A Nikonian justification for not needing full frame...

http://www.cleanimages​.com …nMakeA35mmSized​Sensor.asp

I'm going to get some popcorn started. I'll be back.

good read...I still prefer my full frame over the crop frame. I like to see the world as i was used to do with film cameras

This ought to be fun, care to share any popcorn?

Did he really compare the quality of a DX sized sensor to medium format film? This guy makes Ken Rockwell look like Ansel Adams.

Please don't butter mine....got soda?

Well both sensor sizes when used with traditional 35mm SLR lenses have there advantages and disadvantages,. the bottom line is any time you have a situation where multiple standards have there own various advantages, then choosing any one will always be some form of compromise.

But! by choosing Canon we don't have to make that compromise as Canon is kind enough to not force us to rely on only one option, but in fact gives us three sensor sizes to chose from All with there own advantages and disadvantageous...

This is my favorite part:

A) Nikon didn't choose anything since Sony provides the sensors.
B) The signal-to noise ratio sucks compared to anything but point and shoots.
C) Of course there's no noise at ISO100. Same is true for a Canon S3IS...and it has a tinier sensor still.

The light-falloff theory can be discarded .... again....

http://photo.net …a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gtq2

There is minimal difference between film and digital in terms of light falloff towards the corners at wide aperture settings.

If the angle of incident of light from the back of the lens hitting the sensor were of significant importance, Canon would not have chosen to reduce the backfocus distance of EF-S lenses (which in effect increases the angle of incidence since the back of the lens is closer to the sensor plane).

I'll rant about depth-of-field and diffraction at another time....

I wasn't aware that any decent cameras had noise issues at ISO 100. I was under the impression that noise wasn't really a issue on most cameras until ISO 400 or 800.

He focused too much on the "negatives" of full frame. Too bad he didn't focus on the "positives."

No matter which camera you use, there's very little noise at ISO 100. And why did he stop at ISO 800? Is it because ISO 1600 isn't that good?

Let us not forget that this light falloff is worst when wide open. Stop down and it usually goes away.

Digital Darrell needs to put down the koolaid. He's obviously overdosing.

I preferred 6X7 to 35mm and that too was a waste of material and time, not to mention the 4X5 infrared I like. Leica was a over priced waste that is nothing more than a status symbol. Now I waste my money on a 5d "caused by a general lack of "digital sensor" knowledge on the part of many users". Alas.

Nikon makes some really nice cameras though and so I hope those with them enjoy them as much as I enjoy using my camera.


Not long ago some Mac users thought that Intel chips were the spawn of satan.

How much of a genius can this guy be pontificating if he didn't know that shorter focal lengths yield greater DOF until he read an article about it? Someone should give him a P&S camera and he might just have a heart attack when he sees how much DOF those give him!

This quote alone tells me the guy's full of it. Does he not realize that all the "High speed crop mode" is doing is cutting pixels off the edge? For the same "High speed" that you can have with a 1.3x crop in a Canon body?

Oh wow, I just looked over some of his other articles. They're full of facts that are just plain wrong. This one, for instance, made me laugh

...because Apache is an email daemon, right?