Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Perhaps the most salient point is this:
With film, MF quality was most often noticeably higher than 35mm, and the price difference was 'x'.
With the latest digital technology the quality difference is much closer, but the price difference is 'x' times 10.
As far as FF is concerned, a good reason tobye'Buy Canon'
I wonder what the nominees were. I'm surprised the 6D topped the 5DIII and D800.I think they fell in the previous year. MKIII received best Video DSLR and D800 received best expert DSLR
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....
So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....
I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...
I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.
Tell me again how MF is always better....
Studio
Fashion
Landscapes
Better on some things, not on all.
It's king in its niche.
Btw, I've put a few frames of 4x5 velvia 50 thru a friend view camera. Stunning.
There is no question that MF has physical advantage. However, if you look back and see how fast Canon or Nikon improve their dSLR cameras in just a decade, it certainly shows the huge advantage of economic of scale by big companies. I am sure the R&D budgets of Canon and Nikon are much higher than that of a niche company such as Hasselblad, but they can recoup the cost by selling millions of copies. For the previous generation of 35mm cameras such 5D II or D700, comparing 35mm to MF does not even exist. But at least there are many reviews comparing the new 35mm camera such as D800 to the low-end MF, and I am expecting more reviews when Canon high MP camera comes to the market. Think about how the market will react when the quality gap is getting closer with wide price gap a few more years down the road.
My 2 cents.
History has already shown MF will not be replaced by 35mm. Bigger sensor's will always have an advantage in those areas listed and their will always be that market its DESIGNED for. Don't compare the best 35mm vs a last gen MF... Compare the best to the best IE: The best 35mm cam D800 vs the Best MF cam the IQ180.
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....
So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....
I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...
I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.
Tell me again how MF is always better....
Studio
Fashion
Landscapes
Better on some things, not on all.
It's king in its niche.
Btw, I've put a few frames of 4x5 velvia 50 thru a friend view camera. Stunning.
sigma to the right
sigma looks better if you ask me.
So whats the Dynamic Range on this?
Hi Guys,
I'm having a frustrating experience with the Lee Big Stopper. I've been waiting for what seems like an eternity.
Anyone faced with a similar situation? How long is the waiting on average?
The only other option available is the Hitech 10 stop ND - but I've decided against it because it is reported to have color cast issues.
We are talking about qualities of products in forums, and that's why we are here. Market share is determined by many factors, and that's why Rebel outsold 5D, not because Rebel is better than 5D.
You were comparing the 5DII to the D700, not to a camera costing 1/5 as much (at least, you weren't to begin with, and I don't see your point in doing so now, except perhaps as a concession to the main point). I think you're missing the point. You may post on a forum that the D4 is the best camera in the world, but unless you use your fingers to hand your money to a vendor and buy one, your posted opinion isn't worth the 2 cents worth of electricity you wasted posting it. In any case, the people who post their opinions on forums represent a very small fraction of real buyers. It's the opinions of those buyers that matter, in aggregate, and the 5DII was the clear winner over the D700 in that arena.
Unfortunately the statement 5D II leads D700 can only be found in this forum. You will see different opinions if you open your mind and look at different forums or do a google search. ...check out their resale values on eBay or amazon. You will know the truth.
LOL. Seriously? What's stated here or on any other internet forum is opinion and is totally irrelevant. The 5DII far outsold the D700 in the marketplace. That's the "truth" - at least, the only one that matters. In fact, your last statement just proves the point - basic supply and demand, used 5DIIs are cheaper than used D700s because there were a lot more 5DIIs sold, therefore more are available on the used market. Truth, indeed...
Thanks for those two very helpfull comments, and i totally agree with both of you.
@meuroanatomist
They´re ahead because they sold so many 5d2 and now they give those users everything they wanted in the first place with the 5d3. They are forced to upgrade, even tough the camera doesnt provide anything fantastic or revolutionary and is pretty pricey (when you look at the competition).
Nikon bodies fell behind when the 5D II was released. They didn't make any real progress to be in any kind of lead till the D800. They have played leapfrog with bodies for years. With the rumored 46 mp Canon in the wild, who will be behind in bodies when it is released.
Lets not forget, Nikon has always been behind with glass.
I stand by the first comment I made in the thread.
So i´m in the market for a full frame camera right now. I only have FF lenses for EF mount, so switching would at least mean the loss of a lens or two (money reasons).
Right now canon is far behind others. Or lets just say it: Nikon.
The d800 is 2300€ the 5d3 is 2900€ and the Nikon just is the superior camera. If you downsize the image even high iso is awesome, af is good etc. It´s just a really good body and much more in the price range of a 6d.
I want to stick with canon but if they are going to make their first competitive body in like 5 years i really have to consider switching....
Sony is a great company, but they should stick to TV's and making movies like Skyfall.
Sony produces the sensor for Nikon D600.
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/08/teardowns-of-nikon-d600-reveal-sony-sensor-hard-to-replace-lcd-screen/
Perhaps even in other models?
Yep, just read it d800 too. http://nikonrumors.com/2012/08/29/confirmed-the-sensor-inside-the-nikon-d800-is-made-by-sony.aspx/
Um, yes...really, Really, REALLY OOOOLD news?
D7000, D800, D600, D3200 all use Sony Exmor sensors. Pentax K5 uses one as well. A number of other competing camera manufacturers, as well as dozens of compact camera and cell phone brands all use Sony sensors. You might as well expect a "Sony Inside" logo in half the products on the market that have an imaging sensor.
