Citeren Hugo Lopes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
For those of you who can read French, buy a copy of this month's "Chasseur D'Images" (http://www.photim.net/Numeros/SommaireMois.htm ). They have a long article on how digital cameras and lenses can't be tested in the same way has film cameras (I haven't read it all yet). Them they test the EOS 1Ds and EOS 300D combined with several Canon and Sigma lenses and surprise: the 300D gets better test results than the 1Ds! I was really surprised to read this. Has anyone on this list had the chance to compare both cameras?
Hi,
Is this because the 1Ds has much more 'resolving power' and thus nails 'bad lenses' down?
The 300D is more forgiving, achieving better results with not so superb lenses?
Does this mean for example a 135 f/2 even grows with a 1Ds?
Probably yes. The German mag "ColorFoto" features tests of lenses with different DSLRs (with different type/size of sensor) to find out which lenses can be used with which cameras. It's quite interesting, although I'm still not fully convinced that their newer tests are better than the junk they delivered in the past. My overall impression is, they are getting better, though.
Now, there are quite a few surprises. While the 135/2 tested quite good with an EOS 1Ds, the 200/2.8 came out as not recommended. Don't know why, with my analog SLRs it's a superb lens.
As you say, there are several possibilities why a 1Ds would give "worse" results than a 300D. Bigger sensor/smaller pixels of the 1Ds, which means
a) More resolving power b) Light rays for peripheral pixels come in at a higher angle, which is a problem for most digital sensors, while it works perfectly well with film.
Thomas Bantel
* **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
