Nikon and 35mm Full Frame Sensor? Nope

02/02/2006 03:18:56 AM · #28

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Why would you , as a photo studio house, compare the nikon to the 5d instead of teh 1ds Mark II? That doesn't seem to make sense at all...

Because, as you have stated already in multiple posts. As we approach the number of pixels in a Canon 1Ds mark II we would prefer to go medium format digital back or scan back. They offer superior file size for very large prints. But they are different formats.

Remember Brent, unlike a lot of crazy people out there...I do agree that when getting into situations needing medium format or larger...medium format is better :-) I frankly don't understand the arguements I see so much onthe internet about 35mm digital replacing medium format. Doesn't make sense.

In our case for this purchase, we were simply making a 35mm buying decision. 35mm meets our needs in multiple ways ...especially portability. Duratrans for Advil are usually produced in 20 x 30 sizes and we get great 35mm files for these. We sell $50,000 a year to Advil just in Duratrans half of those we can shoot 35mm or $25,000...we listen to their suggestions :-D

Our studio has every photo format available.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/02/2006 03:32:11 AM · #29

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
It's the photodiode size that matters in light collection, not the size of the entire bucket (pixel). Anyone know the differnece in photodiode sizes between D2X and 1DsMII?

The light bucket is the photosite...

If you follow Canon's little education piece located here..Canon Website info

Their description of a light "bucket" makes sense.....UNTIL they talk about noise introduced. Noise is not naturally inherent in an image. It is introduced by the process of capturing the image with glass and lenses and software and electronics.

Light fall off and chromatic aberations are noise introduced by the structure of 35mm mechanics just as much as the sensor and the various lenses on the sensor (not the big lenses..the microspic lenses).

Heat, electronic noise bleeding in, etc are all noise that can be seen. My argument is...those types of noise that ultimately determine photo quality are independent of photo sensor pixel size.

In a perfect world where you have no light falloff, chromatic aberations, electronic noise or heat noise..YES...a bigger "light bucket" makes a cleaner signal. But we all know there is no perfection in current digital imaging technology that the average consumer can afford in a 35mm camera.

I do applaud Canon though..they have really gone after the digital market and helped the whole industry push ahead a lot faster than anyone would have thought 5 years ago. I just don't agree with the full frame thing is all :-/

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 03:32:43.

radionin

Canon EOS-20D

02/02/2006 03:36:24 AM · #30

The bigger the sensor = a better camera take a look at hasslebalds digital backs the sensors are bigger then 35mm and who out there in there right mind wouldn't want that camera. I have seen one in action very amazing!

Fixed spelling

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 03:41:18.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

02/02/2006 04:04:55 AM · #31

Originally posted by radionin:

Actually, the pixel pitch in the Hassy (the actual size of the pixels ) is comparable to what is available from everyone else 6-10 microns I believe.

Its just that the Hassy has about twice the real estate and nealy 2-1/2 the pixel COUNT..which aids in resolution on big prints. You cannot see that resolution in 8x10's.

And..the Hassy is actually LESS sensitive than Canon and Nikon..only offering up to iso 400. But it does produce big magazine fashion shots, not anything due to pixel size.

blemt

Nikon D70

02/02/2006 07:51:34 AM · #32

As a reminder, keep this discussion on topic and civil please. :)

This is actually a very valuable discussion. I'm quite sure that folks would appreciate it if we could get the technical data being discussed here WITHOUT this turning into a Nikon/Canon holy war.

What's interesting about this is how it all ties in to the consumer end cameras as well. In some retail corners there's a perception that Canon is going to start losing market share rapidly because they are not paying attention to what people actually want.

As an example, in Japan, Casio is nipping at their heels very agressively.

Picture quality is important, but having a flexible camera system is also important. Nikon feels the APS-C sensor gives more flexability. The D2X is an ideal camera for a freelancer because it can move between both worlds.

Once the D200 is out in larger production, it's going to be interesting to see how that impacts the SLR market.

The 5d is a GREAT camera, no doubt. But again, not every application needs a full frame...

Just food for thought.:)

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

02/02/2006 09:42:14 AM · #33

A 24x36mm sensor appeals to me because it means a wider FOV. But then, I like shooting WA a lot more than I like tele.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

02/02/2006 10:02:59 AM · #34

contest!

02/02/2006 10:03:03 AM · #35

I know when camera discussions get technical many consumers eyes just glaze over.

Most people just want a camera that takes crisp, clear photos and with the features they want. Heck, there are lots of brands and models that meet most consumers needs right now!

I was going to get into the whole, long story about how I came to switch from Canon to Nikon but, frankly, who cares?

The bottom line, we are living in a DIGITAL world now...not film. Remember how TV's went from the 4:3 aspect ratios to Wide Screen? At first people said "Ohhh, I like my old TV screen dimensions"...but...look who won out...and it should be the same with film versus digital.

Digital is merciless when exposing the fuzzy, rough edges we lived with for so long in film body cameras and lenses. We have to allow ourselves to think differently...Don't allow marketing crap from any company....Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Sony, Leica,...whoever....to keep us from learning and developing digital in the best way.

What I hope? In my world...I need the things 35mm format size camera bodies give me...

1) Great Camera Body...A big and strong enough camera body to give me a large imaging area AND hold batteries that last a long time AND is sturdy enough to handle the rigors of everyday shooting but is small enough to handle with one hand. Check...lots of good bodies out there

2) Speed...I must have a camera with fast reflexes both in shutter speed, frames per second, autofocusing and in iso selection Check..good choices there too

3) Dynamic Range...I don't have time to bracket shots for every occasion nor do I want to spend hours fiddling with underxposed shots and dance around trying not to blow the highlights. If my eye sees it..let the camera see it too. Hmmmmm..we have a ways to go here

4) Resolution....I need 35mm film size at least. The mechanical structure of 35mm bodies..which I like for lots of reasons listed above....is going to limit us here. 10-11 megapixels and above is great. Would 20 megapixels be good? Yeah..BUT...you have to handle those large files ..AND..how big are you going to output? Having 20 megapixels and being able to use 20 megapixels are 2 different things. Plus, the optics..you know..the glass..has to be able to resolve that detail.

The Nikon D2x is starting to show us what happens when you get too much pixel density in what is supposed to be a handheld camera...Difficulty in being able to resolve those very small pixels not only due to optics but how you secure the camera!!!!! To get absolute maximum resolution from my D2x I have to think tripod and one stop slower than usual. That is not a great thing to have to do in a format like 35mm which is built around flexibility. This reason right here is what makes me pause about making pixel sizes any smaller..not the quality of the noise or lack of noise..but the ability to physically extract all the resolution that is there in a format designed for handholding and quick reflexes

Anyway...See the pandora's box all this tech opens up? Things a lot of people didn't even think about 3 years ago!

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

02/02/2006 10:04:43 AM · #36

Originally posted by muckpond:

contest!

You are so wrong here man....

So nothing being said here has any worth?

muckpond

Nikon D200

02/02/2006 10:06:28 AM · #37

Originally posted by hokie:

So nothing being said here has any worth?

i didn't say it had no worth.

Gringo

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/02/2006 10:28:53 AM · #38

Hokie, Brent,

This was a great read.
Iâ��d love to see more â��photographyâ�� type discussion in the forums here.

Thanks!

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

02/02/2006 10:39:25 AM · #39

alright, since i apparently tanked the debate in a failed humor attempt, i'll try to get it started again.

i don't like to see comparisons to film in discussions like this because they ARE completely night and day.

and i also agree that at some point in time they are going to have to quit focusing on the number of megapixels and increase the dynamic range of the sensor sizes that they use now. i think that's a very valid point.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

02/02/2006 10:52:50 AM · #40

Originally posted by blemt:

... In some retail corners there's a perception that Canon is going to start losing market share rapidly because they are not paying attention to what people actually want. ...

That is a good thing for consumers. And the best interests of consumers, on more than just the pro level, is where I believe hokie's thinking is coming from. Thanks hokie.

petrakka

02/02/2006 10:56:15 AM · #41

just curious how people would be thinking of this if aps film used to be the standard? I hated the stuff for its goofy 4x7 ration but everyone compares everything to the sensor size of a 35 mm. I would want the quality of that.

I guess its just a good reference point for debate, but in for practical purposes I would think maybe debating which prints a better (or are they even noticeably different) 16x20. I don't think 35 mm really should ever be enlarged past that point anyways, but again like I said before, I'm a fan of smaller prints.

This is a good read though like mentioned before.
Too bad I've never had the chance to work with any of these hi-res digital bodies, I would like to at some point.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

02/02/2006 11:00:08 AM · #42

Originally posted by muckpond:

Sorry to get testy :-/ I know you didn't mean to anything but a lighthearted jab. Working in front of a computer for 3 days straight on a new ad design is not my thing..I'm getting cabin fever. >:-(

What I hope lots of people out there take from this thread is...don't let the consumer turf war that is going on between camera companies confuse the important issues.

Look at the pressure being put on manufacturers...Minolta/Konica goes under, Leica is going after more digital, Sony is stepping up, Kodak is finally getting some more R&D, Pentax is pushing and Nikon is dropping film all together!

Zeiss is even going to start putting more pressure on the optics industry side which is LONG overdue.

Wow!!!

When this kind of activity is happening in the marketplace a lot of marketing hype is bound to happen.

What about vibration control? For the average consumer this is a huge development and to have it in camera is a big plus.

I could not see someone like me changing from my 12 megapixel camera to gain full frame or more pixels. But..if I made my living shooting architecture or landscape...a living not a hobby....I could see buying full frame to add to my gear.

Give me dynamic range like a persons eye...Woah!... I might have to drop some more coin because of the implications to my everyday workflow...it would buy me more time and better results in one swoop.

I would add a Canon body to my gear if they came out with a revolutionary improvement in dynamic range that Nikon didn't have.

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 11:02:03.

coolhar

02/02/2006 11:11:03 AM · #43

At one time I though Fuji was going to be the leader in advancing dynamic range. But that time seems to have past without the advances we were hoping for. The Pro3 was a big disappointment.

And much as I envy Olympus for it's SonicWave Filter, I'd really like to see some more technological advances in the area of defeating sensor dust.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/02/2006 11:50:41 AM · #44

Seems to me that many in the Canon camp believe that because of falling FF sensor costs that the future ONLY holds FF camera bodies. Imo, the point of a discussion such as this is to show that in different situations different systems will be advantagous and different systems will coexist, possibly with individuals and businesses using different systems for different purposes. This seems to be especially possible given that the costs of digital cameras systems are already coming down in price. D50 can be had for $500. Olympus E-300 2 lens kit can be had for $650, as just a couple of examples. Fierce compettion will bring out about price wars and so photographers will be able to afford two systems, or more! Why should a photographer have to give up the long end with a FF camera if he/she does not shoot wide, or vice versa?

35mm legacy lenses also do not have the resolution required for smaller sensors, but if you build new lenses with the higher resolutions required by smaller pixels, you can take advantage of the smaller sized pixels. But many people don't want to purchase new lenses. Also, don't forget that a smaller sized sensor gives greater DOF allowing for some error in focusing and also allows a larger aperture to be used, increasing light transmitance and without sacrificing quality.

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 11:57:04.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

02/02/2006 12:14:49 PM · #45

i'd like to point out that cameras can currently see at about 1500:1 contrast ratio, or about 10.6 stops, the human eye can only see between 100-1000:1 (100:1 being under 7 stops) on the retina at any given instant. However, when the eye moves there are changes which allow a 10,000-30,000:1 ratio or 13+ stops. The most amazing part is that because of the changing of the size of the pupil, which can change the amount of light taken in by 600x (giving about an iso of 1 in the brightest light) we can see at a range between 1,000,000-10,000,000:1 contrast which is up to about 23 stops. How long do you think it will be for a camera to match that? But hey, the cameras are already beating us at any given instant so you got your wish hokie.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

02/02/2006 01:21:39 PM · #46

Originally posted by muckpond:

The standard that digital is compared to is film. Until digital blows away all teh popular formats of film it will always be compared by the people who started out shooting film.

So they may be night and day, but the comparison is valid.