Pixel Wars

[carney2]

In my mind (a dangerous place to be), I will know that the digital SLR has come of age when the manufacturers begin to market something other than their latest and largest megapixel rating. ("Our latest camera has more megapixels than the competition. That's all you need to know.")

One of the things that's always bothered me is the lens conversion factor. You know, take your 35mm lens focal length and multiply by 1.5 or some such factor to get the focal length of this lens when you throw it on to a DSLR. I understand that one manufacturer - Kodak or Sony - has introduced a product that brings the lenses back to the areas that I am accustomed to. Do any of the other manufacturers see this as a problem that needs to be corrected, or are they just content to invent a whole new world?

[SmartWombat]

Personally I don't see the conversion factor as a problem.
There are shorter focal length lenses available for most manufacturers' systems to work with the smaller sensor size, so you can get the same angle of view.
But I don't think you could say they are "correcting" it in giving you something you're used to with 35mm film, just by giving you a shorter focal length to work with the digital sensor.

After all if people use other film sizes as well as 35mm perhaps they won't think of focal length in quite the same way.


Kodak aren't the only company with ful-frame 35mm size sensors.
Canon do them too, but it's generally on the higher price bodies whoever makes them.
You'll get lower noise, or more megapixels, on a bigger sensor.
Not that mexapixels themselves are the best measure, as I think you're implying.

But it's harder to talk about other things (noise levels, dynamic range, buffer size, speed of power-on/wake from standby, focussing speed, white balance accuracy, sensor speed (ISO) range) and far easier to say 12 is better than 8.

[Franglais]

In my mind (a dangerous place to be), I will know that the digital SLR has come of age when the manufacturers begin to market something other than their latest and largest megapixel rating. ("Our latest camera has more megapixels than the competition. That's all you need to know.")

One of the things that's always bothered me is the lens conversion factor. You know, take your 35mm lens focal length and multiply by 1.5 or some such factor to get the focal length of this lens when you throw it on to a DSLR. I understand that one manufacturer - Kodak or Sony - has introduced a product that brings the lenses back to the areas that I am accustomed to. Do any of the other manufacturers see this as a problem that needs to be corrected, or are they just content to invent a whole new world?

Sure you can have a "full-frame 24x36mm" digital camera with no correction factor. Canon make the 1Ds (now in Mark II) and Kodak make the DCS14 in Nikon mount (OK it's made by Nikon for Kodak).

Disadvantage: The larger the sensor, the more difficult it is to make and the more it costs. Advantage: The bigger sensor can pick up more light so the manufacturer can pack in more pixels while still keeping acceptable sensitivity with low noise.

In reality the "full-frame" sensor models occupy a niche at the top end of the market, and most digital SLRs have smaller sensors (approximately APS film size). They cost less to make and allow the camera body to be smaller and lighter, as are the made-for-digital lenses that go with them.

All you have to remember is :

- the 18-70 kit lens that comes with the D70 is equivalent to the 28-105 you had on the F100
- the 18-85 IS lens that comes with the 20D is equivalent to the 28-135 IS on the EOS3

Charles

[another view]

I personally don't have a need for a full size sensor. There are advantages and disadvantages of course but for the price difference between a D70, DRebel or 20D (or upcoming D100 replacement) and the Kodak which is the least expensive full frame DSLR, you could get a *real* wide angle lens for less. Nikon's 12-24DX is a great lens that I've used but don't own (yet ;) ). It's expensive but there are less expensive versions out now from Sigma and Tamron, and soon from Tokina. For the other lenses you have, it's just a matter of getting used to how they work on the new body. There is some speculation that Nikon's F6 film camera was brought out as a by-product of a future Nikon full frame DSLR but who knows if/when that will happen.

For the MP wars, yes it gets annoying. I have a 6mp Fuji S2 and made really nice big prints from it; bigger, better and easier than 35mm. And all this from lowly jpeg files too! Would 8mp give me better results? Not sure, but I don't feel the need to upgrade. Realize that to get the speed and "feel" of an F100 you'd have to get a D2 series; the others are built on less expensive (but capable) bodies like the N80. I'm keeping my eye on a D100 replacement if I need to add a 2nd DSLR but I'll still use the Fuji at that point. If I need really high resolution for a large group shot, then I'd rent something - a Kodak DSLR or maybe even an MF film camera. But it's not something I've had to do yet.

One thing about digital capture, there is a learning curve involved. Exposure has to be right on for best results - a lot like shooting slides. Hopefully you've got the basics of Photoshop down, and have a CD burner for archiving.

[Zman]

I hate the conversion factor. And I mean HATE. My awesome 17-35mm f2.8 Nikkor is rendered useless.

People say; "Just buy the 12-24mm f4.0 Nikkor", OK spend another grand on a lens that can ONLY be used on a digital camera. Thats dumb.

I climb mountains and need the extreme wide angle. What has happened with the latest Digital craze has been a "worst case scenerio" for me. I know that I am in the minority but I still have a opinion.

Thus, I must continue to keep my F100 and the full conversion to digital will just need to wait.

Z

[Michael Fanelli]

I hate the conversion factor. And I mean HATE. My awesome 17-35mm f2.8 Nikkor is rendered useless.

Useless? You've got to be kidding. Obviously, you have never seriously used any format other than 35mm. Do you believe that users of medium or large format get obsessive and emotional because a 50mm lens has a few different characteristics when used with a 6x7 format?

Your 17-35mm is STILL 17-35mm. The only thing that has changed is the angle of view when used with an APS sensor. The DOF is the same, the perspective is the same, the magnification is the same... Your lens does not go from great to awful just because it gets cropped a bit.

Get a grip, take a deep breath. If a wide angle field of view is important for you and you have no money for a new lens, stick with film. Use what works for you. You do realize, however, that it doesn't take many rolls of film and developing to pay for that new lens.

[Zman]

Wow Mike, that was harsh.

I want clarify a few things for you.

#1 -- I have a grip.
#2 -- I don't need to take a deep breath.

I am not some newbie that you are communicating with and I understand the situation very fully, quite clearly as a matter of fact.

We are not comparing medium/large format to anything either. And yes I believe owners of Hassleblad equipment would be upset if they woke up one day to find there pride and joy lenses to be minimized due to a new format introduced by the company.

The plain and simple truth is that the 35mm OEM's are rushing new technology out as fast as they can produce it to gain and or keep market share. The initial sales pitch was that your CURRENT 35mm lenses would be fully compatible with the new DSLR's. Well that was only kind of true. Yes, they still mount and produce photos, but not with the same characteristics that they were originally produced for. My 17-35 is still a 17-35 and is still a great lens, you are correct there. But the effectiveness is minimized with Digital and the real value of the lens is greatly reduced. It effectively is a 26-53mm lens now. There is a major differance in the 9mm that I have lost.

What the OEM's are in the process of doing is creating a entirely new format, they are doing this slowly but surely. If I do purchase a 12-24 it can ONLY be used on my DSLR. Thus there really is a compatibility issue, and it is costly. I really need to decide if I want to stay with 2 formats or bite the bullit and go one way or the other. No free lunch.

The only problem is that I really like the ease of use with digital. Very, very few individuals actually calculate the true costs of converting to digital and it is not as simple as you make it sound...not even close. I have spent $1000 on a digital body that would cost $350 if it were film, then add another grand for the 12-24. How many rolls of Provia 100 can you buy for $2000, something like 400 at my local store.

Film is free right, wrong again, I own $500 worth of CF Cards. Don't forget the computer, printer, software, bla-bla.....

I am not bashing Digital either, it is definitely the way of the future and pretty fun to play with I must say. But at this point there are significant issues that need to be dealt with.

Maybe you should deal with yours.....

Z

[Michael Fanelli]

I am not some newbie that you are communicating with and I understand the situation very fully, quite clearly as a matter of fact.

You clearly wrote: "I hate the conversion factor. And I mean HATE. My awesome 17-35mm f2.8 Nikkor is rendered useless."

Telling us that a crop has rendered your "awesome" lens "useless" is complete nonsense. Pointing this out is not being harsh.

We are not comparing medium/large format to anything either.

You are but don't know it. My 45mm lens for my 6x7 has a wide angle field of view with the DOF, perspective, and magnification of ALL 45mm lenses. This is EXACTLY the same situation you are complaining about. If I attach this lens to the Pentax 645 or a 35mm camera, do I whine that the lens is "useless" because my field of view changes from format to format?

And yes I believe owners of Hassleblad equipment would be upset if they woke up one day to find there pride and joy lenses to be minimized due to a new format introduced by the company.

"Minimized"? Good grief. Well, at least you are consistent.

The plain and simple truth is that the 35mm OEM's are rushing new technology out as fast as they can produce it to gain and or keep market share.

You mean capitalism. How dare they!

The initial sales pitch was that your CURRENT 35mm lenses would be fully compatible with the new DSLR's.

The lens mount is the same, the lenses still work with all of their features. You haven't lost anything. Show me where any manufacturer promised that all their DSLRs would be full-frame 35mm. You can't because they never did.

My 17-35 is still a 17-35 and is still a great lens, you are correct there.

Exactly.

It effectively is a 26-53mm lens now. There is a major differance in the 9mm that I have lost.

You have NOT lost 9mm!!! The lens is still the same with the same characteristics. It is no different than if you went into PhotoShop and used the crop tool. NOTHING CHANGES OTHER THAN THE EDGES BEING CUT OFF. EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME!!!!!

What the OEM's are in the process of doing is creating a entirely new format, they are doing this slowly but surely.

This is speculation. APS sensors are popular now because of the costs of fabrication. You want full frame? You can get it if you pay the bucks for it. When the costs come down, there is a very good chance that larger sensors will be produced. This is also speculation but there is no conspiracy here, it is simple economics.

If I do purchase a 12-24 it can ONLY be used on my DSLR. Thus there really is a compatibility issue, and it is costly. I really need to decide if I want to stay with 2 formats or bite the bullit and go one way or the other. No free lunch.

Or, you can buy 35mm format lenses and ignore the APS lenses. Most of us do. No one is forcing you to do otherwise.

I have spent $1000 on a digital body that would cost $350 if it were film, then add another grand for the 12-24. How many rolls of Provia 100 can you buy for $2000, something like 400 at my local store.

The cost of film is much more than the cost of buying it. Developing costs more than double that. You don't have to buy a new lens, that is your choice to avoid the "useless" one you have now. If you like film, fine. But overall cost is no longer in film's favor.

Film is free right, wrong again, I own $500 worth of CF Cards

Which you use for tens of thousands of images rather than pay before and after every 36 frames.

Don't forget the computer, printer, software, bla-bla.....

You don't even need that. If you are happy with letting someone else make all the choices a la film, this stuff is never needed.

But at this point there a"re significant issues that need to be dealt with.

Yes, there are some issues. You mentioned none of them.

Maybe you should deal with yours.....

I just did.

[Zman]

You clearly have a strong passion for photography, there is no doubt indeed. Your presentation needs a little improvement but I get the point.

I think at this point we just need to agree to disagree. I have had run-ins with you before and they are pointless. I did learn one lesson though. I will myself present arguments in a much more technical and professional manner in the future. I failed in that regard and lost some of what I was attempting to present. Oh well, live and learn.

Thus I will drop out of this conversation, I believe that the horse is dead and you know what they say about arguing in the internet.

Have a great day,

Jim

[drg]

L.O.L.

You obviously haven't had many experiences with the "joy" of digital backs on Medium Format Cameras.

Start off with when they first appeared you started with a twenty to thirty THOUSAND dollar investment for the back alone, Plus your light meters had to be upgraded to Color Temp Meters plus the storage media wasn't reliable, plus in order to process and print this stuff . . .
Plus some lens just didn't work very well. I suddenly realized one lens I'd used for years had a very regular chromatic aberration as a result of a symmetric distortion that made beautiful portraits on film. With the digital backs it looked like a funhouse mirror.

Digital "multipliers" are a minor inconvenience. Buy a lightweight tripond that has a PAN head on it, several stick on several bubble levels (find a drywall supply store or go to Home Depot), and take Panoramic Photos and Merge them! I've done commercial Architectural work with a 3mp consumer camera (good available light obviously) and put together 180degree panoramas that were undoable with film.


I still get the Hassys out and load up film and have fun!

Lets face it, film for various reasons is fading (including all of the enviromental factors for which I'm glad) and if the technology of the last twenty years is indications, we'll have our super wides back before we know it. Maybe by February or March!

Mahalo - C

[darkman]

In my mind (a dangerous place to be), I will know that the digital SLR has come of age when the manufacturers begin to market something other than their latest and largest megapixel rating. ("Our latest camera has more megapixels than the competition. That's all you need to know.")

That's kind of a stange comment. Think about the lifetime of film cameras and why these didn't need to change every 18 months. What else is there really to change? Besides giving me a full frame umpteen gadzillion mega pixel camera that can read my mind and instantaneousely turn on when I need it and it shoots 20 fps with an infinite buffer and memory has a full frame ultra bright vf.... All at the cost of a current digicam. I never really felt the need to complain so much about my film camera's and their features.

Mega pixels do sell. Geesh, how many people switched camera brands because of the latest camera from the brand they don't have? How many people _needed_ to get a 20d and sell their 10d? After owning the 10d about 1 year! How many couldn't wait, needed 8Mp, and bought a 1dmkII to upgrade from their 10d? Etc....

It's asinine! You'd think everyone was shooting MF or LF to make huge prints before they went digital.

As far as wide angles, from other comments, I have a sigma 12-24ex that's full frame. This lens is sharp enough to make fine 13x19 prints from a 6Mp dslr. No it's not as sharp as my 24-70L, but so what? Nobody looks at my prints and cares...