| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/11/2005 10:04:20 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
... I must point out that even though he purports to be exploring digital, the only reason he does so is to BASH IT.
His arguments are so deeply personal to him and the rest of the FILM CULT that I can not comment further. It would be a waste of time. |
Can you dispute the points he's making in the article though? |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 10:18:07 PM · #27 |
I've read about Canon's migration to FF sensors on a website. It came from a Canon head dude and I can't remember the site. Sorry.
As we can all see, Canon (which currently leads the industry in sales) is dedicated to producing consumer grade FF camera (5D). The price of FF sensor and FF cameras will come down. Remember, less than two years ago, entry level dSLR MSRP was $1000 and up. Now there are more capable machine like the Nikon D50 and KM 5D with MSRP of $750. In a few years, FF sensor camera prices will come down to an "affordable" level. According to that interview, they said only the entry Canon dSLR will have a cropped sensor. As for why they would sell lenses for cropped sensor if they didn't plan on it's long life. It's because of money in my opinion. Lens maker will sell what the market wants. Neither they nor we can really determine where the dSLR market will go.
As for whether we really need FF sensors or not, my personal feeling is that no for most of us. However, people want bigger, better, newer. That's why we had the new crop of 8mp digicams with super high noises when compared to the 5mp digicams that they replace a year ago. People will want a "Full" sized stuff rather than some "cropped down" sensor without knowing what that means. How many would opt for a V8 engine vs. a 4 cylinder engine without knowing more about the differing engines?
I'm glad I've only one lens for a cropped sensor, as I think we are starting to see the rise of FF sensors. I think in about 10 years, cropped sensor will go the way of the APS film cameras. And I personally think the cropped sensor is an excellent idea for telephoto shooters.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 10:23:39 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
... I must point out that even though he purports to be exploring digital, the only reason he does so is to BASH IT.
His arguments are so deeply personal to him and the rest of the FILM CULT that I can not comment further. It would be a waste of time. |
Can you dispute the points he's making in the article though? |
No. And I would never try to convert anyone from one religion to another either.
Any attempt to rebut his "facts" would amount to the same thing.
I don't mean to be difficult or evasive, but Mr. Puts doesn't have a single technical reference on his site. It's all twisted journalism to uphold the notion that FILM is somehow PURE AND HOLY, and DIGITAL is DIRTY AND OF THE DEVIL.
You should stay away from him and the rest of the FILM CULT.
Seriously.
Message edited by author 2005-10-11 22:26:14. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 10:24:47 PM · #29 |
The article is highly slanted, though it contains some fact. Certainly it takes a larger lens to cover a 24x26 sensor than a 15.7x22 sensor, and avoid vignetting and fall-off in resolution. He maintains, however, that for some reason a lens capable of covering a 24x36mm silicon sensor needs, for some strange reason, to be very much larger than a lens designed to cover 24x36mm film (WTF?). Although it *may* be true that digital sensors are slightly more sensitive to off-axis light, today, this will change, heck IS changing, and is a ver minor consideration at best
Most of his conclusions are between misleading and dead wrong. He's completely at odds with many respected sources who have done the comparisons, not just spouted dubious interpretations of theory.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 10:27:41 PM · #30 |
BTW Fritz,
How do you like the 5D?
When are you coming to LA?
Here's some shots of Universal Studios I took this afternoon, after finishing my jury survice by lunch.
//yido.smugmug.com/gallery/877122
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 10:57:33 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by yido:
BTW Fritz,
How do you like the 5D?
When are you coming to LA?
Here's some shots of Universal Studios I took this afternoon, after finishing my jury survice by lunch.
//yido.smugmug.com/gallery/877122 |
I flippin' LOVE the 5D! Problem is, it's got me thinking about some very expensive glass, LOL.
Coming to LA is another story. My impending job change means my travel schedule will change up, though it still will be 35-40%. I'm pretty sure I'll make to LA at least once per year, probably in the winter though.
Love the Universal Studios shots! Heck, 17mm is pretty darn wide on the 1DMKII, eh? It's wider than what I've currently got for the 5D (24mm) by a little bit. Well, I do have the 15mm fish, but on the 5D, that thang's REALLY fishy. Hmmm, fish... California... now I'm hungry for a fish taco, LOL.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 11:07:21 PM · #32 |
Ah, sorry to hear that 24mm is the widest non fish lens you have. Then tamron 17-35 is a good lens and relatively cheap too, hint hint.
As for me, it's still not wide enough and plan on getting a Sigma 15mm fisheye once it comes out in DG version.
Well, hope to see you out here this winter, lets hope for warm weather when you get here.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 11:35:56 PM · #33 |
Heh, well, I do have a Tamron 19-35, the predecessor to the 17-35. It is an inexpensive lens, and on the 10D it performed well beyond its price. On the 5D, however... YUCK. Unusable. The 17-35 is supposed to be much better. I'd like to try one out someday ;-)
24mm is pretty wide on FF, though, equivalent to about 18.5mm on 1.3-crop. Covers about 70 degrees horizontally.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/20/2025 10:43:44 AM EDT.
