 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Why can't we just take pictures?
What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you feel the need to do this? About a month ago, I attended my son's college graduation. I was shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon F2 with motor drive and 80-200 f2.8 ED zoom lens. Several times, I walked in to the area reserved for the pro's and no one stopped me, I guess because I looked "pro." Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and mother-in-law. > What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more > of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And > for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you > feel the need to do this? A question was asked about the two biggies. I answered that question with some facts about the market...which can play a part when people consider the future of their system of choice. Nikon makes fine equipment. Canon makes fine equipment. Many other manufacturers make fine equipment. I think the problem in this case is that of an extremely defensive person (you) who feels the need for affirmation. Why do you care so much about what others do? Why can't you just confidently use your gear without being applauded all the time about your choices? Ther are always going to be people who think their system is superior, and that all other gear stinks. They are just ignorant. However...there is nothing wrong with people voicing perferences, and delineating why one may be preferable over another. > About a month ago, I attended my son's college graduation. I was > shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon F2 with motor drive and 80-200 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and > mother-in-law. Awww... You poor thing.. -You had your camera system questined...IN FRONT OF YOUR MOTHER IN LAW!! Heaven forbid! > > What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll > > buy some more of this?" When did photo guys become > > such avid market-watchers? And for all the Canoniacs > > trumpeting their "market" position, why do you feel the > > need to do this? [SNIP] > > About a month ago, I attended my son's college > > graduation. I was shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -You had your camera system questined...IN FRONT OF > YOUR MOTHER IN LAW!! > Heaven forbid! [REARRANGED] > I think the problem in this case is that of an extremely > defensive person (you) who feels the need for affirmation. Sounds to me like the sniffy 'pro.' was the much more insecure one in this encounter, not our esteemed OP. Peter > I think the problem in this case is that of an extremely defensive person > (you) who feels the need for affirmation. > Why do you care so much about what others do? > Why can't you just confidently use your gear without being applauded all the > time about your choices? Argh, if these people stopped posting on Usenet, we'd see a big reduction in the number of posts. I'll never understand the need that some people have for constant affirmation that whatever they chose to purchase, it the best choice for everyone. I can take any item I have purchased and tell someone several reasons why it's the wrong choice for them, as well as explaining the positive attributes of the item. The motivation for me creating "http://digitalslrinfo.com" was to have a single location where the pros and cons of each digital SLR could be evaluated in a clear and unbiased manner. Not everyone cares about the same things when selecting a product. > However...there is nothing wrong with people voicing perferences, and > delineating why one may be preferable over another. Well stated. >The motivation for me creating "http://digitalslrinfo.com" was to have a >single location where the pros and cons of each digital SLR could be >evaluated in a clear and unbiased manner. Then you failed miserably, unless of course your definition of "clear and unbiased" is to shill for Canon at every opportunity. Father, NO problem. Your mother-in-law already knew you are stupid. But, in front of your wife was inexcusable. A happy Nikon owner > What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more > of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and > mother-in-law. >Father, >NO problem. Your mother-in-law already knew you are stupid. But, in front of >your wife was inexcusable. > >A happy Nikon owner I'm also a happy Nikon owner, and my wifed doesn't much care about the brand. She just wants the results, that is, good pictures to show her friends. And that's the real lesson. > Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod > she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go > digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the > bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a > mistake by not going Canon. A lot of pros that were "early adopters" had no choice but to go the Canon route, since Canon had the high resolution, low-noise, low crop-factor, professional cameras available, and Nikon dis not. Did you ask her why she thought it was a mistake? It was probably due to the availability of full frame bodies. > Did you ask her why she thought it was a mistake? It was probably due to > the availability of full frame bodies. Yep -- because someone shooting graduation ceremonies couldn't possibly get by without full frame! After all, those are all about the super-wide-angle lenses. And high-profile gigs like that pay well enough to make it a good business investment, too.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com . > Yep -- because someone shooting graduation ceremonies couldn't possibly get > by without full frame! After all, those are all about the super-wide-angle > lenses. And high-profile gigs like that pay well enough to make it a good > business investment, too. And the rage for superwide lenses came after the good old days. In old days no one liked wierd perspective of extreme wide angle. 35mm FL lenses were the limit most people would use. The rage was long telephoto :-) >. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >lenses were the limit most people would use. The rage was long >telephoto :-) The rage for superwide lenses started *when they became affordable*. >> Did you ask her why she thought it was a mistake? It was probably due to >> the availability of full frame bodies. > >Yep -- because someone shooting graduation ceremonies couldn't possibly get >by without full frame! After all, those are all about the super-wide-angle Does that apply to the two Princeton PR types standing next to me who were shooting with a non-full frame Canon? >lenses. And high-profile gigs like that pay well enough to make it a good >business investment, too. >> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod >> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Canon route, since Canon had the high resolution, low-noise, low >crop-factor, professional cameras available, and Nikon dis not. That's rather revisionist. It was a long time before Canon had a reply to the Nikon D1 - that was the camera that the early adopters were using. When they did launch their first real DSLR (not counting the early Kodak Canon mount bodies), it was a consumer model - the D30, which would have been unsatisfactory for the sort of thing the D1 was good at. By the time Canon caught up, and arguably passed Nikon in the "professional" digital market, the people buying DSLRs weren't "early adopters" any more. >>> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod >>> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > mount bodies), it was a consumer model - the D30, which would have been > unsatisfactory for the sort of thing the D1 was good at. That's all quite true. Nikon started out with a clear lead. That has dramatically changed, though, and ever since the 1D, Canon has been trumping Nikon. Nikon has been very slow to respond since that time. > By the time Canon caught up, and arguably passed Nikon in the > "professional" > digital market, the people buying DSLRs weren't "early adopters" any more. True again. But Canon has managed to capitalize on existing users. They've given people good reason to upgrade, and have given Nikon a kick in the pants. Nikon makes fantastic stuff, but Canon just keeps rolling out significantly upgraded bodies. 1Ds, 20D, 1D Mark II, 1Ds Mark II... Each of these have severely cramped Nikon's game. I hope Nikon gets with it, or we're gonna end up paying more for Canon stuff. > Nikon makes fantastic stuff, but Canon just keeps rolling out > significantly upgraded bodies. And that's one of the reasons why THIS early adopter went away from them. Canon seems intent on making disposable DSLR's. >> Nikon makes fantastic stuff, but Canon just keeps rolling out >> significantly upgraded bodies. > > And that's one of the reasons why THIS early adopter went away from them. > Canon seems intent on making disposable DSLR's. Only for those who compulsively buy the next big thing, or who stupidly buy digital cameras as "investments" for future sale. If one can avoid that, Canon's constant roll-out means that you have lots of future choices to either grab, or watch as they go by. I use a 10D, and have happily continued using it past three 5 camera roll-outs by Canon. The upgrade that might get me to jump would be a full-frame 16MP imager I can justify paying for. Until then...I am immune to the compulsion you had to run away from to avoid. :) > Only for those who compulsively buy the next big thing, or who stupidly > buy digital cameras as "investments" for future sale. If one can avoid [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > avoid. > :) Well my D30 simply "expired". There's no other way to say it. And I also got tired of missing the shot with the non-existant auto-focus of the D60. A lot of people buy equipment that partially meets their current needs and then they upgrade when something better comes along. Unfortunately with Canon this happens too often and you get hurt in the process. This EF-S lens fiasco is yet another example of how quickly their redundancy sets in for older cameras. I'll never go back to them again. >> Only for those who compulsively buy the next big thing, or who stupidly >> buy digital cameras as "investments" for future sale. If one can avoid [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well my D30 simply "expired". There's no other way to say it. And I also > got tired of missing the shot with the non-existant auto-focus of the D60. Let's face it... AF on both the D30 and D60 sucked. BUT... My 10D focuses just as fast as my film EOS 3 body (and that's FAST), and even faster than my 3 in low light. That's darn good. With the 10D, the AF of the D30 and D60 was seriously put to shame. I'm sure the 20D is at least as good. Don't have personal experience with lesser Canon DSLR AF (300D, XT, Rebel, etc.). > A lot of people buy equipment that partially meets their current needs and > then they upgrade when something better comes along. Unfortunately with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'll never go back to them again. Never say never, Dallas. :) I won't buy an EF-S lens, myself...but that's because I do expect to have a full frame sensor one of these days. That's the same reason I won't buy a non-L lens either...with two exceptions...I am somewhat interested in the 1-5x Canon Macro specialty lens, and also the TSE lenses Canon offers. -Mark > Let's face it... > AF on both the D30 and D60 sucked. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the 20D is at least as good. Don't have personal experience with lesser > Canon DSLR AF (300D, XT, Rebel, etc.). I stopped at the D60, but I am amazed at how many 10D's and 300D's there are for sale in our small local market! Either those people are unhappy with their cameras, or they simply can't do without the features that the new cameras are offering. I dunno. It's a mug's game. Personally I see no need for more than 6 megapixels and prior to buying the D70 I investigated the camera extensively to make sure I was getting something that would cover at least 90% of my needs. The only things I would like to see added to it are a grip with vertical release and metering for manual focus lenses. Otherwise its nearly perfect. >> I'll never go back to them again. > > Never say never, Dallas. > :) Nah, this time I mean it. My equipment needs are lacking only in the long telephoto arena, and I can remedy that with the purchase of a T20eII converter which will give me a 400mm f/5.6 VR (effectively 600mm f/5.6) when used on my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. I will look at getting one of them next year maybe. Also high on the wants list is the 12-24mm f/4 DX zoom. I'm thinking of trading my 17-35mm for one, based on the rave reviews Thom Hogan gave it and the fact that I can use it from 18mm on my F100 without vignetting. > I won't buy an EF-S lens, myself...but that's because I do expect to > have a full frame sensor one of these days. That's the same reason I > won't buy a non-L lens either...with two exceptions...I am somewhat > interested in the 1-5x Canon Macro specialty lens, and also the TSE > lenses Canon offers. -Mark Which L glass are you currently using? > I stopped at the D60, but I am amazed at how many 10D's and 300D's there > are for sale in our small local market! Either those people are unhappy > with their cameras, or they simply can't do without the features that the > new cameras are offering. I dunno. It's a mug's game. When I bought my 10D, the only thing comparable was the D100. It was pretty much a toss-up and I went with the Canon because I felt the color rendition was better and the noise much lower. > Personally I see no need for more than 6 megapixels and prior to buying > the D70 I investigated the camera extensively to make sure I was getting > something that would cover at least 90% of my needs. The only things I > would like to see added to it are a grip with vertical release and > metering for manual focus lenses. Otherwise its nearly perfect. You can get an aftermarket vertical grip, see "http://www.harbortronics.com/detail.php?id=2" Apparently there is very high demand for this product, as it is often backordered. You can add metering to some manual focus lenses, for $115 per lens, see "http://home.carolina.rr.com/headshots/Nikonhome.htm" >> Let's face it... >> AF on both the D30 and D60 sucked. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Which L glass are you currently using? 16-35 2.8 L 70-200 2.8 IS L along with 1.4x 100-400 IS L (Sold this while back...quit carrying it when I got spoiled by the speed of the 70-200)...used the money to buy my Epson 4000 printer. Personally, I think my 100mm 2.8 Macro could have been designated an L with it's incredible sharpness. I also use the 28-135 IS and the 50 1.4 (which is also L-level performance). I gave my 75-300 IS to my dad when I got the 100-400 some years ago. [SNIP] > >> I won't buy an EF-S lens, myself...but that's > >> because I do expect to have a full frame sensor > >> one of these days. That's the same reason I > >> won't buy a non-L lens either...with two > >> exceptions...I am somewhat interested in the 1- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 70-200 2.8 IS L along with 1.4x > 100-400 IS L (Sold this while back...quit carrying > it when I got spoiled by the speed of the 70- > 200)...used the money to buy my Epson 4000 > printer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 75-300 IS to my dad when I got the 100-400 > some years ago. Canon says that the 'L' designation simply refers to the use of LD glass (or some such proprietary equivalent) and is not to be seen as an indicator of 'quality'. This is why some of the 'good' lenses aren't L - they were designs that didn't need such glass. This distinction has apparently got a bit blurred later on, but the widespread consumer view that L = 'professional standard' (whatever that means) is a fallacy. Hence no reason for you to to avoid non-L glass when it gives you what you need - the TSE designs are some of Canon's best, and they simply didn't need the glass tyopes that would have led to them being called 'L' lenses. (There have been some L lenses that weren't too good as well.) Peter >Canon says that the 'L' designation simply refers to the use of LD glass (or >some such proprietary equivalent) and is not to be seen as an indicator of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >called 'L' lenses. (There have been some L lenses that weren't too good as >well.) It's exactly the same with Nikkors. ED indicates "extraordinary dispersion" glass but that does not necessarily point to all ED Nikkors being stellar performers. > [SNIP] > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > 'quality'. This is why some of the 'good' lenses aren't L - they were > designs that didn't need such glass. Ya, I know...but so many people seem to think only L glass is "good", and I think sometimes it doesn't hurt to mention that this isn't always true. > This distinction has apparently got a bit blurred later on, but the > widespread consumer view that L = 'professional standard' (whatever that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as > well.) Oops. Should have read the rest of your post... :) We agree here... According to Canon, "L" stands for luxury...which seems dumb to me. >That's all quite true. >Nikon started out with a clear lead. >That has dramatically changed, though, and ever since the 1D, Canon has been >trumping Nikon. >Nikon has been very slow to respond since that time. Nope. Not even well thought out. Nikon fell behind in the 1990's. Any photojournalist or 35mm shooter who already had bags full of Canon glass didn't pick up a Nikon DSLR, but waited for the Canon DSLRs to come out. Don't just make stuff up off the top of your head. >>That's all quite true. >>Nikon started out with a clear lead. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > glass didn't pick up a Nikon DSLR, but waited for the Canon DSLRs to > come out. Don't just make stuff up off the top of your head. Same to you. When I said Nikon started out with a lead, I was referring to the fact that Nikon's D1 was out before Canon had a DSLR at all. This is fact...and not "off the top of my head." Once Canon got into the DSLR market, though, Nikon has been sliding. >>That's all quite true. >>Nikon started out with a clear lead. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > didn't pick up a Nikon DSLR, but waited for the Canon DSLRs to come out. > Don't just make stuff up off the top of your head. How can you say that when you clearly haven't got a clue about what you are discussing? Are you mad? There are still to this day MORE Nikon cameras in working existance than there are EOS cameras. Canon are nearly 40 years behind in terms of product diffusion! >> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod >> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Did you ask her why she thought it was a mistake? It was probably due to >the availability of full frame bodies. No, because (1) she was in a bit of a hurry, and (2) "Frankly, I don't give a damn." >> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod >> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > route, since Canon had the high resolution, low-noise, low crop-factor, > professional cameras available, and Nikon dis not. Yes, and now some of those early adopters (like me) are going back to Nikon. Wonder why that is? >>> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod >>> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yes, and now some of those early adopters (like me) are going back to > Nikon. Wonder why that is? Come on, Roxy. Be fair. You had a snit with Canon's service over yonder in South Africa, and ran to Nikon while throwing a tantrum. :) >> Yes, and now some of those early adopters (like me) are going back to >> Nikon. Wonder why that is? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to Nikon while throwing a tantrum. > :) No, there's a bit more to it than that, but I won't go on bleating. Interestingly I ran into the local Canon rep on Monday, whilst shooting the breeze with an old retail crowd I used to deal with. He sneered (literally) when he saw me, dropped his merchandising for the shop on their counter (decals, calendars, stickers, etc), and walked out without saying so much as a word. Fancy that. >>> Yes, and now some of those early adopters (like me) are going back to >>> Nikon. Wonder why that is? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Fancy that. Why do I have this funny feeling that he had reason to get out of there... :) >> Interestingly I ran into the local Canon rep on Monday, whilst shooting >> the breeze with an old retail crowd I used to deal with. He sneered [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why do I have this funny feeling that he had reason to get out of there... > :) As I said, there's more to it, but suffice to say I am persona non-grata with Canon and their local entourage. Might have something to do with the article I wrote on my website about why I decided to go back to Nikon. You might still be able to catch it in the IMO section of the old site if you visit www.dallasdahms.com. The DNS is busy propagating to the new host and site, but that will probably take a while. > What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more > of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And > for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you > feel the need to do this? We don't take pictures. We take PHOTOGRAPHS. This makes us important and knowledgeable. duh. Right! "Picture' is a term for a painting. Cameras take photographs, not 'pictures'. > > What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more > > of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > duh. > What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more > of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and > mother-in-law. I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't go wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I wish this group would stop the feud. > I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't go > wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I wish this > group would stop the feud. There is no feud. Discussing the relative merits of equipment is a legitimate topic on thia group. There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the body that matches their existing lenses (if the existing lenses are any good!). The reasons that Canon dominates the professional digital market are well known, but they don't apply to amateur equipment. >> I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't go >> wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I wish [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that Canon dominates the professional digital market are well known, but > they don't apply to amateur equipment. I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to go with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all my lenses. (assuming that I really needed to go digital) >>> I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't go >>> wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I wish [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all my > lenses. (assuming that I really needed to go digital) One reason pros have been moving toward Canon has been that Canon been the fps champ for some time now...along with their comparatively long and extended reach into stabilized lenses for pros. Sports and photojournalists greatly benefit from both of these technologies. It's only been in recent months that Nikon has finally come out with a DSLR that can keep up with Canon's 1D Mark II's fps, and relatively recently that Nikon has entered the stabilization game. Canon still has about three times the offerings that Nikon does. Nikon's new pro DSLR offering looks to be a GREAT piece of equipment...but their problem in recent years is that Canon's ability to release updated pro bodies has far out-paced Nikon. I personally know a number of sports shooters who switched for this very reason. Nikon is perfectly capable of making world-class stuff that is on-par with Canon. They just seem so danged SLOW at getting around to it. They've lost a lot of pro customers to Canon over the last three of four years especially. It started with Canon's release of the 1D...then the 1Ds...and especially with the 1D Mark II...and now the 1Ds Mark II. Over that same period, Nikon has not kept pace. For me, none of the above was a clincher, as I don't own any of those models...but when I do, I'll have a bunch of Canon IS glass to stick on them. Had Nikon offered IS early on, I might have well adopted thier system. And to "Father Kodak"... ...No. This post is NOT slamming Nikon gear. Read carefully. Nikon has been slow on the draw, but shen they finally draw, they have good stuff. They'd just better pick up the pace!!! I'm rooting for Nikon as I always have...because I don't want my gear's maker (Canon) to get a corner on my end of the market. Competition is good for everyone on the purchasing end... So.... GO NIKON GO!! ;) > I'm rooting for Nikon as I always have...because I don't want my gear's > maker (Canon) to get a corner on my end of the market. Competition is > good for everyone on the purchasing end... > So.... GO NIKON GO!! > ;) Now that's a sentiment I can definitely agree with. GO NIKON (and Leica, and Pentax, and Olympus)! Walt > Nikon is perfectly capable of making world-class stuff that is on-par with > Canon. This was true in the days of film, when sensors came on a roll, and every 35mm sensor was available for every 35mm camera. Nikon's biggest problem right now is that they have to depend on an external supplier for sensors, while Canon has invested heavily in sensor design. For Nikon to catch up with Canon, they need some larger, lower-noise sensors. > They just seem so danged SLOW at getting around to it. They've lost > a lot of pro customers to Canon over the last three of four years > especially. It started with Canon's release of the 1D...then the 1Ds...and > especially with the 1D Mark II...and now the 1Ds Mark II. Over that same > period, Nikon has not kept pace. Because Nikon has no 1.3 or 1.0 crop factor sensor to put into a body. The Fill-Factory full-frame sensors, used by Kodak, are not very good, and Nikon will not use them. On the subject of sensor size and lenses, see this: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html > > Nikon is perfectly capable of making world-class stuff that is on-par with > > Canon. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The Fill-Factory full-frame sensors, used by Kodak, are not very good, > and Nikon will not use them. I've read this before... That x1.5 may become the new standard for image sensors now that we've gone digital. If I'm not mistaken the 35mm camera was based on sprocketed 35mm movie film. If that film had been a little smaller... On the subject of sensor size and lenses, see this: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html Steven M. Scharf wrote: > Mark² wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The Fill-Factory full-frame sensors, used by Kodak, are not very good, > and Nikon will not use them. > On the subject of sensor size and lenses, see this: > > http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html As the author states (incorrectly), "The only good reason for a big sensor at this current state of the art is the reduction of noise." This isn't the only reason, at this juncture, though it may be the case in the future. > > On the subject of sensor size and lenses, see this: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reason for a big sensor at this current state of the > art is the reduction of noise." He doesn't know much about how DoF works, does he? Peter In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Bandicoot <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote: > > > On the subject of sensor size and lenses, see this: > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He doesn't know much about how DoF works, does he? He probably likes the 'what's DOF?' style digicam images... by far the oddest statement on the page is : A Canon 2.5/50mm macro lens and a 16 Mp 24x36mm sensor will bring less image quality than a Canon 2.8/60mm and a eight Mp solid-state sensor with an area of 17x 24mm. > Peter SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ >>>> I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't >>>> go wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > So.... GO NIKON GO!! > ;) Yes. Nobody just, "goes pro"....they have some specialty, like taking baby pictures, or sports pictures, or studio portraits, or weddings....And they just start making money doing it. So the camera they choose depends on what's best for the job. It would be stupid to spend a bunch of money for IS lenses if you were just doing studio portraits from a tripod, for example. But if you were doing hand held shots of action, then such lenses might be a good investment..... >Yes. Nobody just, "goes pro"....they have some specialty, like taking baby >pictures, or sports pictures, or studio portraits, or weddings....And they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >But if you were doing hand held shots of action, then such lenses might be a >good investment..... Don't be ridiculous. This newsgroup has never been about photography. It is about features and specifications. - Features that no-one knows how to use and probably never will. - Specifications that bear little relation to image quality. So what we have here is a pissing contest. People talk up their favourite brand on the basis of high end cameras they will never own, and probably couldn't even use if they did, except in program mode. Meanwhile, another group of people is out there taking photos with their gear, and enjoying it. Some even make money doing it. They haves no need for a pissing contest over features and specifications. Why? Because they are **photographers**. ;-) > Why? Because they are **photographers**. > > ;-) Yes we are. --And then there's you, Tony! ;) > I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to go > with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all my > lenses. (assuming that I really needed to go digital) The Fuji F3 is not such a great camera, certainly not something a professional would consider. The flash sync speed alone would eliminate it from consideration, not to mention the lack of mirror lock-up. It got dpreviews lowest rating, "Above Average." The reasons that so many Nikon film-SLR pros have gone the Canon route have more to do with low-noise/high-ISO capability, the availability of bodies with a 1.3 and 1.0 crop factor, the availability of many lenses for which Nikon has no equivalent, and of course the fact that Canon has had a better product line-up. The D2x was not available until very recently, and a lot of pros tend to be early adopters (the equipment cost, while not insignificant, is not the over-riding factor for a successful professional). You still see some of the old Foveon professional cameras in portrait studios, though they have mostly been retired, and replaced by something in the Canon 1D series (the Foveon camera used a Canon lens mount). Certainly a lot more professional photographers, that used Nikon film bodies, have moved to Canon for digital SLRs, that the other way around. I do wish that Nikon would come out with a competitor to the Canon 1Ds MarkII, 1D MarkII, and the Canon 20D. The lack of competition is not good for consumers. It was much more even back in the old days of film, where every manufacturer had every "sensor" available to them. Hopefully the D100 replacement is not far off, and the rumor of Nikon working to obtain or develop larger sensors in order to come out with full frame, and close to full frame, D-SLRs, is true. Steve http://digitalslrinfo.com >> I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to go >> with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all my >> lenses. (assuming that I really needed to go digital) > >The Fuji F3 is not such a great camera, certainly not something a >professional would consider. The Fujifilm Finepix S3 (not F3) sells almost entirely to professional wedding and portrait photographers, who greatly value its dynamic range. The ability to retain highlight detail without completely filling in the shadows is almost unique among DSLRs, and buyers seem happy to accept any shortcomings it might have. Of course we all know that, if it was a Canon product, and performed exactly the same as it does with the Fuji badge, you would be singing its praises from the rooftops. >>> I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to go >>> with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > exactly the same as it does with the Fuji badge, you would be singing > its praises from the rooftops. Isn't it amazing how Steven "knows" the Fuji isn't such a great camera and that so many Nikon users have switched to Canon for DSLRs, and all of the other claims he makes as if they are factual? Sometimes there's not much difference between he and a troll. >>>> I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to >>>> go [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > other claims he makes as if they are factual? Sometimes there's not much > difference between he and a troll. Canon had 62.8% of the DSLR market in 2004. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message news:mVCye.7492 >> Isn't it amazing how Steven "knows" the Fuji isn't such a great camera >> and that so many Nikon users have switched to Canon for DSLRs, and all of >> the other claims he makes as if they are factual? Sometimes there's not >> much difference between he and a troll. > > Canon had 62.8% of the DSLR market in 2004. Source is The NPD Group (Market research , whose report is referenced here: http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20050201_americaschoice.html If anyone is curious about NPD Group, here's their web-site: http://www.npd.com/ > Canon had 62.8% of the DSLR market in 2004. For 2005, so far, they are estimated at 65%. But this is certain to fall as Nikon ramps up the D50, and replaces the D100. The quantities of the professional cameras are so small, that they don't really affect the market share percentages. >> Canon had 62.8% of the DSLR market in 2004. > > For 2005, so far, they are estimated at 65%. But this is certain to fall > as Nikon ramps up the D50, and replaces the D100. The quantities of the > professional cameras are so small, that they don't really affect the > market share percentages. 65% is huge...especially when you consider that the remaining 35% is split up between Nikon, Pentax, Minolta and Fuji (Oh...and does Sigma count?). That's slicing the remaining bread pretty thin. I have no doubt that Nikon holds the bulk of that 35%, but there's still a huge gap between teh two figures. I sincerely hope that Nikon makes big strides with whatever it releases. Market pressure is good...for us! >>>Canon had 62.8% of the DSLR market in 2004. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > up between Nikon, Pentax, Minolta and Fuji (Oh...and does Sigma count?). > That's slicing the remaining bread pretty thin. In reality, it's just Canon and Nikon. The others share 2-3% of the total market, with some of them at essentially 0% (Sigma, Kodak, Konica-Minolta). In an expanding market, 35% is certainly enough to make it profitable. >>>>Canon had 62.8% of the DSLR market in 2004. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > In an expanding market, 35% is certainly enough to make it profitable. There's no doubt about that, but eventually, the amount of R&D tends to get out of balance with such desparate figures. > In reality, it's just Canon and Nikon. The others share 2-3% of the total > market, with some of them at essentially 0% (Sigma, Kodak, > Konica-Minolta). > > In an expanding market, 35% is certainly enough to make it profitable. Yes, it should be, but that is an area where the data tells an unfavorable tale for Nikon. In calendar year 2004, Canon had camera sales of 763 Billion Yen, with a net operating profit of 131 Billion Yen, a whopping 17.2% margin. In fiscal year 2005 (ending March 2005), Nikon had imaging sales (cameras and lenses) of 355 Billion Yen with a net operating profit of only 16.8 Billion Yen or 4.7%. Even allowing for economies of scale, that kind of margin, while healthy for manufacturing in general, is not going to allow for the R&D and product line expansion Nikon needs to compete effectively against Canon. The D-50 will certainly help. but Nikon needs some real wins in the consumer market to be able to compete in the pro market. With their IC stepper business still losing money, Nikon is going to have to make some serious decisions in the next fiscal year. Walt > Even allowing for economies of scale, that kind of margin, while healthy for > manufacturing in general, is not going to allow for the R&D and product line > expansion Nikon needs to compete effectively against Canon. The D-50 will > certainly help. but Nikon needs some real wins in the consumer market to be > able to compete in the pro market. Perhaps Nikon will not even try to enter the high end of the pro market, citing the high cost of entry. There may not a large enough TAM for high end professional bodies for Nikon to spend the R&D money on something to compete against the 1DsMarkII. Sony is in an even more difficult position, as margins on point and shoot digitals continue to shrink as the market becoumes saturated. Sony has no way of moving up into D-SLRs, unless they did some deal with Nikon. >Perhaps Nikon will not even try to enter the high end of the pro market, >citing the high cost of entry. They are already there. Open your eyes. >> Even allowing for economies of scale, that kind of margin, while healthy >> for manufacturing in general, is not going to allow for the R&D and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > becoumes saturated. Sony has no way of moving up into D-SLRs, unless they > did some deal with Nikon. Oops! Gotta call ya on that one... Nikon is definitely in the high end market... They are quite good at it too...just not very timely. > Oops! Gotta call ya on that one... > Nikon is definitely in the high end market... They are quite good at it > too...just not very timely. The D2x is a good start, but they have nothing to compete against the 1DsMarkII. Even something with a 1.2-1.3 crop factor, and larger pixels for lower noise at higher ISOs, would be sufficient. > The reasons that so many Nikon film-SLR pros have gone the Canon route > have more to do with low-noise/high-ISO capability, the availability of > bodies with a 1.3 and 1.0 crop factor, the availability of many lenses for > which Nikon has no equivalent, and of course the fact that Canon has had a > better product line-up. Crap. > The D2x was not available until very recently, and a lot of pros tend to > be early adopters (the equipment cost, while not insignificant, is not the > over-riding factor for a successful professional). You still see some of > the old Foveon professional cameras in portrait studios, though they have > mostly been retired, and replaced by something in the Canon 1D series (the > Foveon camera used a Canon lens mount). Crap. > Certainly a lot more professional photographers, that used Nikon film > bodies, have moved to Canon for digital SLRs, that the other way around. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > or develop larger sensors in order to come out with full frame, and close > to full frame, D-SLRs, is true. But nothing they will ever do would be good in your book, would it? Why? Because you are an a.shole. >>The reasons that so many Nikon film-SLR pros have gone the Canon route >>have more to do with low-noise/high-ISO capability, the availability of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > But nothing they will ever do would be good in your book, would it? Interesting that you cannot actually counter anything I wrote with an a coherent response. > Why? Because you are an a.shole. If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names. Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915) Steve "http://digitalslrinfo.com" The Source for Digital SLR Information >>>I do wish that Nikon would come out with a competitor to the Canon 1Ds >>>MarkII, 1D MarkII, and the Canon 20D. The lack of competition is not good [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call > him vile names. Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915) I think L. Ron Hubbard might have said just about the same thing (the idiot who started Scientology). :) -Except he tended to encourage nuisance lawsuit filing to attack his enemies...rather than simple name-calling... > I think L. Ron Hubbard might have said just about the same thing (the idiot > who started Scientology). > :) > -Except he tended to encourage nuisance lawsuit filing to attack his > enemies...rather than simple name-calling... Ugh, and now Tom Cruise with his bizarre behavior. >> I think L. Ron Hubbard might have said just about the same thing (the >> idiot who started Scientology). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ugh, and now Tom Cruise with his bizarre behavior. I wonder Tom realizes that Hubbard teaches that an alien named "Xenu" brainwashed people a zillion years ago by showing them a "movie"...and that Scientolgist's whole "therapy sessions" or whatever they call them, are intended to "undo" this brainwashing... Totally bizzare and totally bogus. What a sad state of affairs for Tom's bride to be...who apparently is so atar-struck that she's ready to thrown out her religion for the Tom-Scientology combo of idiocy. :( Tom is clearly an intelligent guy. It's amazing how far off even good brains can get you... >>> I think L. Ron Hubbard might have said just about the same thing (the >>> idiot who started Scientology). [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Tom is clearly an intelligent guy. > It's amazing how far off even good brains can get you... For anyone interested in info regarding just how bogus Scientology is...and why you should STAY AWAY from it... Here's an excellent source in info: http://www.xenu.net/ This site's purpose is to expose the truly unbelievable tactics of this creepy cult. > For anyone interested in info regarding just how bogus Scientology > is...and why you should STAY AWAY from it... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This site's purpose is to expose the truly unbelievable tactics of this > creepy cult. Oh, and here's a GREAT one I just found about Tom Cruise's involvement: http://www.tomcruiseisnuts.com/home.php What a great name... www.TomCruiseIsNuts.com :) > Tom is clearly an intelligent guy. Post your proof! {the Tom referred to is Cruise, the "actor".} [Yes, the use of quotes is intentional] > It's amazing how far off even good brains can get you... Seriously, what leads you to believe he has an ounce of intelligence? SignatureJohn McWilliams >> Tom is clearly an intelligent guy. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Seriously, what leads you to believe he has an ounce of intelligence? :) In other words... ...He has a brain that could have been used well. Unfortunately, he's chosen to waste his brain power, and as a result thought his way to at least partial idiocy. >> But nothing they will ever do would be good in your book, would it? > > Interesting that you cannot actually counter anything I wrote with an a > coherent response. We've been down that road many, many times, Sharf. The problem with you is that you simply won't admit to your bias and that I'm afraid, makes you one of us - a brand worshipper, not an impartial bystander. >>>But nothing they will ever do would be good in your book, would it? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that you simply won't admit to your bias and that I'm afraid, makes you > one of us - a brand worshipper, not an impartial bystander. Can one not be both impartial and civil? Can one have biases and yet not be branded a worshipper? And no one here is a bystander..... SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>>But nothing they will ever do would be good in your book, would it? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And no one here is a bystander..... Isn't it funny how many people are irrationally and simplistically inclined to label anyone who is convinced a particular brand is their right choice as worshippers? Some, I grant, are--in that they'll defend a brand on *8each and every aspect**...no matter what. No brand is beyond criticism. Many others (myself included) are inclined to support a brand, but willingly and freely identify flaws of their brand. -Yet no matter what...anyone who consitently voices their preference for a company's line of products gets immediately slammed as "worshipers. The propensity to over-zealously label people as worshipers is at LEAST as idiotic as the carrying-on of a true, guilty "worshiper." > >>>>But nothing they will ever do would be good > >>>>in your book, would it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> > >> We've been down that road many, many times, > >> Sharf. The problem with you is that you simply > >> won't admit to your bias and that I'm afraid, > >> makes you one of us - a brand worshipper, not > >> an impartial bystander. > > Can one not be both impartial and civil? > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > worshipers is at LEAST as idiotic as the carrying- > on of a true, guilty "worshiper." Hmmm, I've _never_ been called that, despite my 'well known' preference for a particular line in 35mm SLRs - maybe because I explain exactly _why_ I have the preferences I do, and note that for other users, other aspects may matter more, or less. Peter >> >>>>But nothing they will ever do would be good >> >>>>in your book, would it? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > may > matter more, or less. I do the same...a LOT...but some people just like to revert to old stand-by quips, I think. >>> > Can one not be both impartial and civil? >>> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I do the same...a LOT...but some people just like to revert to old > stand-by quips, I think. <sigh> Don't you just love the semantics of long distance arguments? >There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the body that matches >their existing lenses (if the existing lenses are any good!). The >reasons that Canon dominates the professional digital market are well >known You mean the deep discounts and free loans. > >There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the > >body that matches their existing lenses (if the existing > >lenses are any good!). The reasons that Canon > >dominates the professional digital market are well known > > You mean the deep discounts and free loans. Absolutely - something all the amateur pontificators around here seem to forget. Nikon 'invented' the technique of using sales to professional (primarliy sports and press) photographers as a loss leader - but Canon watched carefully, learned well, and then beat them at their own game. And that level of amateur sales income is half of why Canon can come out with new models, bigger sensors, and more image stabilised lenses faster than Nikon can - the other half being Canon's cash cow office equipment business. A lot of people I know switched reluctantly because they prefered the look of Nikon glass, but Canon's pampering of the press & PR photographer combined with the range of IS lenses and high fps bodies more or less forced them to switch when everyone else was doing so for the same reasons. I don't much like the 'Canon look' for lenses either, and it is depressing that now just about every newspaper picture and a growing percentage of magazine ones has exactly the same look as every other one - I hope we can get back to both some competition and less 'sameness' amongst press, PJ, sports and PR photography soon. Peter >> >There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the >> >body that matches their existing lenses (if the existing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Absolutely - something all the amateur pontificators around here seem to >forget. I should also have mentioned the generous "sponsorship" of what might otherwise appear to be "impartial" review sites. >Nikon 'invented' the technique of using sales to professional (primarliy >sports and press) photographers as a loss leader - but Canon watched [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >get back to both some competition and less 'sameness' amongst press, PJ, >sports and PR photography soon. When changing from Nikon (35mm) I was not in the least attracted by Canon glass. I wanted a certain "look" and Canon don't have it, except in one or two fixed focal length lenses. Pentax had the look I wanted. So did Zeiss and Leica, but at a price I couldn't afford. Nikon had some superb lenses, just not in the focal lengths I wanted, especially 35mm, where I liked none of the Nikkors I used or tried. >>> >There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the >>> >body that matches their existing lenses (if the existing >>> >lenses are any good!). The reasons that Canon >>> >dominates the professional digital market are well known >>> >>> You mean the deep discounts and free loans. When Nikon has full frame, large scale IS offerings, 16MP, and CMOS smoothness, then perhaps you can claim that it's only about discounts. Until that time, you are full of devensive, rationalizing doo-doo. > When Nikon has full frame, large scale IS offerings, 16MP, and CMOS > smoothness, then perhaps you can claim that it's only about discounts. Do any of the above actually matter to photographers, as opposed to equipment collectors? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> When Nikon has full frame, large scale IS offerings, 16MP, and CMOS >> smoothness, then perhaps you can claim that it's only about discounts. > > Do any of the above actually matter to photographers, as opposed to > equipment collectors? Only two possibilities to explain your post: 1) You're kidding 2) You're just not aquainted with professional gear. > "Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 1) You're kidding > 2) You're just not aquainted with professional gear. I don't care whether my camera is full-frame; I care about the pictures. Indeed, I'd sort of rather it wasn't full-frame. I don't care how many megapixels my camera has; I care about the pictures. 16MP vs. 12MP is not significant if the quality is still there. Image stabilization is nice to have in certain lenses, but I don't care how "large scale" the offering is, only about the lenses I'll be using. And I don't care what kind of sensor my camera has; I care about the pictures. Indeed, my Nikon has a CMOS sensor, not that this makes any difference to me. So why would any of the above matter to a photographer? Or am I one of the last of a dying breed, photographers who actually care about the pictures more than the hardware used to make them? What I find amusing, though, is how many of the people who go on and on endlessly about the inherent superiority of Canon due to full-frame sensors have no intention of ever actually *buying* a 1Ds2. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> "Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > endlessly about the inherent superiority of Canon due to full-frame > sensors have no intention of ever actually *buying* a 1Ds2. Full frame is a single aspect offered by Canon that appeals to SOME pros. For those who need this, there is no Nikon alternative. The other aspects (CMOS smoothness/low noise, IS lenses) come into significant play in all segments. > Full frame is a single aspect offered by Canon that appeals to SOME pros. > For those who need this, there is no Nikon alternative. Why would you NEED this if the image quality is there? SignatureStacey >> Full frame is a single aspect offered by Canon that appeals to SOME pros. >> For those who need this, there is no Nikon alternative. > > Why would you NEED this if the image quality is there? Why would you NEED to argue this point? Quality, yes. No doubt. Similarly noiseless? No. Last I heard, Nikon was ready to move toward CMOS. Good move. > >> Full frame is a single aspect offered by Canon that appeals to SOME pros. > >> For those who need this, there is no Nikon alternative. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Last I heard, Nikon was ready to move toward CMOS. > Good move. For some, a full-frame sensor or lack thereof is the difference between being able to use their wideangle lenses that they already own, versus having to buy new ones - *only* because of the 1.6 factor. > For some, a full-frame sensor or lack thereof is the difference between > being able to use their wideangle lenses that they already own, versus > having to buy new ones - *only* because of the 1.6 factor. It goes beyond that, since neither Canon or Nikon offer professional level super-wide angle lenses that compensate for the 1.5-1.6 crop factor, so you _can't_ buy new ones if you're after professional grade lenses. The widest wide-angle professional zoom from Nikon is the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF, which would have zoom range of 25.5-52.5mm on a Nikon digital SLR with a 1.5 focal length multiplier (all Nikon digital SLRs have a 1.5 crop factor). The widest wide-angle professional zoom from Canon is the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L, which would give an equivalent focal length of 25.6-56mm on a Canon non-professional digital SLR (1.6 focal length multiplier), 20.8-45.5mm on the 1D Mark II (1.3 focal length multiplier), and 16-35mm on the 1Ds Mark II (1.0 focal length multiplier). For photographers that need a fast, professional grade, wide-angle-zoom, on a professional body, the only choice is an EOS-1Ds Mark II paired with the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L. Even the Canon EOS-1D Mark II, with its 1.3 crop factor, gives you only 20.8mm on the wide end, which is often not wide enough. Nikon has not yet introduced a digital SLR with a focal length multiplier of less than 1.5. Canon is able to charge $8000 for the 1Ds Mark II, and sell all that they can manufacture, simply because they are the sole source for a high-quality, low-noise, full-frame, digital SLR. If you don't care about wide-angle zoom pro glass, then the crop factor is not an issue. Nikon and Canon make professional wide angle prime lenses (14mm), so you'd be at 21mm with a 1.5 crop factor of the D2x, or 22.4mm with the 1.6 crop factor of a 20D. When selecting a digital SLR, it is vitally important to look at the big picture (no pun intended), and be certain that the lenses that you expect to buy, either now or in the future, are actually available. Steve http://digitalslrinfo.com >> For some, a full-frame sensor or lack thereof is the difference between >> being able to use their wideangle lenses that they already own, versus [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > picture (no pun intended), and be certain that the lenses that you expect > to buy, either now or in the future, are actually available. Apparently in your haste to promote your favourite brand you forgot that Nikon does an entire range of PROFESSIONAL DX lenses to cater for the 1.5x crop on their DSLR's. The 12-24mm f/4 DX is a professional spec lens. >>Full frame is a single aspect offered by Canon that appeals to SOME pros. >>For those who need this, there is no Nikon alternative. > > Why would you NEED this if the image quality is there? The image quality/low noise of the full frame sensors (at least from Canon), is not the only reason, though it is one of the major ones at this time. Semiconductor physics dictate that smaller pixels will always be higher noise than larger pixels. At some point the smaller pixels may be so low in noise that the difference is unimportant, but we're not there yet. The other reason is the crop factor. A lot of pros are heavily invested in professional quality glass. Neither Canon or Nikon have professional quality super-wide-angle zooms available yet, though both have lower end super-wide-angle zooms. Even if Nikon doesn't come out with full-frame, hopefully they will at least match the 1.3 crop factor of the Canon 1DMarkII. > Semiconductor physics dictate that smaller pixels will always be higher > noise than larger pixels. At some point the smaller pixels may be so low > in noise that the difference is unimportant, but we're not there yet. That's a nice theory, but when I look for the noise problem with my Nikon images I can't find one. > Even if Nikon doesn't come out with full-frame, hopefully they will at > least match the 1.3 crop factor of the Canon 1DMarkII. I hope not. The parade of different sensor sizes would be annoying. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Semiconductor physics dictate that smaller pixels will always be higher >> noise than larger pixels. At some point the smaller pixels may be so low >> in noise that the difference is unimportant, but we're not there yet. > > That's a nice theory, but when I look for the noise problem with my Nikon > images I can't find one. >> Even if Nikon doesn't come out with full-frame, hopefully they will at >> l |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message