The first FF DSLR & ML

[GarysInSoCal]

Canon EOS-1Ds (2002) / Sony Alpha 7 (2013)

Canon EOS-1Ds (2002)

11.1 MP FF sensor ( 4064 x 2704 )

First Canon Digital FF

Price $8,000 US

Sony Alpha 7 (2013)

24 MP FF sensor (6000 x 4000)

First ML FF

Price: $1,700 US

And today... here's a 36mp superstar that will blow these two outta the water... easily available at MPB with a low megapixal count... for only $700+... and this camera is?

https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/nikon-d810

 

[Maoby]

The Nikon D810

Pentax 645D (2010) / Nikon D810 (2014)

www.instagram.com/maoby_digital_camera/

www.flickr.com

 

[GarysInSoCal]

The Nikon D810

https://www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157720176320620/

Exactly... and do you have any idea the difference in price between those 2 cameras that produce such similar images? It's quite substantial actually... ;-)




Shodire at the Select Models Cosplay shoot... a D810 image! ;-)

 

[Maoby]

Women seem dangerous in your area

 

[d3xmeister]

I'm sorry, but this kind of posts make FF look like some kind of cult. And you make it sound like photos made with all kind of other formats aren't that important. I'm sorry but I find none of those cameras changed anything significant for any serious photographers, like other cameras before them and after them they were just normal progression. There is nothing magic about the format itself, and it does not exist because it is the best, or the optimum, in digital it exists mainly because there were many lenses made for that film format.

Sensor size is probably the least important milestone in digital cameras, it was just a natural progression and evolution nothing groundbreaking.

 

[GarysInSoCal]

Canon EOS-1Ds (2002) / Sony Alpha 7 (2013)

Canon EOS-1Ds (2002)

11.1 MP FF sensor ( 4064 x 2704 )

First Canon Digital FF

Price $8,000 US

______________________

Sony Alpha 7 (2013)

24 MP FF sensor (6000 x 4000)

First ML FF

Price: $1,700 US

Have you had a chance to use one of these?

Nikon D810... Yaaaaaaay!

A few of these shot's also taken with a D810: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67931252

 

[boldcolors]

I'm sorry, but this kind of posts make FF look like some kind of cult. And you make it sound like photos made with all kind of other formats aren't that important. I'm sorry but I find none of those cameras changed anything significant for any serious photographers, like other cameras before them and after them they were just normal progression. There is nothing magic about the format itself, and it does not exist because it is the best, or the optimum, in digital it exists mainly because there were many lenses made for that film format.

Sensor size is probably the least important milestone in digital cameras, it was just a natural progression and evolution nothing groundbreaking.

I think you are reading too much into this. Cult, no. But let's be honest, back in the days when the 1Ds was released it was sort of groundbreaking. Most cameras had smaller sensors with lots of noise and low resolution. Even today images from the original 1Ds can look fantastic (if used in good-ish light).

Today the format difference is of course still very real but not as significant since smaller sensors have improved a lot and fast lenses have been developed accordingly for those who used to go for the shallower FF depth of field look. Fujifilm is good at this for example.

 

[d3xmeister]

I'm sorry, but this kind of posts make FF look like some kind of cult. And you make it sound like photos made with all kind of other formats aren't that important. I'm sorry but I find none of those cameras changed anything significant for any serious photographers, like other cameras before them and after them they were just normal progression. There is nothing magic about the format itself, and it does not exist because it is the best, or the optimum, in digital it exists mainly because there were many lenses made for that film format.

Sensor size is probably the least important milestone in digital cameras, it was just a natural progression and evolution nothing groundbreaking.

I think you are reading too much into this. Cult, no. But let's be honest, back in the days when the 1Ds was released it was sort of groundbreaking. Most cameras had smaller sensors with lots of noise and low resolution. Even today images from the original 1Ds can look fantastic (if used in good-ish light).

Today the format difference is of course still very real but not as significant since smaller sensors have improved a lot and fast lenses have been developed accordingly for those who used to go for the shallower FF depth of field look. Fujifilm is good at this for example.

Actually today the difference in noise and DR between APSC and FF is bigger than it was then. Also resolution. Cameras like the 1Ds and 5D original were just a bit cleaner and a bit more DR. And APSC cameras were a bit cleaner again with every new generation. Then FF again. I shot with those cameras it was nothing groundbreaking to be honest, they were maybe half a stop better or a third at best than what we had before, then new gen released and was better again and so on

 

[Maoby]

Just for you

Minolta RD-3000 (1999) / Nikon D810 (2014)

Minolta RD-3000 (1999) / Nikon D810 (2014)

dprevived.com/t/my-little-history-of-dslrml/2537/

www.flickr.com