> fra: "John Celio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > After looking at the Canon EOS 5D at $3,300 U.S, I'm probably going to > > switch to that camera. > > Did you miss that post (last week I think) with the link to Canon's official > demo photos from the 5D? Did you notice how awful the edges were on that > wide-angle shot? That was taken with Canon's best glass! > > If that doesn't make you doubt the "advantages" of a 35mm-sensor, I don't > know what will. > That has made me doubt the 35mm sensor. Just like Nikon and Pentax Canon has to reconstruct their wide angles, but in addition they have this large sensor to sell.
The next issue is noise, but a friend of mine working in the technical field took a look at the theory and found that the pixel size is not the stronges source of noise in the sensors, as the noise in the pictures is a lot more than the pixels should produce. So noise may be reduced in other ways. This is confirmed if you have a look at the noise in Nikon D2x and compare it with Canon 1Ds mkII. So if I really wanted a large sensor, I'd buy a 645D (or ZD or Hasselblad) with a crop factor and a new wide angle, instead of Canon where the optics is pushed to a limit that the old MF format doesn't have. If the electronics get so good that the pixel size sets the limit the 645D sensor will still have an advantage. DagT
