If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Skip M wrote:
Canon even talks about them being suitable for digital use... Suitable isn't the same thing as "optimal". Remember, Canon is in the business of selling people things, They sell you a 17-40, then 4 years later they come out with a "digitally optimized" version and get to sell another batch of the same focal length lenses. Watch and see if this doesn't happen. -- Stacey |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Stacey wrote: You'll have to wait for a full frame camera to find out. Just look at the examples from canon's wide zooms to see how poorly a digital FF sensor can react to use with a "legacy" lens. At least the newer Nikon zooms are being designed with a longer exit pupil distance so they at least have a good chance of being FF friendly. It would be interesting, once the 5D is here, given the poor example Canon posted, a test with that Canon zoom compared to the Nikon 17-35 mounted on the 5D via an adapter. I for one would love to see how much of the problem can be solved by the lens design. I for 2 would like to see this done.. I'm tired of having to deal with film, shooting with my mamiya 645 and would LOVE to see a system that would replace it. From what I've seen so far, the 5D with canon optics aren't going to do it. -- Stacey |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
no one wrote:
Canon could make their full frame sensor more compatable with their existing wide angle lenses, but why would they, since it would make it harder to motivate you to buy new wide angle lenses for your new FF digital slr. Which "new" WA lens are you talking about that would work good with this camera? -- Stacey |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Stacey" wrote in message
... Skip M wrote: Canon even talks about them being suitable for digital use... Suitable isn't the same thing as "optimal". Remember, Canon is in the business of selling people things, They sell you a 17-40, then 4 years later they come out with a "digitally optimized" version and get to sell another batch of the same focal length lenses. Watch and see if this doesn't happen. -- Stacey Here's what the Canon Camera Museum blurb has to say about the 17-40 L we've been talking about... "Featuring a new optical system design, the new lens delivers an expanded zoom range of 17-40mm, with the wide-angle-end 17mm focal length making it ideally suited to digital photography." I wonder what their idea of "works ok, but not great" is... I know they're talking about focal length, but still... -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Stacey" wrote in message
... Skip M wrote: "Stacey" wrote in message ... Father Kodak wrote: Which older Nikon lenses wouldn't do justice to a full-frame digital sensor? You'll have to wait for a full frame camera to find out. Just look at the examples from canon's wide zooms to see how poorly a digital FF sensor can react to use with a "legacy" lens. At least the newer Nikon zooms are being designed with a longer exit pupil distance so they at least have a good chance of being FF friendly. -- Stacey Again, Stacey, the 17-40 isn't a "legacy" lens, it postdates the 1D somewhat. But they still failed to design it to be digital sensor friendly. Which doesn't explain the WA shot on Canon's website, I'll agree. But I still want to know why, if digital res is just equal to film, the performance of the WA lenses significantly worse on full frame digital than on film. After all, the sensor size is similar. Yet the ability for them to deal with off axis light rays isn't even close to the same. -- Stacey As Dimitri explained so eloquently. Finally got an answer... -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gisle Hannemyr wrote: (Philip Homburg) writes: I'm saying that the traditional CoC size for 35mm is a lot bigger than a single sensor element. But the sampling theorem tells you that the best resolution you can hope to resolve is /two times/ the sensor pitch. And in most modern cameras, there is an AA-filter in front of the sensels that filters out any signal with a frequency higher than the nyquist limit (= two times the sampling frequency). I am going to ignore the AA filter. There is basically no camera with a MTF of zero at nyquist. Check the resolution targets at dpreview. At nyquist (actually, slightly below nyquist) you can resolve a complete cycle: black and white. This means that the CoC should have a frequency that is double the nyquist frequency. In other words, the CoC has to be smaller than the sensor element size (however, two times the sensor element size is good for Bayer pattern sensors). The CoC-value used for 135-format film was typically 25 µm. Because the crop factor, the corresponding CoC for a 1.6x crop digital sensor is 16 µm. As it happens, the sensor diameter in the 6 Mpx DSLRs are around 8 µm, tow times that is 16 µm, so 16 µm is also the best resolution this camera can have according to the sampling theorem. For a full-frame 35mm dSLR, there is no crop factor. The 25 micrometer should compared to the 7.3 micrometer of the 1Ds mk II. I don't think your computation makes much sense: for an 1.6 crop sensor, you have to reduce the CoC with same factor. The pixel equivalent for full-frame 35mm is easy to compute: 36/0.025 * 24/0.025 = 1382400 or 1.4 Mpixel. Which makes sense because a CoC of 25 micrometer is already much too big for good quality enlargements of 35mm film. This also tells us that neyond 6 Mpx, the megapixel game is yielding diminshing returns. Of course not. The CoC has nothing to do with image quality. Image quality is ultimately limited by diffraction (assuming perfect lenses). If there is nothing beyond 6 Mpixel, then large format much have been a complete waste of time for many years. -- 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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Stacey wrote:
Skip M wrote: Canon even talks about them being suitable for digital use... Suitable isn't the same thing as "optimal". Remember, Canon is in the business of selling people things, They sell you a 17-40, then 4 years later they come out with a "digitally optimized" version and get to sell another batch of the same focal length lenses. Watch and see if this doesn't happen. Every company in the world is in the business of selling things, to people or corporations, goods and/or services. When one is able to find almost any product now that's "optimized for digital", such as speaker wire, then it's the marketing guys doing it. I may have even spotted a rack to hold tapes and CDs that was "digital". (!) -- John McWilliams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 8 Nikon lenses including 80-200 Nikkor 2.8 zoom and accessories | Henry Peña | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 2 | November 12th 03 02:56 PM |
FS: 8 Nikon lenses including 80-200 Nikkor 2.8 zoom and accessories | Henry Peña | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | November 11th 03 06:20 PM |
Nikon 35mm and APS SLRs and related equipment for sale | Mike Schnierle | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | October 29th 03 04:44 PM |
Nikon F4s, F90x, 20,60,85,105,35-70,80-200 | tony | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | October 19th 03 10:17 PM |
Subject: FS: Nikon F4, Nikkor Lens and accessories. | FocaIPoint | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | August 29th 03 03:59 PM |