Russell McMahon wrote:
>>
>> I consider the Nikon D700 to be the world's best 35mm full frame
>> digital camera for portable sporting and low light use at present.

Olin wrote:
>
> The D3 and D700 are signs things will eventually get to where I'm
> willing to switch from the F3.  Both are nice cameras, but both are
> still too expensive due to the relative immaturity of full frame
> sensors.  I do think Nikon is on the right track going for sensitivity
> and low noise instead of going for megapixel insanity.  In theory you
> can blow up your shots more with more pixels, but only if those pixels
> contain real data and aren't individually swamped with noise.  And
> then there's the issue of getting a shot in the first place with
> the extra sensitivity that extra pixels can't make up for.

There are shots I can do now (Canon EOS 5D) that were difficult
or impossible with film (due to sensetivity issues).

Canon is aware of noise issues.  The EOS 5D Mark II at 21 megapixels
has photosites that are nearly the same size as the 5D's 12 megapixel
sensor.  Canon reengineered both the silicon masking and the microlens
array to shrink the interlens gap and reduce the space taken up by
traces on the photosites.


> It's also not clear that the D700 and even the D3 have the same
> brick outhouse construction of the F3T.  That's a important feature
> when most of your shots are outdoors in unpredictable conditions
> with some physical abuse expected on the way out and back.

I can't speak for the Nikon line (lack of experience) but the
higher end Canon equipment I use has that construction now.


> So it looks like things are heading in the right direction, but I'll
> probably sit tight with my F3 for a few more years.

>> Full frame sensor and "only" 12 MP.  Better results than an F3 -
>> but it took a long time for that to be true.

> Yes, the D3 is probably the first camera that can seriously make
> that claim for any reasonable price, and that was around 25 years
> after the F3.  12Mpix if each pixel is real is better than film for
> most cases.  It's certainly better than I get with my scanner now.
> To put this in context, consider a 35mm frame at 50 lines/mm.  That
> would be 36 x 24 mm with 100 pixels/mm, which comes out to only
> 8.6Mpix.  Good lenses do get you more than 50 lines/mm, but you're
> not going to get twice that.

And scene contrast.  With film, a high contrast scene (_no_ haze),
solid support (big, beefy tripod), and top notch lenses, you can
get about 100 lines per mm.  But it's really tough to do so.


> The 12.1Mpix of the D3 and D700 comes out to 59 lines/mm in 35mm
> terms.  I'd much rather have a solid clean 59 lines/mm than a
> noisy 80 lines/mm.

Except for Sigma's Foveon sensor, all the digital camera sensors
only record 1 color per photosite (aka pixel) frequently using a
Bayer pattern through the color filter array that is part of the
microlens array.  You get full resolution in B&W but not full RGB
color per pixel.  RGB color per pixel is interpolated from that
light value in that photosite and adjacent photosites.

Scanned film picks up all 3 colors at each pixel location.  So it
takes roughly 2-3 times the resolution of a digital sensor to match
the _color_ capture capability of 35mm film -- my opinion is that
20'ish megapixel digital finally beats 35mm film.  Which we now have
available (though not afordable) in the EOS-1 & EOS 5D Mark II.

						Lee Jones

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist