Message edited on: 06/15/2005 16:14

should we ditch our Olys & get a Canon? o.O!

Wish I could spend $8000.00 US dollars on a camera body:{

thank s kort.. just whizzing that around my non technical brain.. interesting graph and facts....:)..))) grandpa soulofharmony always taught me an old proverb..."Give a monkey the finest of fair "... hes still a monkey.. if he cant work the tool..and this monkey has enough of headache learning the sensor she has... hahaha... great to see the chart tho ... hugsssss:)

Dear soul...I posted a moment ago with a thread(?) of at least related topic as your post here. Humm...great minds think how?..no, not going that far. Best to all. TomDart.

nice info... :) it shows that just the big canon has a chip in the size of a regular print film... ( i remember the discussion about the digitally optimized objectives...) apart from this, cyn - i guess canon has an advantage of nearly two years in develpement to the other products... (apart from some digital stuff that's not affordable at all (hasselblad e.g.) ) but it's definitely interesting... especially if you think about that different cams have different chip sizes but same amount of effective pixels... that's definitely a difference in quality then... (in combination with the right lenses) OMG - i guess it's getting complicated lol

Wouldnt swap my 1D Mkii for anything...without the right glass, its like driving a Ferarri with the handbrake on!

Haha, great analogy Jim. I guess the true benefit for the larger sensor size apart from the fact that standard film lense better suit them is the fact that the actually pixels are larger and can get better color data with less "noise" interference from the pixels next to them. Here is an excerpt from the DSLR C|NET review in case you didn't read it: " Geek note: Larger sensors are the secret to why 5 megapixels from a digital SLR beat 5 megapixels from a consumer digicam. To spread the same number of pixels over a larger sensor area, the pixels (technically, photosites containing diodes) must be bigger. These bigger photosites gather more light, so they produce less-noisy images, capture greater dynamic range, and perform much better at high ISO settings." No, I'm not gonna run out and replace my Oly. I like having the all in one camera even though it can be limiting at times. It suits my needs right now and that is what matters, more noise or no. But down the line...yeah, I'll upgrade when the time is right. :)

Cool info :) I guess cameras with large sensors will drop in price like everything else and we can all get canon 1D quality images (we'll just be jealous over the next next-gen tech instead :P ).

Now this is very interesting indeed Kort! Thx for that! I see the Canon 20D is quite in good place if not the best! But the pro models like the 1D are just far TOO expensive!! crying out loud

Yeah, but it gives us something to aspire to. In the meantime we make the best of what we have. From what I see on RO, everybody is pretty darn good at that!

agree!! & who knows Oly may just catch up yet :D won't be trading her in anytime soon...

cant resist it BUT Does this mean all digital cameras are censored?!{|~^*?

Uh, yeah, I guess it does! But it isn't the size, it is how you use it...at least that is what we tell ourselves. ;]

was waiting for that... hehehe... zoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom!!! :D

Jim made me do it!

I believe one calls it telepathic powers...but I call it coincedence:)

I thought you had telephoto powers . . .

Arhhhh....the powers that be......................................................................telephoto:)

Its all in the ...................glass:)

Message edited on: 06/16/2005 10:48

ROFLMAO!!! oh... the wit is flying!! :D

What I mean is: Would you put cheap tyres on a Ferarri? Here we go...what have I started NOW!...:)

Censored, sensored....doh....licked the lollipop and nobody got the joke!

If I had a ferrari, it would probably leave me brokes so yes, I'd used the cheapest tires i could find. ;]

If I had a ferrari, it would stay in the garage 'cos I couldnt afford even the cheapest of tyres at a snap !!!!(photography term in there so allowed :)

LMAO!! U guys are so cheeky! ;) Like that! ;P

Ferrari in garage. Hmmm, brings to meaning to the term F Stop.

Also, it depends on what aperture and shutter the garage door is set at :)

Message edited on: 06/16/2005 11:43

Also understand on the Ferarri, the start up time is minimal :)

...yes, but there is a lot of noise... ;]

OH man oh man!!! O_o

Thought I'd zoom in on this thread for the really serious depth of this field. (that was a sad try!) With digital ready film so hard to find, I will stick with my regular digital. : ) Oh, this is real: Talking with a man today who has a camera school and seems to be in with Nikon one way or the other, he believes full frame(35mm) sensors will drop a bunch in price in the next 2 years. That bunch would have to be a like a bunch of banannas for me to afford it...we will see.

Lol how big is not always the main thing I have seen some rubbish images taken on a 1DS even at 11 million pix That seem full of grain or noise.. I agree with Jim spending 5k plus on a camera and not having the money for lenses to go with it is a bit unrealistic.. I have a 10D and a couple of L glass lenses that does me fine... The law of diminishing returns comes in once you reach a certain point say 5 million pix from here you can produce images, that can compare with anything if you take the time to process the images to get the best from your camera..

If I had enough money to buy a Ferarri, I would get a medium car and a 1D MK II with a BIG lens, never been one for cars as long as they work.

I think that there noise issues with the 1Ds that are not apparent with the MK II version.

I cant remember now but read a review comparing the 1D and Ds, the outcome of which the If I had enough money to buy a farri , I would get a medium car and a 1D MK II with a BIG lens, never been one for cars as long as they work. I think that there noise issues with the 1Ds that are not apparent with the MK II version. I cant remember now but read a review comparing the 1D and Ds, the outcome of which the 1D produced much cleaner images in certain circumstances, the reviewers (cant remember who they were, was too expensive any so not really relevant to me)were saying it was because the two cameras were designed for entirely different purposes. And yes if you put a poor lend on a 1d MK II it will produce poor images Anyway sensors wow its a bigun in the 1 D MK II . Something else I read, was that having more resolution doesnt necessarily mean a better quality image, as the sensor size in a Prosumer digital is the same with more imaging cells crammed onto it. Too late to go techie now!

Message edited on: 06/16/2005 21:18