|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/10/2004 05:39:18 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
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? |
Fujifilm with their S1, S2 and S3. If they ever get a proper body from Nikon they shouldn't have any trouble producing a fullframe SCCD, because there already exists a 20mp 52x37mm SCCD.
//www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03121901fujifilmback.asp
I don't understand why Fuji has not build their own bodies, viewfinders and AF system yet, because they have all the technology needed for that.
How many other companies have Diffractive Optics lenses?
I personally feel that the output from the DO lenses is of lesser quality compared to a normal lens. If you need the smaller size and lesser weight, fine. But it comes with softness, strange artefacts, bullet-shaped items in the bokeh etc.
//www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do_2/
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.
The big diameter of the EOS mount was to make room for the EF 50 F1.0 lens, it has nothing to do with Nikon's ability to match a full frame sensor with the Nikon F mount.
Also, there is nothing that Nikon hasn't been able to do with the F mount that Canon could with the EOS mount. AF-S (vs USM), VR (vs IS), AF-S + VR in one lens, aperture control from the body, distance communication, etc, etc. Yes Nikon came much later with the technology, but other than that there is no mount downside if you step in at this point of time.
...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....
...With Canon, an EF lens is fully functional on any camera with an EF mount.
Yes Canon made it "easy". Over time their customers have (/had) to 'throw away' all their FD lenses, because no EOS-body can take it and no capable adapter has ever been made. That's cool if you had a big investment in FD L-quality glass, useless overnight if you wanted to switch to the new mount.
Some old Nikon lenses can be chipped to function better on the modern bodies, perhaps that is/was also an option with FD?
Message edited by author 2004-10-10 05:43:15.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 07:22:11 AM · #52 |
This is obviously a passionate topic and I will not profess to be an expert to debate the issue. But, I do not think that the size (in general) of the CCD or CMOS will greatly or negatively impact the resolution as much as you all believe.
The full frame reference that everyone refers too is in comparison to a 35mm frame format. It is not an optimized chip design format. If CMOS chips can be developed that provide the desired resolution while managing SNR and at the same time permit a significant cost reduction in lens design, then why pursue the so called full frame goal? Am I missing something here?
With regards to Canon, Nikon or Olympus, they are all excellent brands and top quality products. When I was a young photography student studying in Tokyo for two years in the mid-70s, I toured all three factories to learn which brand to invest in before returning home to Canada.
I actually heavily preferred Olympus OM-1 system at the time. After the three factory visits including a visit to Nikon, the choice for me was obvious - Nikon all the way! My decision was based mostly on the way that they treated me at the factory and the superior manner that they tried to help me gain the learning that I wanted. They brought experts to me to answer my questions, they showed me every product being offered, and then some. They went above and beyond. It was an extraordinary experience. Today, 30 years later, I am still a loyal Nikon follower. But, there is nothing wrong with following the other guys, it is a personal decision.
By the way, I still use a Nikkor 1000mm manual lens with a x2 converter (circa 1973) on my F100, D100, my previous D1x bodies and numerous other models that I have owned over the years and it all works perfectly. So, the compatibility issue is a valid point and should not be discounted as was the case in previous postings.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 09:31:56 AM · #53 |
as with anything electronic - as developement progresses the componants tend to get smaller - i see sensors producing better quality from smaller sizes in the future. at the same time possibly lessening, or eliminating the crop factor. just a thought.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2004 04:20:18 PM · #54 |
It's not how big your sensor is - it's how well you use it ;) I think it's a bit premature to claim that the photography world has forgotten about Nikon. Canon does some cool things, but Nikon glass has its advantages as well.
At any rate, I wanted to point out a section from Galen Rowell's "Inner Game" book. He cited a photo he made with a Kodak instamatic which eventually was published, and another of a whitewater rafting scene taken with a water resistant point n shoot. Galen was able to do just fine without even an SLR in those examples, let alone a modern sophisticated dSLR.
Point is, unless someone has a very specific need which is technically not possible with a [Cannon|Nikon] (an unlikely scenario) chances are that the best bet is to not switch cameras, but instead switch techniques. Just look at some of Librodo's images on the D70 page and tell me where he was limited by the sensor size, or glass options.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 03:01:22 AM  |
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: 09/13/2025 03:01:22 AM EDT.
|
