full frame, 4/3, EF/S, egad!

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Is it just me, or is the "slr" market getting really fractured and complicated these days? The Canon 5D has full frame (although that is a misnomer...it just is the same as 35mm) as does the D3. Olympus has the 4/3 standard which hasn't really lived up to the promise of smaller and lighter, but they now have live preview (are you listening Wayne?) and Leica/Panasonic has made some amazing lenses in that format. I'm pondering the DMC-L1 as they can be had cheap now...essentially you pay $800 for a Leica 14-50 f2.8-3.5 lens and get the 7.1mp body for free.

My hunch though is that things might shake out in the next year or two. I could see 4/3 remaining a niche player unless Leica/Panasonic come out with a killer Digilux4 body. Could it be that full frame will make the current smaller SLR sensors go away? Or maybe a two level strategy with full frame pro/prosumer and smaller for consumer.

At any rate, I can't quite convince myself to get rid of my D70 body, although my general rule of thumb is that when I can double my performance in a technology area that is important to me, that is time to upgrade. The D300 is a pretty serious piece of hardware, but it also is more complex. I had a guy at Samys today try to convince me to sell my Nikon stuff and get a 5D. Looks like a sweet camera, but while I love Canon video cameras (my XH-A1 is a stunning performer) and my SD400 has been damn-near flawless as a p&s, for some reason in SLR land I've always lusted after Nikon. Well, and Leica (hence my D-Lux 3 purchase). But while I could justify $600 for the D-Lux 3 vs. $360 for the "equivalent" Panasonic, I can't justify $2500 for the Digilux 3 vs. $800 for the DMC-L1 (were I to go 4/3).

Always more toys out there...anyone shooting 4/3?

LeRoux Strydom · 02-03-2008, 10:46 PM

As far as dSLR's are concerned, the market leaders Canon and Nikon will continue to dominate other smaller players. The smaller producers may have innovative concepts and even adopt other standards, but the typical investment any pro or serious amateur will make in good glass will prevent them from jumping quickly to another brand. This is where te strength of Canon and Nikon lies. 80% of my investment is in good pro lenses. Bodies are disposable.

I think that APS sensors on DX bodies are here to stay. With 12MP now being the standard (shortly to be 14MP), no amateur can say that he needs more MP to print his 5x7 holiday pics. Canon and Nikon sell far more entry-level DX dSLR's with APS sensors than FF pro bodies. Thus there will be DX lenses and APS sensors for quite some time. FF sensors will be offered on the real pro bodies because pros need the high-ISO performance and the 20-24MP sensors to print billboards.

Also do not forget the advantages of the crop factor that you get on the APS sensors, it saves you from buying an expensive 600mm lens for your FF body when you can get the same field-of-view on a DX body with a 400mm lens.

I don't know about Canon, but the new Nikon D3 is compatible with DX lenses, the sensor automatically crops to APS and you're left with a 5 or 6 MP picture which is plenty, as you should know with your D70.

All in all, Canon and Nikon (even more so) are primarily optics companies. Their top-notch glass will continue to give them the edge over other market players. Nikon even outsources their sensor design and production to Sony.

I don't know much about 4/3 or other formats, sorry.

Steve Carlton · 02-03-2008, 10:46 PM

I got interested in the Olympus system and tried out an E-510 for about a week and sent it back. Small and light, but cheap like a toy. Worse, the colors and exposure were very inconsistent. The E-3 has gotten some good reviews, but I'm going to stick with Nikon. I've heard the lens on the DMC-L1 is a steal at $800, but you really need to replace the body to have anything good.

The Canon 5D can produce stellar images and performs great at high ISO. But the body is a joke compared to the prosumer Nikons, AF and the flash system is far inferior. The D300 image quality is very comparable, in fact, comparable to the D3 up to ISO 1600. "Full frame" has its pros and cons. For non-professionals, it can be more cons. The files are cumbersome, and you lose a lot of reach in your lenses, requiring super expensive lenses to re-gain the reach. I don't see "full frame" making smaller sensors obsolete for years, if ever. It's hard to be disappointed with the output of APS-C or 4/3rds sensors these days.

If you like Nikon, now's a great time to embrace them. They're doing better than ever, at least with DSLRs. There's likely to be a D80 replacement announced in the spring. A D90? What type of photography you're planning on doing greatly influences good gear choices.

island911 · 02-03-2008, 10:59 PM

Who was it here that had the sig line that read: a poor mechanic blames his tools (or something like that)?

Anyway, My advice is to know your camera well; very well.

The digital gear is changing fast. It isn't likely going to shake-out and settle for a long time.

island911 · 02-03-2008, 11:19 PM

What I'm trying to say is , the "best" camera is likely the one you currently own and use. And as like our 911's & tech vs track time, you will be far better off learning/pushing your abilities and limitations by actually taking it out and using it than you will from "upgrading" equipment constantly.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Doesn't anyone shoot actual film anymore?

gchappel · 02-04-2008, 02:47 AM

What are you going to use your camera/tool for?
I had a d70 and it was a fine camera. I started shooting the local highschool football team and other sports, so I needed a tool that shot and focused faster- so I purchased a d2h. Then a d2x for portrait work- the d2h files were too small. I have upgraded to both the d300 and d3- for different uses.
The d300 has a 1.5x sensor size- which you will find very useful for telephoto lens- it takes my 300mm and turns it into the equivalent of a 450mm. Great for sports and wildlife. The full size sensor has different advantages. First it has terrific low light capabilities- I have shot at an iso of 12,500! And they are useable. The full size sensor is also useful on the wide end. The 14mm remains 14mm, not a 21mm equivalent on the d300 or other 1.5x sensor.
Different tools for different jobs. Nikon, Canon, Sony, and a couple of others are all producing GREAT cameras- each camera has its strengths and weaknesses. It does get confusing- but I get more confused at the tool counter at Sears. Either of the new nikons is a huge upgrade from the d70. If you need fabulous low light capabilities jump on the d3, if not the d300 is a great all around camera. If your d70 is doing everything you need, spend your money on glass. Cameras are now like computers- new better ones will be coming out every year or so.
Gary

masraum · 02-04-2008, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeRoux Strydom

Also do not forget the advantages of the crop factor that you get on the APS sensors, it saves you from buying an expensive 600mm lens for your FF body when you can get the same field-of-view on a DX body with a 400mm lens.

If you take the same shot with the same lens from a full frame camera and then an APS camera, the same picture is in the full frame picture. It just needs to be cropped out. 400mm is still 400mm, not 600.

Steve Carlton · 02-04-2008, 06:21 AM

Except you typically have less pixels in the cropped area of the FF sensor than the whole APS sensor. Less resolution.

masraum · 02-04-2008, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

Except you typically have less pixels in the cropped area of the FF sensor than the whole APS sensor. Less resolution.

right, depends upon the two cameras. Comparing my 8mb EOS Dig Rebel XT to the 22Mp EOS-1Ds MkIII, would be the same. Comparing to the 12.8mp EOS-5D, and mine wins.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

I don't blame my tools...I know the nut behind the camera is the main issue. Still there some things (physics) that you just can't get around. When I crop and print 8x10, I can see the limits of 6mp. And I think that FF will make serious inroads due to better low light and less noise. Stuffing less pixels per sq cm should result in better s/n if I understand things correctly.

Definitely horses for courses. I still take some of my best photos with my SD400...because I'll often be carrying that instead of a big SLR. And the native 16x9 on the D-lux 3 has changed the way I see/frame things. I wasn't quite prepared for how much that would influence it.

LeRoux Strydom · 02-04-2008, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by masraum

If you take the same shot with the same lens from a full frame camera and then an APS camera, the same picture is in the full frame picture. It just needs to be cropped out. 400mm is still 400mm, not 600.

I never said that a 400mm becomes a 600mm. I said that the field-of-view of a 400mm lens on an APS sensor body is the same as that of a 600mm lens on a FF body. This statement is factually correct. The focal length of the lens does not change in the process.