"I thought Nikon was planning on doing a full size chip. That is something to think about now."
Yes. No matter how much I like Nikon, but it seems that Canon is now leading the race.
F100 or F5??
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
In unofficial numbers, Nikon outsells Canon precisely because it has abandoned the full-sized sensor. While it is a short-term hit, the long-term means that Nikon will be better positioned to future enhancements. Only Olympus has a more agressive digital SLR strategy, and theirs looks poised to have a huge breakout next year when 2 more manufacturers switch over to Olympus' 4:3 sensor technology, enabling them to make pure-digital SLR lenses.vapparn wrote:"I thought Nikon was planning on doing a full size chip. That is something to think about now."
Yes. No matter how much I like Nikon, but it seems that Canon is now leading the race.
Nigel, you might also consider the F4.
Compared to the F5, you’re going to lose on the meter and the auto-focus speed and the VR function. I think the F5 max advance speed is higher too.
But the F4 can be pared down with a small grip or bulked up with a beefy MB23. The MF23 back can imprint shooting data and operate the camera on timed (long) exposures. The F4 will take non-AI Nikon glass. If you have several thousand dollars, you can get a 250 exposure bulk-load back.
If you are serious about an F5, Cameta Camera was blowing these out on eBay earlier this year. From what I saw, it seemed to be new, old stock and dealer demos and it was all going cheap with warranties. Cameta Camera.
I don’t understand your comment about software. Can you say a little more?
Compared to the F5, you’re going to lose on the meter and the auto-focus speed and the VR function. I think the F5 max advance speed is higher too.
But the F4 can be pared down with a small grip or bulked up with a beefy MB23. The MF23 back can imprint shooting data and operate the camera on timed (long) exposures. The F4 will take non-AI Nikon glass. If you have several thousand dollars, you can get a 250 exposure bulk-load back.
If you are serious about an F5, Cameta Camera was blowing these out on eBay earlier this year. From what I saw, it seemed to be new, old stock and dealer demos and it was all going cheap with warranties. Cameta Camera.
I don’t understand your comment about software. Can you say a little more?
Actually, yes they are. They scale up better than the larger chips. Microchips, like CCD's, work better the more scaled-down they get. Now, there comes a point when scaling down produces too much unwanted digital noise, so there is a specific downward-limit for a solid DSLR. After doing engineering tests, Kodak determined that the optimum size for a digital sensor was 4/3, and with Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic, Sigma and Leica all adopting this standard it looks to be growing very rapidly. The original Kodak 4:3 sensor suffered from severe limits due to the limitations of current CCD technology, but Panasonic has developed a new sensor that really is remarkable.Nigel wrote:So are you saying that the smaller chips are better??
Good Luck
The one advantage to the larger sensors is low-light sensitivity, you can make a physically larger "bit" to pick up more light. But, on the flipside, it is easier and cheaper to make faster lenses for smaller sensors. Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Sony's decision for the APS-C gives them a compromize, halfway between a full frame and the 4:3 size, giving them much more flexibility than Canon is having with their wide variety of sizes.
-
John_Pytlak
- Posts: 927
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:54 pm
- Location: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
- Contact:
The other significant factor in choosing the imaging area of the sensor is depth of focus. For cinematographers used to the depth of focus of 35mm film, you want a chip size similar to a film frame, so the optics are similar to a film camera.downix wrote: The one advantage to the larger sensors is low-light sensitivity, you can make a physically larger "bit" to pick up more light. But, on the flipside, it is easier and cheaper to make faster lenses for smaller sensors. Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Sony's decision for the APS-C gives them a compromize, halfway between a full frame and the 4:3 size, giving them much more flexibility than Canon is having with their wide variety of sizes.
For professional still photographers used to a Hasselblad, the trend is to develop high resolution digital sensors for with that kind of larger image area, like the 39 megapixel CCD sensor just announced by Kodak:
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier. ... 8a804016f4
Already the world’s leading supplier of image sensors for medium-format professional photography, Kodak is expanding its product line with the introduction of the world’s highest-resolution sensors for professional photography. The KODAK KAF-39000 Image Sensor, featuring 39 million pixels, and the KODAK KAF-31600 Image Sensor, with 31.6 million pixels, offer professional camera and camera back manufacturers resolution and image detail that was once unimaginable for digital cameras, allowing photographers to experience a new level of image quality for portrait, wedding, landscape, fashion, studio, and commercial photography. These new CCD image sensors have already been selected for use by Phase One A/S for use in their upcoming P45 and P30 digital camera backs.
John Pytlak
EI Customer Technical Services
Research Lab, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
EI Customer Technical Services
Research Lab, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
"After doing engineering tests, Kodak determined that the optimum size for a digital sensor was 4/3"
Optimum, but in what way? There are so many ways to see it. We know that the bigger the sensor, the more you get faulty ones at the factory. Large sensors are very expensive and the market for such a cameras are not huge. Cameras like D70 are power sellers, but it is a different thing than image quality.
"it is easier and cheaper to make faster lenses for smaller sensors."
This summer I photographed MF with Rollei 6008 plus AF-Xenotar and was totally satisfied with the lens. Schneider delivers. Easy and cheap are different things than quality.
As JP wrote, let's not forget DOF. -AND WA. Better to go wide angle with larger sensor.
"Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Sony's decision for the APS-C gives them a compromize, halfway between a full frame and the 4:3 size, giving them much more flexibility than Canon is having with their wide variety of sizes."
Flexibility to what? If there is a certain thing I want to do I choose my tool for it. Sometimes (often) one must do compromises, but it doesn't change the basic situation: Some tools are better than others.
The question is: What we want to do? Is it web, newspaper, magazine, large prints for gallery, ads for airports or photos to show our relatives?
Optimum, but in what way? There are so many ways to see it. We know that the bigger the sensor, the more you get faulty ones at the factory. Large sensors are very expensive and the market for such a cameras are not huge. Cameras like D70 are power sellers, but it is a different thing than image quality.
"it is easier and cheaper to make faster lenses for smaller sensors."
This summer I photographed MF with Rollei 6008 plus AF-Xenotar and was totally satisfied with the lens. Schneider delivers. Easy and cheap are different things than quality.
As JP wrote, let's not forget DOF. -AND WA. Better to go wide angle with larger sensor.
"Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Sony's decision for the APS-C gives them a compromize, halfway between a full frame and the 4:3 size, giving them much more flexibility than Canon is having with their wide variety of sizes."
Flexibility to what? If there is a certain thing I want to do I choose my tool for it. Sometimes (often) one must do compromises, but it doesn't change the basic situation: Some tools are better than others.
The question is: What we want to do? Is it web, newspaper, magazine, large prints for gallery, ads for airports or photos to show our relatives?