A few bucks??? The difference is something like 40%! I guess that is more less from a collector point of view. But if we are looking for "workhorses". The definition of "value" will be totally different!
I'm looking for good quality lens. No point buying the so called "cheaper" ones and then later u need to upgrade it. Have been using other lens.. so far so good.. but need to try different lens.
In the US, the 17-40L is less than $700 while 16-35L is $1400. That's more than 2X difference (or 100% more) in price!! I only use ultra-wide zoom lenses outdoor, so the f/4.0 is certainly enough for me. For indoor pics, I prefer primes.
If your camera has a full-frame sensor beware of using extreme wide angle lenses of 21mm or below. Extreme wide angle lenses are for special applications. Pictures taken with extreme wide angle lenses must either be enlarged or projected on a big tv and viewed from near, otherwise the pictures will be a big disappointment.
I think that's a good point! Canon has a professional 35mm film camera that has 45point AF and half the price of a 5D. Any good reason why the two cannot be combined?
On a related topic, if an image-sensor chip in a dslr replaces the film in a conventional slr, how come they don't produce a great variety of sensors that will allow the user some choice? Just like reversal films are different from negative colour films, in dynamic and tonal range, the ability to use either CMOS or CCDs of different manufacturers, say as easily as changing a roll of film, on any digital camera should be looked at. If films of different manufacturers can be standardized, why not image-sensor chips?
because Dslr allows post-processing, so you can have the choice to post-process your pictures as well as you can choose your films.
But I am sure sensors from different manufacturers, even if they are of the same specs, will be different. If the dynamic range of one particular type of sensor is poor it is just not good enough for any post processing. If post processing can cure all ills then the top professional dslrs can make do with cheap sensors.
The image sensor in the 20D and 30D being newer sensors are superior to that of the 1D Mk2. 20D/30D have superior high iso performance and overall better image quality compared to 1D Mk2. That's not to say that the 1D Mk2 doesn't have good image quality, just that 20D/30D is better. For myself, I've stopped asking equipment questions like why not put in this sensor why put in this sensor long ago. The question to ask is whether you are satisfied with the photos current cameras can produce. The answer to me is yes, so i just concentrate on taking photos. Anyway, you are asking many questions that are covered in a lot of detail in the various photography forums. So why not read the photography forums instead of asking them in this badminton forum? There are many many photography sites where the posters don't seem to be very good photographers but can talk all day long about sensor dynamic range
I am looking at this from a photographic viewpoint, including badminton photography. What I am asking are fundamental questions re today's dslr's concept. A photograph is produced by a gadget called a camera, which has 3 modular parts, the body, the lens for image-forming, and the image-sensor or film for capturing the image. Now, if the image-capturing part (the sensor) is not universally interchangeable, we are in for a lot of very expensive digital slr bodies with built-in obsolescence. If this is the trend then your Canon 1ds will be worth nothing when a newer sensor with superior performance comes out, say at 1/10 the 1ds's sensor. Currently dslr camera manufacturers are greedy, trying their best to make their own sensors incompatible with other cameras. I think they should leave the image capturing and recording part to proven specialists like Kodak, Intel, Fuji, Motorola, etc. Camera manufacturers should stick to the body and the lens. This modular approach has a proven track record with film cameras.
you don't need to have interchangable sensors when all you need is a good post-processing script. I know this script: http://www.powerretouche.com/ this plugin is for sale, but a demo vesion is available. you can choose the film you want to simulate. if you need saturated colors, choose velvia or provia, if you want good B&W, simulate HP5, Tmax or Tri-X... besides this tool, you can also create your own style with your own parameters in photoshop. on some good photography board, you can also find the parameters for a large choice of films. so why do you need special sensor for things you can do easyly by post-processing?
Post processing, whether digital or in a film lab., needs a recorded image to process. No image, no processing, simple as that. The better the image captured the better the post processing. The better the lens (image-forming), the better the camera body (to ensure your lens' instrument-grade machining is not down-graded to camera-grade or even worse, degraded, and the better the image-capturing sensor, the better the end product-photograph, whether you post-process or not. "Rubbish in, rubbish out" applies equally here.
You are making 2 differents points and confusing them. (1) Sensors should be interchangeable so that a future 'better' sensor can be put in. (2) Sensors should be interchangeable so that 'different' sensors can be swapped in depending on what the photographer wants to achieve, like film. The point about processing of RAW images addresses point 2. There is no need for interchangeable sensors to address point (2) because of the nature of digital RAW files (you may need to read up on this, most film users do not understand the nature of RAW files). As for point (1) about obsolescence, it is the same with everything technological, cars, computers etc. The only question i will ask myself is, "Am I happy with the image quality I am getting with this camera and will i get good use of it over the next 5 years+" I mean, Leica owners were stuck with equipment that took photos that had about the same image quality for years and years and never complained.
How can raw files from a specific sensor have better quality than the sensor that produced them? Raw files are akin to a digital negative, exposed but not printed. It is at best an exact copy and of the same quality as the image sensor that produced those raw files. You have a sensor that is a 12 bits per pixel producing raw files. Later, if an interchangeable sensor with a 32 bits per pixel is used on your same camera, surely their raw files would be superior to the first ones. This is what I mean by "rubbish in, rubbish out". At best you get what you put in. Nothing more, nothing less. Having the flexibility to allow for better technology to come along later, in the form of "what you put in" is what I see as a sensible way for dslr to develop along.
As I have said, you have made 2 different points, RAW processing addresses the point above. As for obsolesence, I've already mentioned computers etc. Why you buy a computer, you know it's going to be obsolescent in a year or two. But we still see many satisfied users with Pentium III who feel that their computer is just fine for their application and see no need to upgrade. My point is that this is the same attitude that one should take with DSLRs. Ask whether the camera is good enough for your usage. One attribute that many film photographers, be they Leica users or whatever is probably patience. When they switch to digital, would they suddenly become impatient and feel the 'urge' to constantly change the sensors in their DSLRs?
manufacturers prefers selling cameras than just sensors... if you want to upgrade, upgrade everything...
I understand that some medium format digital slr cameras now come with interchangeable sensors. They do this by changing the camera back. Also, the new Leica digital module-R is an interchangeable sensor/back module, making the Leica R the first dual film and digital slr. Well, this is what I say makes sense-building, improving, and at the same time staying true to the fundamentals of what and how a camera should be made. However, the current interchangeable sensor/backs of some medium format dslr and the Leica R can be simplified and made less expensive. Simply replacing the sensor with provisions to use on all models of 35mm cameras, instead of replacing the sensor/back, is not only better but more elegant and flexible. Don't you think this can be done, taking advantage of computer-type technological advances and yet not having to junk other more expensive parts/modules of a camera system?
