Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras  (Read 40133 times)
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 999


« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2008, 03:12:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am saving my money for the 5D Mark II...but when will it really happen?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This autumn... say those, who seem to be able to feel camera change in their bones like the weather.

I just upgraded, so I'm more in the audience than in the buyer flock.

But I'm definitely curious what the 5D MkII will be able to do. This is why I got myself a D40, which is very close to the 5D MkI, but with more modern technology.

Generally, it will be interesting where the APS-C size camera will go. I guess, five years from now al pro quality gear will be full frame.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2008, 12:53:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Leica's owner Dr. Kaufmann and also the R product manager have both hinted that the next Leica reflex will be larger than full frame.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can you point to any source for this claim?
To repeat, what I have read from them is only hints that it will have larger sensor than the 18x27mm one of the R digital back and M8.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2008, 01:26:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Generally, it will be interesting where the APS-C size camera will go. I guess, five years from now al pro quality gear will be full frame.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
partly it depends on how ones defines 'pro': hopefully not "gear giving the highest image quality available", because that would mean medium format, not 35mm.

When it comes to what formats will be used for various types of professional and advanced amateur photography, I predict
1) An increased total number of 35mm format DLSRs in use. (Easy!)
2) Continued increase in the image quality and performance possible in any given format, including DX, EF-S and 4/3.
3) Many photographers including professionals what want a kit with good telephoto coverage that must sometimes be carried for many hours over significant distances will continue to prefer the smaller DSLR formats, smaller pixel sizes, and their associated smaller telephoto lenses and lower kit weight.
4) The last two items combined will continue to support a healthy market for ever higher quality gear in the smaller DSLR formats that will be used in some professional sector. (Note for example the arrival and great sales success of the D300 and 40D after the "5D revolution" and along-side the D3.)


With film, professional level 35mm and medium format SLR gear coexisted for decades, so it amazes me that some people still think that professional and serious amateur usage will ever entirely abandon the smaller DSLR formats that already easily outperform professional 35mm film gear in most respects.
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 999


« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2008, 07:53:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Note for example the arrival and great sales success of the D300 and 40D after the "5D revolution" and along-side the D3.)
With film, professional level 35mm and medium format SLR gear coexisted for decades, so it amazes me that some people still think that professional and serious amateur usage will ever entirely abandon the smaller DSLR formats that already easily outperform professional 35mm film gear in most respects.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204834\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I'm one of those who liked the 40d, and bought it. This is great quality, and it will stay for a good while. Especially with that great viewfinder the 40d has (often a downside on smaller sensor cameras).

I just saw that the body was not much smaller, nor much lighter, than a 5D's.

But the lenses are.

So I think your arguments pretty much on the money, and we will see a wide range of APS, full frame, and large format digital cameras.

Only regarding the four thirds system I have my doubts. It's a really, really small sensor, and I'm not convinced it will survive.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2008, 02:06:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, I'm one of those who liked the 40d ... the body was not much smaller, nor much lighter ... But the lenses are. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed lens size is the key. I am glad we agree that there is a place even in professional level photography for a format like the 14.8x22.2mm of EF-S.

But then somehow you lose sight of this size+weight advantage when things get just slightly smaller:
Quote
Only regarding the four thirds system I have my doubts. It's a really, really small sensor ... [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As we seem to agree that the 14.8x22.2mm of Canon EF-S sensors is an acceptable size for smaller, lighter kit, I do not see how the 13x17.3mm of current 4/3 sensors (with up to about 14.1x18.8 allowed in 4/3 according to the 4/3 patent) becomes "really, really small", and thus doomed.

Current FourThirds sensors are 12% less high and 22% less wide than EF-S, which means about 1/3 to 2/3 stop loss of light gathering power depending on desired print shape. When working within a weight limit, the somewhat shorter 4/3 lenses can easily be about 1/3 -2/3 stop brighter, neutralizing the speed effect of the size difference: consider the f/2.8-3.5 FourThirds zoom lens options for example. (I ignore the rather extreme f/2 FourThirds zooms.)


Somehow, a sensor format about five or more times larger than those chosen by over 90% of mainstream (digicam) camera buyers does not fit my idea of "too small", except for a small high end sector.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7900



WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2008, 05:19:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Somehow, a sensor format about five or more times larger than those chosen by over 90% of mainstream (digicam) camera buyers does not fit my idea of "too small", except for a small high end sector.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed. If the companies promoting the 4/3 system manage to survive another 5 years or so, these sensors will have reached a level of quality/DR/noise that will be sufficient for 95% of applications.

My view is that FF will become more and more of a niche with 4/3 and APS becoming even more main stream.

The only people still shooting with FF will be the guys looking for a very specific look associated with limited DoF.

I do personnally see the agitation surrounding the Nikon/Canon FF releases as being mostly esotheric marketing fights with very little actual impact on the overall market.

My contention is that both Nikon and Canon are concentrating on their image by investing now in FF. They have also perceived a very profitable tactical niche with FF but they must be aware that the future doesn't lie there. I would be very surprised if Sony, Nikon and Canon kept investing heavily in FF sensors beyond the current generation of 20+ MP sensors.

After that common sense would dictate that they focus on enhancing the DR/noise of smaller photosites corresponding to 20MP APS sensors.

As far as I am concerned, I see value in FF now and in the coming 2 or 3 years thanks to better DR and potentially higher resolutions, etc... but I will probably return to DX around 2012.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: July 02, 2008, 06:18:44 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 999


« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2008, 06:28:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My view is that FF will become more and more of a niche with 4/3 and APS becoming even more main stream.

The only people still shooting with FF will be the guys looking for a very specific look associated with limited DoF.

I do personnally see the agitation surrounding the Nikon/Canon FF releases as being mostly esotheric marketing fights with very little actual impact on the overall market.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is also very convincing.

I must say I'm currently using the philosopher Husserl's tactic of "Epoche", which is to not judge right now and keep information coming in and let it build an image.

The arguments for FF seem to concern the sweet spot of resolution: how many megapixels can an APS sized sensor bear.

The other question: how many megapixels do we need?

What we really need, I think, is dynamic range.

Regarding resolution, I don't feel "underresolutioned" at 10 Megapixels.

The four thirds system could be very interesting for photographer's viewfinder cameras: smaller and lighter than a DSLR, but still with very high image quality. There are few viewfinder style cameras worth looking at currently (and they are called "point and shoot", an awful name). After all, Cartier-Bresson used to shoot with a Leica with mostly a 50mm lens, and there are barely any wide angle or tele shots from him.

So, the development will probably function like survival in nature: every animal will shape its tool for survival, every camera and sensor type will either find a niche of maximum photographic use, or simply die out.

I'm also curious what will become of the Foveon sensor. At the moment it may be a sideline of sensor development, but we may be in for a surprise.

Another development will probably be in the printer and paper section, often neglected in all that focusing on bodies and megapixels. I'm only starting out to get into that area (but I have spent plenty of time in smelly, wet darkrooms).
« Last Edit: July 02, 2008, 06:29:09 PM by The View » Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7900



WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2008, 07:17:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Another development will probably be in the printer and paper section, often neglected in all that focusing on bodies and megapixels. I'm only starting out to get into that area (but I have spent plenty of time in smelly, wet darkrooms).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am really not too sure about that one.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Er1kksen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #28 on: July 03, 2008, 12:12:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The four thirds system could be very interesting for photographer's viewfinder cameras: smaller and lighter than a DSLR, but still with very high image quality. There are few viewfinder style cameras worth looking at currently (and they are called "point and shoot", an awful name). After all, Cartier-Bresson used to shoot with a Leica with mostly a 50mm lens, and there are barely any wide angle or tele shots from him.

So, the development will probably function like survival in nature: every animal will shape its tool for survival, every camera and sensor type will either find a niche of maximum photographic use, or simply die out.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's been some speculation as to the idea of a 4/3 format small viewfinder camera, but the problem is that such a camera would need completely different lenses than the current digital zuikos, since the lens-to-sensor distance is made to accomodate a mirror box. The lenses themselves are one of the biggest draws for 4/3, with Olympus being sometimes reffered to as the leica of the digital age for the quality seen from their lenses (I wouldn't ignore those f2 zooms, either... the 14-35mm f2 is meant as the 4/3 equivalent to FF 24-70 f2.8 zooms), and of course the other main manufacturer is leica themselves (with panasonic).

Most seem to be fixated on the idea of small+light as related to camera bodies. That's not exactly the idea they had for 4/3, though they've managed to do that anyways. The idea was that the lenses would be much smaller, particularly at the longer focal lengths. At the wider end the gap isn't so large, but a D700 with a 300mm f2 attached (does nikon even make one) would be much larger than the E-3 with the 150mm f2 attached (which several reviews have rated as one of the best lenses they've tested). Similarly, the zuiko 300mm f2.8... are there any 600mm f2.8s out there?

The potential of four thirds is apparent in their glass, but unfortunately they seem a little behind on the bodies. They've done a great job of lessening the gap lately, but they've still got some work to do. Better AF algorithms are the most pressing need; many have bought the E-3 for its ultra-fast AF, and it delivers in reasonable lighting with slower subjects. But it's outperformed in low light by canon and nikon, and for C-AF tracking Nikon does a particularly superior job. As far as megapixels go, that's a problem from a marketing viewpoint, but not so much from a photography viewpoint. It's better to compare actual vertical and horizontal pixel counts than given megapixel ratings, because the vertical resolution of a 12mp APS-C sensor and a 10mp 4/3 sensor are very similar; it's like you just cropped the sides off the APS-C.

Either way, they've been gaining sales and speeding up development lately, and the lenses are starting to gain the reputation they deserve, so I think 4/3 has safely come through the predictions of the naysayers and will survive, and even thrive.

More on topic: has there been any speculation on the idea of a pentax FF camera? They made a prototype long ago, with a 6mp FF sensor, which looked like it had the potential to be very interesting. Now there are rumbles about a samsung full-frame sensor...
Logged
tetsuo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #29 on: July 03, 2008, 12:54:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
More on topic: has there been any speculation on the idea of a pentax FF camera? They made a prototype long ago, with a 6mp FF sensor, which looked like it had the potential to be very interesting. Now there are rumbles about a samsung full-frame sensor...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Pentax has, up to now, two different pro camera attempts stopped two months [more or less] before public release.

The first, and less known, is the 2000-2001 MZ-D model with a 6 mpx Full Frame Phillips based pro model.  Taking the pro MZ-S 35mm model, the camera was stopped two months before release because of the problems with the Phillips sensor [mainly, color inaccuracies and failures]. That model was good to use the K-mount [KAF, KAF2 power zoom included] lenses, and, via adapters [unique to Pentax], 645 and 67 lenses.

The 2000-2001 MZ-D had working prototypes rolled out [not mock-ups, but models where you could take a picture and take the card with you].

The second attempt, and this admittedly stopped two months before itīs public release by the Pentax board, was the 645d, the second pro body of Pentax. This model had several sensors passing through where the inserts should go. Latest news were the 18mpx Kodak sensor [the same Phase One was using circa 2004] and a later development of 31 mpx. You can find more info about this via Dpreview forums, which have a link to the very sentence regarding what happened to the 645d.

It means that Pentax has still a stillborn digital system completely finished [they say they were ready for the official launch] when Hoya stomped in.

Samsung has stated they are developing as fast as they can a FF sensor. Thing is, if the K20d develops such high results and has quite a good lens system [you can use long lenses from old days, specialty items or use the cross-system capability within Pentax lenses], and the files are HUUUUUUUUUUGE, what is the advantage you get from a FF Pentax? The k20d files are bordering the 20mpx [DNG, uncompressed].
Logged
Er1kksen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2008, 04:42:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Probably whatever people get out of buying a 21mp canon or 24mp nikon or sony. Pentax is not a company that makes their name on sports photography. They typically push their camera's suitability to outdoor pursuits in their advertisements.

If they made a sensor that had the same pixel density and pitch as the current K20d sensor, it would be in the 20-30mp range and a good choice for landscapes. Not fast, not made for snapping a thousand shots, but that's not what pentax customers are typically after. Judging by their strategies in the past, it would probably offer a very sensible (from a photographic standpoint) feature set-- not flashy. It'll probably be ruggedly built, perhaps not bombproof like a 1d or E-3, but at least as durable and sealed as the k20d. And it may come in at a price point lower than its competitors, like the way the k10d offered many mid-tier capabilities at an entry level price.

At least that's what I would hope for. It seems sensible. Lanscape shooters who aren't too invested in a system already would find it very tempting. I'd want one, but not be able to afford it.    Tripods and base ISO are the way myself and many others work.
Logged
tetsuo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2008, 05:52:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Probably whatever people get out of buying a 21mp canon or 24mp nikon or sony. Pentax is not a company that makes their name on sports photography. They typically push their camera's suitability to outdoor pursuits in their advertisements.

[...]

At least that's what I would hope for. It seems sensible. Lanscape shooters who aren't too invested in a system already would find it very tempting. I'd want one, but not be able to afford it.    Tripods and base ISO are the way myself and many others work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205201\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What [as far as I know and what happened to me] Pentax customers are usually craving after are lenses, lenses and lenses. For the sheer quantity of them. And obviously, the quality of the glass.

Which, for instance, makes people buy at the very same time the FA43 1.9 and the FA50 1.4/1.7.

The ultimate quality of the Pentax bodies has been, so far, their ability to be just a tool, with zillions options [for heavenīs sake, they had variable AND bracketable ISO from the very begining]. The Pentax bodies are kind of servants of their owner. Sort of "just right" theory.

All in all I am very doubtful about what might happen with the über-Pentax. One one hand, it seems that that über-model will be aplicable for a maximum of 3fps style of shoot [fashion photography, studio photo, macro, landscape, architecture]. For that:

If they get to FF, they will have to compete with the marketing resources of Sony. But they have the new player behind [Samsung], eager to set themselves as the Korean Sony.

On the other hand, the do have everything set for a 645 digital. And they are leaving probalby the best ever made lens system orphan [the 645 system, sorry, Hassy shooters]. The 645N and 645NII were pretty ubiquos cameras. It would have been a very sensible upgrade path.

All in all, thatīs the problem I see with Pentax. Their Pro series were the MF cameras, not the 35mm on steroids. They have now two paths. Which one will follow?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 06:17:10 AM by tetsuo77 » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7900



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2008, 08:08:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The second attempt, and this admittedly stopped two months before itīs public release by the Pentax board, was the 645d, the second pro body of Pentax. This model had several sensors passing through where the inserts should go. Latest news were the 18mpx Kodak sensor [the same Phase One was using circa 2004] and a later development of 31 mpx. You can find more info about this via Dpreview forums, which have a link to the very sentence regarding what happened to the 645d.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually the 645D reached a very advanced level of developement. A Japanese maginze had a article about it last month with some actual images shot with the beast.

The quality on A4 was impressive.

They didn't comment though on the final outcome of the project, which makes me think that there is still a small chance that it might be revived.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
tetsuo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2008, 09:32:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually the 645D reached a very advanced level of developement. A Japanese maginze had a article about it last month with some actual images shot with the beast.

The quality on A4 was impressive.

They didn't comment though on the final outcome of the project, which makes me think that there is still a small chance that it might be revived.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello, Bernard
Yep, the 645D reached a very advanced level of development, as the MZ-D did [actually, quite a bit further]. As I said, it was halted two months before the public release.

I truly hope it will be revived, sooner than later. Usually they are the most affordable MF systems with no big compromise, so far.
Logged
alba63
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2008, 12:14:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As far as I am concerned, I see value in FF now and in the coming 2 or 3 years thanks to better DR and potentially higher resolutions, etc... but I will probably return to DX around 2012.

It is true on one hand that people generally underestimate the power of technological progress. I believe that the noise performance of Dx sensors can be bettered in modest steps in the next years, maybe the same quality as today's d300, just with 14 or 16MP. However I do not believe that with current  technology it will be able to maintain or even improve dynamic range in small sensors. Olympus (4/3s) fights with a too weak latitude in the highlights, and no DSLR except the Fuji S3/5 with their dual pixel approach and maybe partly the D3 NIkon have adressed this frequent complaint.

I have not enough tech. insight to understand why the 33MP and 39MP MF backs with their equally high pixel density manage to keep the DR as high as they do. Maybe it is better AD converters and high quality components, but I'd certainly like to see a DSLR with true 12 stops of DR and subtle deep colours like the MF backs have it....

As long as it has 14MP I will be happy...

Maybe the introduction of new - non- BAyer - types of sensors will do the trick, whatever, but I dount that more pixels on small sensor will improve anything.

regards
bernie
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #35 on: July 03, 2008, 03:33:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... I'm currently using the philosopher Husserl's tactic of "Epoche", which is to not judge right now and keep information coming in and let it build an image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Probably the wisest comment in this discussion but while I continue to gather information, I will speculate anyway!

To Bernard, I do see at least one other persistent role for 24x36mm format: for anyone whose needs extreme low light/high shutter speed performance enough to carry and use monster super-telephotos like the ones on the sidelines of sporting events and in some bird-watching hides. Aslo perhaps for extremes of detail (pixel count), though the constraints of resolution/DOF trade-offs in aperture choice will mitigate that advantage over smaller SLR formats if small pixel DR can be improved enough.

As to speculation about a compact range-finder (non-SLR) camera and lens system using 4/3 format sensors, (maybe made by Panasonic, branded Leica):
backward compatibility with existing 4/3 SLR lenses could be provided easily enough through a mount adaptor since the new mount would be closer to the focal plane. (All other SLR lenses could be used with adaptors too). And the new more compact lenses would only be needed at short focal lengths; roughly, for wide-angles.

Maybe future good LiveView and improved contrast detection AF and/or a new type of range-finder AF mechanism could make this work: IR laser range-finders?
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2008, 04:35:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm no particular fan of FF, but I can see advantages. Photojournalists and those with a yen for wide fast lenses - F1.4 say - will go for FF as there are no equivalents in APS land. And anyone wanting a compact camera with a wide prime lens will go for FF once the size and weight come down. Those with high ISO leanings such as concert photographers might go FF, unless APS can cut the mustard.

Wasn't it MR who wrote somewhere that many pros are losing their faith in Canon FF cameras and going back to MF, but digital this time round, presumably because the 35mm lenses just are not up to the demands of the sensors? Surely a 35mm sensor with MF lenses would do the job, though I suppose the market would be small, and the development costs high.
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2008, 08:13:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm no particular fan of FF, but I can see advantages. Photojournalists and those with a yen for wide fast lenses - F1.4 say - will go for FF as there are no equivalents in APS land. And anyone wanting a compact camera with a wide prime lens will go for FF once the size and weight come down. Those with high ISO leanings such as concert photographers might go FF, unless APS can cut the mustard.

Wasn't it MR who wrote somewhere that many pros are losing their faith in Canon FF cameras and going back to MF, but digital this time round, presumably because the 35mm lenses just are not up to the demands of the sensors? Surely a 35mm sensor with MF lenses would do the job, though I suppose the market would be small, and the development costs high.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205347\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  That's why I'm waiting for the Sony A900.  Sony is in a unique position in that they are developing new lenses for digital with Zeiss on board.  These Zeiss FF lenses are very, very sharp compared to Canon/Nikon.
Logged
Er1kksen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #38 on: July 03, 2008, 10:03:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I believe that the noise performance of Dx sensors can be bettered in modest steps in the next years, maybe the same quality as today's d300, just with 14 or 16MP. However I do not believe that with current  technology it will be able to maintain or even improve dynamic range in small sensors. Olympus (4/3s) fights with a too weak latitude in the highlights, and no DSLR except the Fuji S3/5 with their dual pixel approach and maybe partly the D3 NIkon have adressed this frequent complaint.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Again, 4/3 is not a "small-sensor" system any more than DX is a "small-sensor" system. See a size comparison [a href=\"http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Four-Thirds]here.[/url] The difference between 4/3 and APS-C is minute; the difference between APS-C and 35mm is vast. If DX can have performance so close to a sensor so much larger, does it make sense that the slightly smaller 4/3 sensor would be so hobbled against DX?

I really feel that the main issue with 4/3 sensors is Panasonic. So far, their sensors exhibit slightly higher noise and slightly less dynamic range than their competitors, about a generation behind the sensors from canon and sony. I fully believe that canon or sony could, with their technology, create a 10mp 4/3 sensor with performance indistinguishable from their own 12mp APS-C sensors, with approximately the same vertical resolution, and just some pixels clipped off the sides due to the different aspect ratio. Sensor size really isn't the limiting factor here. When panasonic catches up (if they ever do) or another manufacturer enters the system, there won't be a real difference. Of course, APS-C will keep advancing as well, so 4/3 may never reach the exact same performance unless a plateau is reached, but at the least they'll outperform today's best crop-sensor offerings.

Medium format would probably be tempting for a lot of pros using FF if it weren't for the slow, enresponsive bodies and high ISO noise. Sure, a 39mp back on a Hassy H3D can give you much better end image quality than a Canon 1Ds, but you can't measure the quality of an image that doesn't exist due to a lack of responsiveness. That's the main advantage FF currently has over MF, in my eyes.
Logged
tetsuo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #39 on: July 04, 2008, 04:19:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually the 645D reached a very advanced level of developement. A Japanese maginze had a article about it last month with some actual images shot with the beast.

The quality on A4 was impressive.

They didn't comment though on the final outcome of the project, which makes me think that there is still a small chance that it might be revived.

Regards,
Bernard
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Bernard.
As you said:

[a href=\"http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2008-03/07/p645d/index.html]http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/i...645d/index.html[/url]

Cheers
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 05:32:25 AM by tetsuo77 » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad