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.
Regarding the actual manufacture of CMOS sensors ... Canon had put out a white paper on this topic a few years back that still has relevancy now. I found a download location for it here.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf
It is a decent read. Shows how they could only get 20 FF sensors on a 8 inch wafer but could get 200 crop sensors on the same wafer. Also discusses the various processes involved in creating these sensors and what can go wrong. Unlike many other camera makers, Canon makes their own sensors in house.
I currently have been using the 50mm 1.2 with my MKII for portraits and indoor shoots. However, I would like to expand my lens options and needing a general zoom lens so I have read plenty of lovely reviews about the 24-70 and 70-200. Eventually I would love to have both of these however I can only purchase one of them at this time. Any suggestions on which one I should start with that could give me a good general use until I can also purchase the other? I am torn at this point!It depends what you call "General Use". If your general use is indoor group shots, cityscape, building, wide scenery etc, get the 24-70. If your general use is candit portrait (people, animal or birds) from distance, get the 70-200.
But what's next - a camera designed for left handers?Quote
Get an Exakta. It is all left handed, including the film winder. :=)
Street photography is something different. DSLR here isn't the best choice. Fuji seems to have taken this into consideration.
BTW, Rocky, the M9 is 100% manual focusThat is that exact reason why I singled out the M9. With Zone focusing, it can beat the AF
Look at the first generation FF camera and the images were garbage compared to well scanned and digitally edited film captures.
Thanks for telling us that the 1DIIIs (first FF by Canon) is garbage.
{1Ds}
Thanks for the correction. I agree that with 11 MP, It cannot beat the fine gain film.
Look at the first generation FF camera and the images were garbage compared to well scanned and digitally edited film captures.
my first real SLR that I bought was the 450D, so before the age of digital how did Canon differentiate its model line up feature wise? I mean back say year 1998 the determiner of IQ was the lens and film and the paper that it was printed on. My point is, why have so many sensors across a brand's line up, with 1DX sensor, 5D3, 5D2 and then the rebel line up of sensors, if all camera's just over a decade ago had the same ability to capture light correct? So what you pay for then is build quality, FPS, and metering etc.It all bolts down to two item: Money and Requirement. Use existing Canon lineup as an example: On the FF, we have the IDx and the 5DIII with different sensor, different resolution, different physical size and different feature. So if you are into FF then you have your choice depends on your requirement and how much you want to spend. The same goes to APS-C with the 7D, 60D, T4i and Xsi. Then between the FF and APS-C that is another choice. In order to get the most out of FF execellent lenses are required. So everything is more expensive with the FF body. On the other hand, APS-C serves another purpose. For people that never make 20X30 inch print It is an excellent media. It is cheaper than the FF with less requirement on the lens (using the best part of image circle). Also for the "bird shooter", a shorter lens can be used.
