Re: New Image
- From: David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:49:41 -0800
At 14/01/2008, you wrote:
At 11:32 AM 1/14/2008 -0800, David Young wrote:
1) The sensor is full frame and for what I do (90% wildlife work)
that is a major disadvantage. The effective boost in focal length
(crop factor) saves my buying much longer lenses.
This is a false thought. It's like saying that I'll use an APS film
camera over a 35mm film camera because my long lenses appear longer
on the smaller film format. Or my 270mm LF lens gives me a longer
look when I use my 645 or 67 roll film back on my 4x5. Going even
further, why not use Minox film in a 35mm camera so that one's long
lenses appear to be astronomically long and 'really' use the lens
sweet spot - dead center.
Several 35mm camera makers made 1/2 frame cameras. When using the
camera system's long lenses on those cameras, they got an apparent
focal length boost. But not really. They were only using half of the
film. You get exactly the same image when using a full frame 35mm
camera PLUS more around the subject so that there was more to work
from in the darkroom. The only economy was saving money on film. 72
frames rather than 36. This is not a problem with digital.
The middle of a 5D sensor is as good or better than the whole of
smaller sensors.
So by using an APS sensor, you are cropping in the camera rather
than cropping on your computer screen.
I personally like having more stuff around the image on film (or
digifile) so that when I print or present the image, I have a lot to
work with. I can either tightly crop the image (APS it) or I can
place it properly in the frame and leave in meaningful ancillary
stuff that makes for a great composition. It's always better to have
more stuff to choose from, than less. Especially since it is of the
same (or even higher) resolution.
Boiled down, your APS size sensor is simply the middle of a full
frame sensor in size. Full frame sensors are far more difficult to
make and thus go through a far more rigorous testing procedure. I
personally believe (and have seen) that the APS section (center) of
current full frame sensors is better than actual APS size sensors.
And... by packing smaller pixels into a space (roughly half the full
frame space) creates pixels with less dynamic range capability and
that are more noise prone. The small pixel problem. A FF 5D sensor
has larger pixels than 20/30/40D cameras and therefore exhibits
exemplary low light and dynamic range raw performance.
I personally don't think that you should continue to think about the
sensor size in a 'bass ackward' way. And since the GG screens in
Canon DSLRs are removable, you can engrave the APS size right on the
screen so that you'll never know that you are shooting with a larger
sensor. Then when you sit down at your computer, there's all of that
cool stuff around the subject that you can introduce in order to
make stunning compositions. I personally like to see some of the
environment where the animal is living/feeding/whatevering...
Plus... when you use the camera in a normal mode (landscape, trips,
etc.) rather than as a wildlife camera, it's performance will
definitely be a cut above the smaller sensor cameras.
IMHO,
:-)
Jim
You make some good points, Jim, and I do not argue that the 5DE is
anything but a fine camera. However, we will have to disagree on one point.
The 5D has 12 megapixels. The 40D has 10. But the 40D sensor has
roughly 40% of the 5D's area. If I were to use a 5D and crop to APS
size (as you suggest), I would have 40% of 12 mpixels (4.8 mpixels)
to play with. If I use the 40D's APS sensor (cropping in the camera,
as you rightly call it) I still have 10mpixels to play with. And I
like having more megapixels to play with, 'cause sometimes I crop my
shots, even further. (Photographing 6" tall birds at 30' is not as
easy as you might think!)
I also like having a minimum of 10 megapixels to play with, as most
modern photo-printers (in labs - I send my printing out) print at
300dpi ... so an 8x12" print =2400x3600 pixels. The 8mp models come
close (2348x3522 for the 30D) but the 10mp cameras Canon APS models
or DMR, offer wee bit more, so they can print in this size without
interpolation, even after modest cropping.
And although the 5D may have lower noise, the noise levels on the 30D
are amazingly good... and the 40D is reputed to be a bit better.
I have 30x45cm (12x18") prints made from both the 20D and 30D which
are of excellent quality. (If you choose to question my judgement on
this, ask Ted, for he has seen the prints, which hang on my walls,
and has inspected them at close range.)
Your argument also forgets that I have $1000 invested in a Canon EF-S
w/a lens which will not mount on the 5D. So, I must consider not
only the difference in body cost, but the loss on my w/a lens, when
replacing that with something that will.
All I'm looking for is a brighter finder, that will be easier to use
for manual focusing. The reviews say that the 40D's finder is
noticeably brighter than that in the 30D, and equal (light per sq.
cm) to that in the 5D, though the mirror is smaller, to match the
sensor, and thus not quite as much light comes through, in total.
So, you see, what makes the 5D a better camera for you does not
necessarily make it a better camera, for me. Thanks, but I'll stick
with the 20/30/40D.
Respectfully,
David.
---
David Young,
Logan Lake, CANADA
Wildlife Photographs: http://www.furnfeather.net
Personal Web-pages: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
Stock Photography at: http://tinyurl.com/2amll4
=========================================================
To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in
the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be replied to
per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface to unsubscribe.
Other related posts:
