DonPgh
Well-known member
Almost without exception (one or two Fuji rangefinder optics come to mind) medium format optics have significantly less resolving power than 35mm optics. It's the size of the negative that compensates for the loss.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Larry H. Smith
Veteran Member
...from your"set' of cameras as you listed them just before you asked "What am I missing?"
I meant that the set of cameras you mentioned (10D & FF) was "missing' a high frame/sec rate .,..as available today (since the only FF Canon digitalSLR AT PRESENT is the 1Ds)
If you have the 10D and some FUTURE camera, which has both FF AND high frame-rate, then ..."nevermind! ;-) (or if you don't need/ want this feature)
I meant that the set of cameras you mentioned (10D & FF) was "missing' a high frame/sec rate .,..as available today (since the only FF Canon digitalSLR AT PRESENT is the 1Ds)
If you have the 10D and some FUTURE camera, which has both FF AND high frame-rate, then ..."nevermind! ;-) (or if you don't need/ want this feature)
Yep, ...Nothing.
Whatever the difficulty, canon hasn't put FF and 1D speed together yet :-0
Noel Carboni
Senior Member
Nothing? You're kidding, right?
Canon's FF camera, the 1Ds has 11 megapixels. That's almost triple the number of photosites in the 1D. It takes TIME to process that data internally. Computers/chips are fast nowadays, but not infinitely so.
More data takes longer to process.
Why don't they use an even faster processor, you say?
Notwithstanding the limits of current computer hardware design, faster, more powerful processors/chips take more power to run. There are practical limits to be considered on battery-operated equipment.
-Noel
FF is doing fine and the truth is that it provides all the advantages you can think of. Simply the bigger the better, just like with the film 35mm better than APS, 6x45 better than 35mm, 6x6 or 6x7 better than 6x45 and so on. Bigger chip means better dynamic range and less noise, so the ultimate format for DSLR is actually FF. Don't even compare the 4/3 or 1.5x crop factor of NIkon to the cuality of output that FF gives. Even as technology improves the FF sensor WILL ALWAYS be better quality wise.
...timeless, ordered, simply stated, or even implied...
BUHAHAHAA listen to what you're talking about....Canon lost track...that's funny becouse it seems like Canon is putting Nikon back into stone age. Nikon hasn't introduce a thing, and by the time they did it's gonna be too late for them as people are already switching gears. And the new DX line of lenses seems like a joke for a people who spend $8k + on their lenses, too dim anyway for what they're intended for.
--
...timeless, ordered, simply stated, or even implied...
You are right! FF is not good. I think it may be too small for me. I am thinking of upgrading my D60 not to 1Ds, bit to a MF digital back.
Nathan Dandar
Leading Member
I would have kept my Sony F707 if I wanted a smaller sensor. The point of digital SLRs and pro cameras is the larger sensor. To continue downsizing CCD/CMOS sensors sounds like a stupid idea. It's not all about megapixels. There are other factors, too.
Steve Farmer
Forum Enthusiast
Nathan, this guy is confusing two different things: point-and-shoot cameras and professional/prosumer cameras. Point-and-shoot cameras will never have full frame, because their goal is to be as small as possible and still be able to produce acceptable (acceptable for aunt Marie that is) results;
On the other hand, pro- and semipro cameras will always have as big sensor as possible to squeeze into a hand-held camera. The goal here is to produce the best possible result.
Technical development is similar to biological evolution. 35mm size is not an accident. The size of a camera with 35mm film (or sensor) derived from the size of human hands that hold the camera. Think about hand guns: the caliber of hand guns is limited by about 12mm for centuries. That is because, despite desire of gun makers to build more and more powerful pistols, even Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot handhold 40mm cannon! So, manufacturers produce all kind of pistols: 22 for the ladies and 44 for those who want to get the best shot!
Sorry, I'm from US and think in violent terms
On the other hand, pro- and semipro cameras will always have as big sensor as possible to squeeze into a hand-held camera. The goal here is to produce the best possible result.
Technical development is similar to biological evolution. 35mm size is not an accident. The size of a camera with 35mm film (or sensor) derived from the size of human hands that hold the camera. Think about hand guns: the caliber of hand guns is limited by about 12mm for centuries. That is because, despite desire of gun makers to build more and more powerful pistols, even Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot handhold 40mm cannon! So, manufacturers produce all kind of pistols: 22 for the ladies and 44 for those who want to get the best shot!
Sorry, I'm from US and think in violent terms
Larry H. Smith
Veteran Member
Wasn't kidding, but WAS speaking in a much more narrow context :-0
(as I thought the question was asked) your answer is a much better one
Larry
D
Dennis S
Guest
Hey Canon people. All of this FF stuff is just a troll. The Nikon forum has an army of Canon trolls sitting of the posts and the most abusive ones have been removed. As a Nikon user I see nothing wrong with FF. We really don't know exactly what Nikon plans so a lot of us have to wait it out.
W
Walter Freiberger
Guest
By the time FF is competitive price wise, there won't be any DSLR's anymore... We will have excellent electronical viewfinders until then and digital rangefinder cameras instead of the actual D1, 1D, 10D, D100 DSLR's. So the viewfinder issue IMO is not a real argument for full frame.
Regards
Walter
Regards
Walter
I guess being a nikon guy you missed my thread 4 days ago about this very same topic but somehow it just didn t generate any discussion;-(
but can t they make faster small glass in the 4/3 size. (in the future)
First let me say I respect your ideas you ve be on dpr for a long time
now to argue:
1. If you desire small DOF why not 4x5 thats got really small DOF. With smaller sensors they can create small fast zooms with a very shallow DOF
2. As imaging sensors get better and prehaps with no triple overlap of todays ccd's(one pixel for each color)sensors can creat great images with far less megpix. And the fewer pixels crammed into the sensor the less noise at hi ISO.
3. An new system can (I hope) have just as wide glass. This does not mean cropping effect currently on dslr's...I referring to a new smaller system.
4. 35mm has already surpassed med format film...Alot of working pro's don t need that anyways and you can always use current dslr's if you do. With Foveon design one only needs 1/3 the pixels anyhows to match todays current ccd so you can cram more effective pixels in!
now to argue:
1. If you desire small DOF why not 4x5 thats got really small DOF. With smaller sensors they can create small fast zooms with a very shallow DOF
2. As imaging sensors get better and prehaps with no triple overlap of todays ccd's(one pixel for each color)sensors can creat great images with far less megpix. And the fewer pixels crammed into the sensor the less noise at hi ISO.
3. An new system can (I hope) have just as wide glass. This does not mean cropping effect currently on dslr's...I referring to a new smaller system.
4. 35mm has already surpassed med format film...Alot of working pro's don t need that anyways and you can always use current dslr's if you do. With Foveon design one only needs 1/3 the pixels anyhows to match todays current ccd so you can cram more effective pixels in!
Noel Carboni
Senior Member
Good points, all. I don't think any of us can predict the future with any certainty, so waiting and seeing (and playing with all the hardware) is what we'll have to do.
-Noel
-Noel
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum