Help Me Understand......

[BroLuke]

Hi,

I'm venturing back into digital photography. Being a life long Nikon guy (1st camera a Nikkormat!) I got a D70 then D200 without doing much research.

Now I'm online and hanging here a DPR trying to learn more.

Of course much of it is based upon arguing brands..on the Nikon side anyway..

One of the issues...my only even minor gripe is Canons clear advantage in high, 800+ iso photography. I don't do much of this sort of thing and have been able to work around it but to my meager knowledge the difference seemed to be based upon the FF sensor of Canon dslr's.

The Mark III will be the 1st Canon I paid attention to upon release as it's garnered quite a bit of interest.

But I just discovered it's an APS-H sensor with a 1.3 lens conversion factor.

Is there to be 2 models, one with FF one APS?

Hmm maybe I'm misinformed...I thought the Mark III will be about $4700....is that so? That seems like a lot based upon recent trends...

The funny part is, if you don't know, many Nikon guys are always threatening to go Canon unless Nikon releases a FF dslr!

Oh well...No matter I'm happy with my D200 and guess what i just remembered my 1st camera was a Canon so I have a soft spot for Canon and think they're cool!

Thanks,

Bro.Luke

 

[Tim Devine]

You posted your confusion on both the Canon and Nikon forums. I'm sure somebody will help you figure things out.

-Tim

 

[BroLuke]

You posted your confusion on both the Canon and Nikon forums. I'm
sure somebody will help you figure things out.

-Tim

Yea I did..

I'm real curious....

I've browsed over a here a few times but never seen the debate about FF raging like the Nikon forum...

I assume the advantage Canon has must be software based...or perhaps it's an inherint quality of the cmos sensor being easier on the noise...but I think one of the D2?'s has a cmos sensor and no better high iso results...

I hope I don't come off like a troll. Sure some of my posts in the Nikon forum may be a bit nikoncentric but that's certainly not my intension here.

Just trying to weed through all the nonsense....

BL

 

[Frank Benvenuto]

You posted your confusion on both the Canon and Nikon forums. I'm
sure somebody will help you figure things out.

-Tim

Why not someone here in the Canon forum? There have been recent threads touting the merits of FF... Yet Canon's newest "marvel" is a crop job.. You certainly have to admit this is interesting to say the least. I would like to see some Canon users comment on this.. Expecially all those that commented in the FF vs Cropped sensor thread..

--
Subject and Composition Trumps Any Camera Flaws.
Frank Benvenuto

 

[J_M]

i don't see it as a FF issue, I see the big difference is that Canon has a clear path with their own sensors, Nikon doesn't and is reliant upon 3rd party vendors. It's no longer a question of bodies and lenses. Personally I still like Nikon bodies and lenses so if that was the case I wouldn't have jumped ship. The technological lead that Canon has over Nikon gave me the comfort to buy into their products.

good luck with your decision.

 

[Frank Benvenuto]

i don't see it as a FF issue, I see the big difference is that
Canon has a clear path with their own sensors, Nikon doesn't and is
reliant upon 3rd party vendors.

I'm not sure where that's a bad thing. I believe that would be called flexibility. Besides, Sony is not a second rate "third party vendor"? Heck, Sonys is bigger then Canon.. aren't they?

Just the very fact that the Mark III is a cropped sensor bacically says Canon is NOT throwing out the technology that is cropped sensors.. Otherwise you would have seen a FF in the Mark III

--
Subject and Composition Trumps Any Camera Flaws.
Frank Benvenuto

 

[BroLuke]

i don't see it as a FF issue, I see the big difference is that
Canon has a clear path with their own sensors, Nikon doesn't and is
reliant upon 3rd party vendors. It's no longer a question of bodies
and lenses. Personally I still like Nikon bodies and lenses so if
that was the case I wouldn't have jumped ship. The technological
lead that Canon has over Nikon gave me the comfort to buy into
their products.

good luck with your decision.

I believe one of the D2?'s sports a Nikon built sensor....

I'm sure either Nikon or Canon would jump all over a 3rd party ground breaking sensor and break ranks with their current trends...at least I would hope so!

Sometimes I get the feeling that the "perfect" 40mp sensor is sitting on the shelf somewhere but the companies have watched us upgrade every other year and are smartly dolling out technology with an eye dropper.

BL

 

[JohnnyRX7]

i don't see it as a FF issue, I see the big difference is that
Canon has a clear path with their own sensors, Nikon doesn't and is
reliant upon 3rd party vendors.

I'm not sure where that's a bad thing. I believe that would be
called flexibility. Besides, Sony is not a second rate "third party
vendor"? Heck, Sonys is bigger then Canon.. aren't they?

sensors are second rate.. TV's too.. PS3 is also.. shall I continue. This coming from someone with $$$$$'s in sony stuff too, so take it for what it's worth.

Just the very fact that the Mark III is a cropped sensor bacically
says Canon is NOT throwing out the technology that is cropped
sensors.. Otherwise you would have seen a FF in the Mark III

No one ever said they would abandon 1.3 so I dont see your point. The "s" will come eventually and be packed with a FF sensor and even more technology.

--
Subject and Composition Trumps Any Camera Flaws.
Frank Benvenuto

--
Johnny

 

[Lay Lo May]

Who actually told you the 1D MkIII is a FF camera? I think you just got it mixed up with the 1Ds model.

As to your comment regarding $4.7k being too much for a 1.3x camera, that's just subjective. One can also argue $4k is a lot of money to pay for a D2X (which is 1.5x - so $ mm, the D2X actually costs more)

 

[greentoe]

First, the 1D series (original, MkII, and MkIII) use what Canon calls an APS-H size sensor. It is a crop of the traditional 35mm frame, and was originally 1.25x but in the MkIII is approximately 1.28x . To clarify the "crop" issue, if the traditional 35mm frame dimension had a diagonal of 43mm, then the APS-H sensor's diaganol measurement would be about 43mm / 1.28. For choosing a lens, you can effectively multiply the focal length by 1.28 to get an equivalent FOV compared to your old film cameras.

Secondly, Canon makes their own sensors (designs and fabricates), and have pushed the envelope on sensor design more than any other camera maker. So, the larger size of the sensor (APS-H) compared to the Nikon DX size, and the better electronics and design of the sensor, gives Canon an strong competitive advantage when needing to shoot in available light.

Now, some people who are wide angle lovers may not like the APS-H size, as the EF (Canon lens mount) WA zoom lenses only go down to 16mm, which on an APS-H sensor does not yield as wide a view as on a FF sensor (1Ds series, 5D, etc.) However, many available light shooters are long focal length lovers and thus are not so concerned about this effect.

Finally, the Canon image processing software is not as sophisticated as Nikon's top offering, but Nikon makes you pay extra and the Canon software is included in the box and updated fairly often.

-gt

 

[Donald Cooper]

Since you're trolling, I'll bite:

Two reasons. One is that it's not FF because Canon can't process that size of an image, at that bit depth, at 10 fps. Yes FF would be better than 1.3x. Unfortunately at the moment you have to pick -- great high ISO images at FF and 4-5 fps -- or great high ISO images at 1.3X and 10 fps. Then again, don't you think that either of those options beats lously high ISO images at 2X?

The second reason is that a larger sensor costs more. Putting a FF sensor in the camera would significantly drive up the price, which isn't normally warmly received.

Hmmmm......... Now that I think about it, you Nikon guys don't seem overly bothered by getting ripped off when you pay so much for those small 1.5X sensors. I don't think I'd be enamored of paying for five pounds of sugar and getting three.

Why not someone here in the Canon forum? There have been recent
threads touting the merits of FF... Yet Canon's newest "marvel" is
a crop job.. You certainly have to admit this is interesting to say
the least. I would like to see some Canon users comment on this..
Expecially all those that commented in the FF vs Cropped sensor
thread..

 

[Frank Benvenuto]

Two reasons. One is that it's not FF because Canon can't process
that size of an image, at that bit depth, at 10 fps. Yes FF would
be better than 1.3x. Unfortunately at the moment you have to pick
-- great high ISO images at FF and 4-5 fps -- or great high ISO
images at 1.3X and 10 fps. Then again, don't you think that either
of those options beats lously high ISO images at 2X?

The second reason is that a larger sensor costs more. Putting a FF
sensor in the camera would significantly drive up the price, which
isn't normally warmly received.

Hmmmm......... Now that I think about it, you Nikon guys don't seem
overly bothered by getting ripped off when you pay so much for
those small 1.5X sensors. I don't think I'd be enamored of paying
for five pounds of sugar and getting three.

Why not someone here in the Canon forum? There have been recent
threads touting the merits of FF... Yet Canon's newest "marvel" is
a crop job.. You certainly have to admit this is interesting to say
the least. I would like to see some Canon users comment on this..
Expecially all those that commented in the FF vs Cropped sensor
thread..

Sorry friend. You got that wrong.. I am not trolling. Read my messages when I am here in the Canon forum. They are not and never have been of the trolling nature.. Stop throwing around that word everytime a Nikon used visits Canon..

--
Subject and Composition Trumps Any Camera Flaws.
Frank Benvenuto

 

[Frank Benvenuto]

Hmmmm......... Now that I think about it, you Nikon guys don't seem
overly bothered by getting ripped off when you pay so much for
those small 1.5X sensors. I don't think I'd be enamored of paying
for five pounds of sugar and getting three.

Donald,

Do you think the current price of $4299 for a D2Xs is a rip off?

Subject and Composition Trumps Any Camera Flaws.
Frank Benvenuto

 

[Frank Benvenuto]

sensors are second rate.. TV's too.. PS3 is also.. shall I
continue. This coming from someone with $$$$$'s in sony stuff too,
so take it for what it's worth.

Why? because you say they are? You think Sony XBR TV's are junk? What do you know about the PS3?

--
Subject and Composition Trumps Any Camera Flaws.
Frank Benvenuto

 

[BroLuke]

Who actually told you the 1D MkIII is a FF camera? I think you just
got it mixed up with the 1Ds model.
As to your comment regarding $4.7k being too much for a 1.3x
camera, that's just subjective. One can also argue $4k is a lot of
money to pay for a D2X (which is 1.5x - so $ mm, the D2X actually
costs more)

Yea I was confused...

Here's the thing..my photography has been taking me more towards landscape work where I don't need high fps or high iso particularly....

Things like low noise and wide angle pique my interest.

Frankly to me $2k is a lot of money. My best work came on an old F3 which I paid $300 for. Added about $1000 in glass and I did everything I wanted....Now it seems we are are constantly dealing with compromises..

But I've been intrigued with Canons offerings and refuse to argue one brand over the other...especially as a "visitor".

My meager education dealing with digital cameras has taught me a FF will work better for IQ which is what interests me.

I had just thought FF and high fps had married in the MkIII.

I fall on the side of the fence that wants an easy to use camera. Reliable, sturdy, weather sealed. I want it to take BIG pictures that will allow me to print big. I want these images accurate and need little PP tweaking, I want them to reflect my vision of reality.

I'd rather pay my money for an excellent sensor and you can keep the bells and whistles...

Sure I shop Nikon 1st and they have been finding the best compromise in my price range.

BTW You can't complain about Nikon software costing $150 then glance over a $700 price differential..but agree Nikon should be shipping NX with it's cameras or at least a 1/2 price deal.....

Pax

BL

 

[Ed]

Seems to me competition dictates they put out the best they can, whenever they can. Nikon will even put out a far less expensive DSLR that does better whathaveyou (high ISO) than their flagship camera.

So far as Canon and Nikon goes, I use both. I'm not so in love with the 5D that I use it any more than the Nikons. Yeah, it has a few tricks up its sleeve, but it isn't that important. For most of the flash lit work I do, the D2X does a better job. Maybe my 5D is flawed. If it is, that's a reason to ponder brand loyalty so far I'm concerned.

The Mark III is tempting of course, but I'll wait til I can try one out. Not to mention for Canon to work out any bugs.

i don't see it as a FF issue, I see the big difference is that
Canon has a clear path with their own sensors, Nikon doesn't and is
reliant upon 3rd party vendors. It's no longer a question of bodies
and lenses. Personally I still like Nikon bodies and lenses so if
that was the case I wouldn't have jumped ship. The technological
lead that Canon has over Nikon gave me the comfort to buy into
their products.

good luck with your decision.

I believe one of the D2?'s sports a Nikon built sensor....

I'm sure either Nikon or Canon would jump all over a 3rd party
ground breaking sensor and break ranks with their current
trends...at least I would hope so!

Sometimes I get the feeling that the "perfect" 40mp sensor is
sitting on the shelf somewhere but the companies have watched us
upgrade every other year and are smartly dolling out technology
with an eye dropper.

BL

 

[Keitht134106]

Sorry friend. You got that wrong.. I am not trolling. Read my

messages when I am here in the Canon forum. They are not and never
have been of the trolling nature.. Stop throwing around that word
everytime a Nikon used visits Canon..

--
Subject and Composition Trumps Any Camera Flaws.
Frank Benvenuto

Ignore them Frank. There are some on this forum who automatically assume that use of the N word makes the poster a troll. It's worrying really that some are so blinkered that they can't see that there may be good cameras produced by people other than Canon.
By the way, I have been a Canon user for years.
--
Regards

Keith

 

[evingrant]

Do you think the current price of $4299 for a D2Xs is a rip off?

Not at all, it's an especially competent camera that has perhaps the best per pixel sharpness of any sensor in a DSLR. That might give it less than perfect ISO 1600 images but the majority of professional photography happens at ISO 400 and below. I rutinely blow up and crop D2x images to 22"x44" and need the best wide angle zooms available. There is nothing in the Canon full frame line that can compete with the D2x and a 12-24DX + 18-200VR Combo. Even the new 16-35mmL II is no better performer than the 17-40 f4. There are very real advantages to the DX format, just like there are very real advantages to the FF sensor. When Nikon comes out with thieir FF D3x (Or whatever) at least my 17-35mm Nikkor will be able to handle it.

OK you can blast me for trolling now

 

[Staale S]

The Mark III will be the 1st Canon I paid attention to upon release
as it's garnered quite a bit of interest.

But I just discovered it's an APS-H sensor with a 1.3 lens
conversion factor.

Is there to be 2 models, one with FF one APS?

Hmm maybe I'm misinformed...I thought the Mark III will be about
$4700....is that so? That seems like a lot based upon recent
trends...

Well, at least for the mk1 and mk2 1D's, Canon released paired versions. One sports-shooter/general purpose "1D" variant with 1.3 crop sensor and high rate of fire and an affordable price (for suitably marginal values of "affordable"), and one more specialist studio/nature-shooter full-frame "1Ds" variant with only 3 frames per second,full frame and a price-tag that only a mother could love. Odds are that they will stick to this formula this time around too.

As for the price... the plain'ol 1D, mark nothing, cost around 6,000 bucks when it was new. My guess is that the price of the 1D3 is likely to fall to around current Mk2N levels over time. Give it a year or two.

 

[Juli Valley]

The 1D mkIII is a crop of 1.3. There is a 1DsmkII that is full frame which should be updated soon. Very expensive. The 5D is the only FF that is reasonably priced by Canon.
--
Juli
http://www.pbase.com/julivalley/galleries
Canon FiveDee, Canon 2oD, Canon Gee3, and Canon S7o, Fuji Eff30.