Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: format  (Read 7302 times)
Slough
Guest
« on: September 06, 2005, 02:07:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a suspicion that at the moment the FF issue is more one of prestige and image than practicality. By all accounts the D2x is a first rate pro-grade camera suitable for sports, PJ, nature, portrait and so on, and I don't hear owners moaning about lack of resolution/detail. I also don't hear too much about the high speed crop mode, even though that in many respects means that a D2x can do the duty of a Canon 1Ds and a Canon 1D Mark 2. Hiowever it is frustrating to me that Nikon have no wide tilt shift lenses, and they are obsoleting most of their wide primes by the use of APS.

But in the long run I would have though that FF had more future, for the simple reason that the sensor is larger, and hence can contain more pixels at a given density. This a FF sensor can do everything an APS one can do and more. The argument that APS allows smaller lighter cameras and lenses does not seem to be the case, so the main reason for APS is cost.

Nikon seem to be arguing that APS lenses can offer better quality images and there might be something to that, though the market as a whole does not seem to be buying that one.

I suspect many people would be reluctant to buy into Nikon on the grounds that they are focussing on a sensor format that is PERCEIVED to be inferior (thanks to vocal and influential opponants such as Michael Reichmann). My own feeling is that I a reluctant to buy APS lenses only to discover in 5 years time that FF is the new flavour of the month.

Leif
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2005, 12:54:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Full frame (24x36mm ish) has no real world reason except  to match some old film sizes.

...and to match old lenses, which were sized to match film.

Lisa
Logged

howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2005, 01:49:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I didn't perceive you being nit picking.  Digital may have introduced new formats, but it seems a bit "die hard" to hang onto 35mm film.  Especially when conventional wisdom says 35mm film is dead.

There is absolutely magic about 35mm format, except it was accepted a long time ago because it was a split 70mm film and available.  Well, if 24x36mm sensors are not practicle, adopt another standard as "full frame."  

I use medium format film a lot but I never thought about a particualar format as being a "crop factor" of another, especially 35mm.  I also use 4x5.  But my trusty ole 210mm Scheinder is just another 210mm lens, not a 336mm 20D lens.  And it isn't an 8x10 wide angle lens with crop factor.  When I do DoF calculations and such, it is just a 210mm lens.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5142


« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2005, 04:53:58 PM »
ReplyReply

About square formats to avoid rotation: they seem to be very much out of favor lately, with Kodak apparently about to drop the last square sensor (16MB, 36x36mm) in favor or a 4:3 shaped 18MP one, and all new MF bodies being 645 rather than 6x6.

Perhaps the last best chance for non-rotating cameras is having in-camera sensor rotation, so that your camera controls and flash unit stay in the same position when you rotate for a vertical. It would help to use an EVF to avoid the large, slow, square mirror and bulky square frame optical VF system, if EVF's get good enough. Of course, Mamiya had part of this idea decades ago!
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2005, 06:01:51 PM »
ReplyReply

In the "switching" topic, started at about the same time as this, the photographer wants full-frame. What he means, of course, is full-frame 35mm. On a Galbraith forum, a very successful and well-known professional photographer who uses medium format digital, and both Canon and Nikon top-end DSLRs, complains about the lack of full-frame in Nikon. It seems he just doesn't like it not being full-frame.

But why? Aside from some minor effects when one is trying to get shallow depth-of-field, and some viewfinder differences, there's not much to choose between Canon's full-frame and the Nikon's 1.5. There are differences in the cameras, to be sure, and one might prefer one or the other, but would you really switch just to get full-frame?

Every time anybody has tried to explain why they prefer full-frame, they wind up providing explanations that other folks then demonstrate are not true. The "switcher," for example, specifically mentions that he wants to go to Canon because he uses wide-angles, when almost everybody agrees that corner sharpness is notably weak with Canon wide-angle full-frames.

To continue my rant, from a slightly different direction:

After reading the "switcher" post, I happened to pick up a PDN (carefully stored in the bathroom) and flipping through it, was interested to see that *not a single photograph in the entire magazine was in a native 35mm format (2:3).* Not one. 35mm film was not chosen because it was a great format for still cameras; it was chosen because it existed. NONE of the most common medium format or large format sizes are 2:3 (there is a 6x9, but that's probably the least common of the medium formats), which tells you something about what serious professionals prefer.

I'm a Nikon D2x shooter but I'm not a fanatic about it; until a few months ago I shot full-frame Kodaks. I believe Canons are great cameras. But I think they are *stuck* with full-frame; there are other possibilities that they can't exploit, which will only work with either a cropped frame or a whole new set of bigger, heavier, and more expensive cameras and lenses. One  thing Canon doesn't need is more weight.

So what are some of the other possibilities? Thom Hogan mentions somewhere that the DX line of lenses for Nikons seem to have room to accomodate a somewhat larger sensor, though not full-frame. If Canon, with it's 1DsIII, goes to 22mp, Nikon may feel, for competitive reasons, that it needs to generate more megapixels. It would be hard to do so with the current chip size. I wouldn't be surprised if they went to a 1.3 chip. But what I'm hoping is, that they either stay with the same with chip, or a somewhat longer chip (the 1.3 length), but with a format that is 4:5 rather than 2:3. Why perpetuate the 35mm format? It's probably the least-used, most-cropped format in existence. Nikon has the room, with its current lenses, to do this. And given the focus on megapixels, it may have the need...

I certainly hope so. I'd love a ~20mp D3x with a 4:5 crop...  

JC
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8084



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2005, 02:43:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I suspect many people would be reluctant to buy into Nikon on the grounds that they are focussing on a sensor format that is PERCEIVED to be inferior (thanks to vocal and influential opponants such as Michael Reichmann). My own feeling is that I a reluctant to buy APS lenses only to discover in 5 years time that FF is the new flavour of the month.

Leif
I guess that it all depends how important for you are the images you'll be taking in the meantime with your system.

Different photographers probably have different reasons for preferring FF over APS sensors. I personnally feel that FF does make a lot of sense for some applications (portrait for instance), and probably less for others (typically landscape in my view), but I have given up trying to convince anyone of the validity of my views.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2005, 12:46:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm curious as to why you think FF is not so important for landscape. I would have thought the opposite, though given the quality - or lack of - of my landscapes, I'm prepared to listen to other views.
Whether "full format" is important for landscapes or not depend on what kind of landscapes you shoot.

I, for instance, don't need ultra-wide angles, I even sold off my EF-S 10-22mm because it was too wide for my landscape needs. Well, so far, anyway. And if it wasn't too wide, it would still provide the same angle of view at the wide end as the EF 16-35mm on a 1Ds. Since there have been a distinct lack of comparisons between the 20D with a 10-22mm and a 1Ds series with a 16-35mm, I cannot say anything about the quality issues.

There are so many different things to do in landscape photography that you could justify any format or lens (in terms of angle of view, that is).

Where a "full frame" 35mm camera wins without doubt, is the viewfinder. I really want a bright, large viewfinder. And I know I'll get it if I buy e.g. a Hasselblad H2 or a used Contax 645, or an approximation of it in the 1-series Canons.
Logged

Jan
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5142


« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2005, 04:21:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
2:3 is a reasonable compromise between the 4:5 aspect ratio common for portraits and the wider aspect ratio used for single-capture panoramic landscapes.
I suppose it depends on one's range of desired print shapes; my tastes range mostly from 5:4 to 3:2, with few outliers, and this is also the case in collections of photographs, paintings, drawings, and painting and drawing supplies that I have surveyed. For that range, 4:3 is a more central compromise shape.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2005, 04:39:36 PM »
ReplyReply

"But the image circle still matters, because it represents a readily available lens base to select from."  True.  But then the lens design isn't a very good one for the selected format.  That is the problem for the person selecting that lens, not the format or lens.

"I don't think a new format would stand much of a chance without solid backing, and right now it looks like all the major players have decided on their lenses for their digital formats."   I don't diagree here.  If I had a basket full of designs and products, I would be reluctant to scrape all that and move on.  The current wisdom says film is dead, but there are film makers still hanging on.

"... it's not a mass market thing, and it seems unlikely that it will appear in the more consumer-oriented 35 mm-derived bodies."  Probably true too.  I have maintained for a long time that if nuclear fission had been discovered before fire, there would be many more nuclear plants than oil or gas today.  The consumer be damned as long as they spend.  If 36x36mm had been selected instead of 24x36, things woulsd be different today in the consumer market.  35mm had nothing to do with what was wanted or needed or art, just with what was available.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2005, 06:27:17 PM »
ReplyReply

2:3 is a reasonable compromise between the 4:5 aspect ratio common for portraits and the wider aspect ratio used for single-capture panoramic landscapes. What I'd like is a ~25MP 36x36mm square format in a 1-series body so that I could shoot horizontal and vertical simultaneously and choose the crop and aspect ratio later.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2005, 08:53:25 PM »
ReplyReply

No blood, no foul!
Logged

howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2005, 12:31:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Full frame (24x36mm ish) has no real world reason except  to match some old film sizes.  With digital cameras and the the "technology revolution," why not come up with a sensor size that makes practicle sense for digital - like the cost of producing certain sensor sizes on a given chip?
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2005, 01:37:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But why? Aside from some minor effects when one is trying to get shallow depth-of-field, and some viewfinder differences,

These are major not minor issues. Losing the ability of shallow DOF at certain popular focal lengths is a major problem for almost everyone but landscape, sports and macro users. Event/wedding/magazine/catalogue shooters all prefer FF for that reason. Oh and because they want their arsenal of lenses to work as advertised.

I have a friend who shoots Nikon. For film his most used and favorite lens by far is the super sharp 28-70 f2.8 AF-S. He will probably sell it soon as he migrates to digital. To force loyal users to sell lenses that they know back to front, that they've worked with for years, make a loss and pick up the latest incarnation, just to give him a similar set of focal lengths is a crime. They might as well admit that they are forcing their users to buy a camera, oh and software, oh and by the way, have some DX lenses while you're at it.

I tested the D2X out when Bernard (I think) was trying to pursuade me that it was an option over the 5D. I open mindedly went through the options and decided on the 5D, mainly for cost reasons, I couldn't afford the switch. I did check it out though, in my personal opinion the viewfinder is smaller and dimmer than the one on my almost unsellable Elan II! For me that is a serious turnoff. If I'm shooting 10+ hours at a time (weddings) then I want as big a viewfinder that I can. Small viewfinders are not an issue to brush off!

Didger used to point out what a difference even a little bit of weight shaved used to make for his hiking, it was his reason for switching to Nikon. I say that when you work with a tool you want the tool to be as comfortable to use as possible, small details do matter!

 
Quote
The "switcher," for example, specifically mentions that he wants to go to Canon because he uses wide-angles, when almost everybody agrees that corner sharpness is notably weak with Canon wide-angle full-frames

This is the usual rant of the nikon crop fanatics, that the canon WA's arn't up to it. OK, where is your 12-24 f2.8? hmmm? your fast WA primes? Where is your 16mm 1.4 prime to match the 24mm 1.4L, sharp corners or not?

Canon must know by now that their WA's suck at the corners, a replacement for the 16-35L with acceptable corner sharpness would knock that complaint straight out of the water (PMA anyone?) leaving Nikon without their strongest, and only real argument against FF. Not to mention that to get the resolution required to match those 'weak' FF cameras Nikon has only one offering compared to the 3 that Canon has (1Ds, mkII, 5D).

Bernard I think makes a good point, we've argued it over before but he's right, extra DOF is an advantage for landscape work, though I'm not hugely sympathitic to the concept, I used to shoot landscapes with a Mamiya 645. It's silly though to harp on the WA point assuming that this, the only real disadvantage, will continue to perpetuity. Nikon seems to be moving so slowly relatively that Canon could update it's entire WA lens line by the time they realise that affordable FF may be the answer.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8084



WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 06, 2005, 06:29:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm curious as to why you think FF is not so important for landscape. I would have thought the opposite, though given the quality - or lack of - of my landscapes, I'm prepared to listen to other views.  

Leif
Hi there,

This topic has been discussed at lenght already. A poster called Didger did also conduct in depth analysis between his 1Ds and D2x and his conclusions were identical to mine. He did unfortunately pass away a few months ago in a tragic backcountry accident.

Using currently availalbe cameras, the question ends up being which of the D2x or the 1Ds2 is the better tool for landscape applications (the 5D will IMHO not change the game too much - see below). As I said, I am not trying to convince anyone, and I know that amazing pics can be taken with a 1Ds2. No doubt.

From my selfish standpoint though, here is why I feel the D2x to be the better tool for landscape applications:

1. More DOF, which is key for landscape as my experience with 4*5 has painfully taught me,

2. The image quality is overall very similar, at least up to 400 ISO (which is all I need for landscape):

2.1. The DX wide lenses provide a very uniform image accross the frame, down to 12 mm on the 12-24 mm. This appears not to be the case with the best L lenses on the 1Ds2. Pom is right to say that Canon will probably release better wide zooms, but they have been very slow doing so (the 1Ds was released 3 years ago), and those will be expensive new lenses which will pretty much cancel out the supposed advantage of being able to use one's existing set of lenses.

2.2. The colors delivered by the D2x are great,

3. The D2x is much lighter as a system:

1. Body is 200 gr lighter,
2. Battery life is longer and batteries are nearly twice lighter (180 gr vs 335 gr).

-> For an intensive 5 days shooting in the wild, where 3 or 4 batteries would typically be needed with a D2x (against 4 or 5 with a 1Ds2), this results in at least 1 kg less weight to carry around with the D2x. A BIG factor if you actually trek in the high country.

I can already hear some people saying that 1 kg is not a big deal... it is for me.

If you factor in the fact that DX wide are also lighter, then you end up finding out that you can actually take one more long lens like the 70-200 with you for free weightwise compared to a 1Ds2 based system... or a light Goretex tent for instance (mine weighting only 1300 gr).

The gap weightwise does of course further increase if you take a second body along,

4. The ergonomics of the D2X are great which helps shooting with gloves in the cold for instance (something I do during the winter months in Japan). 2 great additional features are the display of the ISO value in the viewfinder together with WB value,

5. The D2x is much cheaper than the 1Ds2. The 5D will change this, but I don't think that I would trust an important shoot in the wild to a 5D class body though. All those that have been writing reviews about how rugged the 1Ds2 is, and how important this rudgness is for landscape shooting should agree with me on this.

6. The day I start wildlife, the 200-400 f4 VR (behaving like a 300-600 f4 VR on the D2x) will be available a provide a much lighter, cheaper and flexible alternative compared to the 500f4 and 600f4 1ds2 users would have to carry along. Again, not a problem if you shoot from the car, more so if you actually trek to location.

7. Best in class low light AF. Great for pre-dawn shots where it is too dark for focus manually in an accurate fashion.

As a Nikon user with an existing set of lenses, it is really a clear cut choice...

The 1Ds2 probably has some advantage over the D2x though:

- more tilt lenses -> I hope that Nikon will provide a solution to this,
- a wider viewfinder,
- better high ISO image quality, not a factor for landscape, but a bit more so for wildlife (which I haven't been doing too much),
- possibly a bit more DR, but this isn't that clear.

But those are IMHO far from outweighting the other advantages I see to the current Nikon system.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Slough
Guest
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2005, 02:01:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Bernard: Thanks for taking the trouble to post such an informative reply. Clearly I missed the earlier discussions on these issues. Leif
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2005, 12:38:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Bob, I couldn't care less about image quality here.  Image circle size is another matter altogether.  My point is; Does a 6x4.5 have a crop factor when I put a 6x4.5 back or a 70mm back on my Hasselblad.  Yes.  But no.  No one thinks about that or probably knows what it is without a quick calculation.

Is a 6x6 just a cropped 6x7 or 6x9?  No, not really.

So maybe it is time to stop thinking a 20D is a 35mm camera with a 1.6 crop factor.  It is just a camera with a normal lens of about 30mm.  The fact that anon does not make a 30mm lens is irrelavent.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2005, 04:22:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Howard,

I see what you mean, I think.

But the image circle still matters, because it represents a readily available lens base to select from.

Whether that lens base is Canon's lens base for 35 mm film, or it's Nikon's base for 35 mm film and 24 mm wide sensors, or something else altogether, is another matter.

I don't think a new format would stand much of a chance without solid backing, and right now it looks like all the major players have decided on their lenses for their digital formats.

It's a pity that the 4/3 system isn't a 1:1 system.


But:

If we're to look at it realistically, I don't think we'll see a 1:1 format in any mass-produced system any time soon. While there are medium format digital backs with that format, it's not a mass market thing, and it seems unlikely that it will appear in  the more consumer-oriented 35 mm-derived bodies.

Even if the camera manufacturers would make it, it could be a hard sell to the consumers, even if a handful of landscape photographers like me have wet dreams about it.
Logged

Jan
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8084



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2005, 05:49:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi there,

About square sensors. Are there really so many square images in print? I see very few actually.

I would personnally still prefer to pay less for a non square sensor (whether it is 3/2, 4/3 or 5/4) on which I will do less cropping. For my needs, a square 16 MP sensor would always end up being a non square 12 MP sensor or less, but I will nonetheless have paid for the additional square millimeters of silicon... Personnally, 4/3 is probably the best compromise.

Besides, a square sensor whose height is larger than the height of the sensor for which the body was designed initially will have to result in a larger mirror and prism.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2005, 06:42:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
2:3 is a reasonable compromise between the 4:5 aspect ratio common for portraits and the wider aspect ratio used for single-capture panoramic landscapes. What I'd like is a ~25MP 36x36mm square format in a 1-series body so that I could shoot horizontal and vertical simultaneously and choose the crop and aspect ratio later.
And I've been saying that from day 1.

Once you shot with a square format or rotating back, it hard to forget the convenience that you had during a shoot.

I use a RRS L Plate - the closest compromise available. But  obviously you need to make the horizontal-vertical decision on the spot.
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8084



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2005, 11:49:06 PM »
ReplyReply

A 1.3 APS chip with a 5/4 aspect ratio built with the same pixel pitch as the D2x would be 19.8 MP.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad