From: Floyd L. Davidson on
Alan Calan <alancalan(a)excite.com> wrote:
>I have no problem being called incompetent but I know that's not what
>you meant. I probably should have realized that for the D200 the
>"hairs" on the bear should have been in focus and the lines on the
>house and tree should have been better focus too.
>
>What I don't know is if the Canon focuses better than the Nikon. I
>experienced slow auto focusing in dark situations with the F5 all of
>Rockwell's tests involved well lit subjects. I also assumed that all
>the cameras were on tripods where IS and VR shouldn't be needed but
>maybe I'm wrong.
>
>I don't understand is why the Nikon pixtures are out of focus, I mean
>they are literally not shaply focused at
>http://kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

Has it occured to you yet that there might be some very
good reasons that so many people suggest that Ken
Rockwell be ignored?

Perhaps virtually *nothing* on his website is reliable,
even if occasionally some parts of it do happen to be
correct.

>The lenses used in the "You can us a cheap lens" test were not IS or
>VR lenses. One was a Canon 70-210mm f/4 for the 5D and the Nikkor
>85mm f/2 AI-s for the D200
>
>So, I just don't understand why all the Nikon photos look out of focus
>or does it just look that way because these are tiny portions of
>cropped pictures.

Rockwell does not make money by producing satisfied
readers. He gains more by producing *controversy*,
which causes more hits. Think about it... ;-)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 on
Alan Calan wrote:
> I deal with statistics, studies and reports all the time and I know
> how slanted they can be and even sometimes unintentionally.
>
> What I don't understand is can Nikon be that stupid to present a new
> product that is highly inferior to one of its major competition.

It's not a question of being smart or stupid. Nikon lags Canon in sensor
development, and Canon certainly isn't going to sell sensors to Nikon.

> Actually, maybe it's not the full frame at all but rather Canon's
> sharper focusing mechanisms, if that is the case.

Canon has better auto-focus, but I doubt if that's the reason for any
difference you perceive.

You really want to compare the Nikon D3 the Canon 5D in terms of picture
quality, though the D3 is a better built body.

It's rather amusing that even the D3 didn't quite make it to "full
frame." Because of the limitations of Nikon's F mount, and the need for
the pixels of a sensor to have light strike them perpendicularly, they
could not quite get to 36mm x 24mm.

Some have criticized that if you use DX lenses with the D3 you are
reduced to 5 megapixels. But with Canon, you can't use the EF-s lenses
at all on the 5D (or any other full-frame Canon model), even at reduced
resolution.

In any case, I would not base a decision on anything Rockwell has said,
or that he shows on his site. If you really want full-frame, get the 5D.
Otherwise you'll be happy with the D300.
From: Floyd L. Davidson on
SMS �--��',�--��EUR� 夏 <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>It's not a question of being smart or stupid. Nikon lags
>Canon in sensor development, and Canon certainly isn't
>going to sell sensors to Nikon.

It appears that the sensor in the D3 is a significant
step ahead of anything Canon is current shipping. Here
are some "preliminary" figures:

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/D300_40D_tests/

Quantum efficency divided by pixel area, indicating light collecting
ability:

D200 5D 1Ds2 D300 1D3 D3
.054 .061 .064 .089 .098 .108

Another way to look at light collecting ability, QE times the
megapixel count:

D200 D300 1D3 5D 1Ds2 D3
20.0 33.s 51.5 52.1 54.8 93.2

>> Actually, maybe it's not the full frame at all but rather Canon's
>> sharper focusing mechanisms, if that is the case.
>
>Canon has better auto-focus, but I doubt if that's the
>reason for any difference you perceive.
>
>You really want to compare the Nikon D3 the Canon 5D in
>terms of picture quality, though the D3 is a better
>built body.
>
>It's rather amusing that even the D3 didn't quite make
>it to "full frame." Because of the limitations of
>Nikon's F mount, and the need for the pixels of a sensor
>to have light strike them perpendicularly, they could
>not quite get to 36mm x 24mm.

Some of the amusing things that get posted to Usenet are
beyond belief.

Camera Sensor Size
-------- -----------
Canon 5D 35.8 x 23.9
Nikon D3 36.0 x 23.9

So whatever one might say about the Nikon D3, it has a
*larger* sensor that the Canon 5D you say it should be
compared to.

What inherent design flaw do you attribute the sensor
size on the Canon 5D to?

>Some have criticized that if you use DX lenses with the
>D3 you are reduced to 5 megapixels.

Wrong numbers, by a wide mile.

>But with Canon, you
>can't use the EF-s lenses at all on the 5D (or any other
>full-frame Canon model), even at reduced resolution.

Actually, the DX mode is not 5MP, it is 7.9MP. And in
fact one can manually select a 5:4 aspect ration using
30x24mm of sensor for a 10.1MP image (that might well
vignette at the edges).

>In any case, I would not base a decision on anything
>Rockwell has said, or that he shows on his site. If you

I guess a clock with no battery is right twice a day,
and so are you.

>really want full-frame, get the 5D. Otherwise you'll be
>happy with the D300.

If you really want the least expensive full frame, look
at the 5D. If you want the best one there are other
options.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: nospam on
In article <874pf0kp8b.fld(a)apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote:

> >Some have criticized that if you use DX lenses with the
> >D3 you are reduced to 5 megapixels.
>
> Wrong numbers, by a wide mile.

he's correct in this case (surprisingly).

> Actually, the DX mode is not 5MP, it is 7.9MP.

no, the d3's crop mode is 5mp.

<http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d3/index.htm>

DX format (24 x 16): 2,784 x 1,848 [L], 2,080 x 1,384 [M], 1,392 x 920
[S]

multiplying, 2784 * 1848 = 5144832, or 5.1 mp

and the 5:4 mode is 3552 x 2832, or 10 mp

> I guess a clock with no battery is right twice a day,
> and so are you.

he rarely does that well.
From: Floyd L. Davidson on
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <874pf0kp8b.fld(a)apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> >Some have criticized that if you use DX lenses with the
>> >D3 you are reduced to 5 megapixels.
>>
>> Wrong numbers, by a wide mile.
>
>he's correct in this case (surprisingly).
>
>> Actually, the DX mode is not 5MP, it is 7.9MP.
>
>no, the d3's crop mode is 5mp.
>
><http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d3/index.htm>
>
>DX format (24 x 16): 2,784 x 1,848 [L], 2,080 x 1,384 [M], 1,392 x 920
>[S]
>
>multiplying, 2784 * 1848 = 5144832, or 5.1 mp
>
>and the 5:4 mode is 3552 x 2832, or 10 mp

Yep. I used 2832 rather than 1848 and of course got a
larger than real number.

Of course it can also be set for 10MP too... so he's
still not really telling the truth.

>> I guess a clock with no battery is right twice a day,
>> and so are you.
>
>he rarely does that well.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com