Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 27, 2004, 9:50 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 175
Default


More food for thought

I don't mean to pick nits here but you could even say that the 1Ds MKII has twice the pixels but only 40% more resolution - at three times the price (not that it doesn't have some other things going for it of course)

20D: 3504x2336 px = 15x10 inchesat 236 PPI

Mk2: 4992x3328 px = 15x10 inches at 333 PPI

Hmmm, thinking this way means thatdoubling the resolution of the 20D would require a 32.8 megapixel sensor!

David
Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2004, 1:47 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7
Default

-> It looks like the APS-c sized cameras are here to stay...

Right now, a Full Frame sensor with UV/IR/antiAlias filter costs more than a whole 20D!

Under the caveat of currently known CMOS processing technology and CMOS sensor technology:: For the next 5 years there is less than a 10% chance that FF digital SLRs will approach 20D costs to the consumer. For the next 10 years there is less than a 50% probability that FF dSLRs will approach current 20D cost structure. Given that the 300D+10D+20D production is some 25 times the 1D+1Ds production, there is simply not enough volume in the high end to drive the cost structure enough to significantly alter the above predictions.

So, I agree that APS-c sensors are here to stay.
MitchAlsup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2004, 3:27 PM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Based on the price of the EF500 f/4L for a full-frame against a 300 f/4L (or something extra cheap like the sigma 120-300 f/2.8 ) on a 1.6x camera I also concur :-):-):-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2004, 4:13 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Ewok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Default

This hasbeen mentioned on other threads, but it obviously bears repeating: The 1.6 conversion factor should not be thought of as a tele extender. What it means is just that the field of view with the smaller sensor is decreased 1.6 times relative to 35mm. This is regardless of whether you're talking about 35mm film or a "full-frame" sensor. 200mm on the small sensor camera is certainly not the same as 300mm on a full-frame. It's more likeusing the 200mm on the full-frame, then cropping it down to cover the same area as a 300.
Ewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2004, 6:04 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

... Also bear in mind if you take a full frame camera and crop it down to the size of the 1.6x sensor your are getting less resolution for the same picture than if you start out with the 'cropped' sensor camera in the first place. This is a blessing for long lens folks, it allows for a much cheaper (and lighter) lens option:

o EOS 1Ds mrkII:
16.7M divide by (24 x 36) -> ~19329 pixels/mmxmm
ie if cropped to 1.6x, you are now down to only 6.5Mpixels!

o EOS 20D:
8.2M divide by (15 x 22.5) -> ~24296 pixels/mmxmm
ie the pixel density is higher on the 20D

You do get a larger pixel on the 1Ds (7.2 vs 6.4 micrometer) though!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2004, 1:38 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Ewok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Default

That's interesting, but the point is that the 200mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is not providing the magnification of a 300 on a full-frame.
Ewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2004, 7:36 AM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Of course not it's a different lens (at a different cost) :-):-):-)

But the other point is equally valid: if you crop the image of the 300mm to the FOV of a 480 on a full frame you are only getting 6.5Mp worth of resolution, whereas you would get 8.2mp worth of data with the same FOV if you mount that same lens on a 20D!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2004, 10:36 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Ewok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Default

Quote:
if you crop the image of the 300mm to the FOV of a 480 on a full frame you are only getting 6.5Mp worth of resolution
Only when "a full frame" = Canon EOS 1Ds mrkII, not in general.
Ewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2004, 10:39 AM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Ewok wrote:
Quote:
Only when "a full frame" = Canon EOS 1Ds mrkII, not in general.
Agree... Everything else @ this time have even less resolution still!

ie the only two other full-frame cameras in Canon mount:
o Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c (13.5Mp) -> ~ 5.3Mp when cropped to 1.6x
o Canon EOS 1Ds mrk. I (11.1Mp) -> ~ 4.4Mp when cropped to 1.6x
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2004, 4:54 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Ewok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Default

That's interesting, but

Quote:
I do love taking my 70-200 f4L to baseball and football games with my 10D or Digital Rebel and being able to get in closer to the action with those bodies than I could with my EOS 3.
Are we agreed that this is factually incorrect? Meaning the "get in closer" part, not the "love." :G
Ewok is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:37 AM.