-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
ultimatum
- Thread starter Ragnar Danneskjold
- Start date
11 MP across a 1.5 frame= 30KP/mm2
in a FF this would give a 25.7 MP sensor.
I don't understand why you would want a smaller sensor. The bigger the sensor the better the image quality, (and as a bonus a smaller DOF) This is true for any recording medium. This is why there are a wide variety of film formats, and is 35 mm film is considered the minimum for serious photgraphy. Why would this be different for digital?
There are problems: producing bigger sensors will have a lower yield, (and thus a hige price) managing these huge amounts of data will require powerfull processors and lots of storage, but these are exactly the things are evolving very fast in computer technology.
If Nikon would definitly choose not to go FF, they would be digging their own grave. In a few years producing a FF sensor will be no problem, and Canon would have the definitive advantage.
AdV
Yakuza
Well-known member
No one is buying the Kodak because it is a piece of cr@p. $5,000 may be $1,500 less than a 1Ds, but it's a waste of $5,000 if it doesn't work! Canon has no competition on that front, not to mention the 1D, which will be updated in several months. Canon has a lot of experience with CMOS, Kodak has made 1 camera with this technology, and they clearly don't know what they are doing. Canon's in-house CMOS development clearly is giving them the lead in DSLRs. The 10D is now prominently displayed on Apple's website. The d100? SD-9? Fuji S2? Nope.
Ripper103348
Well-known member
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
Yes. And I clean my CCDs with a Spockgrabber ;
Do you have Vulcan --
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guides to the Nikon D100, D1, D1h, & D1x and Fujifilm S2
http://www.bythom.com
Anthony Medici
Veteran Member
Anthony Medici
Veteran Member
peripheralfocus
Veteran Member
Right. So why would you want a 35mm sensor? Don't you want a 6 x 4.5cm sensor? No, wait, 4 x 5 inches is bigger, so the image quality is better. Better get one of those. Oh, but then there's 8 x 10" ...
The question is not what produces the best image quality in the abstract. The question is what produces the image quality that meets your needs, and how does it compare in price, features, performance, size, versatility, etc. to the other available options.
These forums seem to be filled with people who own 35mm format lenses who've suddenly become image quality absolutists. You know, the guys who were shooting medium and large format were kicking your ass. You never had the best image quality. You always had image quality that was just good enough, in a camera system that had other virtues like speed of operation, portability, and lower cost.
It's still true in digital. If image quality is the only thing that counts, go buy a Sinar 22. Or a scanning back. Or a three-shot camera.
If a new Nikon with an APS-sized sensor comes along and produces images that are good enough for the majority of users for whom the camera is designed, then that's all that matters. If it produces images that fall short of the expectations of a majority of those users, Nikon will pay a heavy price. But we won't know until the camera gets here.
Oy. Sorry for the rant.
squash
Leading Member
What do you want now, congratulations that you're magnanimous enough to withhold another slobbering, inane, off-topic posting?
Fortunately, the crescendo of interest in your Nikon bashing -- an orgy of self-doubt inflamed by you and other Canon partisans -- ended long ago, and the concrete has dried on the impression you've made. You don't have an audience here any more.
It's a pity you keep forgetting your own, explicitly stated resolve to leave this forum behind.
Fortunately, the crescendo of interest in your Nikon bashing -- an orgy of self-doubt inflamed by you and other Canon partisans -- ended long ago, and the concrete has dried on the impression you've made. You don't have an audience here any more.
It's a pity you keep forgetting your own, explicitly stated resolve to leave this forum behind.
Ripper103348
Well-known member
Yeah, and it's not childish to attack like vultures when someone breaks from the status quo.
You and squash come from the same sshole society.
You and squash come from the same sshole society.
sej1001
Senior Member
And here's why. I shoot Canon film, but don't have any expensive AF lenses. I have watched Nikon philosophy over the years and "for myself" I like some things they are doing. NO EXCUSE, for a former lens manufacturer to be, as you say, behind!! And they clearly are. But, they still have a philosophy of delivering pro level features in their less than top cameras. I don't want to lug a D1X or 1Ds. But, I want more advanced features..With canon you will have less in-camera control. Less flash sync control, less metering information and less consistant focusing. This is in my opinion and limited experience. The two most important areas...focus and metering. Especially, metering where the Nikon gives you real time information about metered subjects, instead of having to half press the shutter, just to find out the EV info...even on the EOS1Ds. No, big deal for some, but to me it is huge! The ability to slave a flash with both wireless remote or flash slave! The ability to use a prosumer backup cameras that have pro features like...manual flash metering (5700 yes, G3 no).
Think it through and maybe rent some equipment to compare, this is what I did. Don't lock on just one area. It's the whole system.
Think it through and maybe rent some equipment to compare, this is what I did. Don't lock on just one area. It's the whole system.
Zero
Leading Member
Actually I would, but then they don't fit inside a portable camera body.
How do you know good is good enough, until someone comes along and shows you better. For mankind, good enough is always a dynamic concept.
You had the ultimate film camera in the F5, don't you want a digital camera which can give you exactly that but records on a wafer of 1/0's as opposed to a wafer of film? ie same frame rate, same viewfinder, colour meter, same FOV, etc. I sure would. The 1D is more like a digital 1V than the 1Ds is, but one day we might see a marriage of the 1D and the 1Ds, and that is what the FF crowd is looking at. Memory and CPU speeds will catch up, as they always have. 35mm has been around 50 years or more. Give digital another 10 and see what we get.
--
Zero my hero
Smith Simon
Well-known member
Eamon,
the problem with this kind of argument is the you can apply it in reverse to 1.5x
...Right, so why would you want a 1.5x sensor. Don't you want a 2x sensor? No, wait, 2.5x is smaller, so the lightness/cheapness/speed/FOV crop of Dxxx lenses is better. Better get one of those. Oh, but there's 3x....
.....I've yet to see a post from someone who prefers FF saying that 1.5x is a totally nutty and ludicrous preference, or that Nikon should never make any more 1.5x cameras. Yet many pro 1.5x/anti-FF posts make this kind of claim against FF. The most ironic are the 'why are you so attached to an arbitrary 70 year old film standard?' which go on to display an even greater attachment to a 3 year old, and equally arbitrary, digital sensor size standard.
I am happy to accept 1.5x as the best sensor size choice currently for the majority of DSLR users (myself included). But I do not understand the vehemence with which a preference for the FF properties (eg. existing lens FOV and DOF), and a willingness to pay the FF premium, is derided and abused by some.
Similarly, the fact that Nikon have introduced one DX lens this year is cited as a reasosn why they would be suicidal and crazy to launch a FF DSLR. No-one ever says that because they launched 2 non-DX lenses (70-200VR and 24-120VR) they'd be crazy and suicidal to make any more 1.5x DSLR models.
The posts which express a preference for 1.5x I respect. The ones which imply that a preference for FF is moronic and irrational baffle me. I'd really like to know, why is it so annoying for someone to say they'd like a FF Nikon DSLR?
regards
simon
Smith Simon
Well-known member
Jono,
They have brought out a FF body since the DX lens announcement. It's the F75.
OK, it's not digital and I guess most of us are unlikely to buy it. But my point is that supporting both a FF and 1.5x choice is not necessarily incompatible.
People posting 'I will switch if Nikon don't make a FF' get jumped on the whole time. I coulnd't resist commenting on the first 'I will switch if they DO' post i've read!
....should the F75 been an APS film body to avoid 'muddying'?
regards
simon
Kevin Morris
Leading Member
Haven't these people ever heard of plastic bags! How hard is it to keep a supermarket plastic bag in one's pocket.
--
Tuktu Sijuktei
'Please tell me if the lens cap is on.'
I've been wondering the same thing. I can think of four reasons:
1. Certain people who like the long end sees a free lunch here. They forget that DOF changes and the wide end is still completely uncatered for. How long until we see a 14/2.8, 17/2.8 17-35/2.8, 24/1.4, 28-70/2.8 etc etc in 1.5x crop factor equivalents - and more important what will they cost (imagine a 7mm/f2.8 rectilinear design with a resolution reuirement of 1.5x that of the current 14/2.8) - Heck, the 1ds option might be cheaper in the end! Remember, Lens focal lengths have been developed to fit the general shooting needs of photographers over the years.
2. Blind brand loyalty: 'If Nikon wants it, it must be right'
3. Vested commercial interest. Guys like Nikon equipment pushers and -publishers who'd love you to change your equipment every few months or so.
4. The 'If it's newer it must be better' attitude. (Remember APS - its the same arguments all over again)
IMO 35mm was developed and over the years to give the optimum size/handling vs image quality. Quality is the one aspect which we can dramatically improve now - I would like to have MF quality in the same size body as my 35mm and using all my old lenses as is, is the ultimate! The 1.5x crop is a nice short term solution, but I hope Nikon won't commit themselves to that as the only solution. I think we have a better chance of seeing cheaper FF sensors and electronics in future than cheap ultra wide, ultra fast lenses.
Thys
Peter Phan
Senior Member
Furthermore, I find it troubling to see this '1.5x and nothing but' attitude, meaning that Nikon should do 1.5x, to the exclusion of everything else. Having FF would not detract from having 1.5x, nor would it necessarily make 1.5x less valid as an effective sensor format. In fact, Canon has three sensor sizes, 1.0x, 1.3x, and 1.6x, living in perfect harmony with one another. And it appears that they are continuing to develop and advance all three sensor formats. It's already rumored that the next Canon DSLR is going to have a new 1.3x sensor with a higher pixel count. And as Smith Simon said, if someone wants to pay more for what they see as the benefits of a FF camera, more power to them.
peripheralfocus
Veteran Member
Sure, but I did not advance the argument that an APS-sized sensor is better in the abstract and then support it with the reason that it will allow for more portable cameras.
In fact, I was trying to make the point that no single factor is determinative. It's always a balance of things like image quality vs. cost vs. size and handling vs. versatility vs. ... etc. etc. And the answer as to what the right balance is will be different for different folks. That's why so many different film formats existed side-by-side quite happily for so long.
So again, we need to see what the cameras actually do. What IS the balance of these factors in any given camera or camera system we're thinking of buying. In the case of image quality, we don't know yet what Nikon's next generation of DSLRs will produce. Nobody has shot with them yet.
And I think you may have misread my intentions as far as the 35mm-sized vs. APS-sized sensor debate goes. I have no dog in that fight. I really don't care. As I have said in other threads many times, my own strong suspicion is that at least Canon and Nikon will end up with cameras that use both sizes (roughly), at least for the next few years.
.......... your arguments for Nikon are the same as those used for the Canon gear, are you sure you're not mixed up?
Remember that Nikon have yet to market an “entry level” camera like the 10D, until you see what’s in this one cannot make a proper assessment. The D100 was a professional camera when launched, it’s merely migrated downwards with evolution and price squeezes.
Remember that Nikon have yet to market an “entry level” camera like the 10D, until you see what’s in this one cannot make a proper assessment. The D100 was a professional camera when launched, it’s merely migrated downwards with evolution and price squeezes.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum