Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: format  (Read 7282 times)
LeifG
Guest
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2005, 11:28:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
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
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2005, 01:03:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Pick a film - design a lens.  Why not pick a sensor for another practicle reason and design a lens?  The practicle reason might be that a full line of lenses exists.  Why not say so.  An existing "35mm lens" will adapt quite well to other formats, like 36x36.  Why not call the camera something that describes the format besides "full frame?"  36mm square?

Then you could forget the "crop factor" junk.
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2005, 03:59:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd vote for a new format.

A 36x36 mirror box probably isn't doable with the current generation of 35mm bodies of anyone's manufacture. Also by spreading out the narrow dimension from one inch to 1.5 inch the sensor would be "significantly" into the corners of the lens coverage.

I do like the idea of a 1 " x 1 1/4 inch (5/4). The old days of 8x10 etc paper sizes is however falling by the wayside with 1x1.5 formats becoming popular (My standard paper is 13 x 19 now). I could adapt. It would give a little extra room in the image circle and would be very close to FF with the wide angle lenses.

If 24 x 18 = 12.4 mpxls then 24 X 30 = 20.6 mpxls

Sounds like a plan. I don't know if my Dx lenses would work at the wide end of the range though. They definately would at the long end as they cover FF there.

Bob
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2005, 09:23:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Pick a film - design a lens.  Why not pick a sensor for another practicle reason and design a lens?  The practicle reason might be that a full line of lenses exists.  Why not say so.  An existing "35mm lens" will adapt quite well to other formats, like 36x36.  Why not call the camera something that describes the format besides "full frame?"  36mm square?
A 36 mm square chip will have even greater problems with corner softness and vignetting than a 24 mm x 36 mm chip, it has a diagonal of  nearly 51 mm. The 24 mm x 36 mm format has a diagonal of about 43 mm, so you're adding nearly 8 mm that current lenses simply aren't designed for.

To retain the same diagonal as 35 mm film, the chip must be about 30.5 mm square, and would be truly "full frame".

This is approximately an 1.18 crop factor.
Logged

Jan
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #24 on: September 07, 2005, 01:36:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Howard, I wasn't trying to come across as nit picking.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that AP-C and DX are new formats.

Its just the lens mount, body, and most lenses are interchangeable between the two formats. Nice transition to new generation.

In a few years we may be talking about 4/3 as the new 35mm. With Dx being the equivalent of MF and FF (35mm) as the new large format.

The technology is moving fast, and we early adopters are sure paying handsomely for it.

Me, I glad BJL is part of the group. He presents some very interesting insights.

bob
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5140


« Reply #25 on: September 07, 2005, 04:37:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why not pick a sensor for another practicle reason and design a lens?
...
Why not call the camera something that describes the format besides "full frame?"  36mm square?

Then you could forget the "crop factor" junk.
Howard, I agree on both points.

a) lens systems have repeatedly evolved to fit the needs of frame formats, in turn chosen for suitability to different photographic goals with film, and clearly a new array of digital sensor and lens formats is evolving. It seems very strange to expect any one sensor format to be dominant when price/image quality/shutter speed/portability needs of photography vary so greatly; even strange to expect that imagined one dominant format to be one that is simultaneously far more expensive and of far higher quality that was the case with 24x36mm film format.

 How about that name "24x36mm"? Some European photographic magazines consistently use this nicely factual description for the most familiar 35mm film camera format, which also distinguishes from the other frame formats that also use 35mm film, ranging from about 13x24mm (modern movies) through 18x24mm (old movies and "single frame") up to various panoramic cameras.

Likewise, "medium format digital sensors" are far, far from "medium sized", so I prefer descriptions like 645, or to be more precise, 36x48mm and 39x50mm for the biggest current sensors.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #26 on: September 07, 2005, 05:07:55 PM »
ReplyReply

This decision was made for economic reasons, not what is needed.  Did consumers buy 35mm camera because that is what they wanted, or because that was what was available if they wanted a cheap, small camera?  It seems strange to me that Kodak would say they sold so much 35mm film because people demanded it, instead of they sold so much 35mm film because there were so many 35mm cameras out there, and no one needed (wanted?) 40mm film.

Do you really think Canon could not make a lens with enough image circle and edge to edge sharpness for 36'36mm?  50x50mm?  Whateverxwahtever?

It seems time to drop the film references for digital camera formats.  And don't stop with dimension ratios (2:3. 4:3)  How about an xXymm format?  (I have a 20D now and to be honest, I really don't know the sensor size (format).)
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2005, 07:55:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Getting back to the full-frame question, for me the determinative advantage of the full 35mm format sensor is simply what I see looking through the viewfinder. I have no doubt that a Nikon D2X or some other higher-end cropped-sensor cameras produce absolutely stunning, excellent photographs at least comparable to those from a Canon 1Ds; but seeing that big, bright image in the viewfinder makes a big difference to my photographic experience - and that for me is critically important because it affects image quality. That plus the extra resolution are the main reasons why I chose to buy a used 1Ds over a new 20D. It is a completely subjective criterion - important to some people and much less so to others.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2005, 07:09:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I currently use a Custom Bracket rotating bracket when I'm shooting with lenses that do not have a tripod collar that allows camera rotation. But it would be nice to be able to dispense with such a bracket altogether and not have to fiddle with changing orientation while shooting. One less piece of gear to keep track of and one less distraction while shooting.
Logged

howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #29 on: September 06, 2005, 03:47:31 PM »
ReplyReply

"... who are talking about switching ... ."

Maybe there wouldn't be such a yearning or need to switch if first there were some thought about what you want or need, and why.  Sometimes what I want isn't what I need at all.

So often I have heard people say "I could have been a dancer if I knew how to dance.  I could have been a winner, I just didn't get the cards.  I could have  been a contender if I just had the chance."

"That's a great photo.  What kind of camera do you use?"  Not too relavent.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #30 on: September 07, 2005, 10:22:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I stand corrected.


"This is approximately an 1.18 crop factor."  Only when compared to 35mm.  What is the "crop factor" for 2 1/4 square, or 4x5?  These formats are not routinely compared with 35mm because there is no reason to, no usefulness for, maybe no connection at all.  Just think of existing "35mm camera lenses" as camera lenses.  After all, an 80mm lens is an 80mm lens regardless of the size of the film in the lens/film holder box.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #31 on: September 08, 2005, 08:38:22 AM »
ReplyReply

"Are there really so many square images in print?"

Probably not.  Photography and the printed media (magazines primarily drive the commercial photo market.  Most magazines are not square, but cry out for rectangular images.

When I bought my 6x6, I noticed that over a very short time, my images started taking on a square look.  I made a 4x5 ratio insert, both horizontal and verticle, as an aid when I needed non-square images.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2005, 08:14:31 PM »
ReplyReply

In my original post, I referred to the "switcher" talking of wide angles. I actually mixed up a couple of different people, probably because their names got mixed in my ear because of their similar sounds...Sorry about that.  

JC
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #33 on: September 06, 2005, 03:16:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Pom,
You actually turned that argument around on me. I'm not a Nikon fanatic; I think Canons are great cameras. I've suggested on this forum that a guy who was thinking of switching to Nikon, from Canon, think it over, since he was already invested in the Canon system.

What I was trying to get at was that people seem attracted to full-frame, but they don't seem to know exactly why, other than a general sense that it's better. What I want to know is, how better? And is full-frame "betterness" worth dumping an entire system, to buy new in another system? My argument is that maybe it is -- but not specifically for the full-frame effect. If you *really* need shallow depth of field at *specific* focal lengths, all right, maybe full-frame is better for you. But that's a pretty small group of people; and for most folks, not enough reason to dump one system for another...

I'm arguing that unless you have way more money than you need, you should take a very hard look at reasons for changing systems, because it's so costly. And there are implications to changing -- if you're that much in search of a certain kind of perfection, that means that you'll probably also want the most costly lenses, which is even more money with a switch.

Most people who I've seen on this forum and others, who are talking about switching, seem to have a vague yearning to swim upstream with the other salmon, but the yearning most often doesn't seem to have much with what they're shooting...

JC
Logged
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #34 on: September 07, 2005, 12:09:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
 After all, an 80mm lens is an 80mm lens regardless of the size of the film in the lens/film holder box.

The image circle is a design parameter of lens design.

An 80mm fl can cover 4x5 (Super angulon _ wide angle) (yes  know its a 90 but you get the point). or a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4(Planar_normal lens) or a 35mm (everyone_moderate tele) or P&S (tele).

The 80mm is just the Focal length of the lens and says very little until we include the coverage (format) of the expected use.

Excessive coverage is not nearly the issue that under coverage is. I'm quite sure that the Super Ang won't be very sharp on a P&S, but this is making the point in the extreme.

The  6 x 4.5 is nearly or precisely the same as a 6 x 6 when printing on 8x10 paper. There is no loss of quality and both have the same film/paper ratio. Just no wasted image. I like the idea of applying the same logic to digital to shore up the quality in the corners. Its idle babble at this point to discuss a new format, but certainly workable. Yes I know it would not benefit the stitching guys, but I could cheapen the cost side of "near" FF w/o many negatives (pun intended).

Bob
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #35 on: September 07, 2005, 08:12:25 PM »
ReplyReply

When speculating about different formats,  I was trying to take into account the large installed base of 35mm equipment, along with some marketing practicalities. The most obvious solution is to use the installed 35mm lenses, and, if you're pressed to develop sensors with more pixels...why not go taller, instead of full frame? I personally think it would be a marketing coup.

If you made a taller sensor of a given width -- say with width of the Nikon sensor -- you could then have what I think is a more practical and functional shape for most professional uses, which usually involve rectangles, but rectangles not as extreme at the standard 35mm shape. Also, you could (I think) continue to use standard 35mm lenses unless...

Is it possible that 35mm lenses are developed with a wide rectangle in mind, so that the "wasted" glass area at the top and bottom of the lens is not as good as it is on the sides? I just don't know about this.

As I said earlier, Thom Hogan says somewhere (I think it was Thom ) that the Nikon DX lenses appear to have "extra" room that might accommodate a somewhat larger sensor than the current 1.5 crop. I've wondered if a 1.3 Nikon sensor may be coming, or even a "taller" sensor.

Full-frame cameras don't have the ability to go taller on the sensor, since their corners are already out ot the edge of the image circle (or close to it. Not that there's anything wrong with that.  :p

JC
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad