High Sierra Topix

Boy would I like to loose some more camera weight, but I am happy about the 20 lbs I lost by not carrying the 4x5 or 645 anymore. Still, when lost Coyote pulled out his little 1lb point and shoot in Ionian basin, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't jealous.

I don't really keep up with the tech stuff so much, but isn't it well excepted that the new L glass is pretty much superior to most "vintage" glass?

I think it used to be that to shoot "ultra wide" you needed to go to a full frame camera, but with the new lenses coming out I guess that's not the case. Still can't beat the large file from full frame for big prints, which I depend on, though.

Also, I've always wondered about quality comparisons (pixel to pixel) of APS sensors vs their fullframe counterparts (ie Rebel vs 5d etc), anyone know of any test data?

JD

FX vs. DX sharpness discussion - gets into the details pretty well:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/di ... aps-c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and it really only applies to Canon, since the only Nikon that has a sensor that good is the D3x and costs $7500. Until there's a 24mp D700 I'll stay with my small sensor, I guess.

Thanks Peter, that explains it pretty well. I'm still wondering though if all Canon sensors are created equal given the same MP (rebel vs 20D for example) (5d MK II vs 1D MKII).

Thanks again for the link

JD

Here is a long discussion about it: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/781852/0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great info, thanks for posting Maverick

JD

John Dittli wrote:Thanks Peter, that explains it pretty well. I'm still wondering though if all Canon sensors are created equal given the same MP (rebel vs 20D for example) (5d MK II vs 1D MKII).

On the Nikon end of things, the D90 and the D300s (D200, D300) are all DX sized and 12MP, but there are slight differences in image quality. The quality of the filter on the CCD for example can be one factor, plus some of the post processing, although that only really matters for JPEGs. The difference between the D90 and D300 is so negligible that when I was deciding between the two bodies the sensor really was not a factor. They differ in weight, durability and features like max number of frames for bracketing, and th ability to meter with old non-AF lenses, and obviously price (about 100% more for the D300, 400% more for the D700).

I went with weight and cost overriding those few extra bracketing frames and the "weatherized" body, and am pretty happy I made that call. Even the D700, having a 12mp full frame sensor was something I was considering, but when I saw thiscomparison, I counted my dollars and realized that the D90 due to cost and weight would be idea for hiking for the next 2-3 years until the next generation brings pro sensors down to a more reasonable price point.

Your welcome John.
Like Fish writes, features in the mid level cameras are really really good, and there
are a not a whole lot of things besides AF, shutter life, weather sealing, size, and a
few menu features that are different from the the pro models.
You are really best off shopping for the features you will need/use in a camera and
shop/choose accordingly.

With film cameras I never used to by the "pro" models for 35mm. I just needed something with an accurate and consistant manual shutter and to hold film flat. Image quality was never about the body, but about the glass. That's all changed a bit hasn't it?

I guess one of these days I should just do my own test between my 5d II and Rebel.

JD

John Dittli wrote: Image quality was never about the body, but about the glass. That's all changed a bit hasn't it?

sure has. I would have loved for that time to come 10 years earlier, because back in the 90s I spent $600 per weekend on film and processing. Buys you a lot of high end digital bodies in a hurry. Except back then the high end digital was 1.5MP and cost $13,500 and no art director would even touch a digital "original" even for a 1" sized frame in print.

Now it's both - body and lens, and the choices have become confusing with all the sensor sizes, RAW bit depths, etc... One thing has stayed the same: the most expensive stuff usually is still the best

It still is about the lenses in a lot of cases.
With only 2 bodies from Canon that go over 20 mp's, 1 from Sony, and 1 from Nikon
choices are not abundant for those of us who wish to print 24x36 and larger, unless
you stitch, but you cannot stitch in some circumstances, or go medium format, and
then prices go through the roof plus added weight, though Pentax has the new 645 D
for around $10000(40 mp).
I have read of a few people uprezzing there 8 mp images to sizes up to 24x36 with
great success, though I have not seen these photo's or prints.
So maybe Nikon's line of 12 mp camera's are more than adequate, or Canon's 7D
with it's 18 mp may be suffice for some, but only you the photographer can judge
there print/image quality according to there(and there customers) standards.