On 07/07/07, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We recently purchased a Canon S3IS. .. Is it a replacement for a
DSLR?
Not really, but it rocks for size, weight, features, and cost
Do you want to add a live histogram, live flashing overexposure warning and RAW
as well? Plus
This raises some very interesting aspects of digital cameras.
I should mention that the S3IS already offers live histograms, and the
flashing overexposure in review mode, and some customized scripts, but
not raw, which is very interesting.
What's most interesting is that most electronics today
One other detail I'd like to mention is that I really prefer the aspect
ratio of 4/3. A subjective matter, naturally. I think it is really silly,
this craze in movies and television for the very wide screen, which may suit
the sweeping landscape, but very often looks ridiculous and sacrifices
On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Berry Ives wrote:
Does anyone know what is the market share of FF digital among
professional photographers working digitally today?
It seems to me that most working pros are using the 1.3x crop Canons.
I see those more than just about anything else. Of course, the
I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I
spent pixels. This makes no sense to me.
Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of
the sensor to save space on the memory card.
R. Jackson wrote:
Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor
Some 2006 Japan-only figures put the 5D at a low single-digit portion of
DSLRs overall (and DSLRs are only about 5% of digital camera unit sales).
The 1Ds would be a smaller fraction still. This is just from memory, but
together they'd be 2-3% of the DSLR market, 100,000-150,000 units. (and
Well, yes, but the resolution of the sensor is still the resolution of
the sensor, so unless the FF sensor has an increased resolution
equivalent to the difference in factor difference, the smaller sensor
does provide a greater reach per resolution. Also, the camera is
smaller and likely lighter.
Exactly. I agree. Unless the FF is higher res the main advantage of FF
is lower noise and in the wide angle department.
Art
R. Jackson wrote:
Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get
there.
On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote:
A cropped sensor really doesn't
Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller
using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF,
you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced
the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the
smaller
I think you need to strictly define reach.
Arthur Entlich wrote:
Well, yes, but the resolution of the sensor is still the resolution of
the sensor, so unless the FF sensor has an increased resolution
equivalent to the difference in factor difference, the smaller sensor
does provide a greater
On Jul 10, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Bob Geoghegan wrote:
Some 2006 Japan-only figures put the 5D at a low single-digit
portion of
DSLRs overall (and DSLRs are only about 5% of digital camera unit
sales).
The 1Ds would be a smaller fraction still.
Well, the 1Ds is what, about $7000 retail? And the
This makes good sense Art, however I'm curious about pixel density.
(apart from the obvious larger pixel = more photons landing in it
sensitivity advantage which is often the case with the larger sensor)
Can the lenses being used on the cameras in question, satisfactorily
resolve the number of
I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of
distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a
telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup
doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an
advantage. Also,
Hmmm, 12 MP but in different sizes. Consider the Nikon D2X(s) vs Canon 1D
mkII or 5D.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page
Results may vary, of course.
Bob G
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you are using autofocus, that will be the limiting factor in
resolution. IIRC, they quit at about 50lpmm. Then there is the
antialiasing filter, which reduces resolution. The EOS-1Ds Mark II has
an AAF that doesn't filter much, so it is more prone to aliasing
problems, but also produces a sharp
I wish they were a bit more scientific in their analysis. For instance,
Canon makes more than one 300mm lens.
Bob Geoghegan wrote:
Hmmm, 12 MP but in different sizes. Consider the Nikon D2X(s) vs Canon 1D
mkII or 5D.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html
16 matches
Mail list logo
