greg
Its a G thing
From what I can glean, the Canon full frame CMOS seems at face value the obviously better idea, but if you read around it isnt necessarily ideal. Apparently the way Canon have implemented it places tiny mirrors in front of the silicon to bend the light straight before it strikes. I'm told vignetting with wideangle lenses is an issue with full frame sensors, and chromatic aberration can be observed too.jtc said:Personally, I'm just biding my time for affordable full-frame from Canon - a kind of EOS 5D but with a lower price-tag - as for my photography the thing I miss most is those wider angle shots.
Canon clearly still have a considerable lead over Nikon in the pro market (their 16MP 1Dsmk2 is unrivalled in 35 mil land) but at the keen-amateur/entry level it's six-and-half-a-dozen based I'd say.
John
On the other hand I respect Nikon's commitment to their CCD size, which as far as I can determine, is considered the equal in terms of quality, then when used with DX lenses removes the issue of cropping.
Now yes the 16MP 1DsII is impressive and I imagine for larger format prints it is amazing, but mega pixels arent everything. Afterall we dont all need to blow our pics up into posters. Frankly Isaac's 10D produces some brilliant results from what I've seen. The D200 is 10.2 MP so I expect is sufficient for what I need up to around 12" * 8" and it is a sh1t less ££. I've no doubt I would be the weak link in whatever system I used