Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Full-frame or 1.5 DSLR?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:19:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

A full frame DSLR with a telephoto
or a 1.5-1.6 frame with a telephoto?
The reason I ask is that most people seem to
crop and it doesn't take much cropping (about
15% inward from each side) to
whittle down the full frame image below the
pixel count of an 8meg 1.5 frame camera, plus in
order to match the f.l. so this doesn't happen,
you need a longer, heavier lens.
Given a choice and your experiences, which makes
more sense to own?
-Rich

More about : full frame dslr

Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:19:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:2o6ve1higssb12fb9sda96sht4dej64b9v@4ax.com...
> A full frame DSLR with a telephoto
> or a 1.5-1.6 frame with a telephoto?
> The reason I ask is that most people seem to
> crop and it doesn't take much cropping (about
> 15% inward from each side) to
> whittle down the full frame image below the
> pixel count of an 8meg 1.5 frame camera, plus in
> order to match the f.l. so this doesn't happen,
> you need a longer, heavier lens.
> Given a choice and your experiences, which makes
> more sense to own?

Simple. The camera with the features you need and that suits your budget.

Greg
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 12:14:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:2o6ve1higssb12fb9sda96sht4dej64b9v@4ax.com...
>A full frame DSLR with a telephoto
> or a 1.5-1.6 frame with a telephoto?
> The reason I ask is that most people seem to
> crop and it doesn't take much cropping (about
> 15% inward from each side) to
> whittle down the full frame image below the
> pixel count of an 8meg 1.5 frame camera, plus in
> order to match the f.l. so this doesn't happen,
> you need a longer, heavier lens.
> Given a choice and your experiences, which makes
> more sense to own?
> -Rich

Yes Rich we would all like full frame D-SLR's but they are just too
expensive.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:38:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:14:53 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:2o6ve1higssb12fb9sda96sht4dej64b9v@4ax.com...
>>A full frame DSLR with a telephoto
>> or a 1.5-1.6 frame with a telephoto?
>> The reason I ask is that most people seem to
>> crop and it doesn't take much cropping (about
>> 15% inward from each side) to
>> whittle down the full frame image below the
>> pixel count of an 8meg 1.5 frame camera, plus in
>> order to match the f.l. so this doesn't happen,
>> you need a longer, heavier lens.
>> Given a choice and your experiences, which makes
>> more sense to own?
>> -Rich
>
>Yes Rich we would all like full frame D-SLR's but they are just too
>expensive.
>

But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
frame? I think that if Canon did what Nikon did, have a selectable,
internal reduction in the pixel area used to facilitate faster
sequential shooting and longer telephoto reach, they'd have the
perfect camera.
-Rich
August 3, 2005 6:47:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:14:53 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>>
>>Yes Rich we would all like full frame D-SLR's but they are just too
>>expensive.
>>
>
> But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
> around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
> frame?

No way! I want the LARGEST lens I can have on the camera, looks more "Pro"
even if the image quality is the same!

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:47:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>> But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
>> around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
>> frame?
>
> No way! I want the LARGEST lens I can have on the camera, looks more "Pro"
> even if the image quality is the same!

Don't forget the largest body possible, because you don't want to look
like an amateur...

: )

(yes, that was sarcasm.)

steve
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:22:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3lb7kuF11lq5tU1@individual.net...
> RichA wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:14:53 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Yes Rich we would all like full frame D-SLR's but they are just too
>>>expensive.
>>>
>>
>> But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
>> around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
>> frame?
>
> No way! I want the LARGEST lens I can have on the camera, looks more "Pro"
> even if the image quality is the same!

Why would you want that? I want to shoot wide anyway.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:19:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <bei0f1t75gb2u473jpltj0bdkm27a1bhct@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
>around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
>frame?

You can't compare the weigth of lenses for different formats unless you
keep the aperture (and not the f-stop number) the same.

For example, the Nikkor 400/2.8 is 5.15 kg. A 600/4.0 is 5.2 kg.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:21:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich, the issue is not merely at the telephoto end.
Wide angle range of focal length is an issue for the 1.5 DSLR because:
1) any existing lenses which the photographer owns are no longer as
wide on the 1.5 crop as they were on the FF, so you have to buy new
glass to have an equivalent range of focal lengths.
2) cost vs. speed...a 17mm f/4 wide angle for 1.5 crop costs so much
more than a 24mm f/2.8, so you pay more for a slower lens simply
because it has to be wider!

In addition, a FF camera with 12 million pixels will be less prone to
fundamental noise compared to a 1.5 crop camera with 12 million pixels
(assuming the same fundamental technology in both). Or put a different
way, if I have an 8 Mpixel 15x23mm sensor, I can increase that
resolution to 20 Mpixel 24x26mm sensor without altering the fundamental
size of the pixel...so the benefit would be better tonality similar to
the film benefits seen in MF and LF photos of the same subject as shot
on 35mm...oohs and ahhs from the audience when the larger MF slide is
projected.

Funny how the world rejected Kodak APS film format eventually and went
back to larger 35mm film, yet it is so accepting of the 1.5 crop format
in digital! I finally made the jump to 1.6 crop in Canon simply
because the FF is so d*mn'd unaffordable to all but the rich and the
corporations who provide equipment to staff photos! FF will drop in
price, but I don't want to wait 3-5 years without a DSLR when the price
is attainable to 'everyman'.

--Wilt
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:49:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I think you're mixing your parameters in your reply, or doing an
incomplete analysis...

<<a 1.6x 8MP 20D has more lens-resolving power than any of Canon's FF
digitals.>>

The same lens has to deliver MORE lines per millimeter of sensor or
film area in order to get LENS resolving power, this has nothing to do
with frame size. So for absolute LENS performance the 20D is NOT
better off than the 1Ds MkII (unless you can prove that the EFS lenses
have higher ll/mm than the EF lenses (not!), because they use the same
lenses (except for the EFS). For lens performance they are the same!


As for pixels per square millimeter of frame, the 20D does win. 16
million pixels in 24x36 area vs. 8 million in 15x22.5 area computes to
over 18000 pixels/sq.mm for 1Ds MkII vs. over 24000 pixels/sq.mm for
20D. But that does NOT tell the story!

<< It would take 21MPs to have the same pixel pitch as the 20D. >>

Yes, I agree about pixel pitch...I posted a message in another thread
exactly to this point, about why photographers would like a larger
format frame (like FF) with the same pixel pitch as the smaller crop
frame (1.5 or 1.6) to provide results similar to the improved tonality
achieved by MF and LF film photos that take away the viewer's breath in
comparison to the same scene shot on 35mm film...

*But* if you analyze the spec of total pixel count for the same amount
of subject on sensor, the story is different! If the subject on both
formats fits 10% of the total frame length, then the 20D uses 350
pixels for 2.25mm of length on the frame vs the 1Ds 490 pixels in 3.6mm
length on the frame, for the same subject; or 490^2 pixel area vs.
350^2 pixel area for the same subject on sensor. Or 240000 square
pixels in the 1Ds to portray the same amount of subject as 123000
square pixels in the 20D! So the 1Ds wins on tonality due to more
pixels for the same amount of subject on sensor...exactly why LF and MF
images have tonality advantage over 35mm images for the same subject.

I own the 20D; I cannot afford $8k for a single 1Ds MkII camera, so the
analysis does not bother me. Your statement is wrong about the
comparative performance of the 20D vs. the 1Ds MkII (or even vs. the
1Ds MkI).

--Wilt
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 12:30:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

If money is not a problem, full-frame please!
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:00:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <bei0f1t75gb2u473jpltj0bdkm27a1bhct@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
>around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
>frame? I think that if Canon did what Nikon did, have a selectable,
>internal reduction in the pixel area used to facilitate faster
>sequential shooting and longer telephoto reach, they'd have the
>perfect camera.

I'd like to see a camera that was just like a high-end P&S, but took my
EOS lenses. The sharper lenses that I currently use with teleconverters
could be used with the finer pixel pitch instead, eliminating light loss
and TC-induced optical problems. A Canon 500mm f/4 L IS on such a
camera (or visa versa) would have tremendous subject resolution. The
4/3 camera go a bit in that direction, but just a bit. I'd like to do
it with a tiny 5MP sensor.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:03:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3lb7kuF11lq5tU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA wrote:

>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:14:53 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>>>Yes Rich we would all like full frame D-SLR's but they are just too
>>>expensive.

>> But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
>> around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
>> frame?

>No way! I want the LARGEST lens I can have on the camera, looks more "Pro"
>even if the image quality is the same!

That's good, because the Olympus lenses look bigger than I'd expect from
a 4/3 camera. I saw a guy with an E-1 and a 300mm lens at "the Gates"
in Central Park in February, and I did a double-take when I realized
that the large lens was an Olympus 4/3 lens.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:03:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:03:10 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <3lb7kuF11lq5tU1@individual.net>,
>Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>RichA wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:14:53 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Yes Rich we would all like full frame D-SLR's but they are just too
>>>>expensive.
>
>>> But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
>>> around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
>>> frame?
>
>>No way! I want the LARGEST lens I can have on the camera, looks more "Pro"
>>even if the image quality is the same!
>
>That's good, because the Olympus lenses look bigger than I'd expect from
>a 4/3 camera. I saw a guy with an E-1 and a 300mm lens at "the Gates"
>in Central Park in February, and I did a double-take when I realized
>that the large lens was an Olympus 4/3 lens.

I wonder why it's as large as it is?
-Rich
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:10:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <1123096910.584202.178850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote:

>Funny how the world rejected Kodak APS film format eventually and went
>back to larger 35mm film, yet it is so accepting of the 1.5 crop format
>in digital! I finally made the jump to 1.6 crop in Canon simply
>because the FF is so d*mn'd unaffordable to all but the rich and the
>corporations who provide equipment to staff photos! FF will drop in
>price, but I don't want to wait 3-5 years without a DSLR when the price
>is attainable to 'everyman'.

It really depends on what you shoot; for someone that shoots small
and/or distant animals, or spies from a distance, a 1.6x 8MP 20D has
more lens-resolving power than any of Canon's FF digitals. It would
take 21MPs to have the same pixel pitch as the 20D. The only thing
finer right now is the Nikon D2X.

If you favor wide-angle stuff, then the full-frame is the best way to
go, especially with a high-MP count.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
August 4, 2005 5:22:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <3lb7kuF11lq5tU1@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>>No way! I want the LARGEST lens I can have on the camera, looks more "Pro"
>>even if the image quality is the same!
>
> That's good, because the Olympus lenses look bigger than I'd expect from
> a 4/3 camera. I saw a guy with an E-1 and a 300mm lens at "the Gates"
> in Central Park in February, and I did a double-take when I realized
> that the large lens was an Olympus 4/3 lens.

Yea it's a LOT larger than the Canon 400mm F2.8.

Or does FOV not apply when comparing a canon to an OM and but it does
comparing a FF canon to a APS-c one?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 7:21:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <1123123745.231087.155740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote:

>I think you're mixing your parameters in your reply, or doing an
>incomplete analysis...
>
><<a 1.6x 8MP 20D has more lens-resolving power than any of Canon's FF
>digitals.>>
>
>The same lens has to deliver MORE lines per millimeter of sensor or
>film area in order to get LENS resolving power, this has nothing to do
>with frame size.

I was talking about pixel pitch; not frame size. The mention of frame
size was to bring out the point that none of Canon's high-MP (11 and
16.7) FF cameras can resolve subject detail as well as the 20D (or
RebelXT, for that matter), with the same lens.

>So for absolute LENS performance the 20D is NOT

For a subject smaller than the 20D frame, with the same lens, the 20D
(and XT) outresolve the 1Ds and 1DsmkII in terms of subject detail. Who
cares about all the extra pixels with no extra subject detail?

>better off than the 1Ds MkII (unless you can prove that the EFS lenses
>have higher ll/mm than the EF lenses (not!), because they use the same
>lenses (except for the EFS). For lens performance they are the same!

The lens projects an analog image on the sensor. The pixel pitch of the
sensor determines how well the lens is resolved.

>As for pixels per square millimeter of frame, the 20D does win. 16
>million pixels in 24x36 area vs. 8 million in 15x22.5 area computes to
>over 18000 pixels/sq.mm for 1Ds MkII vs. over 24000 pixels/sq.mm for
>20D. But that does NOT tell the story!
>
><< It would take 21MPs to have the same pixel pitch as the 20D. >>
>
>Yes, I agree about pixel pitch...I posted a message in another thread
>exactly to this point, about why photographers would like a larger
>format frame (like FF) with the same pixel pitch as the smaller crop
>frame (1.5 or 1.6) to provide results similar to the improved tonality
>achieved by MF and LF film photos that take away the viewer's breath in
>comparison to the same scene shot on 35mm film...
>
>*But* if you analyze the spec of total pixel count for the same amount
>of subject on sensor, the story is different! If the subject on both
>formats fits 10% of the total frame length, then the 20D uses 350
>pixels for 2.25mm of length on the frame vs the 1Ds 490 pixels in 3.6mm
>length on the frame, for the same subject; or 490^2 pixel area vs.
>350^2 pixel area for the same subject on sensor. Or 240000 square
>pixels in the 1Ds to portray the same amount of subject as 123000
>square pixels in the 20D! So the 1Ds wins on tonality due to more
>pixels for the same amount of subject on sensor...exactly why LF and MF
>images have tonality advantage over 35mm images for the same subject.

That has nothing to do with what I said. I said *WITH THE SAME LENS*.
Your analogy changes lenses (or absolute focal lengths).

If your best lens is a 500mm f4L IS, a 1Ds mkII is not going to get a
higher resolution of that little bird than the 20D. Period.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 9:33:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:o 8f2f11d5v8oepe9c54u8octb0ajjec7tq@4ax.com...
> In message <bei0f1t75gb2u473jpltj0bdkm27a1bhct@4ax.com>,
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
>>around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
>>frame? I think that if Canon did what Nikon did, have a selectable,
>>internal reduction in the pixel area used to facilitate faster
>>sequential shooting and longer telephoto reach, they'd have the
>>perfect camera.
>
> I'd like to see a camera that was just like a high-end P&S, but took my
> EOS lenses.

You can, either the 300D or 350D fit the bill.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 10:05:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <3ldn07F11urbfU4@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> Or does FOV not apply when comparing a canon to an OM and but it does
> comparing a FF canon to a APS-c one?

A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens. The FOV is a retarded point of
comparison.

--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 1:14:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John,
<< The mention of frame size was to bring out the point that none of
Canon's high-MP (11 and
16.7) FF cameras can resolve subject detail as well as the 20D (or
RebelXT, for that matter), with the same lens. >>

But the lens has to deliver its resolution to the sensor, at a FIXED
resolution of the lens. If a lens can resolve 60 lines/mm in air, and
if the subject fills a 3.6mm section of the FF sensor and a 2,2mm
section of the 1.6 format sensor, what the sensor sees is 3.6x60= 216
lines on FF, and 132 lines on the 1.6 crop. The image is LESS
resolution for the same subject in the 1.6 crop frame! It does not
matter that the sensor has more pixels per mm in the 20D sensor, as the
same section of the total image fills 350 pixels (20D) vs. 490 pixels
(1Ds MkII). So you lose with 1.6 crop on TWO counts...delivered
resolution to the sensor and in terms of number of pixels used to
represent the same subject!

<<The lens projects an analog image on the sensor. The pixel pitch of
the sensor determines how well the lens is resolved. >>

But as I have shown above, 3.6mm x 60 line pairs/mm = 216 lines pairs
on FF, and 2.2mm x 60 line pairs s/mm = 132 line pairs on the 1.6 crop
to show the same subject in air. *Less subject resolution on sensor*
for the 1.6 crop with the same 60 ll/mm resolution lens on both
cameras.
For a 4x5 print, you would enlarge the FF by 4x, which results in
216/4.4 = 49 line pairs/mm of subject on paper. You would enlarge 1.6
crop by 6.7x for final 132 / 6.7 = 20 line pairs of subject on paper.
*Less final subject resolution on print* for the same magnfication
print from both cameras.

--Wilt
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 1:27:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123172046.451278.129260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> John,
> << The mention of frame size was to bring out the point that none of
> Canon's high-MP (11 and
> 16.7) FF cameras can resolve subject detail as well as the 20D (or
> RebelXT, for that matter), with the same lens. >>
>
> But the lens has to deliver its resolution to the sensor, at a FIXED
> resolution of the lens. If a lens can resolve 60 lines/mm in air, and
> if the subject fills a 3.6mm section of the FF sensor and a 2,2mm
> section of the 1.6 format sensor,

Isn't the same lens gong to fill the same 3.6mm on a 1.6 format as it does
on a FF sensor? I don't understand how it could be any different.

Greg
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 3:18:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<<Isn't the same lens gong to fill the same 3.6mm on a 1.6 format as it
does
on a FF sensor? I don't understand how it could be any different.>>

Assume you take two lenses which can both deliver 60 line pairs per
millimeter of resolution measured on an optical bench, one 34mm lens
for 1.6 crop DLSR and the other 50mm lens for FF DSLR. Both are the
'normal' for their format size. Assuming that both cameras are placed
at the same camera-to-subject distance and the subject happens to
occupy 1/10th of the frame width in both cameras, the subject
stretches across 2.25mm of the 20D sensor and 3.6mm of the 1Ds MkII
sensor. So the subject is represented (in air) by 2.25x60 and by
3.6x60 line pairs per my analysis in prior email in this thread.


<<wilt assumes you are taken the the pictures using the same fixed
focal lens at the same location with 1.6x and FF cameras.>>

That statement is was not my assumption. I simply assume that two
different focal length lenses could both deliver 60 line pairs per
millimeter, as measured in air on an optical bench.

However, if you alter things and use literally the same 50mm lens on
both cameras, but you alter your camera-to-subject distance so that the
subject still is 10% of the frame width in size, the analysis still
applies...2.25x60 for 20D vs. 3.6x60 line for 1Ds MkII.

If you keep the camera-to-subject distance the same and use the same
50mm lens on both cameras, you enlarge the 1Ds MkII image and the 20D
image the same 4X amount to make the final 4x5 print with ***subject
the same size*** in both prints. So you end up with 216/4 = 49 line
pairs/mm of subject on paper and you would enlarge 1.6 crop by 4x for
final 132 / 4 = 33 line pairs of subject on paper (compared with my
earlier email analysis of 20 line pairs)


--Wilt
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 6:23:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11f4ggarfusqq3a@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> "wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote in message
> > But the lens has to deliver its resolution to the sensor, at a FIXED
> > resolution of the lens. If a lens can resolve 60 lines/mm in air, and
> > if the subject fills a 3.6mm section of the FF sensor and a 2,2mm
> > section of the 1.6 format sensor,
>
> Isn't the same lens gong to fill the same 3.6mm on a 1.6 format as it does
> on a FF sensor? I don't understand how it could be any different.

Greg-

It isn't necessarily the same lens. It could be a different lens with the
appropriate focal length to account for the crop factor, but with a fixed
60 lines/mm resolution. Or, it could be a zoom lens that happens to have
that same resolution at the two different focal lengths. The final images
are being compared, so they must have the same field of view.

Wilt's analysis sounds good to me. I think camera designers are aware of
these factors and have chosen to go with the smaller sensors for marketing
reasons more than technical reasons. They seem to be getting away with
it!

Fred
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 8:33:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

G.T. wrote:
> "wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1123172046.451278.129260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>John,
>> << The mention of frame size was to bring out the point that none of
>>Canon's high-MP (11 and
>>16.7) FF cameras can resolve subject detail as well as the 20D (or
>>RebelXT, for that matter), with the same lens. >>
>>
>>But the lens has to deliver its resolution to the sensor, at a FIXED
>>resolution of the lens. If a lens can resolve 60 lines/mm in air, and
>>if the subject fills a 3.6mm section of the FF sensor and a 2,2mm
>>section of the 1.6 format sensor,
>
>
> Isn't the same lens gong to fill the same 3.6mm on a 1.6 format as it does
> on a FF sensor? I don't understand how it could be any different.
>
> Greg


wilt assumes you are taken the the pictures using the same fixed focal
lens at the same location with 1.6x and FF cameras.

One the other hand, you assume, you'd back away to fill the 1.6x cropped
with the same image as a FF camera.

Now, back to you two to debate...
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 8:33:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:WrrIe.519$Wi6.71@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> G.T. wrote:
> > "wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1123172046.451278.129260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>John,
> >> << The mention of frame size was to bring out the point that none of
> >>Canon's high-MP (11 and
> >>16.7) FF cameras can resolve subject detail as well as the 20D (or
> >>RebelXT, for that matter), with the same lens. >>
> >>
> >>But the lens has to deliver its resolution to the sensor, at a FIXED
> >>resolution of the lens. If a lens can resolve 60 lines/mm in air, and
> >>if the subject fills a 3.6mm section of the FF sensor and a 2,2mm
> >>section of the 1.6 format sensor,
> >
> >
> > Isn't the same lens gong to fill the same 3.6mm on a 1.6 format as it
does
> > on a FF sensor? I don't understand how it could be any different.
> >
> > Greg
>
>
> wilt assumes you are taken the the pictures using the same fixed focal
> lens at the same location with 1.6x and FF cameras.
>
> One the other hand, you assume, you'd back away to fill the 1.6x cropped
> with the same image as a FF camera.
>
> Now, back to you two to debate...

I thought we were taking distant pictures of little birds, so, no, I
wouldn't back away.

Greg
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 10:19:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> A full frame DSLR with a telephoto
> or a 1.5-1.6 frame with a telephoto?
> The reason I ask is that most people seem to
> crop and it doesn't take much cropping (about
> 15% inward from each side) to
> whittle down the full frame image below the
> pixel count of an 8meg 1.5 frame camera, plus in
> order to match the f.l. so this doesn't happen,
> you need a longer, heavier lens.
> Given a choice and your experiences, which makes
> more sense to own?
> -Rich

The full frame sensor is really more useful for wide-angle. There aren't
professional quality wide angle zoom lenses, for either Nikon or Canon,
that are wide enough to compensate for the 1.5-1.6 crop factor.

For telephoto, the need for a full-frame is much less, and a Canon 20D
is your best choice in the prosumer segment, the Nikon D70s and Canon
350xt are the best choices in the amateur segment, and the Nikon D50 is
the best choice in the entry level segment.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 10:21:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
> around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
> frame? I think that if Canon did what Nikon did, have a selectable,
> internal reduction in the pixel area used to facilitate faster
> sequential shooting and longer telephoto reach, they'd have the
> perfect camera.
> -Rich

It would be perfect for telephoto, but not for wide angle. If Nikon
applied the D2x selectable system to a full frame sensor, then it'd be
the perfect camera.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 10:24:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

wilt wrote:

> Funny how the world rejected Kodak APS film format eventually and went
> back to larger 35mm film, yet it is so accepting of the 1.5 crop format
> in digital! I finally made the jump to 1.6 crop in Canon simply
> because the FF is so d*mn'd unaffordable to all but the rich and the
> corporations who provide equipment to staff photos!

And that's the reason that 1.5/1.6 was not rejected--the cost of full
frame was too high. We'd all prefer to have full-frame digital SLRs, but
we aren't willing to pay for it. With APS, you had to pay a lot more for
processing film, plus the film was more expensive to begin with.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 12:49:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John,
I present three different scenarios, one of which is the one YOU
present, but you cannot ackowledge the fact that even when I use YOUR
scenario, I prove that the final print resolution is better from the
1Ds than from the 20D!
I see the one thing that is consitent in your replies is that you
reject every other post by others with subjective comment and cannot
disprove others with objective proof. Do you belong to the Flat Earth
Societ, too???
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 1:07:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<< When you *do* put a sensor there, the image of
the subject is the same size on the surface; the one with the finer
pixel pitch (350D or 20D, or better yet, D2X) resolves the focused
image
to more pixels, meaning the same or greater resolution (it will be the
same if the lens itself is the limiting factor, in the fading tail of
the MTF). >>
If you put the same subject size without altering the subject-to-camera
distance, you end up with the same image size on the sensor, yes BUT
you do not end up with the same scene content with both cameras...you
get less of the total scene in the smaller format with the same lens on
the camera. So that is not comparing apples to apples.

To make a real valid apples-to-apples comparison by making the overall
scene content exactly the same from both cameras on the final print.
And in that case you can either move the cameras (to get same final
scene regardless of format size difference) or you alter the focal
length of the lens so each are similar in-are resolution specs which
then requires the use different magnification factors to make the same
final print size and scene content.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 1:07:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<< When you *do* put a sensor there, the image of
the subject is the same size on the surface; the one with the finer
pixel pitch (350D or 20D, or better yet, D2X) resolves the focused
image
to more pixels, meaning the same or greater resolution (it will be the
same if the lens itself is the limiting factor, in the fading tail of
the MTF). >>
If you put the same subject size without altering the subject-to-camera
distance, you end up with the same image size on the sensor, yes BUT
you do not end up with the same scene content with both cameras...you
get less of the total scene in the smaller format with the same lens on
the camera. So that is not comparing apples to apples.

To make a real valid apples-to-apples comparison by making the overall
scene content exactly the same from both cameras on the final print.
And in that case you can either move the cameras (to get same final
scene regardless of format size difference) or you alter the focal
length of the lens so each are similar in-are resolution specs which
then requires the use different magnification factors to make the same
final print size and scene content.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 1:32:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123214855.065949.285490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> << When you *do* put a sensor there, the image of
> the subject is the same size on the surface; the one with the finer
> pixel pitch (350D or 20D, or better yet, D2X) resolves the focused
> image
> to more pixels, meaning the same or greater resolution (it will be the
> same if the lens itself is the limiting factor, in the fading tail of
> the MTF). >>
> If you put the same subject size without altering the subject-to-camera
> distance, you end up with the same image size on the sensor, yes BUT
> you do not end up with the same scene content with both cameras...you
> get less of the total scene in the smaller format with the same lens on
> the camera. So that is not comparing apples to apples.
>
> To make a real valid apples-to-apples comparison by making the overall
> scene content exactly the same from both cameras on the final print.

That's not even close to the point of this discussion. The point is getting
the largest size, best resolution image of a distant small object.

Greg
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 6:42:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3ldn07F11urbfU4@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> In message <3lb7kuF11lq5tU1@individual.net>,
>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>No way! I want the LARGEST lens I can have on the camera, looks more "Pro"
>>>even if the image quality is the same!
>>
>> That's good, because the Olympus lenses look bigger than I'd expect from
>> a 4/3 camera. I saw a guy with an E-1 and a 300mm lens at "the Gates"
>> in Central Park in February, and I did a double-take when I realized
>> that the large lens was an Olympus 4/3 lens.
>
>Yea it's a LOT larger than the Canon 400mm F2.8.
>
> Or does FOV not apply when comparing a canon to an OM and but it does
>comparing a FF canon to a APS-c one?

No, it does not, because a lens at the *SAME* focal length, that is
optimized for a smaller circle on the focal plane can and should be
smaller.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 6:44:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <rMhIe.71387$oJ.13545@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

><JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
>news:o 8f2f11d5v8oepe9c54u8octb0ajjec7tq@4ax.com...
>> In message <bei0f1t75gb2u473jpltj0bdkm27a1bhct@4ax.com>,
>> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
>>>around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
>>>frame? I think that if Canon did what Nikon did, have a selectable,
>>>internal reduction in the pixel area used to facilitate faster
>>>sequential shooting and longer telephoto reach, they'd have the
>>>perfect camera.
>>
>> I'd like to see a camera that was just like a high-end P&S, but took my
>> EOS lenses.
>
>You can, either the 300D or 350D fit the bill.

You clipped the part where I explained what I meant, just to a take at
dig at those cameras? They have virtually the same pixel pitch as my
10D and 20D; they need a teleconverter to milk all their MTF out of
them, with slight loss.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
August 5, 2005 6:59:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <3ldn07F11urbfU4@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>JPS@no.komm wrote:

>>
>>Yea it's a LOT larger than the Canon 400mm F2.8.
>>
>> Or does FOV not apply when comparing a canon to an OM and but it does
>>comparing a FF canon to a APS-c one?
>
> No, it does not, because a lens at the *SAME* focal length, that is
> optimized for a smaller circle on the focal plane can and should be
> smaller.
>

So what? It's still a lot smaller than the 400mm F2.8 canon lens. And you
know it should be smaller and still have the same image quality because
you've designed high end telephoto lenses?
--

Stacey
August 5, 2005 7:00:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:

> In article <3ldn07F11urbfU4@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>> Or does FOV not apply when comparing a canon to an OM and but it does
>> comparing a FF canon to a APS-c one?
>
> A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens. The FOV is a retarded point of
> comparison.
>


So a 300mm lens on a 1Ds works just like it does on a 20D? And I guess a
28mm lens provides the same usefulness on the 1Ds as it does on the 20D as
well.. Glad you don't think FOV is important, seems most people do.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:05:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <1123172046.451278.129260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote:

>John,
> << The mention of frame size was to bring out the point that none of
>Canon's high-MP (11 and
>16.7) FF cameras can resolve subject detail as well as the 20D (or
>RebelXT, for that matter), with the same lens. >>

Please learn to quote properly. Your method is messy and irresponsible.
In a medium that is unformatted-text-based, the only acceptable method
of quoting is to preface each line with a special character.

>But the lens has to deliver its resolution to the sensor, at a FIXED
>resolution of the lens. If a lens can resolve 60 lines/mm in air, and
>if the subject fills a 3.6mm section of the FF sensor and a 2,2mm
>section of the 1.6 format sensor,

Stop right there. This is where your train of though jumps the tracks;
they are *EXACTLY* the same size, in mm, on the different sensors!
Imagine a tripod-mount lens on a tripod, inside a dark room, pointed at
the window. You don't need a camera body at all to get an image; just
put the palm of your hand, a sheet of paper, or even a dirty piece of
glass in the focal plane, and you will have an image. The device that
you put in the focal plane to focus the image on is irrelevant, as the
the size of the image. When you *do* put a sensor there, the image of
the subject is the same size on the surface; the one with the finer
pixel pitch (350D or 20D, or better yet, D2X) resolves the focused image
to more pixels, meaning the same or greater resolution (it will be the
same if the lens itself is the limiting factor, in the fading tail of
the MTF).

>what the sensor sees is 3.6x60= 216
>lines on FF, and 132 lines on the 1.6 crop. The image is LESS
>resolution for the same subject in the 1.6 crop frame! It does not
>matter that the sensor has more pixels per mm in the 20D sensor, as the
>same section of the total image fills 350 pixels (20D) vs. 490 pixels
>(1Ds MkII). So you lose with 1.6 crop on TWO counts...delivered
>resolution to the sensor and in terms of number of pixels used to
>represent the same subject!

Nope; not at all. You use your longest fl, highest-res lens, and the
20D is going to use more pixels to represent the subject. The 100-400
zoom at 400mm on the 20D is not going to become an 800mm when you put it
on the 1Ds mkII; it's still a 400mm, and it will render the same subject
with less pixels.

><<The lens projects an analog image on the sensor. The pixel pitch of
>the sensor determines how well the lens is resolved. >>
>
>But as I have shown above, 3.6mm x 60 line pairs/mm = 216 lines pairs
>on FF, and 2.2mm x 60 line pairs s/mm = 132 line pairs on the 1.6 crop
>to show the same subject in air. *Less subject resolution on sensor*
>for the 1.6 crop with the same 60 ll/mm resolution lens on both
>cameras.

No; you are assuming things which are not real. You do not get a
different size image ion the focal plane by changing camera bodies with
different frame sizes.

>For a 4x5 print, you would enlarge the FF by 4x, which results in
>216/4.4 = 49 line pairs/mm of subject on paper. You would enlarge 1.6
>crop by 6.7x for final 132 / 6.7 = 20 line pairs of subject on paper.
>*Less final subject resolution on print* for the same magnfication
>print from both cameras.

No. When you have a larger frame, you will be cropping away more of the
image as with the 20D, and you will wind up with less total pixels. A
large frame full of grass with a dot subject in it somewhere is usually
totally worthless. You are thinking more about the number of pixels
than what those pixels contain. Many pixels can be totally worthless
garbage.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:07:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <11f4nvncb2u9r82@corp.supernews.com>,
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

>I thought we were taking distant pictures of little birds, so, no, I
>wouldn't back away.

The idea of context is very slippery, apparently.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:21:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <1123179516.941373.165050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote:

><<Isn't the same lens gong to fill the same 3.6mm on a 1.6 format as it
>does
>on a FF sensor? I don't understand how it could be any different.>>
>
>Assume you take two lenses which can both deliver 60 line pairs per
>millimeter of resolution measured on an optical bench, one 34mm lens
>for 1.6 crop DLSR and the other 50mm lens for FF DSLR. Both are the
>'normal' for their format size. Assuming that both cameras are placed
>at the same camera-to-subject distance and the subject happens to
>occupy 1/10th of the frame width in both cameras,

That's a totally false assumption in the context of this discussion.
It's about the reach and

>the subject
>stretches across 2.25mm of the 20D sensor and 3.6mm of the 1Ds MkII
>sensor.

No, it doesn't. You use the same focal length on both cameras, because
it is your maximum focal length, and really doesn't fill the frame
properly with the subject (small bird at distance), with either camera.
Both images will most likely need to be cropped, so that the bird is not
lost in the final presentation. The same size crop, relative to the
subject, will have less pixels in the 1Ds mkII than in the 20D.

>So the subject is represented (in air) by 2.25x60 and by
>3.6x60 line pairs per my analysis in prior email in this thread.
>
>
><<wilt assumes you are taken the the pictures using the same fixed
>focal lens at the same location with 1.6x and FF cameras.>>
>
>That statement is was not my assumption. I simply assume that two
>different focal length lenses could both deliver 60 line pairs per
>millimeter, as measured in air on an optical bench.

WHy are you talking about two different lenses? You can use the same
lens on both cameras, which is what my original scenario was all about;
putting one body on a lens, vs another body.

If you're going to disagree with someone or attempt to correct them make
sure you know what they're talking about.

>However, if you alter things and use literally the same 50mm lens on
>both cameras, but you alter your camera-to-subject distance so that the
>subject still is 10% of the frame width in size, the analysis still
>applies...2.25x60 for 20D vs. 3.6x60 line for 1Ds MkII.
>
>If you keep the camera-to-subject distance the same and use the same
>50mm lens on both cameras, you enlarge the 1Ds MkII image and the 20D
>image the same 4X amount to make the final 4x5 print with ***subject
>the same size*** in both prints.

You don't; you're making this up!

You remind me of all the people I went to school with who would get
confused all the time, because they just *had* to look at everything the
wrong way, based on some concern that developed based on useless or
false assumptions.

>So you end up with 216/4 = 49 line
>pairs/mm of subject on paper and you would enlarge 1.6 crop by 4x for
>final 132 / 4 = 33 line pairs of subject on paper (compared with my
>earlier email analysis of 20 line pairs)

No, you don't; your concern has zero practical value, unless you send
your files to some lab to print whole.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:27:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <fmmck-0408051423380001@aca32f66.ipt.aol.com>,
fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) wrote:

>In article <11f4ggarfusqq3a@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
><getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> "wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > But the lens has to deliver its resolution to the sensor, at a FIXED
>> > resolution of the lens. If a lens can resolve 60 lines/mm in air, and
>> > if the subject fills a 3.6mm section of the FF sensor and a 2,2mm
>> > section of the 1.6 format sensor,
>>
>> Isn't the same lens gong to fill the same 3.6mm on a 1.6 format as it does
>> on a FF sensor? I don't understand how it could be any different.
>
>Greg-
>
>It isn't necessarily the same lens. It could be a different lens with the
>appropriate focal length to account for the crop factor, but with a fixed
>60 lines/mm resolution.

No, it couldn't be; not in the context in which wilt attempted to
correct me. It was about resolving *A* lens, with different sensors.

>Or, it could be a zoom lens that happens to have
>that same resolution at the two different focal lengths. The final images
>are being compared, so they must have the same field of view.

You obviously have never worked in this context; you can never have
enough reach for a small bird at a distance! You will most definitely
*NOT* use a shorter focal length with either body, to meet wilt's
scenario.

>Wilt's analysis sounds good to me. I think camera designers are aware of
>these factors and have chosen to go with the smaller sensors for marketing
>reasons more than technical reasons. They seem to be getting away with
>it!

What other choices do we have? Of course they're "getting away" with
it.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:29:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <a%sIe.7449$p%3.34282@typhoon.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>For telephoto, the need for a full-frame is much less, and a Canon 20D
>is your best choice in the prosumer segment, the Nikon D70s and Canon
>350xt are the best choices in the amateur segment, and the Nikon D50 is
>the best choice in the entry level segment.

The D2X is clearly the current king of small pixel-pitch, but, of
course, it is expensive.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:41:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <54n5f1hkinc3908thce0avt9sqfbksbukp@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
says...
> The D2X is clearly the current king of small pixel-pitch, but, of
> course, it is expensive.

And the noise performance leaves much to be desired at ISO 400 and
above. Otherwise, very fine camera.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:56:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <a%sIe.7449$p%3.34282@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>For telephoto, the need for a full-frame is much less, and a Canon 20D
>>is your best choice in the prosumer segment, the Nikon D70s and Canon
>>350xt are the best choices in the amateur segment, and the Nikon D50 is
>>the best choice in the entry level segment.
>
>
> The D2X is clearly the current king of small pixel-pitch, but, of
> course, it is expensive.

Actually the Olympus E-300 has slightly smaller pixel-pitch than the D2x
(see "http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/images/cpp.gif"). The D2x is fine as
long as you don't care about professional wide-angle zoom lenses, or
about high ISO noise.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:05:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <1123213791.526219.188160@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote:

>John,
> I present three different scenarios, one of which is the one YOU
>present, but you cannot ackowledge the fact that even when I use YOUR
>scenario, I prove that the final print resolution is better from the
>1Ds than from the 20D!
> I see the one thing that is consitent in your replies is that you
>reject every other post by others with subjective comment and cannot
>disprove others with objective proof. Do you belong to the Flat Earth
>Societ, too???

I made a specific comment about a specific scenario; using the same lens
on different cameras for small, distant subjects. Your "correction" was
nonsense, as it did not apply to my context. I was totally correct in
what I said, and you are full of irrelevant and hot air.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:06:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The D2x is fine as long as you don't care about professional wide-angle
> zoom lenses

It's fine even if you do; the 17-35 f/2.8 is very much a professional-grade
lens.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:08:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <LrBIe.7537$p%3.34720@typhoon.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>> In message <a%sIe.7449$p%3.34282@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For telephoto, the need for a full-frame is much less, and a Canon 20D
>>>is your best choice in the prosumer segment, the Nikon D70s and Canon
>>>350xt are the best choices in the amateur segment, and the Nikon D50 is
>>>the best choice in the entry level segment.
>>
>>
>> The D2X is clearly the current king of small pixel-pitch, but, of
>> course, it is expensive.
>
>Actually the Olympus E-300 has slightly smaller pixel-pitch than the D2x
>(see "http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/images/cpp.gif"). The D2x is fine as
>long as you don't care about professional wide-angle zoom lenses, or
>about high ISO noise.

Yes, I realized that after I posted, but what I had in mind was cameras
that used lenses intended for full-frame 35mm cameras, so I didn't think
of it. P&S cameras have finer pixel pitches, too, of course.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:11:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11f5pe5lt6tjpf8@corp.supernews.com>, jeremy@exit109.com
says...
> > The D2x is fine as long as you don't care about professional wide-angle
> > zoom lenses
>
> It's fine even if you do; the 17-35 f/2.8 is very much a professional-grade
> lens.

Yeah, too bad that turns into a 26-53mm lens on the D2X.

Nikon has a lot of nice superwide zooms. It's a shame they don't have a
full-frame dSLR to take advantage of them.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 5, 2005 8:11:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:

> In article <11f5pe5lt6tjpf8@corp.supernews.com>, jeremy@exit109.com
> says...
>> > The D2x is fine as long as you don't care about professional wide-angle
>> > zoom lenses
>>
>> It's fine even if you do; the 17-35 f/2.8 is very much a
>> professional-grade lens.
>
> Yeah, too bad that turns into a 26-53mm lens on the D2X.

" The FOV is a retarded point of comparison.", wait you only say that when
talking about the tele end of the spectrum.. Nevermind..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:23:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>> It's fine even if you do; the 17-35 f/2.8 is very much a professional-grade
>> lens.
>
> Yeah, too bad that turns into a 26-53mm lens on the D2X.

And that's... wide angle. So, professional wide-angle zoom lens.

> Nikon has a lot of nice superwide zooms.

Superwide is another thing. They have the 12-24, which is apparently good,
though 12mm x 1.5 is a bit wide for my taste, so I haven't tried one or
looked to get one. I think some people don't consider it "professional"
because it's f/4 or something, which is fine.

But, why wouldn't an actual professional just get a 15mm fixed-length lens,
then? Why the assumption that a zoom is necessary? Granted, I've become
much more of a non-zoom-snob recently; the 17-35 is one of only two zooms
that still has a place in my kit.

> It's a shame they don't have a full-frame dSLR to take advantage of them.

I guess if extreme wide angle is important to you, then it is. I do,
however, wish that "certain people" would stop telling everyone that
there are no professional wide angle lenses available for cropped-sensor
SLRs, which is clearly not even remotely true.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:36:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11f5qe6crd34v07@corp.supernews.com>, jeremy@exit109.com
says...
> > Yeah, too bad that turns into a 26-53mm lens on the D2X.
>
> And that's... wide angle. So, professional wide-angle zoom lens.

Semantics.

I've read Steven enough to know he meant was most people would consider
"superwides."

> > Nikon has a lot of nice superwide zooms.
>
> Superwide is another thing. They have the 12-24, which is apparently good,
> though 12mm x 1.5 is a bit wide for my taste, so I haven't tried one or
> looked to get one. I think some people don't consider it "professional"
> because it's f/4 or something, which is fine.

It's constant aperture, which is certainly something you don't find in a
lot of consumer lenses. While f/2.8 is handy in lower light situations,
f/4 is fine for most other situations. I just wish Canon had something
like it.

> But, why wouldn't an actual professional just get a 15mm fixed-length lens,
> then? Why the assumption that a zoom is necessary? Granted, I've become
> much more of a non-zoom-snob recently; the 17-35 is one of only two zooms
> that still has a place in my kit.

Well, zoom is convenient and if the quality is good enough, it saves
room in the camera bag.

> > It's a shame they don't have a full-frame dSLR to take advantage of them.
>
> I guess if extreme wide angle is important to you, then it is. I do,

Well, I consider Nikon's superwides probably the strongest area of their
lens lineup.

> however, wish that "certain people" would stop telling everyone that
> there are no professional wide angle lenses available for cropped-sensor
> SLRs, which is clearly not even remotely true.

Certainly it's true you can't get a professional superwide for a cropped
sensor camera, and I believe that's what Steven is trying to get at.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
!