Thanks for the link. I think I do understand DOF. I just did not read in between the lines that you want to keep the magnification the same.
Andre...
Andre...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon vs Canon: why is FF better??
- Thread starter Greg Duda
- Start date
Sorry,
I meant you keep the subject size the same relative to the frame. Meaning the magnifiaction changes, so does the DOF.
Andre...
I meant you keep the subject size the same relative to the frame. Meaning the magnifiaction changes, so does the DOF.
Andre...
I think it all comes down to the question: how much resolution/ picture quality do we need?
If a 1Ds with ff-sensor gives us quality asmidformat film, and before we were happy with 35mm film, than why would we need such a large sensor. If Nikon sensor size gives us quality enough for good A3+ prints, than this would be enough for me.
Lens qeight. Someone else before said its not a big difference. I do not agree. Look at tele-lenses. A 200/2.8 lens, which would be like a 300/2.8 lens at the size even smaller than a ff-200mm/2.8 lens. Huge difference.
Camera and viewfinder can become smaller, and all together can be made for less money.
I think it would be great.
At the other side-those who needed MF before might now be happy with 35mm-size ff sensor.
If a 1Ds with ff-sensor gives us quality asmidformat film, and before we were happy with 35mm film, than why would we need such a large sensor. If Nikon sensor size gives us quality enough for good A3+ prints, than this would be enough for me.
Lens qeight. Someone else before said its not a big difference. I do not agree. Look at tele-lenses. A 200/2.8 lens, which would be like a 300/2.8 lens at the size even smaller than a ff-200mm/2.8 lens. Huge difference.
Camera and viewfinder can become smaller, and all together can be made for less money.
I think it would be great.
At the other side-those who needed MF before might now be happy with 35mm-size ff sensor.
D
Darren
Guest
This statement doesn't make sense - how does Nikon's smaller mount limit the size of the digital sensor given that the F-mount has been in use since time immemorial for the 35mm film cameras which is what we are basing FF 24x36mm argument on ...
a. You don't use same lenses with 10D and 1Ds for same purpose.
b. 1.6 x more DOF isn't actually that much of a difference
In short, here is what I did in my spread sheet:
Step 1. find Circle of Confusion for lens (0,035 = Canon Standard)
Step 2. calculate Hyperfocal Distance
Step 3. find the nearest DOF point
Step 4. find the farthest DOF point
The math:
http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html#math
But I don't usually take the same lens for 10D and film camera for the same purpose. 85 mm lens with film camera for portraits is replaced by 50 mm lens with 10D. The subject distance and FOV does not change. If max apertures happen to be different (1.8. vs 1.4) then those has to be take into DOF calc. All of this is a real world situation.
Cheers,
Matti J.
D
Darren
Guest
This statement doesn't make sense - how does Nikon's smaller opening/mount limit the size of the digital sensor given that the F-mount has been in use since time immemorial for the 35mm film cameras which is what we are basing FF 24x36mm argument on ...
Some answers please, and please share your reference points (eg. the few articles that you mention) ...
hyslopc
Senior Member
Did you really think I meant that the ISO setting increases the amount of light, like Canon has a link to the sun & clouds ;-)? Or a magnifying glass in the mirror box ;-)?
I didn't word my post very exactly, but I think we both agree that ISO (ie signal gain in hardware) is superior to underexposure (ie signal gain in software). It has to be, otherwise ISO would be disabled in RAW mode.
I didn't word my post very exactly, but I think we both agree that ISO (ie signal gain in hardware) is superior to underexposure (ie signal gain in software). It has to be, otherwise ISO would be disabled in RAW mode.
What about above ISO800 - have you run any tests comparing the 1Ds (downsampled) and the 1D? Phil's tests indicate that it blitzes the D60, but I wish he'd done a comparison with the 1D instead. I think you should start a new thread about this, Jason, since it is "common knowledge" that the 1Ds performs worse than the 1D at high ISOs, and if that's incorrect, then that misconception needs to be revealed.
D1H? You aren't the Jason I used to chat with endlessly about the D100 over in the Nikon forum, are you (before I bought a D60)?
hyslopc
Senior Member
I think it's about time someone collated all of Phil's ISO graphs together for all the Canon DSLRs and posted them here to end all of this rubbish about the 1Ds having high noise. I will do this later today.
Jason Hutchinson
Forum Pro
You're the first guy I've seen in the past 2.5 years here to try to prove the camera's DOF doesn't change much by limiting the apertures used on the lenses . In reality, the 35f/1.4, 85f/1.2, and 200f1.8 could have been used, and are more in line with the quality of the 1Ds, the only Canon full frame DSLR.
You have a little bit of a point with the 300f/2.8 comparison, since there is nothing that fast at that focal length, but then again that's not a focal length where limiting DOF is too critical (due to perspective blur) and it seemed somewhat over the top to go out of your way to pick an obsolete lens for the sake of an extra 1/3rd stop.
I think 1.6x less DOF is huge, and was blown away when I saw the full size samples from the 1Ds gallery. Have you looked at them full size? To put this number into perspective, the insurmountable DOF difference at these middle distances between a D60 and a P&S digicam is only about 2.5x.
Jason
You have a little bit of a point with the 300f/2.8 comparison, since there is nothing that fast at that focal length, but then again that's not a focal length where limiting DOF is too critical (due to perspective blur) and it seemed somewhat over the top to go out of your way to pick an obsolete lens for the sake of an extra 1/3rd stop.
I think 1.6x less DOF is huge, and was blown away when I saw the full size samples from the 1Ds gallery. Have you looked at them full size? To put this number into perspective, the insurmountable DOF difference at these middle distances between a D60 and a P&S digicam is only about 2.5x.
Jason
Mark126168
Active member
John,
I think you've very succinctly pointed out something that is very important to consider when comparing Nikon and Canon. Canon made a painful switch to an all-electronic, larger lensmount in 1987 (the EOS system) so that they would be positioned to weather the switch to digital imaging which we knew would be coming (even 16 years ago). To me, another beauty of the EOS system is that it is truly compatible accross the entire lens and camera line - you can take an EOS lens made in 1987 and put it on a 10D and it'll work perfectly. I realize that you can put a manual focus Nikkor from the mid 70's on a digital Nikon slr, but believe me your options are limited (probably need stop down metering, no display of data in viewfinder, etc.)
Canon invested in the future with the EOS system and they're actually the more compatible system now. I respect Nikon's loyalty to their user base, but it's hurting them now. One of the rare moments of forsight that I've had was the decision I made in the early 90's to switch to the EOS system (from the Nikon AF mount) - I've never regretted that decision. Canon's incredible R&D budget has never let me down.
my .02,
Mark
I think you've very succinctly pointed out something that is very important to consider when comparing Nikon and Canon. Canon made a painful switch to an all-electronic, larger lensmount in 1987 (the EOS system) so that they would be positioned to weather the switch to digital imaging which we knew would be coming (even 16 years ago). To me, another beauty of the EOS system is that it is truly compatible accross the entire lens and camera line - you can take an EOS lens made in 1987 and put it on a 10D and it'll work perfectly. I realize that you can put a manual focus Nikkor from the mid 70's on a digital Nikon slr, but believe me your options are limited (probably need stop down metering, no display of data in viewfinder, etc.)
Canon invested in the future with the EOS system and they're actually the more compatible system now. I respect Nikon's loyalty to their user base, but it's hurting them now. One of the rare moments of forsight that I've had was the decision I made in the early 90's to switch to the EOS system (from the Nikon AF mount) - I've never regretted that decision. Canon's incredible R&D budget has never let me down.
my .02,
Mark
Jason Hutchinson
Forum Pro
Sorry if I sounded picky, I didn't mean to be.
Well, you've sort of made a blanket comment because of one fact, but I do agree with your basic point. That being said, there are some very real advantages to the underexposure method vs. the ISO change.
For instance, take my ISO "400" shot above. Let's say the noise is slightly worse than a real ISO 400 shot, which is very likely. However, there is a distinct advantage to the push method, because now we have more highlight capability. That is, I can choose to "push" the lower levels and keep the highlights. This would compress a larger input or scene dynamic range into a smaller output range. This isn't what the exposure compensation software function does of course, as it just clips the highlights which retains the contrast of the original image for the most part.
Nope, I just thought the Dh1 was of interest lately due to the new D2h, which may take over the ISO crown.
Jason
HI
Many 1ds users complain that 1ds takes more time to write the picture files onto the compact flash. More pixels also mean that we need to upgrade our computers to better ones. The current computers might not be fast enough to process 1ds files. Maybe going FF is not as easy as we thought.
Many 1ds users complain that 1ds takes more time to write the picture files onto the compact flash. More pixels also mean that we need to upgrade our computers to better ones. The current computers might not be fast enough to process 1ds files. Maybe going FF is not as easy as we thought.
I was talking about real life situation, film vs. D10/D30/D60 line of cameras.
I am happy if you and lot of fellow photogs have all those fine & expensive lenses in reality. And I must agree: those would make a difference. Sadly, my reality in this respect is different.
My real life pairs (weight & cost) in my comparison were as stated:
- 50/1.4 matches nicely with 85/1.8
- 135/2 matches with 200/2.8
- and so on...
Cheers,
Matti J.
Jason Hutchinson
Forum Pro
By the same reality, most photographers don't have both the 135f/2 and the 200f/2.8 so they can have the same FOV between their cameras. In reality they'd probably just have one lens to cover that range of focal lengths, and in that case the 1Ds would provide them with less DOF.
As you don't to see from mine, which has been the general consensus of this forum. Most people don't have the money or time to go out and change every lens they own to the longer focal length equivalent when they upgrade to the latest full frame DSLR.
Jason
hm
Senior Member
All we can get. If it's more than I need most of the time, that's fine, it will be there on the rare occasions when I do need it.
Accepting film quality less than what medium format provides has always been a compromise. In return for inferior quality, we got smaller and cheaper camera bodies. But 35mm SLR camera bodies are small enough that the sensor isn't limiting the body size, and accepting inferior quality in the name of "small body" serves no purpose. We currently only accept small sensors as a compromise on price, and the price differential will drop over time. So the single motivation for small sensor SLRs is inherently fading.
Every large sensor has a small sensor in the middle of it, and high-resolution sensors can always down-sample in-camera when you want to, so arguments about the wonders of "focal length multipliers" and added depth of field and smaller file sizes are all irrelevant. You can do all these things with your full-frame camera, and when you don't want to do them (e.g. you want all of your 20MP and you want your 16mm lens to be 16mm), you're not forced to.
None of the small sensor DSLRs to date are any smaller than their film counterparts. The cost issue is obviously currently relevant, which is why we put up with these stupid small sensors, but that issue is fading, so there's not much point in "locking in" to such an architecture.
-harry
Yakuza!
Well-known member
That's funny. Well, if you can't toss around a measely 11MP file, you should get a new computer anyway! A $250 computer will RIP through a file that small!
Anyway, computers are one thing we know will continue to get faster. Bring on the megapixels. And besides, if your computer is 10 years old, and you can't afford a new one you probably won't be spending $6,500 on a camera!
Also, you aren't forced to shoot with a high MP count. So, when consumer camera's get a high MP count, you can still use your decade old machine.
Cheers,
Yakuza
P.S. I have no sympathy for people who even hint at slow photo performance on computers today. I was working with 500MB files on an 80mhz computer with 114MB of ram nearly a decade ago. Computers are FAST now.
Anyway, computers are one thing we know will continue to get faster. Bring on the megapixels. And besides, if your computer is 10 years old, and you can't afford a new one you probably won't be spending $6,500 on a camera!
Also, you aren't forced to shoot with a high MP count. So, when consumer camera's get a high MP count, you can still use your decade old machine.
Cheers,
Yakuza
P.S. I have no sympathy for people who even hint at slow photo performance on computers today. I was working with 500MB files on an 80mhz computer with 114MB of ram nearly a decade ago. Computers are FAST now.
Chad D
Senior Member
had to do with a bit of the above how the light hits the sensor and how the sensor needed more straight on view or something ?? could not remember exactly
but would cause soem problems it was doable but with quality loss ???
so maybe they didnt want to chance people putting on cheap lenses and then bitching that the camera sucks ??
you hear some of that now with the 1Ds
the math etc.. sounded like it was legit ???
something about the back focal distance ???
not sure if its correct or not ??? as I say time will tell just something I read
so if you know this was a hoax ????
which it could be ???
think it was on Photo.net and of course it could have been started out of false statements
hehehehehe
the one thing that makes me wonder is how Kodak did it then ????
so guess it most likely is a rumour ???
and sorry that I kept it going
unless its to try to standardize the 4/3 system or whatever they are calling it
and again that the quality might not have been what they wanted also this way they get to sell a new lens mount and make cheaper sensors meaning more profit ???
but I do remember reading a article that jumped off to a couple others
tried a google search but not much turned up ???
then again we thought quarks didnt exist and the world was flat at one time
Chad D
http://www.chaddahlquist.com
but would cause soem problems it was doable but with quality loss ???
so maybe they didnt want to chance people putting on cheap lenses and then bitching that the camera sucks ??
you hear some of that now with the 1Ds
the math etc.. sounded like it was legit ???
something about the back focal distance ???
not sure if its correct or not ??? as I say time will tell just something I read
so if you know this was a hoax ????
which it could be ???
think it was on Photo.net and of course it could have been started out of false statements
hehehehehethe one thing that makes me wonder is how Kodak did it then ????
so guess it most likely is a rumour ???
and sorry that I kept it going
unless its to try to standardize the 4/3 system or whatever they are calling it
and again that the quality might not have been what they wanted also this way they get to sell a new lens mount and make cheaper sensors meaning more profit ???
but I do remember reading a article that jumped off to a couple others
tried a google search but not much turned up ???
then again we thought quarks didnt exist and the world was flat at one time
--
Chad D
http://www.chaddahlquist.com
"... between their cameras". I shoot only digital, someone else only film. Single body per photographer is a reality in amateur world. There is nothing to switch. And talking about affording:
Photographer A .using film body can afford atleast one 200/2.8
Photographer B. using digital body can afford atleast one 135/2.0.
These two I was comparing. Now this does makes sense, doesn't it?
These pairs are nevertheless very good starting point for real life DOF calcs:
- 50/1.4 vs. 85/1.8
- 135/2 vs. 200/2.8
I have seen my basis for DOF comparison (50/1.4 vs. 85/1.8 etc.) accepted as well. Because it is no nonsense comparison at all, very down to earth realism indeed.
If they have money to "upgrade to the latest full frame DSLR", they probably have the money to buy whatever lens they want.
Most probably Canon will have the some 1.3 - 1.6 crop-factor DSRLs available for years and those will be the choice of the masses and FF DSLRs continue invading smaller pro markets.
Cheers,
Matti J.
hyslopc
Senior Member
What's that got to do with this thread? Why should he get a medium format camera when a FF digital would fit his needs better?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum