The Canon's. The issue becomes what old lenses do you use. Put a Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 or Leitz R 19/2.8 on a 5D and you will be very pleasantly surprised. From 24mm on up, the Canon L's are superb perfomers on FF, as is the better Nikon glass (via an adaptor). The Nikon 17-35 f2.8 does very well on full-frame as well.
One of the major problems with FF is that pixel-peeping has become so easy, before most people did ther tests with their working emulsions rather than Tech Pan and those working emulsions couldn't outresolve decent glass. -Adam Aaron Reynolds wrote: > But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? > I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. > > What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. > > -Aaron > > -- > http://aaronreynolds.ca > http://battersbox.ca > http://hardballtimes.com > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards > Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm > Size: 1K > To: [email protected] > > The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) > > The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of > a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor > being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use > the lenses as intended. > > It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, > it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. > Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with > cheap APS-C bodies is another question. > > > Tom C. > > "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or > numbered." > > > > > > > > >>From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >>Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards >>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 >> >>That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. >> >>Bob W wrote: >> >> >>>That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take >>>over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a >>>35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of >>>the sensor is irrelevant on its own. >>> >>>-- >>>Cheers, >>>Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer >>>>little & less quality than bigger & better quality. >>>>I expect this to continue... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>-- >> >>Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's >>favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats >>are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent >>on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything >>useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it >> >>P. J. O'Rourke >> >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>[email protected] >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
