D700: What's in a name?

[Player]

Of course, I'm only guessing, but history does tell us that things get better. . . actually, I have more hope for the 4/3 sensor in that the large lens mouth and small sensor makes it possible to build very very good telecentric lenses (like the modern Zuikos)

Only time will tell

No kiddin', I was thinking that Olympus would eventually have to pack up its tent and move on. If I've been skeptical of APS-C, I've been down-right moribund about Olympus' future.

Yes, "time" is the great equalizer.

Five or ten years from now, one of us is going to be saying "I told you so!" :lecture:

 

[Player]

Jono, I can't seem to leave this alone, but is there anything that might prevent Nikon or Canon from increasing the pixel density in a FF sensor to keep it "superior" to smaller sensors?

What surprises me is that you're essentially predicting that, to use an analogy, that 35mm film will surpass medium format film.

 

[jonoslack]

No kiddin', I was thinking that Olympus would eventually have to pack up its tent and move on. If I've been skeptical of APS-C, I've been down-right moribund about Olympus' future.

Yes, "time" is the great equalizer.

The trouble with Olympus at the moment is that they haven't got the best sensor manufacturer - the Kodak sensor in the earlier cameras were lovely - the E1 especially had a lovely glow and delicious colours - but like all kodak sensors their high ISO noise was bad - now they are using panasonic sensors, which are okay, what they really need is a great sensor.

The design idea is excellent - the wide lens mount throat and the small sensor means that the lens design can be maximised (niether Nikon or Canon can do this so well, even on APS). The upshot of this is that the Olympus lenses are, almost without exception, absolutely excellent - for instance, when I compared the 12-60 (24-120) Zuiko with the new, much heralded Nikon 24-70, the Zuiko won hands down in terms of corner sharpness and vignetting - and it's half the price and half the size. Even the tiny 14-42 (28-85 equiv) is really good, and the f2 zooms are stellar (and expensive too).

when you consider that the pixel density on the Olympus E3 is 4, and on the Canon 450D is 3.7 (and the Canon G9 is 28), you can see that there is scope for an improved sensor.

Basically - you're setting YOUR 'compromises' at or around where FF is now - fine (I think that's where I sit too), and I think that'll trickle down a long way over the next few years, but other people will have very different preferences. I have some lovely 24x17" prints made from the Olympus E3: for most people that's at least twice as big as they're ever going to print . . . . what on earth is the attraction of paying all that extra money to carry around something huge . . . if it really doesn't confer any benefits.

Five or ten years from now, one of us is going to be saying "I told you so!" :lecture:

Nah - in five or ten years time everyone will have forgotten about still cameras, they'll be using video's which will do 24mp still shots wherever you want

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, I can't seem to leave this alone, but is there anything that might prevent Nikon or Canon from increasing the pixel density in a FF sensor to keep it "superior" to smaller sensors?

No, you can't leave it alone can you - but isn't it nice to have somewhere where one can discuss this without everyone getting hot under the collar!

Of course, there is nothing to prevent higher pixel density in a FF sensor (Canon have already done 21, Sony 24 - and soon Nikon too I guess)

What surprises me is that you're essentially predicting that, to use an analogy, that 35mm film will surpass medium format film.

No I'm not; to correct your analogy, what I'm predicting is that 35mm film will, in a few years, surpass where medium format is NOW. (not quite the same thing), an that there is a limit to what one needs.

 

[Player]

Okay, fair enough Jono. I think I finally understand what you're saying: APS-C, and even 4/3rds, will become so good that FF isn't necessary, and FF sort of exists now as a stop-gap measure. So essentially the smaller sensors will obsolete the FF sensors. Photographers buying into FF now are biding their time until smaller sensors reach their full potential, whether they know it or not. If I still don't get it, I might have to throw-in the towel. :banghead:

And yes! It is terrific to be able to discuss, and even disagree sometimes, without being tarred-and-feathered, and burned-at-the-stake, which I have the scars to prove.

This site is an Internet treasure. :thumbs:

And thanks for your patience and understanding. Greatly appreciated!

 

[jonoslack]

Okay, fair enough Jono. I think I finally understand what you're saying: APS-C, and even 4/3rds, will become so good that FF isn't necessary, and FF sort of exists now as a stop-gap measure. So essentially the smaller sensors will obsolete the FF sensors. Photographers buying into FF now are biding their time until smaller sensors reach their full potential, whether they know it or not. If I still don't get it, I might have to throw-in the towel. :banghead:

Throw it in then matey - you're mostly right, I"m saying that APS-C and 4/3 will get as good as FF is now - but I think there will always be a place for both (and MF as well). You were implying that as FF became cheaper, smaller sensors would disappear, whereas I think that they will always take up a larger part of the market.

Don't bang your head though, it must be that I'm bad at explaining myself

And yes! It is terrific to be able to discuss, and even disagree sometimes, without being tarred-and-feathered, and burned-at-the-stake, which I have the scars to prove.

This site is an Internet treasure. :thumbs:

And thanks for your patience and understanding. Greatly appreciated!

I've got the scars as well, and on dpreview it's such a pain trying to have a serious conversation with all the :argue::argue: going on

 

[Player]

Okay Jono, it's crystal clear now. Just because 35mm film improved with T-Grain technology and so-forth, it didn't mean that large format film would go away. Not an exact analogous match, but close enough. I hope.*

*I'm so gun-shy I expect to get flamed at any moment.

And no, I don't think you're bad at explaining, it's just maybe you give me more credit than I deserve.

I've only read dpreview, I knew that even a Kevlar suit wouldn't help me there. lol