Any one switched from canon to nikon and regretted??
- Thread starter blurboiboi
- Start date
- Status
Yah.. Using it quite often.
But current at peace with both by contributing to both their revenue
and a sensor's surface is actually not flat unlike a film's surface which is uniformly flat. a sensor's surface actually comprises of numerous small bubble like photosites to help direct light to the centre of the photosite, therefore a FF body actually suffers from a greater degree of light fall-off (vignetting) and softness in the corners as compared to APS-C sensors which uses the brightest and sharpest part (centre) of the image.
FF does not equate to Film
sorry, was just thinking of the old Sinar m, which has a focal plane shutter...the new Hy6 has leaf shutter with higher shutter speed than Hassey...:embrass:...go ahead and get that for faster flash sync speed than DSLRs :thumbsup:
I guess those people must be real dumb to spend $30K on the digital back....(According to your explanation)
what ReiszRie say is true...a 1DS would probably have more vignetting using the same lens (esp a wide angle one) than say a 1v shooting film also with that lens...
but vignetting aside, digital backs have much more resolution...and their widest lenses tend not to be as wide as those 35mm format camera lenses so the light tends to hit the sensor at less oblique angles than in a DSLR...also if you want the ultimate in quality for medium format backs, one can mount them on 4x5 cameras and use the new large format digital telecentric lenses that project light onto the sensor more or less perpendicular to it, thus reducing not just vignetting but also CA...and as these are large format lenses, the medium format sensor would also just use the centre "sweet spot"...
yeah, the psychology of someone buying a 30k equipment = it must be frickin best is kinda funny yet extremely common amongst humans alike.
digitals backs does not equate to a Canon Full-Frame.
no lens delivers light rays perpendicular to the surface of photosites, except at the optical center of the lens, which is usually in the center of the image. Perspective control lenses are the only ones that routinely change this arrangement. But every lens has its own focal length. Meaning that the angle of light rays from a telephoto lens and those from a wide angle lens are as different behind the lens as their angles of view are in front of the lens. In general, wide angle lenses paint their photons into the corners of images at a MUCH more acute angle than do tele lenses. So what? As light slams into photosites at an angle, they encounter several layers before banging into sensitized silicon. A clear "retarder plate" to confuse any residual polarization (don't ask), a clear, but mildly diffused "antialiasing" filter, a color filter, sometimes an anti-moire filter and an array of microlenses precede the sensitive patch of each photosite. Where all this becomes something of a problem is in its eventual real-world behavior at the photon level. The microlens atop the photosite is designed--in current technologies--to concentrate the totality of photons streaming into the whole area of the photosite onto its far narrower sensitive area in the center of the tiny photosite. It's a simple lens--a dome of refractive material designed to steer photons from the edges into the active center. Not seen in the artist's diagram above is the factoid that only about 10% of the photosite's area literally responds to light. Light arriving at an angle to the centered microlens isn't as efficiently steered into the photosite's sensitive center. Add to that the fact that wide angle lenses don't have corner coverage as bright as their optical center coverage--a different kind of optical phenomenon, but always a consideration in wide lens design--and a common result is that full-frame images increase corner vignetting with certain legacy wide angle designs. Film surfaces don't have these issues. Film is a flat, somewhat matte surface, every square micron of which is photosensitive.
Well, wasn't the Big Reason to make FF chips in the first place to be able to recycle all those previous purchases? Or was the Big Reason to give the previously all-film photographer the same depth of field he was enjoying in 1989?
With every solution comes its own problem.
Where all this meets the realm of practical reality is this: current FF camera owners are often--but not universally--aware of vignetting and softness issues in the corners of their images, particularly with wide angle, legacy optics.
Modern wide zoom designs targeting DSLRs can be--and often must be--designed around retrofocal optical principles, meaning that the rays streaming out their backs are not at the acute angles so often seen in legacy wide angle designs. And, as noted previously, new optic design principles, computational tools and manufacturing techniques are much more able to create superior lenses than those even a decade old.
Perhaps FF camera owners will be assuaged by knowing that the DOF from 1989 has been preserved.
Canon Full-Frames certainly isn't the "holy grail" of cameras but it does gives you bragging rights
Ahahaha.. when I think of Sinar, I always think large format.. ;p So has to be leaf shutter. Din even know there was a Sinar m using a focal plane shutter..
Wah.. expensive... I think you make them both very happy. I can only afford one system. ;pYah.. Using it quite often.
But current at peace with both by contributing to both their revenue
It's not bad lah.. It's just $#^&^&* expensive!! Plus sine the motivation for using medium format was a larger negative for higher resolution scans.. Now you almost get that kind of resolution on DSLRs, would there be a need to go for digital medium formats?
Even those wedding boutiques are using 20D and D70s in place of the old Mamiya RB67 if customers ask for digital shots.
All the recent posts from the subject of the thread which in my opinion can never be satisfactorily answered. For example, for someone that regrets switching from Canon to Nikon and regret, there is probably another one who made the same identical switch and finds it better. There are people who swears by Canon and there are those who prefer Nikon. I think both are equally good cameras/systems and are capable of taking great pictures. There's really very little difference between them. In view view, the only difference is the person using the camera.
there is always need for more resolution for commercial clients lah...especially those %&^@# ones who approve the image shot and then next day want to crop to a figure in a corner and use that to blow up to about 3m in height...$^@#^%&@&%@&@
- Status
Similar threads
