Poll - full frame still important?

[beejaybee]

Saw on another forum some muppet claiming his 40D was better than a 5D and in 40D vs 5D test the 40D should win, basically because it was newer and had to have lower noise and better image quality :carzy: (was a typo but think I'll leave it!)

Got both. The 5D wins hands down on everything except:

sensor cleaner - the 40D has this and in my experience it works reasonably well;

live view - if this bothers you - in my experience it's less useful for precise focusing than the type S precision screen plus angle viewfinder.

But the standard focusing screen as supplied with the 40D is too coarse to allow for manual focusing. The standard screen supplied with the 5D is better but I think it's just because the viewfinder magnification is less.

The 5D vf is, IMO, good (though less so than the Oly OM1); the 40D vf is usable rather than good.

I've simply never used burst mode so the 5D is plenty fast enough for me.

The 40D is much more convenient when used with long tele lenses but this is a matter of size/weight/cost of the lenses traded off against image quality. And this to me is the numb of the APS-C/FF debate. When used with "normal" lenses (wide, standard or shirt to medium tele) there isn't even a significant saving in size & weight, though it may well be true that the FF cameras require better (therefore more expensive) lenses to realize the benefit of better image quality.

[Barney]

Hmmm.

You're missing the point. You're experieces are irrelevent, it's the experiences of the reviewer which matter and how they then use these experiences in conclusion. I have no truck with what Angela says within the body of the review, it's the fact that the conclusions from within the review don't hold with the overall conclusion.

[Nod]

If you miss a shot because a certain function is hidden away in menus then what good is image quality then?

If the image is carp quality then is it worth having? (Unless you're shooting for Heat or the like, in which case a tiny crop seems to be what they're after!)

What functions that tend to be changed fairly often are hidden deep in the menu system? Isn't a struggle to find things in the menu more of a familiarity problem than a failing of the camera?

[Barney]

Two points, firstly the fact is that all three cameras on test had perfectly good image quality and noe of them could be described a carp. And secondly, yes, even if the image quality is carp the image could quite easily be worth keeping. Think of any iconic image and ask yourself whether it is iconic because of the iamge quality or because of another reason.

If image quality was the be all and end all, would we be all shooting large format film and scanning it in?

[Nod]

Second question still needs an answer. Unless the feature/option that needs changing stops you actually shooting, ANY image you capture is worth having (by your argument).

Convenience and portability are rather important too. While I would love to shoot 10x8, I don't think I could carry the kit with me - and I simply don't have the space for D let alone P here - even for 35mm, let alone larger formats!

[Benchista]

IQ is not the be all and end all for me, my way of thinking is that you have to get the shot first before you worry about the IQ, therefore if Angela's reviews are so heavily biased towards IQ then they're not much use to me.

I can understand this point. It really depends what one is doing. I use my 4x5 when IQ is the essence but of course you can't cart it round very easily and it doesn't work too well for action shots . On the other hand my compact slips into my pocket and is there to provide a picture, maybe of lower IQ, at any time. The compromises involved in choosing a camera, either to buy or to take on a particular assignment, are decisions we all have to take individually.

Asolutely. I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone who slavishly follows any review without interpreting what it means for themselves deserves to make the wrong decision. Of course the conclusion may not be based on what's important to you - however, that doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong, simply that you have a different set of priorities.

[daft_biker]

The 5D vf is, IMO, good (though less so than the Oly OM1); the 40D vf is usable rather than good.

Have you used other APS-C viewfinders? The one on the 30D was usable but I think the one on the 40D is pretty good and find I can manually focus with reasonable accurancy (I've yet to try the precision screen as I've not felt the need). The viewfinder on the 300D was poor.

[El_Sid]

Based on the question asked I've voted no. If you were to ask whether FF was desirable then the answer would be yes...

When out with my digiboxes alone then I'm more than happy with them but if I have a film camera then I do find the larger viewfinders of the 35mm format generally more pleasant to use. I guess I'd also like my wide angle primes to stay wide angle regardless of capture system...

As far as image quality goes then having no experience of FF output I can only say that I am generally satisfied with what I can achieve from my D30 & 20D when coupled with a competent lens.

[Barney]

Second question still needs an answer. Unless the feature/option that needs changing stops you actually shooting, ANY image you capture is worth having (by your argument).

That's quite clearly not what I'm saying, just as you're clearly not saying that any image with a sufficiently high image quality is worth keeping regardless of other qualities.

As for what features may lie buried in menus, as a Nikon user most features are easy to come by but it's a gripe I've often read in reviews of other cameras.

[beejaybee]

You're experieces are irrelevent, it's the experiences of the reviewer which matter

Why are we bothering to discuss this then? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Personally I value the opinion of a user with considerable experience of both cameras over that of a reviewer, however reputable, who has the cameras for a day or two.

[LargeFormat]

If image quality was the be all and end all, would we be all shooting large format film and scanning it in?

I thought I already said that.

[barney britton]

Telecentric designed optics offer considerable benefits to the designers of very wide angle lenses.

Hi everyone, I thought it might be useful if I posted very quickly about telecentric lenses, because there is a lot of confusion about what is and isn't telecentric, and what it means.

True telecentricity is a quality that is not displayed by lenses designed for pictorial photography. Even if it could be, it wouldn't be desirable. A telecentric lens renders all of the light falling on the imager at 90 degrees to the imager's surface. Only optics designed for microscopy are truly telecentric, and even then, only some.

Lenses designed for the 4/3 mount are not telecentric, but they *approach* telecentricity, especially at longer focal lengths because the size of the sensor is smaller, and as such, light rays hit the imager at *closer* to 90 degrees across the frame. Remember that Sigma makes lenses in the 4/3 fit, but they're the same optical makeup as equivalent models for other mounts, so there is no magic formula - only the mounts are different. All manufacturers, not just the 4/3 guys, are producing lenses that deliver a less acute light path from the rear element now than they were, because of the demands of the digital medium.

[barney britton]

Personally I value the opinion of a user with considerable experience of both cameras over that of a reviewer, however reputable, who has the cameras for a day or two.

Just to set your mind at rest, at AP at least, we use the cameras for a while longer than that before we file a review

[beejaybee]

A telecentric lens renders all of the light falling on the imager at 90 degrees to the imager's surface. Only optics designed for microscopy are truly telecentric, and even then, only some.

If all the rays of light hitting the sensor arrive at right angles to it, then the lens must have an infinite focal length and/or a focal ratio of f/infinity. Such a lens would be somewhat useless.

However, the condition is approximately met by a number of lenses, including old-fashioned "long tom" lenses (long focus but not strictly telephoto, because of the lack of the negative rear element group) operating at around f/8 - in fact these are a great deal more "telecentric" than the Zuiko lenses designed for the Olympus E system.

It is absolutely impossible to design an f/2 lens in which all the rays of light hitting the sensor approach it at an angle steeper than 60 degrees, because of the convergence of the bundle. This is completely independent of the diameter, position or shape of the rear element of the lens.

[barney britton]

I wonder if this is necessarily true? For light to strike a sensor at 90 degrees, it only has to leave the *rear element* in this state. Light could arrive at the front element of the lens at whatever angle, and the lens could still be termed telecentric (for photographic purposes) if the light rays could be directed so that they existed the rear element at 90 degrees to the imaging plane.

It's very interesting, and I wonder whether Olympus has ever regretted using the word 'telecentric' in its publicity material for the E-series!

[Garry McNamara]

While you're on Barney can you confirm if lenses over 200mm are phalocentric?

I know in reality these lenses are rarely over 150mm but you know how people exagerate - I think it's what lead to the term 'magnification factor'.

[Nod]

Phallocentricity and crop factor? Makes my eyes water just thinking about it!

[beejaybee]

I wonder if this is necessarily true? For light to strike a sensor at 90 degrees, it only has to leave the *rear element* in this state.

Yes - but the rays arriving at a given point on the sensor surface are a conical converging bundle coming through different bits of glass!

I thought Olympus's claim was that their designs allowed the angle at which the cone axis meets the sensor to be (close to) 90 degrees everywhere on the sensor surface. Which is different. But anyhow it's still true that a "long tom" design - or an apochromatic telescope objective lens, which is more or less the same thing - meets the design criterion quite well.

[Barney]

While you're on Barney can you confirm if lenses over 200mm are phalocentric?

And how does that relate to throat diameter?

[Nod]

Fl8?