| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/09/2004 08:47:10 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Now I know I'm throwing this out to a bunch of professionals here, but I'll say it anyway. If you're going to buy all new glass for a whole new system, why not consider the 4/3rds system by Olympus? The pros on DPReview seem very happy with the E-system so far, the lenses are smaller, albeit there's a 2x crop factor, but they claim that wide angles are sharp edege to edge, corner to corner, and there's better dynamic range. Olympus puts out L quality glass, and though there isn't such a big stable of lenses out now, they have plans for releasing 5 or 6 new lenses in the coming year, as are Sigma. The lenses aren't cheap though, but then again Canon L lenses aren't either. And, you wouldn't have to worry about dust! You could keep your Nikon stuff for the time being and then invest slowly in the new Olympus system. Ok, I'm done, you can start throwing curses and slurs now...lol |
The E-1 is a very good camera but to tell the truth you will have a hard time selling it here. Don't know why though. Maybe because it does not begin with a C or an N (-: The truth of the matter is price wise if you look at image and build quality the E-1 is the best camera out there in it's price range. I do a lot of event shooting rain or shine and the E-1 is splash and dust proof which is a must for me. The only real draw back I can see with the E-1 is the noise at the higher ISO's but I almost never shoot past 800 so it is not a problem for me. They do, however, clean up very nice with Neat Image. All the cameras out there now produce great images and it really is a matter of preference. What you want to do and what you need in a camera but, never rule out the 4/3 system until you at least try one. Go to the store and pick one up see what you think. I think one would be crazy to buy into a new system without checking all that is available. I can't wait to see what the E-3 will be like. Sounds like a great camera.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 09:13:20 AM · #27 |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 11:08:38 AM · #28 |
Let's face the facts here: 1) nobody but Canon and Kodak offer a full-frame 35mm sensor. 2) if you want high-resolution, noise-free images, the bigger the photo-sites are, the better. Cramming 10 or 12MP into a small sensor is not the same as putting them onto a full-frame sensor. I'll take a 4MP Canon 1D over any 8MP "prosumer" camera any day. 3) if you're shooting full-frame, you need "full size" 35mm lenses from Canon... especially if you are thinking of picking up an EOS 1V to shoot chrome with.
That's all well and good that Olympys has their little 4/3 system. But if you want to buy into a lens system that will grow with you as technology marches on and full-frame becomes more affordable, Canon is the choice. Just look at these pictures from the the Olympics in Athens. It was dominated by white lenses. Estimates are that Canon has 75-80% of the pro DSLR market, and is growing as more and more media outlets make the switch to 100% Canon gear.
Canon is the leader in sensor technology. They have produced the sensor for all of their CMOS-equipped DSLR's from the 3MP D30 on to the latest 16.7MP sensor in the 1Ds Mark II. How many other camera companies can say that? (For reference, the sensor in the Olympus is made by Kodak. The sensor in Nikon's latest offering, the D2X, is made by Sony.)
If you are worried about the size and weight of the lenses, there again, Canon leads the way. How many other companies have Diffractive Optics lenses? Look at how small the 70-300 DO IS USM stabilized lens is. That's a real 300mm lens. Not a "35-150" on a 2X-crop factor body -- so it still works on a full-frame camera!
And speaking of stabilized, how many IS lenses does Canon have compared to Nikon? (Canon has 13 stabilized lenses currently available, Nikon has 6.)
And the fact that Nikon still uses their tiny mount from the 50's... to me, that is actually a bad thing. In 1987, Canon abandonded its old "FD" lens mount and came up with its current "EF" lens mount. In addition to switching to a completely electronic interface for focusing, aperture control, etc. Canon also increased the size of the lens mount to an internal diameter of 54mm (external diameter of 65mm) -- the largest clear aperture of any lens system used with a 35mm SLR camera.
For comparison, Nikon has used the same (small) F-mount since the 1950's. They have added "enhancements" to permit auto-focus, electronic aperture control, etc., but even so, there are all kinds of exceptions to which Nikon lenses you can use on which Nikon bodies (for example: low-end Nikons arenĂ¢€™t compatible with manual focus lenses; early Nikon lenses had the focus motor in the camera, with a mechanical linkage between the lens and the camera; some Nikon lenses require manually setting the aperture on the lens because it can't be set by the camera, etc.) And just because it uses the same "F" mount does mean it isn't confusing. You have "original" (non-AI), AI, AIS, AF, AF-AIS, AF-D, AF-S, etc. variants. And there are lots of charts you need to reference to see how functional (if at all) a particular Nikon lens will be with a particular Nikon body. With Canon, an EF lens is fully functional on any camera with an EF mount.
Also, one reason Nikon may not be pursuing full-frame is because of that old lens mount. Read this reply in this photo.net discussion:
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
Was at a Nikon product presentation about the D2H and new DX lenses earlier this month where a Nikon rep said officially that IF Nikon were to ever release a fullframe DSLR then that DSLR would need to have a new large diameter lensmount incompatible with the current F lenses. He did NOT say that this would not happen, but he did sound like it was quite unlikely to happen in the near future at least.
The reason for that is the inherent problems with abberations when projecting an image on a 35mm sensor using a lens designed for a 35mm film frame. The higher angle of incidence on the edge of the frame causes abberations which are too large to meet the quality criteriums Nikon places on their products. |
But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Read all the threads from the pros who have switched from Nikon to Canon. Watch sporting or major news events coverage on TV and look to see what cameras the pros are shooting with... these are guys whose livelihood depends on them getting "the shot"...
Message edited by author 2004-10-09 11:22:28. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 11:20:42 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Also, one reason Nikon may not be pursuing full-frame is because of that old lens mount. Read this reply in this photo.net discussion: |
can you re-post that link for me Eddy?
It's not a good link.
Thanks for all of the advice. I've been a die-hard Nikon user for 10+ years, and a few other pros I know have recently moved over to canon also. I think after my busy season is over, I'm going to have to make the switch.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 11:34:43 AM · #30 |
It looks like photo.net is having server trouble; you can read the link from google's cache here.
I was hesitant to include the reference because Kodak has a full-frame Nikon-compatible mount; the only reason I included it was because of the comment about "abberations which are too large to meet the quality criteriums".
But for additional insight into the issue, see this interview with Nikon R&D Director Tomino Naoki at Photokina 2004 (which took place from 27/Sep - 3/Oct, just a few days ago). Quoting a particularly relevant question here:
R: You said during Photokina 2004 press release that a full frame product can be developed if there is customer requirement. Specifically, is there a related research going on?
TN: Regarding 35mm full frame we are going through a study of possibility. However, full frame is definitely not cheap. How many customers are going to purchase such over 1 million Yen camera? This is a business issue. Thus we want to wait for a while. Last year we release DX lenses, now we announce the intention of "at least three year development with DX standard", that's what we are going to...
So don't expect any FF bodies from Nikon any time soon, they are still "studying the possibility" (note the use of the word "possibility", meaning that maybe there are some issues), they "want to wait for a while" and think it will cost a lot of money to engineer ("definitely not cheap" and "is a business issue"). Instead, look for more and more DX glass and 1.5X crop-factor bodies for at least the next 3 years at a minimum...
Message edited by author 2004-10-09 11:43:55. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 11:51:43 AM · #31 |
| Eddy, just curious...How does Canon get such low noise in high ISOs? Is it the technology of the chip or done by algorithms? I have read where CMOS chips are supposed to run hotter than CCD and should put out more noise, not less, than CCDs. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 11:56:34 AM · #32 |
anyone know much about the Kodak 14N?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 11:58:23 AM · #33 |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 12:08:06 PM · #34 |
| Whatever, both companies are great. Whatever you choose is great. People switch from canon to nikon and vice versa. It's kind of stupid to say "everyone uses canon." How do you know? Sure, you can look at one football game, and assume trends follow everywhere else. I just wont believe that everyone uses canon because you see lots of gray lenses at an event. go look at galleries from sportsshooters.com, you will see a nice mix of nikon and canon. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 12:11:13 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by gorke:
Whatever, both companies are great. Whatever you choose is great. People switch from canon to nikon and vice versa. It's kind of stupid to say "everyone uses canon." How do you know? Sure, you can look at one football game, and assume trends follow everywhere else. I just wont believe that everyone uses canon because you see lots of gray lenses at an event. go look at galleries from sportsshooters.com, you will see a nice mix of nikon and canon. |
I think the point being that 80% of the pros are now using Canon. But it may not be necessary for a serious amateur to be using FF sensor. I guess for Eric, the choice is really only N or C. (Maybe with the exception of Mamiya.) |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 12:28:25 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Eddy, just curious...How does Canon get such low noise in high ISOs? Is it the technology of the chip or done by algorithms? I have read where CMOS chips are supposed to run hotter than CCD and should put out more noise, not less, than CCDs. |
The real answer is a little of both. Canon has obviously done a lot of work both with the hardware and with software. Not all is a bed of roses... the 10D and even the 20D show classic "Canon noise banding" in very dark areas. No manufacturer is perfect. Canon has done a very good job of keeping nose down in general, and I see the situation getting better all the time. The sensors are improving, as are the analog amplifiers and analog-to-digital converters, and the digital processing. All are leading to better and better performance.
Just a few years ago most of those "in the know" dismissed CMOS as a technology most applicable to low-end applications; CCD was seen as the technology for high-end imaging. Instead, it's CMOS that is dominating the DSLR world.
the lesson here is that noone is aware of all that is going on in the R&D labs, and so assumptions made on today's public knowledge (including patent filings) may be misleading. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 12:33:23 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
anyone know much about the Kodak 14N? |
At my work the other photographers have the 14, but it is the first version they came out with. And in a word, it sucks. It is awkward to hold especially with the vertical grip part. the body design is short and very wide at the bottom. The old one has a serious noise problem. For the money and the resolution, it produces some of the worst pics I have seen. Are they big images? Yes, but grainy even if there is enough light. They have updated the firmware and this has helped a quite a bit. The new one is supposed to fixed the noise problem as well. You can also upgrade the chip in the older ones. the new version is still awkward to hold. With Kodak and their dslrs, there always seems to be problems. I personlally would stay away even though the price is inviting. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 12:51:30 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Eddy, just curious...How does Canon get such low noise in high ISOs? Is it the technology of the chip or done by algorithms? I have read where CMOS chips are supposed to run hotter than CCD and should put out more noise, not less, than CCDs. |
The real answer is a little of both. Canon has obviously done a lot of work both with the hardware and with software. Not all is a bed of roses... the 10D and even the 20D show classic "Canon noise banding" in very dark areas. No manufacturer is perfect. Canon has done a very good job of keeping nose down in general, and I see the situation getting better all the time. The sensors are improving, as are the analog amplifiers and analog-to-digital converters, and the digital processing. All are leading to better and better performance.
Just a few years ago most of those "in the know" dismissed CMOS as a technology most applicable to low-end applications; CCD was seen as the technology for high-end imaging. Instead, it's CMOS that is dominating the DSLR world.
the lesson here is that noone is aware of all that is going on in the R&D labs, and so assumptions made on today's public knowledge (including patent filings) may be misleading. |
Thanks for the response, Fritz. Do you think there is a difference as to noise quality from the different manufacturers? In other words, is some noise better looking than others and does it look more like the grain from film? I like the look of noise, and would love to have a cam that has a noise reduction setting, but one that can be turned off to get some natural looking grainy noise in the luminescence channels (not the color).
Also, do you agree with EddyG about the issue of FF sensors being the only way to go or are you saying that with R&D we will eventually be able to get to a place with high quality images produced on cameras with smaller chips, like the 4/3 system cams? |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 02:07:16 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Eddy, just curious...How does Canon get such low noise in high ISOs? Is it the technology of the chip or done by algorithms? I have read where CMOS chips are supposed to run hotter than CCD and should put out more noise, not less, than CCDs. |
I don't know if they do run hotter or not but I do know they produce more noise but Canon seemed to have solved most of that problem but, The big problem with the CMOS is that they lack dynamic range. The E-1 is 2 stops better then the 10/20D and I'll take a little more DR over less noise anyday but thats just me. One more thing about the 10/20D is that they use so much in camera processing to clean the noise that the images look very plastic like. I'm sure Olympus could have went this route but chose not to and left it up to the user to deal with the noise. As far as the bigger is better thing will, you may want to think that way but I once remember pros saying that 35mm would never replace medium format so don't think the 4/3 system is going to die anytime soon. Keep in mind that the E-1 was built from the ground up to be digital and I still say image and build quality it is the best camera out there in it's price range.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 02:18:53 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by TomH1000:
The big problem with the CMOS is that they lack dynamic range. The E-1 is 2 stops better then the 10/20D and I'll take a little more DR over less noise anyday but thats just me. |
Huh?! Where do you get this information? Chuck Westfall, the Director of Canon Technical Information, has stated that the dynamic range of Canon CMOS sensors is at least 8 stops, and that the 1D Mark II is 9 stops. That is certainly not lacking dynamic range in my book! (Reference: this post.)
Originally posted by TomH1000:
One more thing about the 10/20D is that they use so much in camera processing to clean the noise that the images look very plastic like. |
Are you serious? Have you looked at a recent sample image? (A direct-from-camera JPEG taken with the 85mm/1.8; not post-processed at all.) Are you trying to tell me this looks "plastic"? Get real. Maybe that was true back in the early days of CMOS with the D30 or perhaps you've seen too many NeatImaged photos, but that is certainly not the case today.
Message edited by author 2004-10-09 14:30:48. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 02:47:12 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by TomH1000:
The big problem with the CMOS is that they lack dynamic range. The E-1 is 2 stops better then the 10/20D and I'll take a little more DR over less noise anyday but thats just me. |
Huh?! Where do you get this information? Chuck Westfall, the Director of Canon Technical Information, has stated that the dynamic range of Canon CMOS sensors is at least 8 stops, and that the 1D Mark II is 9 stops. That is certainly not lacking dynamic range in my book! (Reference: this post.)
Originally posted by TomH1000:
One more thing about the 10/20D is that they use so much in camera processing to clean the noise that the images look very plastic like. |
Are you serious? Have you looked at a recent sample image? (A direct-from-camera JPEG taken with the 85mm/1.8; not post-processed at all.) Are you trying to tell me this looks "plastic"? Get real. Maybe that was true back in the early days of CMOS with the D30 or perhaps you've seen too many NeatImaged photos, but that is certainly not the case today. |
Yes the 10D is stops and the E-1 is 10. The 14N is I think 12 but not sure. As far as the samples yes I have looked at some but the ones I saw were high ISO in lighting that did not need the high ISO and those looked fine. I have seen some it low light and I can see the processing effect of the noise reduction. I'll see if I can find that image again and post a link to it here. Please don't get me wrong. I think that the 20D is a fine camera but, I hate when people think the E-1 is some kind of a joke or something. There are a lot of people jumping from Canon to Olympus. Maybe a little slow right now but I think the trend may pick up. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 02:47:53 PM · #42 |
One thing I notice people point to a lot is Canon's presence at sporting and news events. Well, keep in mind, there ARE other forms of photography.
My point: Canon has really still failed to produce a decent affordable wide lens with reasonable range, or a decent kit lens for that matter. We all know the 18-55 4.5-5.6 can't hold a candle to the Nikkor 18-70 3.5-4.5, (compare at //www.photozone.de/ if you don't believe that; it's a large difference).
Furthermore, all initial reports of the new EF-S 17-85IS lens are showing it to be absolutely terrible at the wide end, even stopped down. TONS of CA and very very soft.
So for me, it's a difficult decision. I'm interested in the 20D, but there really is no good wide walkaround lens (unless you count the 17-40L but that doesn't have enough length). The D70 is great too, but I've yet to find a D70 kit that doesn't have a backfocusing kit lens.
Geez, come to think of it, both Canon and Nikon are idiots with this consumer-level DSLR stuff. lol |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 05:18:29 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Arcy:
The D70 is great too, but I've yet to find a D70 kit that doesn't have a backfocusing kit lens.
|
Here you go
//www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=13132052
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 07:46:53 PM · #44 |
The canon SLR's look funny to me, like there is something not quite right about the shape. And that bothers me to wits end. The second reason I went with what I did is durability. It's like a tank of a camera, metal alloy whatever. Solid. Like you could drop it and it'd damage the floor and not the camera. (wishful thinking, but that's how it feels...)
But that's my personal pet peeves.
Lastly I think the benefits of full frame aren't that useful. I find the crop factor much more useful. With lenses as low as 10.5mm (16mm 35mm equivelant) how much more wide angle do you need?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 07:49:11 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by TomH1000:
Proud owner of a full frame 4/3 E-1 system |
...
Come again?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 10:07:07 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by TomH1000:
Proud owner of a full frame 4/3 E-1 system |
...
Come again? |
I think what Tom means is that the CCD in the Oly E1 is full frame for the 4/3rds system. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 10:10:16 PM · #47 |
I dont know about you but this sure looks like a full frome to me...
Lets not forget there are many kinds of professional photographers, (not just the media dudes EddyG and doctornick seem to like so much)... and certainly not all of them use Canon, even though Eddy does.
Message edited by author 2004-10-09 22:17:32.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 10:30:51 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
I dont know about you but this sure looks like a full frome to me...
Lets not forget there are many kinds of professional photographers, (not just the media dudes EddyG and doctornick seem to like so much)... and certainly not all of them use Canon, even though Eddy does. |
It only goes to ISO 400, it can't be any good ;) |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 10:37:45 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The sensors are improving, as are the analog amplifiers and analog-to-digital converters, and the digital processing. All are leading to better and better performance.
Just a few years ago most of those "in the know" dismissed CMOS as a technology most applicable to low-end applications; CCD was seen as the technology for high-end imaging. Instead, it's CMOS that is dominating the DSLR world. |
Interesting. Do you have any info on what those "in the know" have to say about Foveon? When I first heard of it I thought it was going to be a big deal. The technology sounds very interesting and photos look very good. Is it just a dead end?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 10:50:12 PM · #50 |
Steve McCurry uses nikon last time i checked (all time favorite photog)but for me its all about the eye behind the camera, I've seen the best pics from a disposable camera and shit from $5000 camera. my two cents
ps: so shut up about the brand and take pictures :)
Message edited by author 2004-10-10 00:07:22.
|
|
