Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: D700 IQ  (Read 45731 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #100 on: August 22, 2008, 03:36:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just wish that Olympus had struck up an agreement with Canon instead of Kodak.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you had not noticed, Kodak has been dumped, and in fact that was already in progress with the design of the first consumer level 4/3 body, the E-300, which adopted the porro-prism VF needed for the subsequent rangefinder-shaped Panasonic/Leica models. Unlike Kodak, the electronics giant Panasonic seems to be becoming a roughly equal partner, and might even be the lead player with products like video-capable Micro FourThirds.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #101 on: August 22, 2008, 10:14:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you had not noticed, Kodak has been dumped, and in fact that was already in progress with the design of the first consumer level 4/3 body, the E-300, which adopted the porro-prism VF needed for the subsequent rangefinder-shaped Panasonic/Leica models. Unlike Kodak, the electronics giant Panasonic seems to be becoming a roughly equal partner, and might even be the lead player with products like video-capable Micro FourThirds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216736\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You are right. I haven't been following the corporate developments behind the 4/3rds system. My comment was directed at a perceived shortcoming of the Olympus 4/3rds system with regard to total image resolution and noise at high ISO.

If that latest rumour about the Canon 50D is factual, then such a camera with sensor cropped to a 4:3 aspect ratio and fitted with the Zuiko range of lenses would be superb.  
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #102 on: August 22, 2008, 11:26:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
P. S. To Ray: the distinction of EF-S and DX as "cropping" rather than just being a different, smaller format depends on how well suited the lens system available for them is. With a sufficient range of EF-S/DX lenses, along with longer focal length lenses that work quite well with both those formats and 35mm, "cropping" just become another word for "also compatible with some lenses designed for another, larger format". Pentax 35mm film cameras can also use Pentax MF lenses, but no-one calls them "cropping" on that basis. On the other hand, all currently available DMF systems are to varying degrees "cropping" as their lens systems have at best been minimally adapted to the FOV needs of sensor formats smaller than the MF film formats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is also a distinction to be made between a format that can incidentally accept lenses designed for a larger format, and a format that, at least initially, totally relies upon lenses designed for the larger format. It took a while before Canon brought out their first EF-S lens and it wasn't a particularly good lens.

We should not forget that the difference in sensor area between the Canon cropped format and 35mm is almost as great as the difference in area between 35mm film and the smallest MF film, 6x4.5 (comparing actual exposed film area).

I don't think that 35mm film for still photography would have been so successful if the users had to rely upon lenses designed for 6x4.5.

If Canon and Nikon were to design top quality lenses for their cropped formats, which were actually sharper (on average) than the full frame equivalent focal lengths, then the 'cropped format' system would become almost as expensive as a full frame system, for the serious photographer. It's the lenses which are the major cost. As I recall, my 17-55/2.8 zoom cost as much as the 40D body.

In fact, for the serious photographer, it's the availability of good lenses which is a major drawcard when choosing a system, at least for me.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #103 on: August 23, 2008, 02:36:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... a format that, at least initially, totally relies upon lenses designed for the larger format. It took a while before Canon brought out their first EF-S lens and it wasn't a particularly good lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216784\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed about the early days of DSLRs: clearly the early DSLRs were all cropping, and even the first few DX, DA and EF-S lenses did not change that much. But today the measure is the adequacy of current lens offerings. I would rate EF-S as quite good for most of the amateur market (but with weaknesses like no 180º fish-eye and a gap in suitable f/2.8 zoom lens coverage between the 17-55 and 70-200); Nikon DX is maybe a bit more complete, but still not at the level of what is available for FX format (e.g. no f/2.8 wide zoom, and that same gap between f/2.8 zoom options).

In a sense the Pentax DA format system is the most complete and self-sufficient APS-C lens system, as Pentax has realigned almost all of its lenses to the format, including the pairing of 16-55/2.8 DA and 55-135/2.8 DA, and recently even long focal length Pentax lenses have all been designed specifically for DA format.
Logged
N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 298


WWW
« Reply #104 on: August 23, 2008, 06:08:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't understand the meaning of "DX and FX are equally sharp". The "sharpness" of a sensor depends on the AA filter and the sensel size, not on the size of the sensor.

However, an important consideration is, how good a given lens is with the sensor; this does depend on the sensor size. Many lenses excel with the cropping sensors, while they are soft with full frame; this is only natural. For example for me (dedicated to panoramas) the cropping cameras are the uncontested winners because of the edge sharpness.

Re the IQ: there can be no serious discussion about the superiority of the "pixel quality" of the D3 (= D700) compared to the D300, due to the size of the sensels. Nikon fanboys are in for a rude awakening with the high-pixelcount successor of the D3.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I do not agree that 'all' full frame DSLR sensors, in themselves, are less sharp at the edges - Nikon's D3 sensor technology has proved this. This notion is still banded about because Canon sensors take a nose dive at the edges of the frame, even when using prime telephoto lenses.

My bread and butter lenses, since 1993 (covering professional sport full time), have been super telephoto lenses. In the past 20 years I have owned several versions of Nikon, and Canon's super-telephoto lenses. An interest in optics I have been in a position to test all manner of lenses under very carefully controlled tests (time permitting). I have examined over 150,000  sporting images, on slides, with 4X and 8X loupes, for critical sharpness (library selection edits) and in addition captured thousands of images digitally since 2000.

I recently moved back to Nikon after extensively using Canon 1DS MKI, 1DS MKII and 1DSMKIII cameras. Several top, internationally known, sports photographers (that I know, and not rumour) use FF cameras, more than those, who are not in this section of the industry, may realise.

In the case of super telephoto lenses, such as the 'superb' new Nikkor 400mm F/2.8 VR, Nikon have noticeably improved he edge quality of this lens. Additionally, and Importantly, Nikon's D3 sensor  technology retains edge resolution across the sensor, in an efficient manner, in comparison to either the 1DS MKII, or 1DS MKIII - this is not pixel peeping, but by a noticeable margin. I relate my experiences using third party RAW converters, such as RPP, that do not use any lens tags inside the RAW data designed to correct for lens errors.

With the Canon 1DS MKII, even using the stellar Canon 300m F2.8 IS lens (very good edge performance on film), the edges are poor; you can virtually draw a vertical line, from about 15-20% in, from either end of the frame, to indicate where the sensor dramatically dips in quality. Even at F5.6/F8 the edges of the image look as if a very mild motion blur filter 'effect' has been applied. The Canon 16-35m MKII lens makes the effect look like a much stronger version of a motion blur filter -even with a good copy of this lens.

I recently carried out a very accurate  edge-to-edge test with my Nikkor 400mm VR lens, at F/8, on some roof tops to see of Nikon's MTF claims were born-out - I was killing time as the sunlight wouldn't play ball for the wider shot I wanted. The image is no masterpiece but nicely demonstrates the edge-to-edge quality achievable with the Nikon D3.

I can say without question that the Nikon D3 sensor, whilst it may not seem that revolutionary to some, has raised the bar with regard to edge-to-edge sensor performance - lenses, if anything (with the D3), will be the limiting factor - telephoto lenses fairing better than wide angle lenses for obvious reasons.

At the Tokyo launch of the D3 a senior Nikon spokesman went as far to indicate that Nikon were using gap-less, double micro lens technology on the Nikon D3 - one micro-lens on the top, and one inner micro lens to boost the efficiency of the photosite; the rest has been kept under wraps since its launch - some recent additional Nikon info [a href=\"http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/d-technology/imagingsensor/resolution/index.htm]http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/...ution/index.htm[/url]

I do not have any direct comparisons from my Canon IDS MKII with fixed focal lenses (only the canon 70-200mm F2.8IS - hardly fair) but I found exactly the same results during prime lens use as Bjorn Rorslet  -http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html
Home page on left hand column click on Reviews>Nikon D2X (near bottom of page)>see section 'Taking on the Canon 1DS MKII' -towards the bottom of this page, D2X with Nikkor 200mm F2 lens and 1DS MKII using a prime Canon 300mm F2.8L - Periphery examples from the FF Canon, are similar to my experiences.

MTF ratings from lens manufacturers don't tell he whole story, and in many cases derive from computer simulations. However MTF figures given for the new Nikkor 400mm F/2.8 lens, against its predecessor, the Nikkor AFS 400mm, vindicate Nikon's claim regarding improved edge performance, and higher resolution 30 lpm, are born out.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/...8g_vr/index.htm

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/..._if_2/index.htm

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...mp;modelid=7317 - Canon's full frame sensors wreck the respectable edge performance of this lens.

The Nikkor 14-24mm lens is another example of an excellent edge performer, on full frame, that puts the Canon 1DS MKII and 16-35m MKII combination to shame at the edges of the frame.

Both systems bank cheques so this is 'strictly' not a Canon versus Nikon post and  merely to highlight sound developments in sensor and lens technology.


PS. The first two crops are 100% views from the very corner of the frame and the third crop near the centre of the frame.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2008, 10:07:17 AM by Nick Walker » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #105 on: August 23, 2008, 08:42:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I do not agree that 'all' full frame DSLR sensors, in themselves, are less sharp at the edges - Nikon's D3 sensor technology has proved this. This notion is still banded about as Canon sensors do take a nose dive at the edges of the frame, even when using prime telephoto lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216878\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nick,
You've raised some interesting concerns about the edge performance of the sensor itself. After perusing the real-world MTF charts at Photodo it becomes very clear that just about all lenses take a dive in MTF response towards the corner of the full 35mm frame, but not necessarily at the middle of the short edge, which is only 18mm from the centre. Some lenses are still very good up to 18mm from the centre, at least at F8. The Canon 50/1.4 is one such lens.

I recall some months ago there was a thread comparing the resolution of the 20D with the 40D, using the same 50/1.4 lens supposedly focussed on the same spot in the same scene. I've failed to find the thread after a few searches, but as I recall there was a strange anomaly in the test results. Although focussing appeared to be the same in both images and over-all resolution was very similar, one image was clearly less sharp at the edges, but I can't remember which camera was soft at the edges.

For some time I've been casting an envious eye at a D700/14-24mm combination, but have held off because I've got an order in for a Canon/Nikkor adapter.

I now wonder if the excellent corner to corner resolution of this lens might be compromised with a 5D sensor.
Logged
Hägar the horrible
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


WWW
« Reply #106 on: August 26, 2008, 03:21:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I dont think sensors ar less sharp at the edges than in the center. I suggest you try to mount an old Hasselblad medium format lens to your DSLR with an adapter. All over the image is not sharper than a 35mm lens, though you most likly dont see the same sharpness fall off with the MF lens.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad