Nikon vs. Canon

[LWW]

does an off brand 'ebay only' 10 megapixel point and shoot have the same performance quality as a d200? of course not.

I'm not so sure of that?

If you swapped nothing but the sensors I doubt that the difference would be substantial.

Keep in mind this would now give the cheapo access to D200 internal processing and Nikkor glass while limiting the D200 unit to ebay standards.

LWW

 

[LWW]

If anyone saw "Thank You for Smoking" (just did today) the press all had Canons

In "Brilliantovaya ruka" they all used Zenits.

LWW

 

[Alex_B]

All Sensors that work with the Bayer-Matrix will give similar performance if the pixel size is similar, and the quality of the materials used. You could build a crappy sensor with the same specs as high-end one, but no serious company would dare to do so

HOWEVER, companies will not necessarily stay with the Bayer-Matrix way of doing it .. so there comes improvement probably, in particular regarding initial sharpness (before any camera software messes with the data) and hopefully someday regarding dynamical range.

Also the amplifier just behind the sensor can make a huge difference in particular regarding noise.

So here we are, the camera body is quite important and expensive these days, certainly more expensive than film-bodies. However, even if you go for the high end DSLRs still when you buy adequate glass for them, the latter ruins your bank account!

On my DSLR I can clearly see the weak points of my lenses (whcih are really not cheap ones). So what is the point of investing huge sums of money on the body if the lenses downgrade your output?

I personally am much more relaxed when I pay a lot for a good lens, than if I pay alot of money for a camera body which will be obsolete in 2 years time as technology has advanced.

These days a good lens will be your friend for quite some years, and it will probably survive several camera bodies.

And please don'T forget, that sensor materials degrade over the years ... diffusion processes will kill any sensor at some point. So today's cameras are not built for eternity anyway. Therefore I really like the concept of a digital back which you can replace after some years without replacing the whole camera (if those Hasselblad digibacks weren't just so hell expensive ).

 

[Alex_B]

If you swapped nothing but the sensors I doubt that the difference would be substantial.

The results from the cheap off-brand point and shoot sensor would certainly be improved. However, the difference would still be substantial.

In today'S cameras sensor costs are one of the major costs. Cheaper camera almost always also means cheaper sensor.

 

[fmw]

sorry, but your reply was more off than JIP's.

some company's do have others make their sensors (nikon uses sony sensors, for instance), but not all of them. canon makes their own sensors.

I think by 'compression software' you mean image processors, which are certainly not just 'compression' related. the image processor controls color, sharpness, contrast, noise, and image processing speed. this is obviously extremely important, and has nothing to do with wether or not you shoot RAW.

'those with the same resolution perform the same'.

that's utter craziness. does an off brand 'ebay only' 10 megapixel point and shoot have the same performance quality as a d200? of course not. and you hardly even mentioned sensor size, which has a huge difference in image quality and appearance.

lenses do matter a ton. I would venture to say that they still are more important in some situations than the body (most of the time this argument is like 'should i get the d200 and kit lens or a d70 and some nice glass? I wont be buying anything else in the next few years'). but the body is definitely important.

No kidding? Canon has a manufacturing facility that makes solid state CCD's? I wonder how they make that work out financially. I can imagine a company the size of Hitachi or Matsu****a having that but it boggles the mind to think that one the size of Canon has one. That's truly amazing.

 

[thebeginning]

No kidding? Canon has a manufacturing facility that makes solid state CCD's? I wonder how they make that work out financially. I can imagine a company the size of Hitachi or Matsu****a having that but it boggles the mind to think that one the size of Canon has one. That's truly amazing.

i suppose it is...but remember Canon doesnt use CCDs in their cameras, they use their own design - something called CMOS sensors. they are also a HUGE company, making everything from cameras to video cameras to lenses to printers to huge flat panel tv's....and that's JUST the consumer market. they also make office printers, high tech medical equipment, space research equipment, semiconductors, and many many other things that many of us have no idea about. it can be safely said that they are either the leader or in the running for the lead in most of their areas of production. I dont see what else it would need to be a huge company.

 

[thebeginning]

I'm not so sure of that?

If you swapped nothing but the sensors I doubt that the difference would be substantial.

Keep in mind this would now give the cheapo access to D200 internal processing and Nikkor glass while limiting the D200 unit to ebay standards.

LWW

i dont how it is even feasible to say that a camera with a 22.7x15.1mm sensor gets the same quality as a 8.8 x 6.6 mm one...that's almost like saying that 35mm film is just as good (or close to) 6x7cm medium format or even large format film. it has little to do with internal processing or lenses. it has to do with packing so many photosites on such a small area.

 

[Alex_B]

Correct, Canon does develop and produce their very own CMOS sensors. When I was still doing semiconductor physics, I never thought that CMOS would be such a success in digital cameras

i dont how it is even feasible to say that a camera with a 22.7x15.1mm sensor gets the same quality as a 8.8 x 6.6 mm one...that's almost like saying that 35mm film is just as good (or close to) 6x7cm medium format or even large format film. it has little to do with internal processing or lenses. it has to do with packing so many photosites on such a small area.

And even if the sensor would cope with that high density (which it does not as we all know if we look at noise profiles), the we would need an extremely good lens to satisfy this tiny sensor with this ultra high resolution. Also, diffraction probably is a larger problem with smaller formats.

 

[thebeginning]

Also, diffraction probably is a larger problem with smaller formats.

yep. that's why we get softer photos if we stop down past f11 or so while using a 1.5 or 1.6x crop camera, while on 35mm film we could go to f16 and sometimes f22 without losing much sharpness.

 

[JIP]

Not really. The camera companies don't make the sensor arrays. They are made by third parties and sold to the camera companies. Sensors are sensors, basically. Yes the compression software in the cameras is different but, if one captures Raw files, that isn't an issue. Some cameras have more resolution than others but those with the same resolution perform the same. The lens is still what forms the image. The sensor array in the camera simply records it. This might all change in the future but better lenses still provide better technical images.

All I'm trying to say is in the past, and I'm using Nikon for an example because thats models I know if you wanted to choose between bodies the price was in speed and durability. So if you looked at say for example to use older models a Nikon 8008 compared to an F4 or a little newer an N70 compared to an F5 the only difference in the body would be the speed of focusing and of advancing the film and mabye a few bells and whistles. As far as image quality the thing that mattered most with that comparison would be glass and film stock the light tight box the lens as attached to really had nothing to do with image quality. Now fast foreward to digital cameras if you have a choice between a D50 and a D2x I'm sorry I dont care what you think, if you put the same piece of glass on both cameras and shoot side by side the D2x will make the better image everytime. Personally I think this sucks because I was a long time supporter of the notion of "the glass is what really matters save your money on the body and buy good glass" and in camera sales this is what I told people now and don't get me wrong I agree that good glass is extremely important but now you have to factor in body quality as well.

 

[Alex_B]

... if you put the same piece of glass on both cameras and shoot side by side the D2x will make the better image everytime. Personally I think this sucks because I was a long time supporter of the notion of "the glass is what really matters save your money on the body and buy good glass" and in camera sales this is what I told people now and don't get me wrong I agree that good glass is extremely important but now you have to factor in body quality as well.

OK, I guess we found something here we can all agree on
Whereas in the past you had to spend a fortune on the glass only, these days you pay a second fortune on the camera body too to take advantage of that glass you just bought

 

[aNgLiaM]

OK, I guess we found something here we can all agree on
Whereas in the past you had to spend a fortune on the glass only, these days you pay a second fortune on the camera body too to take advantage of that glass you just bought

QFT!

 

[Alex_B]

QFT!

= "quit talking f*ggot" ???????????

 

[DocFrankenstein]

= "quit talking f*ggot" ???????????

Highly unlikely.

It's would make it QTF... not QFT

But I like the interpretation! :lmao:

HOWEVER, companies will not necessarily stay with the Bayer-Matrix way of doing it .. so there comes improvement probably, in particular regarding initial sharpness (before any camera software messes with the data) and hopefully someday regarding dynamical range.

Have you come across the new sigma? It has re-released their new camera which is a non-interpolated foveon sensor based goodness.

Sigma SD14

Here's a more graphical presentation.

 

[Alex_B]

Highly unlikely.

It's would make it QTF... not QFT

But I like the interpretation! :lmao:



Have you come across the new sigma? It has re-released their new camera which is a non-interpolated foveon sensor based goodness.

Sigma SD14

Here's a more graphical presentation.

Oh, QTF, QFT, whatever, my guess was that I was wrong with my interpretation anyway

Thanks for the link. Yes, that might be some interesting thing with those new sensors.