Ok, this thread is seriously pissing me off.
One guy wrote:
Then pigs can already fly. They may not have marketed it, but they built prototypes. They did that what 3 years ago now? If they could build prototypes 3 years ago what in the heck would make someone think they can not build them now.
Yeah, prototypes that turned out to be vaporware, if I may steal a term from the software industry. That other camera that used the same sensor as Pentax's prototype turned out to be rather horrible. It was a Contax, I believe. Could be wrong.
Of course Nikon has never even shown a prototype FF digital, so where their rep is coming from is pretty obvious. Kodak, Canon, and Contax sell/sold FF digital cameras with standard 35mm mounts. So that argument is bogus too.
Nikon is not going 35mm CCD because it is pointless to do so. Have you seen what their cameras are capable of? Have you seen the D2H, or even the D2X? Do you know what you're talking about, or are you just spouting stuff you read from photo forums?
Come ON, people! What's the point of a 35mm sensor? Do you realize that most of what you see from Canon is processing, not the sensor?
I know a lot of sales reps, but I also know tech reps from the major camera companies. All of them have said to me at various times that, to get optimal performance out of a lens and a sensor, the lens mount diameter must be at least twice the diameter of the sensor (corner-to-corner), and that Olympus is the only company doing things right. The rear element must be large enough to cover the whole sensor properly, because digital sensors work best when light falls straight down onto them, not at an angle, as light does when exiting film-based lenses. All of them have also said that their respective companies are not going to change their lens mounts, because that would be suicide at this point in the game. Only Olympus was able to do it because they hadn't made SLRs in ages, and their old mount was insufficient for a professional autofocus camera system.
Don't go calling me bogus just because a few companies are trying to make a buck off people's naivet�.
Later, someone else wrote:
If it were a matter of the laws of physics then CANON wouldn't be able to be doing professional FF DSLRs with their 35mm lenses and mounts. yes canon has a larger lens mount but I do not believe that has anything to do with it whatsoever.
Ok, I don't care what you believe, this is a matter of fact. Read above. Just because Canon is doing it doesn't make it right or best.
yes, its true that many lenses designed for film do not perform as well on digital but that can be achieved with redesigned lenses using the same size mount...
Yeah, with a smaller sensor. Light still must travel at an angle to reach all points on a 35mm-sized sensor, and therein lies the problem. Digital sensors don't like light hitting it at an angle.
I don't see why you even mention olympus, their DSLR isnt using 35mm lenses, its got dedicated "digital" lenses that don't or wouldn't cover 35mm film to begin with....
I mention Olympus because they are, so far, the only company that is doing
digital SLR photography right. They have a proper ratio of sensor to lens
mount so that their new lenses rear elements can project light straight down
onto the whole sensor, or as straight down as possible. You can bitch and
moan about how Canon can do it, but realize that a lot of their image
quality is in processing, not the sensor per se. CMOS sensors are cheaper
and have inherrently higher amounts of noise than CCDs, but Canon's
processing (DiGiC) is able to deal with this. If nothing else, that's where Canon's
success lies: they went with the cheaper option and ran with it, while everyone
else went with the better option but most haven't perfected it.
Do you have any idea how much profit Canon makes on their $8,000 35mm-frame
digital SLRs? Honestly, I was sworn to secrecy by the Canon rep who trained me
on some of their new products last week, but suffice to say, it's a large
amount. None of the other companies make as much of a margin on their
pro-end cameras.
In my humble opinion, Canon built the 1Ds series for one reason: immense profit from Pros who think they're getting the better camera. A 35mm-sized sensor is a waste of money. Also in my opinion, Kodak went 35mm-sensor to try to win back a piece of the pro-photography market, again counting on people not knowing the facts.
There. I'm done.
John Celio
(done for now, anyway)
-- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.newpixel.net
AIM: Neopifex
"Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement."
