Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Photokina 2008
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've not used the 40D but with most lenses I found that on the Nikon D200, f11 was the last useable aperture. On the D700 I have no problem with f16. It will vary from lens to lens (it's size of aperture not the nominal fstop) - diffraction will occur at at all apertures, it's just whether it's enough to limit resolution to a noticeable degree.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have not seen an obvious difference in diffraction effects between the 350D and the 40D, although the 40D offers 2 MPIX more. But the sensors are of the same size.
OK, I do not shoot with higher than f8 often. Wink

I do believe, though, that there is a considerable difference between the 40D and the 5D. It's the intensely different dot pitch (or "pixel pitch") that counts.

As far as this chart is concerned, it is hard to say if it is mainly the diffraction effect (which is doubtlessly existing) or the higher resolution, probably both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch (rather displays)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritische_Blende (German!)


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A good guide to resolution and the inter-relationship between pixel pitch and airy disc.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tried and read it all but it's on a too scientifical level for a humanist like me Smile Rolling Eyes
What I wonder is, would Canon or any other maker sell a camera to a semi-pro or pro market, that is obviously and negatively affected by a problem big as such and well-known as such?
I expect that they have made test and will provide a product that is within the standard range of expected tolerance for pro or semi-pro products, otherwise, it would be easy for the product to be talked down and for them to lose credibility and sales.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am not sure, how credibility is being measured these days, Orio, and if people care... We do, but we are not the average digicam users.

It's the sound of the big number, the endless race for more megapixels that still counts. If asked to decide between a cam that might have diffraction effects from f8 up and 24 MPix and a cam without such an effect an 12 MPix, most buyers would go for the 24 MPix cam, I guess.
And Canon marketing knows that...


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
I am not sure, how credibility is being measured these days, Orio, and if people care... We do, but we are not the average digicam users.
It's the sound of the big number, the endless race for more megapixels that still counts. If asked to decide between a cam that might have diffraction effects from f8 up and 24 MPix and a cam without such an effect an 12 MPix, most buyers would go for the 24 MPix cam, I guess.
And Canon marketing knows that...


Carsten, you are describing the potential buyer of a semi-pro camera like the successor of the 5D, in the same way as the mass of non-photographer buyers of digital compact cameras.
People who buy a camera of this type normally do not buy uninformed.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
One question: even if a camera's sensor has , let's say 24 Mpx and the photographer takes photos at 12 Mpx , what does this means ?
1. The camera takes the photo at 24 Mpx and then makes a resize of it or ...
2. The camera uses less number of Mpx of the sensor (~4368x2912 ~12,7Mpx).
Both cases when shooting RAW.

PS. I checked my K100D and saw that when I use RAW the camera don't allow me to change the picture's dimension (maybe others do allow it).


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
montecarlo wrote:
One question: even if a camera's sensor has , let's say 24 Mpx and the photographer takes photos at 12 Mpx , what does this means ?
1. The camera takes the photo at 24 Mpx and then makes a resize of it or ...
2. The camera uses less number of Mpx of the sensor (~4368x2912 ~12,7Mpx).
Both cases when shooting RAW.
PS. I checked my K100D and saw that when I use RAW the camera don't allow me to change the picture's dimension (maybe others do allow it).


Good question Cosmin.
All the cameras that I have used only allowed to change picture size for JPG photos, not RAW.
Given the fact that JPG requires compression, I assume that it's easier and faster for a camera to resize while compressing than to reprogramme the sensor area.
I have no idea for RAW though.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
I am not sure, how credibility is being measured these days, Orio, and if people care... We do, but we are not the average digicam users.
It's the sound of the big number, the endless race for more megapixels that still counts. If asked to decide between a cam that might have diffraction effects from f8 up and 24 MPix and a cam without such an effect an 12 MPix, most buyers would go for the 24 MPix cam, I guess.
And Canon marketing knows that...


Carsten, you are describing the potential buyer of a semi-pro camera like the successor of the 5D, in the same way as the mass of non-photographer buyers of digital compact cameras.
People who buy a camera of this type normally do not buy uninformed.


I'm not convinced that people look into the science that closely. Resolution and number of MPix's are constantly confused in the popular photographic press as well...


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:

I'm not convinced that people look into the science that closely.


OK Richard but good camera reviewers do.
I personally do not understand most of the complex scientific theories, but before spending 2500 Euros in a camera, I read the reviews.
If the new Canon camera is crap because of diffraction, the fact will surface quite soon and will be reknowned and affect the sales.

If he needs a compact camera for a vacation the average non-photographer will go to his preferred store and ask the owner advice for a good camera. In some cases, when he reads something generic about cameras, he will ask for a long zoom and big megapixels. In most cases, he will not read reviews prior to buying, and will not buy because of a review.

But when a photographer buys a 2500 Euros full frame reflex camera, he surely looks for some information prior to taking it's decision. There will surely be a percentage of impulse buyers for such middle-top range cameras too, but I think that wise informed buyers are the large majority of those who buy a full frame reflex camera.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Of course, Orio, many guys who want to buy a $2500,- cam will be informed, but I have met quite a number of 5D users (and 1Ds users!!!) who do not know a thing about technology. They just want to shoot.
One of the 1Ds guys did not know a thing about photography and was not able to use his cam other than in the "P"-mode - but that is a special case and and another story. (He was a Porsche driver, btw. Wink)

Some guys just have the money, so they spend it...


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SONY A900
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSLRA900/
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08090901sony_sal1635za_sal70400.asp


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
montecarlo wrote:
SONY A900
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSLRA900/
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08090901sony_sal1635za_sal70400.asp


Amazing specs!
24.6 MP, image stabilizer built in sensor, 100% viewfinder, 5 fps shooting frequency, dual processors... and the price of 3000 USD is not prohibitive as the specs would have meant only a couple of years ago.

The key is the high ISO, which has been the weak point of older Sonys.
If it will be improved, this camera can represent a serious threat to the sales of both Nikon and Canon.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
montecarlo wrote:
SONY A900
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSLRA900/
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08090901sony_sal1635za_sal70400.asp


Amazing specs!
24.6 MP, image stabilizer built in sensor, 100% viewfinder, 5 fps shooting frequency, dual processors... and the price of 3000 USD is not prohibitive as the specs would have meant only a couple of years ago.

The key is the high ISO, which has been the weak point of older Sonys.
If it will be improved, this camera can represent a serious threat to the sales of both Nikon and Canon.


Watch the samples. The 6400 ISO photos are not as noiseless as D3/D700 (might say not even close). You fave to resize the image to be better (less noise).


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
more samples http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900THMB.HTM


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
difficult to judge noise without 100% crops, but from what can be seen, 400 ISO is excellent, 800 ISO is very good and 1600 is good and fully useable.

That's not the 3200 ISO of the Nikon, but on the other hand, it's also a 24.6 MP while Nikon is a 12.1. This means that the image of the Sony is more than double bigger than that of the Nikon.
All in all it could be a good tradeoff, with a good 1600 ISO available, I surely would have more use for 24.6 MP image size than for a 3200 ISO in the large majority of my shots.
Of course this is said aside from all consideration about the lenses (the Sony lens catalogue is not comparable to that of Nikon)


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In the DPReeview preview there are clickable 100% size jpgs sample images.

Noise is excellent to good till 800 ISO and is becoming quickly worse after. It's not at par with D3-D700 but for a fair comparison, as Montecarlo said, one should resize the image to similar proportions.

All in all I expected to see a lot more noise, especially in the blacks at 200-400 ISO.

The other very nice features, IF it works as advertised, is the sensor stabilization so it could work with ALL the lenses, also a meniscus on a bellow.

The best part is the price though, 3000 USD, this means less than 2200 euro. I could pay myself a week in New York with the money I'd spare buying the camera there.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
montecarlo wrote:

Watch the samples. The 6400 ISO photos are not as noiseless as D3/D700 (might say not even close). You fave to resize the image to be better (less noise).


Well, thats pretty much as expected. That many megapixels clearly means lots of (studio) light, ISO 100 or 200. If you want high ISO performance, get a D3 or a D700 (and 12Mpx).


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Of course this is said aside from all consideration about the lenses (the Sony lens catalogue is not comparable to that of Nikon)


True. The recent Vario Sonnar T* 16-35mm f/2.8 ZA helps a little, there. At about $1,800



PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think everything depends, as always, on the use that one makes of a camera.
For instance, who photographs sports in low light (like indoor sports), or concerts or other evening events, must put a camera like D700 on top of priorities.
People who instead photograph with daylight, or in studio with a tripod, or with a tripod anyway, does not need more than a good 1600 ISO, and would better take advantage of larger image size for large prints (marriage posters, small road panels) of for the possibility to crop the image and still preserve good image quality (typical situation for street events or family snapshots).


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
montecarlo wrote:

Watch the samples. The 6400 ISO photos are not as noiseless as D3/D700 (might say not even close). You fave to resize the image to be better (less noise).


Well, thats pretty much as expected. That many megapixels clearly means lots of (studio) light, ISO 100 or 200. If you want high ISO performance, get a D3 or a D700 (and 12Mpx).


Aye, but with 24 MP I have a lot of headroom to clean an image and get comparable results.

If I had to shot sport, with a lot of indoor assignments, the D3 is better.

If I had to shot many weddings, with dark churches interiors, the D700 is more practical.

But if I have to use occasionally ISO 800 and after I'd go with that Sony. And it mounts also m42 lenses reaching infinity, with Nikon I can't.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
True. The recent Vario Sonnar T* 16-35mm f/2.8 ZA helps a little, there. At about $1,800


I wonder if this lens is based of the Contax N-series lens of the same FL range?

That lens has quite a reputation. The market still pays upwards of $1500 for it only to spend another $900 to convert it to EOS.
It will be interesting to see how the Sony picture unfolds. It does seem that they will end up being a player before long.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It looks pretty good for that many pixels, very little noise at 200, if not totally noise free at 100%. Not quite up there with the Canon 1ds MkIII but pretty good.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am always suspicious with superwide zooms, even if made by Zeiss.

I would feel safer with a 16mm Zeiss prime.
It is possible to make sharp zooms (like Contax 35-70), but to make distortion-free zooms is much much harder, and even Zeiss had to accept distortion in their own Contax zooms.
And this is the reason why I will always photograph with a Distagon 28 instead of a Vario Sonnar 28-85.

On the other hand, a quick look in the forums shows that most people asks for superwide zooms. The reason why, escapes my logical understanding, but still they do. Rolling Eyes

Then you look at their galleries and see all sort of expressionistic, Bruecke-Stil landscapes, and suddenly you understand it all Rolling Eyes

Last edited by Orio on Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:25 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:
It looks pretty good for that many pixels, very little noise at 200, if not totally noise free at 100%. Not quite up there with the Canon 1ds MkIII but pretty good.


To my eyes at 100% it looks more nitid than Canon 1ds MKIII though, just my impression?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4