Converting from Nikon to Canon

You ask:

"What's the deal with "full-frame" anyway? Does it make it "better" if it's "full frame"? Nope. It does take you back solidly to the 35mm paradyme."

Yep....I think it is much better than using a "factor" lens when shooting with lenses made for a 35mm full frame "film"..on a digital camera.. If the mirror of my 1n body cut the image down by 1.6x,...and the rest of the film was left for scrap, I would have to stand back much further away to get a full view of a subject with a wide angle lens...hence, illiminating the usefulness of my wide angle lenses.. The same holds true with shooting with a telephoto lens...where I paid thousands of dollars for the ability to blow out the area behind and in front of the focused subjects, I am now not able to soften those areas nearly as much as I was before.. The 1.6x is not exactly a multiplier because it doesn't zoom in any further into the scene...it simply crops out much of the area around the center of the frame.. ....even though Canon introduced the new 10-22mm lens for the 20D, it isn't an L lens...nor is it an f2.8 lens + it won't have the same view as a 10-22mm lens on a 35mm format..and is reduced to ≈ 16-35mm perspective...with added depth of field.

I was just looking through my old film body before reading your reply...with a 24mm lens attached... I really miss the view of a 24mm lens on a film body.. I also miss the shallow depth of field of my 300mm f2.8 on my old film body.. It's just not the same thing....and yes, I happen to enjoy the 2x3 format of 35mm... I am used to shooting tight...especially for sports because it gives the viewer a lot to look at.. I enjoy the use of negative space....not to mention, when working with models with my 300mm, and my 10D bodies, I have to stand back much further...which hurts my ability to communicate with them..and increases the distance between myself ( with my radio sync transmitter) to the portable strobe ( with the receiver)..

JP

You can do a lot with more to look at..

LOL... I heard it was Pentax... I even saw the first AF lens...it had a great big motor on the side of the lens..and was slooooow! I believe they invented that in 1984.. I know that Minolta perfected it...and by 1987, Canon introduced the 600.. series of cameras which used the AF system..and had a new mount..the "EF".. Minolta duid the same thing by illiminating the "MD mount..which was used in their manual focus cameras...and I'm not sure why that was...because they don't have the AF motor in their lenses like Canon does...rather, the AF motor is in the body..Canon was the first to introduce USM focus motors...in 1987 and introduced a decent line up of new lenses which were made for the new EF mount.. and added more as years went by.. Minolta nevere really picked up the pase to compete with Canon or Nikon.. and Pentax, ...well, they have always been in last place.. Canon has the best AF lens system thus far...but it can be argued that Nikon is better thanks to some recent introductions on their part....which was answered by Canon cutting out several of their cutting edge lenses which many pros enjoyed...but not enough to keep the lenses in production such as the 50mm f1.0, 100-300 f5.6 L, and the 200mm f1.8 L ...However, Canon is the only system that has a 24mm tilt shift lens / perspective control lens.. they also have a 45mm TS and a 90mm TS which I rent from a friend of mine every once in a blue moon.....they are awesome lenses..and a real strength for the Canon system.

JP

[isaiahbrink]

Ok, if it was Pentax, it was Pentax, maybe Minolta. Either way, no matter what brand of camera that you get now at out level of camera (Nikon or Canon) it will be able to handle whatever we throw at it. AF systems now are tremendously better now than when they first came out some years ago (I still use manual focus - just my preferance.)

Isaiah Brink

[stevenD]

I converted long ago, but just upgraded to a 1D Mk II (yesterday), what a wonderful Camera. Shot it at a local park, but I have my first Glamour shoot with it tomorrow.

Remember: You only have to change ONCE....

And let me know when you do, so that I can teach you the secret Canon handshake....

[RBP]

I'm not changing because it is "Canon" over "Nikon" ... I don't care if it is made by some Russian teenager in his garage if it does what I need.... which is give me the freedom to shoot the picture I want, the way I want. I want fewer limits on the way I can use the tools.

I am sick to death of smaller-than-full-frame digital sensors for 1 simple reason - you get deeper DOF. It is wholly unacceptable to me because of the near impossibility of getting acceptable shallow DOF to isolate a subject. To get the same picture you would get with FF, you have to either 1) use a shorter lens or 2) move farther from teh subject. You will always be closer to the hyperfocal distance.

Unfortunately, I've had to make do with DX sensors and bite my tongue every time I review images and hade the lack of shallow DOF. The drag out the film on those shoots where I *had* to have the shallow DOF.

For those that don't get what I am talking about, You can see a sample graph of CofC vs. distance at http://www.robertbiggerstaff.com/cofc.pdf comparing a 200mm f2 on a full frame sensor to a 135mm f2 on a DX sized sensor.

In a word, that sucks.

To date, the other FF alternatives (1Ds, Contax, and Kodak SLR/n) all had other limitations that were not an acceptable compromise in order to get FF.

The 1Ds is still unacceptable to me based on speed and buffer, as well as other issues. The SLR/n is crap with it's PF problems and godawful slow write times (7 seconds per RAW image... 15 seconds for a JPG).

The point of my post was that the 1DsMkII that will remove the limits of a DX sensor without making other compromises that I am aware of. It is the first viable alternative for me. I'm specifically interested if anoy other people have suggestions of other "gotchas" or compromises I'm not aware of in such a switch.

[Clint]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I read what Ken had to say....and I disagree with everything. Instead of reposting everything I wrote, just read what I wrote in reply to RJ..above..

JP

Cool Steve... Could you give me a heads up on what your thoughts are of the AF ...after you use it for a few days..?

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

JP

You'll get 75% back from your Nikon stuff on Ebay if its in good shape.

[ QUOTE ]
You'll get 75% back from your Nikon stuff on Ebay if its in good shape.

[/ QUOTE ]

....and if you go to a camera store, you'll be lucky to get 50% back....and you will have to wait for the serial numbers to clear their registry....(to make sure your gear isn't hot)..

I learned when I switched to Canon in 96..

JP