[bbkp]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Whether cropping will deliver better results on a full frame or a smaller sensor depends only on the proportion of the sensor the cropped image occupies. For example given same density and same lense the image size in pixels (bird?) will be same at a given distance, the only difference is that a FF sensor will have more scenery than a cropped sensor.

Now if both sensors are same MP, then a bird will have more pixels on a cropped sensor than on a FF sensor, and you will better off. In fact this is the reason why super telephotos give a larger image in cropped sensor (you get an instant magnification, or the focal length increase by cropping ratio!). It works exactly opposite for wide angles, where you get less width on a cropped sensor.

Regarding better lenses, a better designed lense will always give better image. The better part consists of robust construction, sharpness, bokeh, chromatic aberration and other distortions. You can observe and feel the "better" part, even though you may not be able to pin point exactly why. Carl Zeiss has a range of lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts which are at least twice as expensive as native ones. These lenses are in great demand by professionals, so they must be doing some thing right.

Yes Aroy,

Completely agree with you. That is one of the reasons why most cropped Point and Shoot cameras have the zoom range interpretted in 35mm aka full-frame equivalent. The actual zoom range of the lens can be much smaller.

The reason why we get better telephoto on cropped sensors is as you have rightly said, because of the crop factor and for APS-C, it works out to 1.6 for Canon and 1.5 for Nikon, Sony and Pentax. Infact, Nikon, Sony and Pentax cameras share the same set of sensors across a huge range of their SLRs, which is manufactured by Sony. So, in terms of selecting a camera between these three brands, the choice is so obvious, for better range of lenses, go for Nikon, for budget and value for money, go for Pentax and Sony tends to take the middle ground. The irony is that Sony provides the sensors to Nikon and Nikon outsells Sony across the world. Of course, the end result might not be exactly same with the image processing logic for all 3 brands is different. Love the way Nikon renders the colours though. Pentax is pro-budget and value for money has a good bang for buck. Similarly the aspects around Vibration control are different with Sony and Pentax opting for body based mechanisms and Nikon opting for lens based approach.

Based on some of the tests done, what I have predominantly seen is -

Auto Focus Speed - Canon is the best. I have seen even standard kit lenses of Canon focussing much faster than any other brand - Nikon included.
Auto Focus Accuracy - Nikon takes the lead here though higher end Canons are pretty good though. My 7D is dead accurate on most occasions and it seldom fails to focus correctly.
Color Rendition - Nikon is just awesome. Canon is a close second.
Low-Light performance - Nikon, Canon and Sony are a tie. It gets pretty much model specific. Pentax is a tad low over here with noise at higher sensitivity getting into play - Again, not as bad.
Vibration Control - I am happy with the Canon. Nikon is also in the same league. Body based approach seems more sensible as you can then make the lens design much simple. Never tested one with a body based VR control.

I would like to say that these are my observations. Others might tend to differ.

Talking of Zeiss lenses, yes they are very good but, my vote is for Lieca. I am still holding on to my FZ 50 purely because of the awesome lens it has in front of the crappy sensor of Panasonic. Infact, before I picked the 7D, I was planning to go for the Leica X1. Wifey would have filed divorce if I would have done that and I hence resorted to the 7D.

Cheers
Prasad

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Whether cropping will deliver better results on a full frame or a smaller sensor depends only on the proportion of the sensor the cropped image occupies. For example given same density and same lense the image size in pixels (bird?) will be same at a given distance, the only difference is that a FF sensor will have more scenery than a cropped sensor.
Now if both sensors are same MP, then a bird will have more pixels on a cropped sensor than on a FF sensor, and you will better off.

Spot on 100%

Originally Posted by bbkp

@amitk26,

I believe the confusion arised from the fact that you were talking from a different point of view and I was talking from a different perspective..

No see above , Lets take a case that I either zoom or walk forward on FF to achive same Angle of view and then the image on FF and APS-C has same angle of view.
For example use a 50mm lens on APS-C and 80mm on FF to get exact same angle of view for the scene in both the cams.
Now if you crop a certain portion then Pixel density will come in to play and sensor with more pixel density will win.

About your point on pixel density being necessarily good it is also not true. Read about differection and you will find out why .

@Shaju : How long you will continue to call yourself Noob , You have already sold and purchased few dozens of prime lenses as per your confessions and buy and sell threads somewhere ;-) and may be few hundred clicks on your weekly photo-walks every-week since I am seeing you here on T-BHP

[kkr2k2]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

Have you heard of cookie primes?

I bet once you use a C-mount Cookie prime, you will toss that Zeiss in the bin

Sounds interesting. Please elaborate.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

Have you heard of cookie primes?

I bet once you use a C-mount Cookie prime, you will toss that Zeiss in the bin

C-Mount is for 16mm film right ? Will it cause vignetting on DSLR

Is this Cookie sort of nickname like beercan or pancake lens ? details please

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by bbkp

Yes Aroy,

Completely agree with you. That is one of the reasons why most cropped Point and Shoot cameras have the zoom range interpretted in 35mm aka full-frame equivalent. The actual zoom range of the lens can be much smaller.

The reason why we get better telephoto on cropped sensors is as you have rightly said, because of the crop factor and for APS-C, it works out to 1.6 for Canon and 1.5 for Nikon, Sony and Pentax. Infact, Nikon, Sony and Pentax cameras share the same set of sensors across a huge range of their SLRs, which is manufactured by Sony. So, in terms of selecting a camera between these three brands, the choice is so obvious, for better range of lenses, go for Nikon, for budget and value for money, go for Pentax and Sony tends to take the middle ground. The irony is that Sony provides the sensors to Nikon and Nikon outsells Sony across the world. Of course, the end result might not be exactly same with the image processing logic for all 3 brands is different. Love the way Nikon renders the colours though. Pentax is pro-budget and value for money has a good bang for buck. Similarly the aspects around Vibration control are different with Sony and Pentax opting for body based mechanisms and Nikon opting for lens based approach.

Based on some of the tests done, what I have predominantly seen is -

Auto Focus Speed - Canon is the best. I have seen even standard kit lenses of Canon focussing much faster than any other brand - Nikon included.
Auto Focus Accuracy - Nikon takes the lead here though higher end Canons are pretty good though. My 7D is dead accurate on most occasions and it seldom fails to focus correctly.
Color Rendition - Nikon is just awesome. Canon is a close second.
Low-Light performance - Nikon, Canon and Sony are a tie. It gets pretty much model specific. Pentax is a tad low over here with noise at higher sensitivity getting into play - Again, not as bad.
Vibration Control - I am happy with the Canon. Nikon is also in the same league. Body based approach seems more sensible as you can then make the lens design much simple. Never tested one with a body based VR control.

I would like to say that these are my observations. Others might tend to differ.

Talking of Zeiss lenses, yes they are very good but, my vote is for Lieca. I am still holding on to my FZ 50 purely because of the awesome lens it has in front of the crappy sensor of Panasonic. Infact, before I picked the 7D, I was planning to go for the Leica X1. Wifey would have filed divorce if I would have done that and I hence resorted to the 7D.

Cheers
Prasad

Nikon does not use Sony sensors, Nikon designs its own sensors which are then manufactured by Sony but now Nikon has (or more like HAD) its own fabrication factory in Japan.

Low-Light performance, Nikon > Canon > Sony in High end market and Pentax takes the lead in Budget market (Kx).

Body based VR/IS/OS makes sense but when it comes to Angular motion, it fails. AFAIK none has been able to get it working for Angular motion and Angular motion is the killer when using Tele lenses.

Forget X1 and grab a X100. I am seriously considering X100 or second hand M8 for pocket camera, my G9 is about to die any day now.

Originally Posted by kkr2k2

Sounds interesting. Please elaborate.

First of all, I would apologize, its Cooke and not Cookie.

In my "Personal" opinion Cooke has same, if not better sharpness than Zeiss master primes and Leica Noxtilux/Summilux lenses but where it comes into its own field is focusing, build quality, Contrast, color rendition. Its hard to explain, let me put it this way, my colleagues prefer Cooke T2.0 over Zeiss T1.3 Master primes and i call these guys encyclopedia's.

Originally Posted by amitk26

C-Mount is for 16mm film right ? Will it cause vignetting on DSLR

Is this Cookie sort of nickname like beercan or pancake lens ? details please

Cooke are manufacturers of Cine lenses, the sort used for film production. Image circle is for Super 35 or Super 235 and as such covers Full Frame but these are available in PL mount but conversions are available for C-mount, PV mount, Bayonet, Red mount, etc. I have only used S4 28mm in C-mount flavor.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by aburagohain

Shaju, the Tamron 90 is macro lens, autofocus is bound to be slower on this type of lenses

Agree, its a macro lens which was with me for over 6 months. Its also supposed to be a very good portrait lens, which in my opinion failed miserably due to its quality issues.

Originally Posted by bbkp

..... More pixel density on the sensor, more is capability to produce sharp images even when zoomed to the max. However, the lens needs to be capable enough to be providing a level of sharpens that will distinguish between each pixel else the sensor's capabilities are not getting utilized....

Somewhere I am starting to get what you are trying to convey To make it simple in layman's term, I am in a dilemma of moving to an FX body to satisfy my eye for sharpness and quality. I will be concentrating mainly on landscapes, nature, people and once a while macros. Choices before me are Nikon D700 (preferably the D800 which is expected this year) or a complete shift to Canon 5D MII (which might be more affordable with the MIII coming soon). Price wise D700 and 5D MII are face to face. I will remain as a hobbyist, highest stage would be selling some images online to buy some quality lenses or gadgets.

Question is: should I continue using my D90 and meet all my expectations without moving to FX body ? Present lenses are 70-200 f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4. I also need a wide angle soon. In my self-preparation for FX body, I got rid of all my 6 DX lenses in the last few months. If I continue with DX, then Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 will be added.

Originally Posted by amitk26

..@Shaju : How long you will continue to call yourself Noob....

Until I can understand your debates without asking questions

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Somewhere I am starting to get what you are trying to convey To make it simple in layman's term, I am in a dilemma of moving to an FX body to satisfy my eye for sharpness and quality. I will be concentrating mainly on landscapes, nature, people and once a while macros. Choices before me are Nikon D700 (preferably the D800 which is expected this year) or a complete shift to Canon 5D MII (which might be more affordable with the MIII coming soon). Price wise D700 and 5D MII are face to face. I will remain as a hobbyist, highest stage would be selling some images online to buy some quality lenses or gadgets.

Question is: should I continue using my D90 and meet all my expectations without moving to FX body ? Present lenses are 70-200 f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4. I also need a wide angle soon. In my self-preparation for FX body, I got rid of all my 6 DX lenses in the last few months. If I continue with DX, then Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 will be added.

The question is, what do you need from a FX body that you cannot get from DX body ?

All the above (Landscapes, People, Nature and Macros) can be done by a DX body. As it looks to me, you are way too limited in lens choices right now. You need to seriously consider 17-55mm f2.8 DX, it will do Nature, Landscapes and People nicely. It will also hold its resale value if you go second hand and it provides excellent option against 24-70mm f2.8

[phamilyman]

Shaju,

Some data for you - I know atleast 4 folks who shifted from Nikon (and 1 Oly) to canon for the 24 mpx of 5D MII & given its the defacto FX standard (so everyone says).

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Choices before me are Nikon D700 (preferably the D800 which is expected this year) or a complete shift to Canon 5D MII (which might be more affordable with the MIII coming soon). Price wise D700 and 5D MII are face to face. I will remain as a hobbyist, highest stage would be selling some images online to buy some quality lenses or gadgets.

Two things that have happened since the earthquake and tsunami in Japan -

a) Nikon and Canon have stopped production in their factories that were located in and around teh affected areas. Nikon's pro (D3s, D3x D3) and D700 DSLRs are made in Sendai, an area terribly affected by the earthquake and tsunami. Nikon's pro lenses are made in Tochigi prefecture an area also affected though not so badly as Sendai.

Nikon | News | 2nd Notice on the impact by the Major Earthquake in Northeastern Japan

b) Price gouging has started with some of Nikon's cameras and lenses hitting MSRP in the US and some going out of stock at some retailers. D700 (has hit US$ 2700) , 70-200 AFS VR-2 (US $2400_ and the 14-24 (US $1990) are flying off the shelves. Believe it or not even the 50mm 1.4G is out of stock at B&H and Adorama.

The supply chain is badly affected. Production of some components is being shifted to Malaysia and Thailand though that wont solve problems caused by lack of availability of components made in Japan.

Expect delays in the launch of new products and some products in short supply.

I've been following the situation in Japan closely as I have 2 close friends living in Tokyo. My heart goes to the Japanese people and much admiration at the stoicism and bravery in the face of such a monumental tragedy.


Regards,

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

The question is, what do you need from a FX body that you cannot get from DX body ?......you are way too limited in lens choices right now.

The answer is very simple: more area and higher quality.

My lens choices are not limited at all, fact is I sold all the lenses that may not work well with FX bodies and retaining only what can. Another DX lens is not in mind until the body upgrade is decided. I will not upgrade D90 to another DX body, either stay with it or move to an FX. Although its mentioned in some of my posts, repeating what I owned in the learning process:

18-55 VR
55-200 VR
70-300 VR
90mm f/2.8
35mm f/1.8
18-50 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 (not yet gone from the bag)
50mm f/1.4 (brand new member)

Originally Posted by phamilyman

.....I know atleast 4 folks who shifted from Nikon (and 1 Oly) to canon for the 24 mpx of 5D MII & given its the defacto FX standard (so everyone says).

I know more than 2 dozen who moved to Canon for different reasons ! By the way 5 D MII is only 21 MP, not 24 ! Only Sony Alpha 900 and Nikon D3X has 24 MP as I understand. Anyway I dont believe in the Megapixel war, am ok with 10 to 15 range, unless I am hired by Team-Bhp to print mega posters for promotions .

Originally Posted by R2D2

....I've been following the situation in Japan closely as I have 2 close friends living in Tokyo.

I have my wife's 3 cousins with family in Tokyo, one of them being there more than 20 years ! Situation is very bad and lot of brands got affected with the unexpected tragedy. Expected new launches will definitely take time. As long as we dont earn our bread through photography, anything can wait.

[YaeJay]

Rightly said! I do hope they are safe shaju!

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by shajufx

The answer is very simple: more area and higher quality.

Ok my question is still unanswered, why do you need FX?

You do not have UWA lenses in your kit, so extra area will not serve you any purpose. Even if you wanted UWA lenses, Nikon 12-24mm f4 is greatand so is sigma and tamron offerings. And from the list of lenses you owed, widest you have gone is about 27mm.

About IQ, well I can give you examples of guys who do weddings/Fashion/etc with D90/50D (here is Australia it's a big no-no to use anything less than D700/5D for any pro work). My point being D90 has decent IQ.

From what I see you don't need FX body, atleast from above posts. Now if you needed weather sealing or better AF, bigger viewfinder, faster AF, UWA lenses with best IQ, then I would suggest going FX.

Even low light performance is great for DX cameras now, not as good as D3s but not too shabby either. If it's more of a bug biting you going FX then with all means go for it.

[alpha1]

^^
1. I've had current camera for many years, and now I want a change
2. I am dissatisfied with current D90
3. I have moolah, and want to spend on something new, which suits my tastes (technical as well as abstract).

The most relevant reason for a non-pro can be that you want a wider field of view/capture. Using a 35mm lens on APS sensor is slightly telephotoic. Whereas in full sensor it is "normal" view.

Another might be that you want lesser pixel noise which comes from larger sensors. Although in a double blind test can you actually identify which is which (large sensor vs cropped) - I have my reservations.

Other points are more relevant to a photographer who make a living from it. But then as a hobbyist if you have the monies to spend, why should you compromise (refer point 3 above)

Don't get me wrong Shajufx, but this was not to belittle your real concerns (which we don't know yet), however, most hobby ppl "upgrade" for these reasons.

[typeOnegative]

Is the D7000 weather sealed? I think it is.

I have similar thoughts as Shaju running through my head, even at this stage - where I am practically just three months into my first ever DSLR. From what I can see though, I do not think an FX camera will be any great step up for me. Unless of course, I plan to make money out of my current hobby.

[gd1418]

Apart from these three reasons, there is one more:

4. I want to..

Originally Posted by alpha1

1. I've had current camera for many years, and now I want a change
2. I am dissatisfied with current D90
3. I have moolah, and want to spend on something new, which suits my tastes (technical as well as abstract).