<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

FF vs Dx

May 5 2012 at 12:07 PM

Deniz  (Login phase-de-lune.net)

A reflexion a bit as Eduardo about gears.
I was yesterday with a friend and used for the first time for a long long time a full frame, aka D700.
Wow, wow, wow.
Differents things to say, coming from a Dx D200 and using primes as 50, 85 and 28.

Well, when light is at Rendez-Vous, it's just perfect. The tones are so real, primes sharpness and specially modelé of pictures, are marvelous. The dynamic of this camera is amazing. There is more informations in low lights, skies are more detailed, skins as skins. White balance a bit cold for me, but again,I'm coming from an old sensor and a specific wbalance.
FF frame is per-fect. I was afraid not to be comfortable with my primes, specially my 50. They are in fact great. The 28 gives me a lot of air in pics, even if I have made a mistake choosing this focal, which do not correspond to my eye. The 50 is ... Wow, and 85 now easily usable.
Focusing even with standard Focusing screen is easy.

With AF lenses, the 51 focusing points is a great value, so you can frame directly without thinking to have a focus on the subject.

Now, on low light, noise is very little, but the body I had was toning in the green. I have the habbit of red and hot tones. I need to go on PS to be happy of the result. This can be of course settled in the body.

So, it has been a great moment, and I'm quite sure that successor of D200 will be a FF.

Deniz

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

Eduardo
(Login EduardoJB)

Canon had always had a WB problem

May 5 2012, 3:00 PM 

in incandescent light situations. Too yellow. However, finally, it appears, after soooooooo many years, they have managed to solved it. Why did it take so long... who knows. On the other hand, Canon colors are warmer and Nikon's are cooler. A recent comparison I saw in YouTube showed the difference. I wonder what makes them decide to go for one against the other. Of course, it's no big deal since it can be easily corrected later.

A question. Who makes the new amazing Nikon sensors? Are they Kodak-Nikon, or Sony-Nikon, or...? Anybody?

I know there are new technologies out there that they are keeping unreleased, most probably for profit plans. They have to release technology at a slower pace than it's been developed because if they don't, they could reach a dead end not knowing if there'll be something better just around the corner. They do it so they can keep releasing new camera models at a planned period of time. Just, I suppose, as it happens in other industries too.

 
 Respond to this message   

Casey
(Login shimokita)
Photography forum moderator

FX vs DX ;-)

May 7 2012, 7:07 AM 


Some users think that it doesn't matter... but it does. DOF for example... and it's so much easier to vision when you have similar formats (as in film and the so called "full frame").

If I wasn't using film, i.e. only APSC sensor for example, then it wouldn't be such a big difference for me as a user...

If you also do medium format, your mind again starts to play games with your vision-ing of what you want to get on film wink.gif and I will not even talk about pano images hahaha...

I like 135 format size sensors on the dSLR for mostly for consistancy... The first thing that I noticed when moving to "full frame" was that the focus was much more demanding... but then again you have better use of high ISO's than the APSC cameras of the same maker...

Casey


 
 Respond to this message   

AaronM
(Login amacks)

Sony for Nikon

May 7 2012, 4:38 PM 

By rumor, since they don't always tell us, Sony manufactures Nikon's sensors. The sensor is standard, so the same as a similar Sony camera, but all the control electronics are nikon custom, and possibly the color filter is as well (but I am not as sure about that)

A

--Soon to be an Icelandic Saga--

 
 Respond to this message   

Eduardo
(Login EduardoJB)

Thanks Aaron

May 7 2012, 7:11 PM 

I had recently read about Kodak's involvement and doubt set in.

 
 Respond to this message   

Eduardo
(Login EduardoJB)

Yep

May 7 2012, 7:15 PM 

"The new Sony 36 fullframe sensor specs (used by Nikon D800)

The french magazine Chasseur Magazine unveiled the future Nikon D800 specs and as I told you over 6 months ago it uses the new Sony 36 Megapixel Full Frame sensor!

Here are the specs of the sensor:
CMOS Full Frame with 36-megapixel
This Exmor sensor provides high dynamic range and low noise images.
Expect grain free images, printed in A2 up to ISO 1600.
The D800 will range from ISO 100 to ISO 6400 (extended modes ISO 50, 12800 and 25600).
Full HD 1080p in 30p, 25p and 24 p. There will be a PCM recorder.
Like the D4, the Nikon D800 will be able to output uncompressed video on its HDMI port.

Of course Nikon is using their own Expeed engine to elaborate JPEG images and Video stream. As a filmmaker I like the uncompressed clean HDMI output and hope Sony will take notice of that

What matters for you to know is that the next Sony Full Frame camera will NOT use that sensor. It will have a newly designed 24 Megapixel sensor and I honestly welcome that news. Dont like that Megapixel race and 24 megapixel should allow more per pixel sharpness and much higher ISO. Anyway, I expect one more Sony Full Frame camera to be unveiled in early 2013 having the same 36 Megapixel sensor."

 
 Respond to this message   
james
(Login watchy)

Well all formats have their pros and cons; small formats like the Nikon V1 and M4/3s....

May 9 2012, 12:27 AM 

allow you to carry a smaller camera and smaller lenses,( both prime and zoom,) have very fast focus acquisition and are great for times when you want deep DOF,as opposed to shallow DOF. The previous constraint of noise in M4/3s sensors over ISO 800 has been removed now, with the Olympus OMD EM5,getting rave reviews for its hi ISO performance (very good till ISO 6400 ) and world's fastest focusing, 5 Axis IBIS, 9 fps,etc.

I honestly can't go back to lugging big bad SLR's with huge zooms on my travels, BUT if I had a 5D3, I may just do it ! (-:

 
 Respond to this message   

Eduardo
(Login EduardoJB)

That Olympus

May 9 2012, 9:02 AM 

OMD is getting very good reviews. The only thing I don't quite like is the "fake" SLR appearance.

 
 Respond to this message   

candidcameraman
(Login candidcameraman)

The first camera who made me not want the next upgrade >>

May 10 2012, 4:38 AM 

Nikon's D3 and D700 were a revolution, when the D3 was first announced, it was a game changer as soon as I purchased my first, when the D700 became available, I purchased one as well (A mini D3)

The first time a digital camera fulfilled my search for the perfect camera, I now leave the D3 at home more often than the D700, just more portable.

Once you have one, there is no need for the next upgrade... only "want" remains, but need..? No, as it is that good.

Amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light... I just make pictures.

 
 Respond to this message   

Eduardo
(Login EduardoJB)

Agree,

May 10 2012, 5:41 AM 

I found exactly that with the 7D. Unfortunately it started freezing and I was not going to buy a new one with an upgrade coming soon. Besides, if I had the chance, I wanted a FF, and the 5D Mark III is very similar to the 7D (they call it a mix between the 7D and the 1D). I was shooting using another brand of lenses, one of which main advantages was range, but, image wise was not "very good" and was also slow compared to Canon's. As I've said, cameras are really disposable, but if I can get one which gives me less noise (my main gripe) and is faster focusing I'd go for it. I don't even use video (didn't shoot a second of video with the 7D). For me, noise related performance is more preferable than resolution as I hate to carry a flash and a tripod.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
ThePuristS.com Home Page