This is very true generally, and to be generally true one must compare apples to apples, such as 35 mm TRI-X with good lenses to 4x5 TRI-X with good lenses or some equivalent in DC. AND compare them in a print size that differentiates the quality i.e at 4x5 they may be all but indistinguishable but at 16x20 the difference is pretty obvious. This is important because a big part of the reason to use larger formats is to make big prints that have all the tactility of small format, small prints.

BJL,
You probably have more knowledge of other manufacturers products than I do. I confess I tend to be a bit 'Canon-centric'. Do Nikon no longer make 35mm lenses?



Yes, of course there are, but most of these other factors are not restricted only to implementation in the smaller format. At the end of the day, whatever electronic tricks are employed by the smaller format to overcome its format size disadvantage, the same (or similar) enhancements can probably be used with the larger format to widen the gap even further.

Imagine a P45 with the low noise characterisics of the Canon 1D3.

Kirk,
Of course the enlargements were big enough to differentiate the quality. You wouldn't go to this trouble in comparing different formats and make the huge blunder of comparing postcard size prints. They'd be 200% enlargements of highest resolution, drum-scanned images.

I'm afraid I can't remember the precise details. It was a comparison done by the Photodo team. I doubt whether the quality of the lens was an issue for the 4x5 format. At f22 there was probably no better lens available or even possible given diffraction limitation at f22.

At f5.6 there also may not have been a better lens available at the time, but there is now certailny the possibility of a better lens since I'm very sure that that lens was not diffraction limited at f5.6.

The choice of different film types for each camera was based on the principal that at f22 the 4x5 format would not need the high resolving power of a T-max 100. Also, slow shutter speeds are clearly a disadvantage of the larger formats. An ISO 400 film helped redress that problem.

Bill,
You've completely ignored the noise characteristics of all the cameras that currently produce the highest image quality, the sub-6x4.5 format with CCD sensors. They do not have lower noise at high ISO.

I think that' s right.

I've argued before that there is a "good size" for art work to fit in contemporary living rooms of people who have enough money to spend on decent art. That size is not specific, but it's bigger than 8x10 or 11x14. Generally, with paintings made for average settings, it's ~30-48 inches, 75-120cm, in the longer dimension. I think that photos (especially of the kind of most valued on a landscape forum) will tend to go to that size, when the resolution gets good enough. Any bigger than that, and you're talking about a purpose-built wall or room, made to hold art, and most people are not interested in that or not rich enough to do it.

In any case, to get that 30-48 size, you'll need the very high end of 35mm, or MF.

JC

I agree with that. It's why I splashed out on an Epson 7600 a few years ago. A4 and A3+ prints are too small for me if you want to produce a work of art to hang on your wall, or any one else's wall. They are too small because, in order to appreciate them, you have to walk up close and peer at them or even clamber over furniture to get a good look.

Incidentally, how has the number of views of this topic escalated to over 90,000. I vaguely recall that a few weeks ago it was around 10,000 plus.

Has someone hacked into the system?

Ray, are you playing dumb? Your words were "35mm photography" and my words were "35mm DSLR, in each case with a clear meaning of a photographic device (lens plus sensor/film etc.) using 24x36mm format, _not_ a reference to the maximum coverage of some of the lenses used, which is routinely a lot larger than the format with lenses giving narrower than normal FOV.

If one uses a medium format lens on a 35mm SLR recording an image 24x36mm, one is doing 35mm photography with a 35mm format camera; one is _not_ doing medium format photography simply because of the size of the image circle of the lens.


In fact, I claim that in general, there is no single "natural format" for normal and narrower FOV lens designs; there is only a maximum usable format limited by coverage.

This is most clear with view cameras, where users of 4"x5" format seem to have no qualms about using lenses that also cover 8"x10" format: the superfluity of image circle size (even beyond needs of camera motions) is apparently not a problem. And AFAIK, no-one calls a 4"x5" view camera a "crop camera" simply because it can be and often is used with lenses that also work with 8"x10", and no-one claims to be using 8"x10" format when using such a lens with 4"x5" film.

Another excellent example involves a camera that I believe you own: most or all Mamiya lenses for its RB67 and RZ67 systems produce maximum rectangular image sizes higher and wider than their focal length, and so wider than normal angular coverage, even lenses considered as "telephoto" because they give a narrower than normal FOV when used with 6x7 format. All those Mamiya "67" lenses from 90mm up cover 4"x5" format, and all from 180mm up cover 8"x10".
http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=15

That's a very puzzling response, BJL. I might ask the same question of you. Are you playing dumb?

We all know that image circles are generally larger than the format with which the lens is used. The relevant question here is, 'how much is image quality compromised towards the edges when such a lens is used with a format for which it was not designed?'

I can think of a number of examples of lenses that are marketed as 35mm lenses but in my opinion are only suitable for the APS-C formats. Those who bought a Sigma 14/f2.8 for their D30 would have been very disappointed when later using this lens with a full frame 35mm. The 3 copies of the Sigma 12-24mm zoom that I tested in a store in Bangkok some time ago suffered very noticeable resolution fall-off towards the edges of my 5D sensor. By my standards, this lens is not suitable for the 35mm format.

I've also experienced severe vignetting with lenses that one would expect to have a large image circle, such as a Sigma 400/5.6 prime with Minolta mount which I used before switching to Canon. To escape from noticeable vignetting I had to stop down to f11. Mirror lenses are notorious for peripheral light fall-off. I once hired a Minolta 500/f8 just to try it out. I decided there was too much vignetting and didn't buy it. But this mirror lens would have been fine on APS-C format.

As you probably know, Nikon do not recommend using their DX lenses with full frame 35mm. I got the impression that Nikon had made a major move towards replacing their 35mm lenses with DX lenses.. Having checked their website, I see this is not the case. They appear to have no more DX lenses than Canon have EF-S lenses; just 4 that I could see.

A major advantage of smaller formats is their lower weight and bulk. If you are going to use the smaller format with lenses designed for a larger format, then you are losing that advantage. It's not an ideal situation.

As regards the naming of these smaller formats, I think you are making a big issue out of nothing. Have you ever been confused by my terminology? I prefer the term 'cropped 35mm format' because that term is the most meaningful. It conveys the information that the format is smaller than 35mm yet the camera is designed to be used with 35mm lenses. One could use the term APS-C format which also imlies a format smaller than 35mm, but not necessarily a format that takes 35mm lenses.

The fact is, APS-C is 25.1x16.7mm. There are no DSLRs with a sensor of these dimensions, although Nikon is fairly close at 23.7x15.7.

That's an interesting question actually.

Playing the devil's advocate, I would say that the following image would be hard to distinguish from a 1ds2 at A3. If anything, the corner image quality would probably be better on this image, and there would be more DoF (something needed for this given image).



This was shot with a Ricoh GX100.

My guess is that the reason why people don't speak much about small cameras here because they shoot mostly - like me of course - with more expensive types that overall perform better accorss the range.

My view though, is that there is a sweet spot for each and every piece of gear, and that when used at their sweet spot, some compact cameras of the latest generation can produce totally outstanding results.

Regards,
Bernard

What lens did you use on the 1Ds2, a coke bottle bottom? Is corner sharpness the only quality to consider in image quality? Not that the 1Ds2's corners wouldn't be sharp, given an adequate lens ...

Yes. I think that's true. My P&S camera is the 7mp Sony DSC T30. The sensor size is only 5.76x4.29mm. Really tiny. General scenes are not too impressive to my critical eyes. There's often an obvious smudging of fine detail, especially of foliage.

However, this camera has an amazing macro mode. The following shot of an unidentified spider on my laundry screen door would not have been possible with any of my Canon DSLRs without elaborate set up.

This is a hand-held shot at 1/20th sec, f3.5, ISO 80, with exposure bias of -1.

I think it's just great. Wow! You can see individual strands of spider web as well as the eyeballs of this curious little creature.

Click to view attachment

An that adequate lens was?

Corner sharpness is of course not the only thing to consider in image quality, but... I hate to see a great print with soft corners.

Regards,
Bernard

Ray,

Well, they have lower noise than they would have had with smaller pixels. The cameras using these sensors are not designed for low light action photography, and high ISO performance is not a main factor is their design. Consider the Kodak KAF 39000 sensor. It has a diagonal size of 61 mm and a pixel size of 6.8 microns as compared to the 8.2 microns in your Canon 5D. Since it has a relatively small pixel size and is not designed specifically for good high ISO performance, it is not surprising that it does not have stellar performance at high ISO. Read noise is about 16 electrons (at 24 MHz) as compared to around 3 in your Canon.

Sports Illustrated photographers are more likely to use the 1D MII (or MIII) for their action shots at night, but I think they use the medium format cameras for their swimsuit shots. As Michael likes to say, horses for courses.

Bill

Bill,
Of course, if it's not designed for good high-ISO performance then it's no surprise it doesn't have it. These things don't happen by accident. However, these MFDBs are very expensive items. I'm sure the manufacturer would have thrown in good high-ISO performance as a bonus, if it were possible.

After all, to get the same DoF as 35mm you need to stop down one stop resulting in a slower shutter speed than you would use in the same circumstances with 35mm. This is the reverse situation to the APS-C format of the D2X which also doesn't have the same low noise capability at high ISOs as the 5D. However, owners of the D2X have a partial remedy. For the same DoF they can stop up in aperture and lower ISO accordingly.

I'm not a sports shooter, but I sure appreciate the low noise of my 5D, as I would if I used a 400D with just 5.5 micron photosites.

Leica 21-35 in the above image ... and I absolutely agree with you, Bernard. Soft corners can be a real downer in the wrong image. I always wonder though why sharpness is way too often the only attribute mentioned when comparing.

Cheers!

It's quite understandable to me, provided one defines sharpness as the capacity to resolve detail. Most other technical attributes of the image can now be manipulated to your heart's content in Photoshop. But one thing you cannot do is create detail that wasn't captured.

When viewing web browser jpegs sure, no big difference. You can try and make a cheapo lens look like a million bucks. But the look, feel and personality of a lens, not to mention flare control and such, take a little more than a few slider adjustments to emulate when you start making serious prints, IMHO. I haven't seen any Schneider styling plug-ins for PS, at least not yet ... but who knows?

I say! You're getting a bit romantic here aren't you? A lens is an inanimate object.

Sure, there are some nice characteristics of some lenses which might be a bit time consuming to emulate in PS. Bokeh for example. Flare would be a major flaw in any design. The first few batches of the Canon 24-105 IS zoom had such a flaw and many buyers returned their lens for a replacement.

My Sigma 15-30mm is subject to flare problems because it has a bulbous, protruding front element and a fixed lens hood designed for the widest angle of 15mm. This problem can be solved by providing an additional shade to the lens when shooting too close to the sun.

You'll have to provide me with some examples of lens personality that cannot be emulated in PS before I can accept this argument .

What can I tell you, Ray ... I am a hopeless romantic! For me photography is both a romance and an adventure. But not to worry, I don't try to make out with my equipment - I just treat it with love and respect .

Cheers!

You've already told me. Now show me 2 images; one taken using a lens with personality and the other taken with a plain Jane, high resolution lens, sharp from corner to corner, but with no personality.

No can do Ray - all my lenses have personalities ... bye!

Hhmm! I see you don't want to pursue this. Pity! I was looking forward to proving you wrong .

Too much work, no ROI - I'd rather shoot and print. But you win by default .

Ray, maybe my main point got lost in the details: many lenses will work very well with a range of format sizes, up to a (fuzzy) maximum where edge and corner performance declines.

So it is slightly misleading to talk of a lens being for a single format, except through the incidental facts like it having a lens mount used only on cameras of one format. Thus, it makes little sense to say that one is doing 35mm photography simply because the lens one uses is capable of being used with a 35mm format film frame or sensor. To re-iterate, if I were to use a 35mm format lens though an adaptor on my 4/3" DSLR, I would not be doing 35mm photography.


No disagreement there: all your examples are about the problems of using a lens with a format larger than it can handle well, or larger than it can handle at all due to design limits like vignetting. That has nothing to do with the reverse situation we were talking about, of using a (Nikon) lens designed to handle 35mm format with a sensor of smaller format.


P. S. I am interested, but not overly surprised, by your judgement that the Sigma 12-24 is not very well suited to use with 35mm format. If true, that undermines the idea of a larger format advantage at ultra-wide, since there are good wide zooms for 4/3 and APS-C formats that are as wide as any other other zoom usable with 35mm format, and the reportedly excellent Olympus 7-14 for 4/3 is indeed as wide (114º) as any rectilinear prime lens I know of for 35mm (e.g. the Canon 14/2.8). And AFAIK medium format offers nothing wider than the 114º of 14mm in 35mm format.

Then again, I guess that the future of ultra-wide lens design will change considerably, relying more on software correction of distortion and moderate corner light fall-off, allowing a shift in design emphasis to sharpness as the dominant criterion for corner performance, while minimizing light fall-off and barrel distortion become somewhat lower priorities. Nikon, Olympus and Hasselblad/Fuji have all dabbled with this approach, at least through explicit software support for it.

Of course, BJL, you know I've been using 35mm lenses for a long time with a smaller-than-APS-C camera. You might even recall when the first rumours of the 5D appeared causing great speculation on this forum about the details and sensor size, I expressed a hope that it would be the same size as the cameras I already had, the D60 and 20D. In other words, a direct competitor to the D2X at a lower price and with all the advantages of the cropped 35mm format.

But it wasn't to be and the fact that 18 months later Canon is still unable to provide a 12mp APS-C format indicates that the technology is (was) not quite there that would enable them to do this whilst maintaining their low-noise-at high-ISO standards. But who know what they have in the pipeline!

The fact is, I would prefer to use the smaller-than-APS-C format for advantages of weight and longer telephoto reach, but I'm not going to compromise quality for the relatively marginal lower cost and weight. My 5D plus Sigma 15-30mm lens weighs 1.65Kg. My 20D plus Canon 10-22mm weighs 1.25Kg. That 400gm difference would be noticeable when hiking all day in Nepal with a couple of cameras around one's neck. But 12mp on a big sensor are better than 8mp on a small sensor, so I chose the heavier option even though the effective focal lengths are almost identical for both cameras.

I can only assume that the very small number of Canon EF-S lenses and Nikkor DX lenses available after all these years is a clear indication that the APS-C formats are a transitionary stage. It does not make sense to consistently use heavier than needs be lenses designed for a larger format if a just slightly heavier, bulkier and more expensive option is available that can provide improved quality. With battery and strap, my 20D weighs just 125gms less than my 5D. That weight saving is insignificant to me, unless it's combined with a lighter lens.



I should mention that my Sigma 15-30 is pretty good to the edges. This was the lens I used for comparison when testing the 3 Sigma 12-24mm copies in the store.

The resolution fall-off, even at some distance from the edges, was so obvious with the 12-24 (comparing both lenses at 15mm), that I got the impression that this is how an EF-S or DX lens would appear when used on FF 35mm and is why Canon even prevent one from fitting an EF-S lens to a full frame body.

The serial numbers on 2 of the lenses, from memory, were quite close, indicating that 2 of the lenses could have come from the same batch. The 3rd lens, however, had a significantly different serial number.

Nevertheless, it's quite possible that all 3 lenses were the remainders of cherry picking. All lenses, including the 15-30, were equally good in the centre.

By the way, if the term MF photography can include all formats from 6x4.5 to 6x9cm, even though all lenses might not be interchangeable between the formats because of different fittings, I think the term 35mm photography could encompass all the roughly APS-C formats that not only can fit 35mm lenses but are probably more often used with 35mm lenses.

RAY SAID:
"I can only assume that the very small number of Canon EF-S lenses and Nikkor DX lenses available after all these years is a clear indication that the APS-C formats are a transitionary stage. It does not make sense to consistently use heavier than needs be lenses designed for a larger format if a just slightly heavier, bulkier and more expensive option is available that can provide improved quality. With battery and strap, my 20D weighs just 125gms less than my 5D. That weight saving is insignificant to me, unless it's combined with a lighter lens."

You guys watch the development in digital photography much closer then I do. But I find your statement interesting, Ray. I guess that even Nikon doesn`t know if they`ll stick to their format yet. Pentax is the only cameramaker that I know of, that make small lenses for their digital format (but so they did also for film cameras - I`m thinking about their Pancake-lenses).
I would hope that the new compact camera from Sigma (with an APS-size sensor) is more then an isolated event.
If we could choose between compact cameras with the tiny sensors and with APS sensors, and if a couple of camera makers could make small DSLRs with compact prime & zoom lenses for APS sensors, and then perhaps Canon and Nikon in the end concentrated on full frame for DSLRs, we would have real choises.

But I guess a lot of this is more a matter of changing tastes then technology: most people seem to prefer compact cameras that are too small and DSLRs/lenses that are too big. There isn`t much in the middle. Perhaps more people will realise that they don`t need huge cameras & lenses, as they may realise that they don`t need a SUV to drive the kids to school.

Paul

Canon's keeping the 30D at 8MP when every product above, below and beside it has gone to a higher pixel count could have various explanations, of which your suggestion is one, but is far from proven. ("Above" like the 1DMkIII, "below and beside" like Canon's own 400D, Nikon's D200, D80 and D40x, Sony's A-100, Pentax's K10D, Olympus' E-410 and forthcoming E-510.)

Other possible explanations include Canon "throttling back" a bit on the high end of EF-S format in order to push as many Canon customers as possible up to the 5D, protecting 5D sales against poaching by an EF-S body that many might consider close enough in performance to the 5D at a far more attractive price, and waiting until a higher resolution, higher frame rate 5D replacement is ready before releasing a 10 to 12MP 30D replacement.

Just to tease you Ray, I will also mention the possibility that Canon's CMOS technology is approaching its smallest viable pixel pitch, limited by the fact that its photosites lose more space to non-light gathering components than competing technologies like Sony's CCDs and Panasonic's NMOS. So maybe Canon CMOS DSLR sensor pixel pitch will bottom out at higher values than those alternatives, at least until Canon modifies its technology in a substantial way, say to NMOS (which allegedly requires less components and electrical contacts per photosite than CMOS.)


"Medium format" is an inherently broad term, referring to everything smaller than view camera formats (4"x5"and up) and larger than what use to be called "miniature format": 24x36mm. 35mm instead has developed a specific and well established meaning in still photography: 24x36mm. For example, no-one ever referred to Canon's APS film SLRs as "35mm format" even though all lenses for them were EF lenses (and third party EOS mount lenses) also usable on 35mm film cameras, and you are of course familiar with the usage of "APS-C" to distinguish the common smaller than 24x36mm DSLR formats.

BJL,
I'm sure there are many reasons and issues that are taken into consideration when Canon is working out its road map and developing strategies to maximise its profits, but the evidence in the roll out of their recent models would suggest that they simply were not ready to roll out a 12mp APS-C camera 18 months ago.

If they had been able to, whislt maintaining the low noise of the 20D, that would surely have pulled the rug from under Nikon. I can't imagine Canon deliberately foregoing that opportunity. The D2X has the advantage of a slightly larger sensor, but still has higher high-ISO noise than the 20D on a pixel per pixel basis, which is understandable because the pixel pitch is still smaller than the 20D's and Canon seems to have slightly better noise-handling technology than Nikon.

Over a year after the introduction of the 5D, we have the 10mp 400D with improved spacing between the microlenses. Noise and dynamic range is more or less on a par with the 20D & 30D, but it's still not 12mp. Since the dynamic range of the 400D appears to be very slightly less than the 20D at high ISO (ie. Canon is struggling to maintain performance with this increased pixel count), it's reasonable to deduce that a 12mp 400D was not technologically possible, at the time, without compromising noise and DR to a degree that would be noticeable, a situation which Canon seems to have a policy of avoiding.

However, technology marches on and I'd be surprised if we don't get our 12mp upgrade to the 30D before the end of the year.



Whenever I check out camera reviews at dpreview, I always pay special attention to the noise comparisons. At ISO 1600 and above, Canon is still the champion.

While we're on the subject, is there any fundamental, 'violation of the laws of physics' reason why all the on-chip processors on a CMOS sensor cannot be positioned on the reverse side of the sensor to allow more room for the photodiode?



The reason why MF is an inherently broad name is because there are about 5 different formats without a specific name, so a generic name seems appropriate. (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 and 6x9).

Since the introduction of DSLRs we now also have about 4 or 5 different 'miniature' formats, all without specific names. I'm merely suggesting that 35mm might be as good a generic name as any because every other name that's currently in use is essentially inaccurate, except 'cropped format 35mm' which is a bit cumbersome but still the best term in my view. The term APS-C is clearly just as inaccurate as 35mm. In fact more inaccurate because there are no APS-C size digital sensors, but there are 35mm digital sensors. As I mentioned before, APS-C is 25.1x16.7mm, according to dpreview's 'sensor size' glossary.

Okay after 12 pages of advice, you probably don't need anything more...but I will try to give some anyway.

I always loved Nikon (film)...but had to switch to Canon after I had to upgrade from a Nikon D100 because I needed a full size sensor and a much faster camera.

Nikon never came out with a full sensor, which I tought was a little arrogant...but then a photographed a worldwide campagn for Nikon..for their new Nikon D2Xs and must say this was a great camera with wonderful colors (no I don't get paid to say this! I wish)....but I moved from Canon to Leaf, because my work requires bigger files (really not needed, but in fashion and commercial photography a "bigger" one really helps to ask more money!)

If you have enough money buy the Canon Ds1MkII just because you can...if you shoot mainly outdoors and landscapes etc....I probably would buy the best Nikon I could get for my money...I love the color accuracy right our of camera.

Make sure you buy a monitor color callibration system. In the end of the day if you images sucks composition wise, even the best camera in the world won't make it better....and if the image is fantastic..no one is going to ask you which camera you shot it with...if they do you can lie and tell them it was a canon (just because it is an expensive camera)

goodluck

Color accuracy is something that can be dealt with in post processing or RAW conversion. Noise and resolution is something different. Noise reduction always seems to reult in some resolution offset, however slight.

I am a Minolta man.
But if I had a choice I DO go for Canon camera without any hesitation.

I waa a nikon guy for over 20 years! mi first "pro" camera was a nikon F, the best camera I ever had was a nikon F2s, I used to laught at pros that had canon in the old days, (the 70s), nikon F2 was so much better than canon F1 back then! also used by 80% of the pros. today, is the other way around, I use a 1ds mkII and a 1 ds, just like 80% of my competicion.... about canon wide angles... thats another story.

If that is what you meant, I agree: 18 months ago, the 8MP sensor of the 20D was still young and highly competitive. I was one of those who approved of Canon's decision to upgrade other parts of the design in the 30D. However, with the flurry of 10MP models sine then, that 8MP sensor looks unusually old and even a bit behind the curve, unusual for Canon, so I was wondering more about why Canon is still using that 8MP sensor at the top of the EF-S line.


That you put so much emphasis on high ISO noise in assessing DSLR quality is not news to me! But it does seem extremely one-dimensional. There is a striking contrast to film evaluations, where usability at high Exposure Index was very far from a dominant factor in film choice amongst serious amateurs and professionals.

Especially if one is interested in mainstream gear with a mainstream priced standard zoom as the main lens (so not a f/2.8 zoom), because then Canon's offerings like the 17-85/4.5.6 IS EF-S are between 2/3 and 4/3 stop slower than competition like the Nikon 17-70/3.5-4.5, Sony/Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5, Pentax 16-45 f/4, Panasonic/Leica 14-54/2.8-3.5 OIS and Olympus 14-54/2.8-3.5, so Canon DSLR's in many situations need to use a higher ISO the get the same shutter speed. The 17-85 has the advantage of in-lens stabilization, but so does the Panasonic f/2.8-3.5, while Pentax and Sony have in-body stabilization, and Olympus will soon with the E-510.

(I wonder why some people who claim to care greatly about the low light/high shutter speed performance of different DSLR systems so doggedly ignore differences in lens speed options between systems, especially amongst mainstream priced options and wen comparing different sensor sizes? Maybe for the same reason that some 4/3 zealots insist that all lenses of equal minimum f-stop are equally fast, trying to ignore usable ISO differences?)


About naming: the naming "APS-C" by now very well established for the dominant DSLR formats of the EF-S, DX, DA and DT systems, so I really see no little value in lumping such formats under the vaguer and more misleading term "35mm". Already "APS" and "APS-C" are inaccurate enough!

BJL,
I can't speak for professionals. I've always been an amateur even though I sell the occasional print. But as I recall, when using film, there was often a conflict between the desire to get the sharpest result with the best tonality, and an adequate shutter speed with adequate DoF.

I'd avoided using high ISO films for most of my life because of excesive grain and degraded tonality which was always more apparent on the miniature 35mm format. After I took up photography with renewed interest when the digital darkroom became feasible, I learned that high ISO films had recently been improved. I tried some Kodak and Fuji ISO 400 & 800 films to photograph lorikeets and rosellas in my garden. I didn't particularly like the grainy results and reduced DR. Whatever improvements had been made were still not great enough for me.

During the last couple of years of using film before I switched to the Canon D60, Royal Gold ISO 25 negative film was my favourite film, despite its slow speed limitations. The fastest film I used that didn't seem to compromise quality was Ektachrome 200.

So for me, the superior performance of DSLRs at high ISO was always a major benefit of the digital camera. In the frequent debates between film versus digital that used to be so common a few years ago, comparisons were always made using the sharpest and finest grain films the were in general use at the time. There would have been no contest at ISO 400.



We've been through this before. I accept that a camera such as the D2X, used with a lens that is one stop faster than an equivalent Canon lens used on a FF body such as the 5D, should not be at a disadvantage regarding noise and shutter speed. But your argument here hinges upon a very selective choice of lenses.

A quick perusal of the Canon website shows the following lenses covering a range from 14mm to 200mm at apertures of f2.8 or faster.

14/2.8; 24/1.4; 28/1.8; 35/1.4; 16-35/2.8; 24-70/2.8; 17-55/2.8; 70-200/2.8.

I rest my case .

Ray, when you responded to me, you edited out the crucial first part of my sentence, referring to the lenses predominantly used by mainstream users of EF-S, DX, 4/3 and such DSLRs:

None of your examples is close to being a mainstream lens choice with such cameras; only one even covers the standard moderate wide to moderate telephoto range, and it, the 17-55/2.8, is priced far above mainstream level.

As far I know, all of your zoom lenses are slower than f/2.8 and you use only a single prime f/2.8 or brighter, so you should be aware that the f/2.8 lenses which you cite are well outside the DSLR lens choice mainstream.

BJL,
That's a fair point. I've always conceded the point that smaller formats are generally both cheaper and lighter. Quality comes at a price.

However, there are exceptions and some overlapping. It would be interesting to compare the D2X and Nikkor 35/f2 with the Canon 5D and 50/f1.4 (or even 50/f1.8 II), in low light situations without flash.

I would suggest for this combination the larger format (5D) has all the advantages; cheaper, lighter and able to produce better quality, lower noise images.

You 2 could perhaps ask Michael to create a new forum section to discuss this topic even more in depth?...

Comon Ray, why don't you acknowledge the superiority of Nikon once for all?

Cheers,
Bernard

I sometimes wonder if I am actually biased in favour of the Canon system just because I happen to own such a system . I doubt it, but I do consider myself lucky that I switched from Minolta to Canon a few years ago, before I had bought too many Minolta mount lenses.

I could have chosen Nikon who had already released their first DSLR, the D1, about the time I was making that decision. As I recall, it was Canon's range of image stabilised lenses that tipped me in favour of the Canon system as opposed to Nikon, and I've never regretted that decision.

In fact, my first Canon camera was a second hand 50E that someone had traded in for a D1. A short time later, Canon released its own first DSLR, the 30D, which was not only significantly cheaper than the D1 but produced better quality images (didn't it?).

Wish you hadn't said that, Bernard. I'm afraid you could get them started again on "f-stop limits for full sensor resolution, a bit higher due to interpolation?" That thread was like getting your brain taken out with an ice-cream scoop.

Oops, you are right, I might have woken up a pair of sleeping Nyarlathotep here...

Cheers,
Bernard

p.s.: just in case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyarlathotep

I can always learn something new on the LL forum.