Camera Thread- Attn Ebbs, PC, etc....

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by Amblyopic

I couldn't say that you made a bad decision when it comes to the camera. I agree with the earlier statement that I would not buy a "demo" camera, I'm just too finicky, but the lense.... yeah you could get away with.

I had the Cybershot W-150 for the wife, great little P/S.


Good luck with your DSLR adventures.



Do Eeet. Break that mopho and get the upgrade.

you missed the part where I said I wish I had... or hell yes... I'd be rock'n the D700 Full Frame goodness

[goof2]

Originally Posted by eBBs15

you missed the part where I said I wish I had... or hell yes... I'd be rock'n the D700 Full Frame goodness

At the rate things are going just hold off for a few years. By that time the $1,000 camera bodies should be sporting full frame 20+mp sensors. I have a Canon body and while they are cheaper, I'm staying away from their EF-S mount lenses because they aren't compatible with full frame sensors.

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by goof2

At the rate things are going just hold off for a few years. By that time the $1,000 camera bodies should be sporting full frame 20+mp sensors. I have a Canon body and while they are cheaper, I'm staying away from their EF-S mount lenses because they aren't compatible with full frame sensors.

the problem with 20+ MP is that the sensors are only so big... so as you cram more and more MP onto them... the actual quality... degrades.

I don't think they can do more than 20-21 with out compromising image quality.


but I think if they're smart... they'll keep the FX (full frame) sensors out of the cheap camera's... helps keep the price up...

[Papa_Complex]

Then there's something that most people don't consider; the resolving power of the lens. I'd wager than most decent quality lenses don't resolve past 16-18 MPix, so anything above that just gives you a larger file, not a better one. I've been told that the best lens in my case can't resolve past 20 or 22 MPix.

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Then there's something that most people don't consider; the resolving power of the lens. I'd wager than most decent quality lenses don't resolve past 16-18 MPix, so anything above that just gives you a larger file, not a better one. I've been told that the best lens in my case can't resolve past 20 or 22 MPix.

very true.


as with everything there are limitations. the faster technology grows, the faster we reach them. however, new technology can surpass them, but that drives prices up again.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by eBBs15

the problem with 20+ MP is that the sensors are only so big... so as you cram more and more MP onto them... the actual quality... degrades.

I don't think they can do more than 20-21 with out compromising image quality.


but I think if they're smart... they'll keep the FX (full frame) sensors out of the cheap camera's... helps keep the price up...

True, but a full frame sensor with about the same pixel density as the 12MP APS-C sensor my current body has would be around 30MP.

Both Canon and Nikon have been moving full frame down their respective camera lines. They both already have full frame camera bodies in the sub $2,500 range. The nature of the typical customer for DSLRs is to look at the MP count from generation to generation. If this trend continues the lower end cameras will have to move full frame to effectively use the increased pixels consumers will want. A Canon 7D is already at 18MP. If Canon wants to improve that I suspect they will have to move to a full frame sensor.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Then there's something that most people don't consider; the resolving power of the lens. I'd wager than most decent quality lenses don't resolve past 16-18 MPix, so anything above that just gives you a larger file, not a better one. I've been told that the best lens in my case can't resolve past 20 or 22 MPix.

I sort of understand the limitations of lens resolution in abstract but don't really understand how it works. I'm not trying to quiz you or anything but I do have a question. Are resolution limits for lenses absolute? To expand, say I have a Canon EF lens (they work with both full frame and APS-C camera bodies) does that resolution limit for the lens stay the same or would it drop since the usable field of vision has been reduced?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

I sort of understand the limitations of lens resolution in abstract but don't really understand how it works. I'm not trying to quiz you or anything but I do have a question. Are resolution limits for lenses absolute? To expand, say I have a Canon EF lens (they work with both full frame and APS-C camera bodies) does that resolution limit for the lens stay the same or would it drop since the usable field of vision has been reduced?

That's a very good question. The ultimate resolution depends on the total light taken in and the quality of the optics. Less light, less to work with.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

That's a very good question. The ultimate resolution depends on the total light taken in and the quality of the optics. Less light, less to work with.

This is sort of what I was trying to explain to my gf at the store... Because the Sony line only uses a 55mm lens it suffers in this dept verses some of the other cameras in this "zone" BUT again because of our limited use of the camera, I'm sure that it will be sufficient for our needs.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

This is sort of what I was trying to explain to my gf at the store... Because the Sony line only uses a 55mm lens it suffers in this dept verses some of the other cameras in this "zone" BUT again because of our limited use of the camera, I'm sure that it will be sufficient for our needs.

The light path in Olympus cameras is smaller than in other manufacturers, because of the 50% crop factor, and yet the lenses generally test as excellent quality. It's only an indicator; not a conclusion.