The Nikon EM was FF
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Adams print sells for $722K
Next: Nikon D3 from space - Aurora Australis Observed from the International Space Station
From: Peter on 24 Jun 2010 21:49 "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.jllinois.edu> wrote in message news:i0115p$irr$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu... > David J. Littleboy wrote: > >> >> So get over it, stop whining, and get either a D700 or 5D2. FF with a >> good lens is an amazing improvement over APS-C. Anyone who tells you >> otherwise is an idiot. >> > > At what print size? > > I own a Canon 30D and almost bought a 5DMkII for my recent vacation. > > But I kept looking at the 7x10.5 inch prints I usually make, and > I don't see how the 5DMkII would be noticeably better. I'm > assuming using my 100mm f/2.8 macro for both, which removes the lens as > the limiting factor. > > Now at 16x24 inches, things would be different. > Of course you are assuming that the images you shoot will not be severely cropped. :-) -- Peter
From: Michael Benveniste on 24 Jun 2010 22:34 "Rich" <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > Good glass does nothing for high ISO noise. Besides, I'm not talking > about Joe Public, because he never bought SLRs, enthusiasts did. Even with their small sensors, current consumer dSLR's have better high ISO noise characteristics than your precious EM does even with modern film. And yes, Joe Public bought film SLR's in the 1980's, and is buying dSLR's today. Not everyone, and not even a majority of users, but still enough to account for millions of sales. Few people buying entry-level dSLR's today will ever notice the noise you're whining about, because they have different expectations and rarely make large prints. > Enthusiasts are short-changed. Really? From where I sit, there are more choices and better choices for the enthusiast (by any defintion) at a lower real cost than at any time in history. > How about an f4.0 70-300mm that doesn't cost $2000? Tokina had, and Sigma still has a 100-300mm f/4. Neither were $2000. If you hurry, there's a Tokina listed on eBay, new, for $500. A hypothetical 70-300mm f/4 would have to be bigger, more expensive, and more complex than an 70-200mm f/2.8. The math is left as an exercise to the reader. > Honestly, most people don't need weatherproof, 3lb bodies. This logically follows, since most people don't need dSLR's. But most people don't need a 24x36mm sensor, either. > Hardly. Everyone made them 20 years ago. There must have > been a market. Note the use of past tense. There _was_ a market. Today's offerings simply took away that market, fair and square, in head-to-head competition. > They could do a reasonably priced 80-200mm f4.0 today. Major Premise: If there was sufficient demand, Tamron or Sigma could make an unstablized 80-200mm f/4.0 today for around $400-$450. Minor Premise: Neither Tamron nor Sigma make such a lens today. Conclusion: They don't believe there's sufficient demand. > but they'd rather make highly priced pro 80-200mm f2.8's > or slow 70-300mm f5.6 lenses. They'd absolutely rather make those lenses, because that's what the market tells them to make! Check the Nikon numbers for yourself: Total sales of 80-200mm f/4.5's: ~290,000 Total sales of 80-200mm f/4's: ~553,000 Total sales of 80-200mm and 70-200mm f/2.8's: ~942,000 Sales of _just_ the 70-300mm VR (< 4 years): ~520,000 -- Mike Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
From: John McWilliams on 24 Jun 2010 22:47 Doug McDonald wrote: > David J. Littleboy wrote: > >> >> So get over it, stop whining, and get either a D700 or 5D2. FF with a >> good lens is an amazing improvement over APS-C. Anyone who tells you >> otherwise is an idiot. >> > > At what print size? > > I own a Canon 30D and almost bought a 5DMkII for my recent vacation. > > But I kept looking at the 7x10.5 inch prints I usually make, and > I don't see how the 5DMkII would be noticeably better. I'm > assuming using my 100mm f/2.8 macro for both, which removes the lens as > the limiting factor. > > Now at 16x24 inches, things would be different. > See Michael's post earlier in the day. I've both a FF and a cropped sensor Canon, and don't disagree with your comments on those sizes, but prefer the 5D when shooting anything but telephoto. -- john mcwilliams
From: Michael Benveniste on 24 Jun 2010 22:50 "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: > There are several problems with your above calculation. > > 1. 35mm doesn't produce D3x quality images. 35mm film in real life is no > better than 8MP digital. > 2. The D3x produces image quality equivalent to 4000 ppi scanned 6x7 slide > film such as Provia or Velvia. Which cost US$1.00 per frame to shoot and > develop, and that's before scanning, which is seriously expensive. I'll let others wage the great megapixel debate. I chose the D3x simply because I wanted to compare the highest-cost 35mm-based Nikon dSLR against the lowest-cost option for film. I also didn't address the noise/grain/speed issues for the same reason. > 3. Digerati shoot a lot more wasted frames than film shooters. > A lot. Again, I can't disagree. But nothing forces one to do so if cost is your driving concern. I suppose I ought to have factored in electricity and battery replacement costs as well which would add another fraction of a cent per shot to the cost of a dSLR. -- Mike Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
From: David J. Littleboy on 24 Jun 2010 23:01
"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: >> 3. Digerati shoot a lot more wasted frames than film shooters. A lot. You >> need to divide the life of the digital camera by a fudge factor to make >> up for that. For some slobs, that's an order of magnitude. But that >> doesn't make a difference, because the mechanical parts of a dSLR can be >> replaced cheaply; a few hundred dollars, and then you are back in >> business for another 100,000 (midrange users like me) or 300,000 shots. >> >> And so on. >> >> But you are, of course, exactly right. If you actually use your camera >> regularly, digital quickly becomes world's better than film in economics >> as well as image quality. > > > I would calculate the fudge factor differently. According to a > knowledgeable source: for both Nikon and Canon at the prosumer and pro > level the manufacturers MTBF rating of shutter pressing is understated by > 50%. The rational is that they believe they gain a better reputation from > cameras that exceed the rating. That doesn't really change much. Again, when the shutter blows, it's only a few hundred dollars repair to get another 100,000 (absolute worst case) frames. That's a fraction of a penny a frame. If you actually use your camera, most people will find even a US$3,000 FF camera can become cheaper than the equivalent film (645 for the D700 or 6x7 for the 5D2*) camera quite quickly. Heck, my Mamiya 7 + 43/4.5 + Nikon 9000, even before film, is about the same price as the 5D2 + Zeiss 21/2.8... And the scanning issue is getting real nasty for film. Other than the fuzzy flatbeds, there aren't any decent affordable 35mm scanners in production any more, since both the Konica/Minolta (dead before Sony took over) and Nikon 35mm scanners have been discontinued. *: Obligatory cheap shot at Nikon<g>. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |