FF is dead...

John Duesterhoeft · Mar 9, 2003

Noel Carboni said:
There are GOOD REASONS why it will always be best to have a CHOICE
of sensor sizes.

That's the main reason I like the Canon approach. They seem to be concentrating on creating a set of dslr's that can be used with all of their lenses.

When I go to buy a new camera body or lens, I don't need to do a ton of research to make sure they work well together.

I am about to purchase a 10D and a few L lenses. With Canon, I am confident my investment in expensive glass will carry on to future FF camera body purchases. The 10D will always have a place in my bag... even if it's just a backup body.

Walter Freiberger · Mar 9, 2003

Joe Journalist said:
For all the flower, pet, trees in the backyard shooters, there is
no need for FF.

Nor for PJ's, sports, wedding and wildlife shooters

)

Maybee full frame is nice for some studio work... but not for every kind of it.

Walter

Walter Freiberger · Mar 9, 2003

Harlod said:
Why would anyone desire a reduced sized sensor? Five years from
now, the latest 1DS will cost marginally more than than a 1V and a
digital 645 will cost marginally more than a film 645.

IMO It's basically about lens design.

You may be right, prices will come down for FF sensors. But APS sensors will perform good enough for virtually all purposes in five years anyway. The weakest link is the lenses.

Smaller sensors allow to make smaller, more versatile and sharper lenses, which are cheaper too.

In five years the ONLY, and really the ONLY practical advantage of FF will be better compatibility with film based systems.

Walter

Harald Backes · Mar 9, 2003

John Duesterhoeft said:
John Duesterhoeft said:

There are GOOD REASONS why it will always be best to have a CHOICE
of sensor sizes.

Click to expand...

That's the main reason I like the Canon approach. They seem to be
concentrating on creating a set of dslr's that can be used with all
of their lenses.

When I go to buy a new camera body or lens, I don't need to do a
ton of research to make sure they work well together.

I am about to purchase a 10D and a few L lenses. With Canon, I am
confident my investment in expensive glass will carry on to future
FF camera body purchases. The 10D will always have a place in my
bag... even if it's just a backup body.

Waldemar · Mar 9, 2003

Walter Freiberger said:
... but some people did not yet realize this and keep spending too
much money for transitional products like the 1Ds and DCS 14n.

If the Olympus E-system has a positive start (and I believe it
will) and Nikon provides a significant lineup of DX lenses and a
10-12mp DX sized D2 who needs full frame? Who wants to pay $8000
for a transitional product like Canon's 1Ds?

With "significant lens lineup" I mean something like this:

8/2.8 DX
10-24/2.8 DX
16-70/2.8 DX

12-24/4 DX
16-70/3.5-4.5 DX

The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO
not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design.
If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the
smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead
end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter

...let´s see first, if it really can be done with sufficient image quality. Apart from that, you are right.
--
Waldemar
http://www.pbase.com/haak
http://www.photo-haak.com
http://www.images-of-tuscany.com

Larry H. Smith · Mar 9, 2003

Walter Freiberger said:
In five years the ONLY, and really the ONLY practical advantage of
FF will be better compatibility with film based systems.

So you didn't read the (several) comments about shallow-depth for portraits (background blur), ...or did you just decide to ignore that point?

Larry

Dick S · Mar 9, 2003

--
**** S, Temecula, CA
'Capturing The Essence'

Dick S · Mar 9, 2003

Agreed,
But what does speed have to do with FF vs 1.6X

I would love to have 5-8fps for 36 exp. like my EOS5. Isn't this a function of the CF card speed, in camera buffer, etc.

Larry H. Smith said:
"Speed", ...if you need it.

--
**** S, Temecula, CA
'Capturing The Essence'

ib1yysguy · Mar 9, 2003

Larry H. Smith said:
Walter Freiberger said:

In five years the ONLY, and really the ONLY practical advantage of
FF will be better compatibility with film based systems.

Click to expand...

So you didn't read the (several) comments about shallow-depth for
portraits (background blur), ...or did you just decide to ignore
that point?

Larry

I think he's also ignoring the greater dynamic range posabilities and larger view finder... oh yeah, and the money you save without having to buy those silly DX lenses. =)
--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

Rob Martin · Mar 9, 2003

for someone that's probably none of these thing s you talk about.
The market will decide.
FF dead? Nikon Dead?
Who knows?

One thing is certain, 1Ds owners are loving it!!!!! It's the old thing, if every company made Ferraris they'd "just be" Ferraris. Perhaps that's it with FF. It's the best, but the world has to cope with them being expensive.

As far as lens design...... Just don't go to full width wide open... simple. then you cannot tell the difference apart from the resolution, the depth and the image size.....ohhhhh but size isn't important. Not so if you're selling images, size always helps...

etc. etc.

With all the bleating and crying at the Nikon form, it's amusing to see you chaps / chappesses over here trying to depreciate the worlds best camera.

I love mine......

--
------------------------------

if you take the time to do something urgent, make sure it is important .............................

Rob Martin · Mar 9, 2003

if it's a problem, they'll make better lenses. But 35mm lenses have been round a while.

Works great on mine..... cannot see the issue!!

Just hope they stay expensive.... (kidding of course)

--
------------------------------

if you take the time to do something urgent, make sure it is important .............................

Ken W. · Mar 9, 2003

Good ol Walter is a Nikon guy and Nikon isn't making a FF DSLR...so there he sits, praying to God that the 4/3 system is going to make everything alright. With all this extra time he has while he waits, he goes and preaches about the second coming, not realizing that all he's ever really wanted already exists. All he has to do is sell his soul to Canon.

Harlod said:
Why would anyone desire a reduced sized sensor? Five years from
now, the latest 1DS will cost marginally more than than a 1V and a
digital 645 will cost marginally more than a film 645.

--
Ken W.
http://www.quantumarts.com
http://www.quantumarts.com/photography
http://www.mywhistler.com

Jack Flesher · Mar 9, 2003

But hey, you've convinced yourself with your own explanation so it's okay with me whatever you want to believe. But you're wrong

Cheers,

Jack
~~~~

Walter Freiberger said:
... but some people did not yet realize this and keep spending too
much money for transitional products like the 1Ds and DCS 14n.

If the Olympus E-system has a positive start (and I believe it
will) and Nikon provides a significant lineup of DX lenses and a
10-12mp DX sized D2 who needs full frame? Who wants to pay $8000
for a transitional product like Canon's 1Ds?

With "significant lens lineup" I mean something like this:

8/2.8 DX
10-24/2.8 DX
16-70/2.8 DX

12-24/4 DX
16-70/3.5-4.5 DX

The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO
not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design.
If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the
smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead
end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter

Frostfrog · Mar 9, 2003

The fact is that right now, there is nothing out there to compare with the 1Ds. Perhaps Olympus will, perhaps it won't - no specs yet. I believe that their concept is good and it reminds me of when all the major cameras went from manual to auto - Nikon stuck with a body that accomodated all its old lenses but Canon came up with something new, designed for the new technology, that required photographers like me to replace ALL of their lenses. But Canon's concept was great that it was worth it. Nikon had been the leader among professional photographers, but with its new concept, Canon not only caught up but surpassed Nikon.

So I have been waiting for Canon to come up with a whole new concept for the digital era and in the process to do away with the big, heavy lenses and bodies. That hasn't happened yet. I believe it will.

Even so, in December I purchased a 1Ds and every since I did I have been taking pictures with 1Ds quality files. If I hold on and wait for the next replacement, the technical quality of the photos that I am taking RIGHT NOW will not be so good as they are. The camera has paid for itself a few times over already.

When the time comes that it is advantageous to me to replace it, I will, but I will be better off for not having waited until then to take a leap up from the miserable D60 in performance and image quality.

Some day, I am certain, I will refer to the miserable, heavy, bulky 1Ds, but right now it is the best thing around and has even replaced my Mamiya RZ 67, which is even bigger, bulkier and heavier, and not nearly so versatile.

Rob Harris · Mar 9, 2003

It's truly amazing but the very lenses I was using with my D60 have become better with my 1DS. I am able to capture wide angle shots now that are simply not possible on a cropped sensor camera

Steven Noyes · Mar 9, 2003

Walter Freiberger said:
Joe Journalist said:

For all the flower, pet, trees in the backyard shooters, there is
no need for FF.

Click to expand...

Nor for PJ's, sports, wedding and wildlife shooters )

Maybee full frame is nice for some studio work... but not for every
kind of it.

Walter

--
---
Something different.
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/the_homeland

George D Feucht · Mar 10, 2003

I have the new Panasonic DVX100 MiniDV camcorder. It makes beautiful images (Leica lens) but suffers in two categories: Low light and "3-D" aspects. The camera has 1/3 in chips. I shoot professionally on Betacam-type camcorders. With 2/3" chips. It is SO much easier to throw the background out of focus and add depth with 2/3 inch chips. Plus, the image "pops" a little bit more. A bit more 3D. And low light performance is great due to larger pixels. While my Panasonic makes great images, it will never match what 2/3 inch chips can do.

Now, cinematography: Anything shot on 16mm looks flatter than something shot on 35mm. I remember when "Felicity" went from 35mm to 16mm for budget concerns. The Cinematographer quit because it compromised the look of the show. Resolution was fine, but longer lenses and a larger "sensor" provided a more three dimensional look that fit the show. 16mm killed all of that.

Anyway, apply that to photography anyway you wish. Larger sensor area generally means punchier image.

George

Osman Eralp · Mar 10, 2003

I think the original post raises an interesting, though perhaps old, question: What is the best image capture size? I can imagine people pondering the same issue 20, 50 and 100 years ago. Looking forward, as technology progress, I think we can safely assume that we will be able to put 10+ MP in whatever size sensor we want. So what size should it be?

Let’s looks at the extremes. We could put those 10 MP into a 1mm x 1mm sensor. Certainly, lenses would be smaller. However, we all know that at the small apertures required, diffraction effects would render images too fuzzy to be useful. We could put those 10 MP into a sensor that was 4 inches by 5 inches. Again, lens design is the limiting factor as the control of aberrations dictate more expensive lenses. Not to mention that the lenses required would be of a much larger size than most people's camera bags could accommodate. So the "ideal" size must lie somewhere between these two extremes. But where?

One only has to look at the formats that have survived to answer that question. Photography, as in life, is a lesson in compromise. Three of the variables that are usually involved in choosing a format are cost, convenience, and image quality. Clearly, the format that achieves the best balance for most people is 35 mm. It’s costs are reasonable, it’s extremely portable and the equipment available is of excellent quality. Obviously, other formats have their use; I enjoy shooting 4 x 5 because the ability to change the plane of focus, achieving better image quality at the expense of portability. But 35 mm currently dominates and, I predict, it always will. Finally, do not underestimate the importance of the fact that there is a huge inventory of 35 mm equipment in use today. Even if all 35 mm equipment ceased manufacture today, the format would survive for many more years. You think we should introduce another format? Think APS!

Osman

Tim Lozinski · Mar 10, 2003

However, ignorant of the importance of low distortion Optics...

Why is Medium format better than 35mm? Aside from the higher 'resolution' of the film size, its the higher resolution and increased quality of the optics. Wider angle lenses (which are only equiv. of the 35mm wide angle) are more distorted, and less sharp than the larger format (see, 35mm considered 'larger' format is insane)

Pros want MORE dots, not less, and more dots means MORE resolving power in your lens. Smaller is not better, it will never change unless they can craft optics sharp yet tiny. Wait 10 years, maybe, but I am with 35mm interoperability as well...

Forrest41926 · Mar 10, 2003

Depth of field depends on two things; how much a subject is magnified from it's size in reality to it's size behind the lens, and the aperture used. Magnification is far more significant, which is why f/2.8 on a P&S digicam is like f/11 on film. When you use a small chip, you aren't magnifying nearly as much.

FF is dead...

Leading Member

Walter Freiberger

Guest

Walter Freiberger

Guest

Well-known member

Waldemar

Guest

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Ken W.

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Rob Harris

Guest

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Active member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts