a few more cameras out there you
know. I think my Sigma SD14 is superior in IQ to the 5D. IQ is a
subjective issue. Our own personal opinions do not make Ken right or
wrong they only indicate our preferences.

Click to expand...

Popular Photo tested the SD14 and said it is equal to a 9 or 10MP camera, as good as it is it does not have the resolution of the Canon 5D.

Member said:

I find the color on my D2Xs better than the color on my 1DS. Does
this really mean anything in the greater sense? Probably not.
Different strokes for different folks, no?

Click to expand...

Here are the results of a skin tone test made by ShootSmater University about a year ago and yes, your D2X scores better on skin tone than the 1Ds. And the Canon 5D rates #1 with the 86 photographers that participated in the test. All of these cameras produce high quality images.

Rank Camera Average Score

1. 1 Canon 5D 7.50
2. 2 Fuji S3 7.29
3. 3 Nikon D200 7.08
4. 4 Nikon D2x 6.16
5. 5 Canon 30D 6.02
6. 6 Canon 1D II 5.94
7. 7 Nikon D2h 5.90
8. 8 Canon 1Ds II 4.81

Member said:

We each use what we like and get results that are satisfactory. A
larger sensor may be preferred for some and not for others. There are
advantages to each. One size doesn't fit all.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree, for me the Canon 5D gives me the highest quality image for the money. If Sony produces a FF sensor camera and if it is as good or better than the 5D I will probably purchase it. I already have two very good APS sensor cameras and I do not need another. I would love to have a FF Sony for all of my Minolta lenses.

Jerry

nm66photog said:

Lin Evans said:

nm66photog said:

Technician said:

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

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

Ross....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

nm66photog said:

Are there any other makers of full frame cameras, I think not!

Click to expand...

It seems like there may be - I believe Contax may have been first.....

Click to expand...

How long has it been in production, can I buy it right now from
Contax and can I buy a new Kodak 14 from Kodak, I think not! Kodak or
Contax do not make FF 35mm size digital cameras now. Hey, I can't buy
a Nikon D3 right now either.

Click to expand...

Yep, the Contax 6 and Kodak 14's are out of production, but the question and statement was are here any other makers?

nm66photog said:

nm66photog said:

nm66photog said:

Ken is correct on all accounts on FF, I know because I have a Conon
DRebel and 5D along with the A100. The 5D is far superior in IQ and
color.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have those three cameras and it is true and the two APS camera are
very good performers too and the 5D is still better.

nm66photog said:

That's a sample size with an "N" of three cases. This is not exactly
statistically significant. There are a few more cameras out there you
know. I think my Sigma SD14 is superior in IQ to the 5D. IQ is a
subjective issue. Our own personal opinions do not make Ken right or
wrong they only indicate our preferences.

Click to expand...

Popular Photo tested the SD14 and said it is equal to a 9 or 10MP
camera, as good as it is it does not have the resolution of the Canon
5D.

Click to expand...

You'll have to excuse me on this because I don't have a lot of respect for Pop Photo's opinion or the way they tested the camera.

Resolution is a loaded term. There is black and white resolution and color resolution and my SD14 has much better color resolution than any of my cameras including my D2Xs which measures higher in absolute b&w resolution on Phil's test than the 5D though in reality they are probably about the same if RAW files were properly converted.

Then what I was commenting on was IQ which is a "lot" more than resolution. Resolution is only a part of what makes image quality and for me my SD14 has the best IQ of any of my digital cameras.

nm66photog said:

nm66photog said:

I find the color on my D2Xs better than the color on my 1DS. Does
this really mean anything in the greater sense? Probably not.
Different strokes for different folks, no?

Click to expand...

Here are the results of a skin tone test made by ShootSmater
University about a year ago and yes, your D2X scores better on skin
tone than the 1Ds. And the Canon 5D rates #1 with the 86
photographers that participated in the test. All of these cameras
produce high quality images.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's probably a fair but subjective ranking of skin tone for the cameras used. However, there's much more to photography than skin tones. Most of what I shoot is art and wildlife and skintone is of limited importance to me.

nm66photog said:

Rank Camera Average Score

1. 1 Canon 5D 7.50
2. 2 Fuji S3 7.29
3. 3 Nikon D200 7.08
4. 4 Nikon D2x 6.16
5. 5 Canon 30D 6.02
6. 6 Canon 1D II 5.94
7. 7 Nikon D2h 5.90
8. 8 Canon 1Ds II 4.81

nm66photog said:

We each use what we like and get results that are satisfactory. A
larger sensor may be preferred for some and not for others. There are
advantages to each. One size doesn't fit all.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree, for me the Canon 5D gives me the highest quality image
for the money. If Sony produces a FF sensor camera and if it is as
good or better than the 5D I will probably purchase it. I already
have two very good APS sensor cameras and I do not need another. I
would love to have a FF Sony for all of my Minolta lenses.

Click to expand...

It will be great if the Sony pro model expected turns out to be full frame. I think Sony is on the right track with color and it could turn out that what they have on the horizon may be the best yet. Time will tell.

Lin

nm66photog said:

Jerry

Click to expand...

On Nikon D200 vs. Canon EOS 5D:

The big sensor doesn't play as a benefit here. It just costs more. Popular Photography, on the bottom of the second column of page 70 of the December, 2005 issue says that at ISO 1,600 that the D2X and the D50 have BETTER noise performance than the 5D. I prefer the smaller CCD of the D200 for more compact lenses.

Now that Nikon has a full frame:

If you worry about unimportant minutiae like sharpness, resolution and noise, please don't waste any more time with small format DSLRs. Step up to at least a full frame or FX DSLR. There will be no more whining accepted about performance of piddly-format cameras anymore.

If, as it has been stated in this thread, his site is meant as a joke or a hoax, all the more reason not to take him seriously.

PeterNMIF said:

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

Click to expand...

That would depend on two things: Sensor size and magnification ratio (and viewfinder "crop" if different from 100 per cent).

PeterNMIF said:

Or is it just me that is confused...

Click to expand...

I think it's just you, although I haven't read all the posts.

Klipsen said:

If, as it has been stated in this thread, his site is meant as a joke
or a hoax, all the more reason not to take him seriously.

Click to expand...

I forgot to include the link to those statements. Here it is:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

Although I sometimes agree with things he writes I take everything with a grain of salt -- just as KR says you should. I just can't quite get my head around why so many people get so hopping mad. He has the motivation and drive to create a website and he regularly adds new content. How many that seem to hate him can say the same? I find it entertaining, but I only remember to check it out occasionally.

I think you can pretty much bet he searches for threads about him in the popular forums to check them out. Probably gets a good laugh at the thrashing he finds.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

--
You're welcome to: http://www.pbase.com/lucaspix
Always having fun with photography ...

Klipsen said:

On Nikon D200 vs. Canon EOS 5D:
The big sensor doesn't play as a benefit here. It just costs more.
Popular Photography, on the bottom of the second column of page 70 of
the December, 2005 issue says that at ISO 1,600 that the D2X and the
D50 have BETTER noise performance than the 5D. I prefer the smaller
CCD of the D200 for more compact lenses.

Click to expand...

This is an extract from dpreview's comparison of the 5D with the D200 and D2X

"Up to ISO 800 there's very little noticeable difference in noise (in the gray and black patches). At ISO 1600 the EOS 5D's black patch (representing shadow areas in a normal image) looks cleaner than both Nikon's, however both also present a more 'film like' monochromatic noise pattern, the EOS 5D exhibits some chroma (color) noise. At ISO 3200 the EOS 5D performs much better than either Nikon. The biggest difference from ISO 800 upwards is the effect Nikon's noise reduction has on detail, becoming gradually more blurred as sensitivity increases, in this respect Canon has it."

There is very little difference in the size of full frame lenses and APS lenses because the mount size is the same. In any case practically all of the longer lenses are full frame. The main difference is the size and weight of the camera but since some of the older 35mm film SLRs were smaller and lighter than current APS DSLRs it should be possible to make more compact full frame cameras in the future. .

--
dhaslam
http://www.pbase.com/dhaslam/galleries

David Haslam said:

There is very little difference in the size of full frame lenses and
APS lenses because the mount size is the same. In any case
practically all of the longer lenses are full frame. The main
difference is the size and weight of the camera but since some of
the older 35mm film SLRs were smaller and lighter than current APS
DSLRs it should be possible to make more compact full frame cameras
in the future. .

Click to expand...

True, but the advantage comes from the extra reach of an APS camera. A 400mm F5.6 lens is much smaller lighter than a 600mm F5.6 lens (though in the case of Nikon both are long since out of production).

David Haslam said:

This is an extract from dpreview's comparison of the 5D with the
D200 and D2X

"Up to ISO 800 there's very little noticeable difference in noise ...

Click to expand...

Whether he aggreed or disaggreed with DPR is not the point. The point is, he disaggrees with himself.

He's in the same category as people who, when they can't afford same brand lenses, state that third party lenses (usually from one particular manufacturer (Sigma, Tamron or Tokina to be precise)) are every bit as good as same brand lenses, if not better sometimes. If and when the time comes that they can afford same brand lenses, somehow third party lenses are not quite good enough anymore.

When Nikon didn't make a full frame DSLR, how important was full frame? Now that Nikon does make a full frame DSLR, ultra-ultra wide angle is all the rage.

It's not that what he writes is wrong. He just "yells" too much and ignores the fact that usually there are two sides to a story, like the tele advantage of crop versus the wide angle advantage of full frame. With him, it's "either - or", not "both - and".

Slough said:

tompabes2, you would do well to read what he actually says, rather
than re-interpreting it.

Click to expand...

well... read the introduction to the full frame article posted by the OP... I think that's more or less what he said...

Slough said:

Here is a quote from Ken:

"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less
time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time
and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment
just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the
results you need."

Click to expand...

ok, that's more or less the same thing! of course here he is not talking of quality in terms of pixel sharpness, noise level and so on, but the "artistic" quality of your image!

Slough said:

The right equipment can also make it possible to get the image.

Click to expand...

yes, this is of course true. but again nobody wants to negate this. Just point out that too many people only worry about their equipment and spend a lot of time pixel-peeping than reading technical books or studying the works of great photographers, or even study the works of the painters of the past, and so they do not improve their technical and artistic skills.

Of course, ken is not thinking as a professional who has to shoot, say, sports or weddings, or even an amateur that does someting particular, like bird watching. He is talking about the artistic side of taking photos.

There are soooo many amateurs, I know some, that bought a DSLR and still do not know what basic things like exposure time are and do not know how to PP images. They get the same images of the P&S, if not worse. "I'm disappointed. Many images are out of focus", said a friend of mine who had just bought a DSLR, and he showed me an image that was blurred due to camera shake. Of course they blame the camera and think they have to get a better one.

Does it really matter if you have a Canon 30D or a Pentax K10D? 99% of the times not. But read these forums, what do you find? Long discussions about which camera has the best sharpness when you compare 100% crops, less noise at iso6400. Does this affect the overall quality of your pictures? I think not. Again, as Ken himself says, it is not wrong to look for the equipment that takes the sharpest pictures or has less noise. If you're a professional, it could be a must do. But do not worry too much... use what you have to take photos. If you're good, the photos will be good. Not if your equipment is good!

Lin, Does you comment about color relate to the A100 as well as to what you are expecting with any "pro" sony models?

Peter F.

Hes a great photographer, but incredibly biased.

He also talks out of his butt a lot, for instance, he apparently has made up a new way to read MTF charts. The curves he hand drew are wrong, since MTF charts are percent of contrast shown as it is allowed to pass through a lens to a piece of film (vertically) by distance from the center of the slide of film (horizontally). That being said...the d200/d300 with a DX size sensor would have an MTF chart that would only go to about 14mm, and the d3 would go to about 18mm.

just one thing about the article...

Also, as far as using cheap glass....i think it really just shows negatively on the d200 and endorses the 5d. but thats just me...

http://dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20122

What exactly is this tele-advantage of crop you refer to?
Do you mean that the limited crop provides an advantage?

Klipsen said:

It's not that what he writes is wrong. He just "yells" too much and
ignores the fact that usually there are two sides to a story, like
the tele advantage of crop versus the wide angle advantage of full
frame. With him, it's "either - or", not "both - and".

Click to expand...

--
Direct your eye right inward, and you'll find a thousand
regions in your mind Yet undiscovered. Travel them, and
be Expert in home-cosmography.
-H.D. Thoreau

Hi Peter,

Yes, in general I think they (Sony) have been paying attention to their users of the A100 more so than they did in the recent past to the users of various fixed lens cameras. In the early days when their top end digital cameras were designed by the Professional Products Division the listened to users and made changes (such as the DSC-D700 to DSC-D770) rather quickly fixing nagging issues. But when the Consumer Products Division took over, they quickly returned to the large consumer product mentality and pretty much ignored input from users and designed and built what their engineers wanted. Beginning with the S70 and for quite a while they floundered. Some of this resulted in the eventual evolution of some pretty good cameras such as the F505, F505V, F707, F717 but then slipped back a bit with an experimental phase but after the F828 and R1 they appear to be headed in the direction more users would like to see. I think the A100 which resulted from their acquisition of Minolta's digital camera business was a giant step in the right direction and the Alpha 700 looks like a wonderful step forward. To play in the pro line with Canon and now Nikon they will need a full frame as well as a very fast and powerful crop-factor camera. The A700 may be very competitive with the 40D/300D so now we need something possibly along the lines of the 1D Mark III/D2Xs and another to compete with the 1DS III/D3.

They may be taking a wait and see approach to find out what users "really" want. Do they want extremely high pixel count like the 1DS 3 at possibly the expense of overall image quality or do they want the expected D3's lower pixel count but much better frame rate and probably better IQ. I know if I were running the division responsible for producing a pro body to compete I would wait and see which of these new designs the public embraces before I committed too many resources in possibly the wrong direction.

It's really difficult to guess this one. Whatever they produce will either have to be markedly better than the competition to take any reasonable market share, or somehow directed at primarily younger photographers just breaking into the pro ranks who have not yet acquired large investment in lenses and peripherals. Marketing can only carry a line so far so improvements will have to be significant.

The one area where it's truly possible to improve and still stay within cost parameters is color fidelity. Sony has shown as long ago as the F828 that they are sniffing around in that direction. It's not feasible to completely outclass the competition in buffer speed, shutter life, body strength, weather seals, or even features with as yet unproven market utility such as live view, but it is feasible to outclass them with color fidelity without going into the red in terms of cost versus sales potential. It's only my opinion and I have no inside information or special knowledge in this area, but I suspect this may be the way they are headed.

As with very early cameras such as the Canon Pro 70 back in the late 90's, a good firmware algorithm to correct for lens distortion built-in made it a real winner. Similar firmware can tweak colors to nearly perfectly correct for various sensor and camera error. It's just a matter of time and resources in R&D rather than costs in materials and production. So it comes down to a decision to not wait so long as to loose a potential chance to break into the market at the right time versus giving engineering sufficient time to produce a worthy product to compete. Either way it's win/win for the consumer.

Best regards,

Lin

PeterNMIF said:

Lin, Does you comment about color relate to the A100 as well as to
what you are expecting with any "pro" sony models?

Peter F.

Click to expand...