RSU said:
I think jbma said it. Its not in Canon's best interest to implement FF across the board in view of the sales of their high end models. Sorry, it might happen but no way its going to happen within a year.
Would Full-Frame DSLR Become Affordable?
- Thread starter Jia Wang
- Start date
- Status
I think jbma said it. Its not in Canon's best interest to implement FF across the board in view of the sales of their high end models. Sorry, it might happen but no way its going to happen within a year.
Why not we all come back here next April? I'm certain you won't see a sub 3k FF by then. No way.
P
Paul
Guest
I believe the fundamental reasons why both Nikon and Canon have chosen not to go for low-end full frame 35mm cameras are as follows: :think:
1) Can produce cheaper cameras to meet the existing Nikon/Canon lens owners and meet existing demand for high-end digital SLR cameras (as of 2 years ago)
2) Nikon/Canon can produce a new range of lenses (this makes a lot of marketing sense) since the combined cost of a new Nikon 12-24 + fish-eye is more than the D100 body.
3) Still have an advantage of 1.5 * at the zoom range
4) Newer digital lenses can be produced smaller and lighter (since less glass is required to illuminate a smaller area) than their equivalent 35mm counterparts.
5) From the lens design perspective from the manufacturer, lenses should also be easier to manufacture since the lens elements are also that much smaller.
Talk about OLD format :nono: 35mm is a cine film format that was made during World War II, camera manufacturers developed cameras to use this surplus film.
Guys got to think out of the box :bigeyes:
Those that keep dreaming of a cheap full frame need to understand the marketing rationale that drives both Nikon and Canon - tho' both are slightly different. If it does not make financial sense for Nikon to produce, it's not going to happen! Maybe soon we will also see the demise of the 1D and Kodak DCS!
1) Can produce cheaper cameras to meet the existing Nikon/Canon lens owners and meet existing demand for high-end digital SLR cameras (as of 2 years ago)
2) Nikon/Canon can produce a new range of lenses (this makes a lot of marketing sense) since the combined cost of a new Nikon 12-24 + fish-eye is more than the D100 body.
3) Still have an advantage of 1.5 * at the zoom range
4) Newer digital lenses can be produced smaller and lighter (since less glass is required to illuminate a smaller area) than their equivalent 35mm counterparts.
5) From the lens design perspective from the manufacturer, lenses should also be easier to manufacture since the lens elements are also that much smaller.
Talk about OLD format :nono: 35mm is a cine film format that was made during World War II, camera manufacturers developed cameras to use this surplus film.
Guys got to think out of the box :bigeyes: Those that keep dreaming of a cheap full frame need to understand the marketing rationale that drives both Nikon and Canon - tho' both are slightly different. If it does not make financial sense for Nikon to produce, it's not going to happen! Maybe soon we will also see the demise of the 1D and Kodak DCS!
Hey folks,can someone enlighten me abt the "multiplier effects of 1.6/1.5." on DSLR? wat is it actually?so does that mean if i used a 28mm lens,it will produce a 28mm x 1.6 angle instead of a true 28mm angle?tot of gg for the D70..is it a right time?
RAIN_MAN said:
For your first quesion ab multiplier effect, you've got it right...
As for your 2nd question, well, there've been a few threads discussing the merits of D70 (or 300D)... Ultimately, it boils down to what specific needs you have...
Having got all our hardware sorted out (some how or other), it's still taking photographs we are all after... Thanks everyone, for the very lively discussion
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:This thread is going seriously off topic as Kit says.
Just quickly. A 28mm lens is a 28mm lens whatever, but you get a crop of the middle portion of the frame. In practice, there is little difference between, say a 24mm lens on digital x 1.5 versus a 36mm lens on 35mm in terms of perspective.
I would happily consider 17-xx or 18-xx class lenses wide angle. They go down to "25/27mm" respectively which is wide angle in anyone's book, just not superwide.
Old concepts. Specifically, that we need full frame. Why?
12-24 being an 18-36 on digital but a 12-24 on full frame. Yes true, but have you ever used a 14mm lens Nicholas? Any idea how difficult they are to use properly? Medium format users generally don't have many lenses that drop below 24mm in 135 terms (those that do exist cost the earth), let alone 20mm or below. Strangely enough I don't hear them bitching about it. And until recently, digital Medium Format users didn't have "full frame" chips either, and I never heard them bitching about that either.
Forget full frame, the less time you waste agonising over it the better. Life goes on, technology changes. In the past we've had 16mm film, 70mm, 11"x14", 20"x24", and so on. Some have died, some remain the medium of die hards. It's not the end of the world if you don't shoot pictures in 24mm x 36mm.
Just quickly. A 28mm lens is a 28mm lens whatever, but you get a crop of the middle portion of the frame. In practice, there is little difference between, say a 24mm lens on digital x 1.5 versus a 36mm lens on 35mm in terms of perspective.
I would happily consider 17-xx or 18-xx class lenses wide angle. They go down to "25/27mm" respectively which is wide angle in anyone's book, just not superwide.
Old concepts. Specifically, that we need full frame. Why?
12-24 being an 18-36 on digital but a 12-24 on full frame. Yes true, but have you ever used a 14mm lens Nicholas? Any idea how difficult they are to use properly? Medium format users generally don't have many lenses that drop below 24mm in 135 terms (those that do exist cost the earth), let alone 20mm or below. Strangely enough I don't hear them bitching about it. And until recently, digital Medium Format users didn't have "full frame" chips either, and I never heard them bitching about that either.
Forget full frame, the less time you waste agonising over it the better. Life goes on, technology changes. In the past we've had 16mm film, 70mm, 11"x14", 20"x24", and so on. Some have died, some remain the medium of die hards. It's not the end of the world if you don't shoot pictures in 24mm x 36mm.
Guys, photography is going through transition period, from film to digital. Digital is still at it's infancy compared to a century old film. But the rate of advancement in digital technology is enormous. Imagine how fast the cost DSLR dropped since late 90s. This will be the same for FF DSLRs now.
IMO the digital has to go pure digital in future. Something like what olympus has started, 4/3 systems. CCD / CMOS technology will improve very quickly and the smaller sensors in future will match what the FF sensor can do today. When such system is established with widely available lenses and accessories smaller DSLRs, lenses will be favored against bulky FF DSLRs.
As a tele shooter I still prefer a 1.6 crop factor. The extra reach without loosing f-stops worth a lot of money. Like the E-1, it's 300mm F2.8 becomes 600mm F2.8 wow...
Saw someone selling a used contax N-digital for S$3xxx
IMO the digital has to go pure digital in future. Something like what olympus has started, 4/3 systems. CCD / CMOS technology will improve very quickly and the smaller sensors in future will match what the FF sensor can do today. When such system is established with widely available lenses and accessories smaller DSLRs, lenses will be favored against bulky FF DSLRs.
As a tele shooter I still prefer a 1.6 crop factor. The extra reach without loosing f-stops worth a lot of money. Like the E-1, it's 300mm F2.8 becomes 600mm F2.8 wow...
Saw someone selling a used contax N-digital for S$3xxx
actually, Jia Wang, you forget one very impt thing - what is "affordable"? to some, below $1k then is affordable, to others, $10k is no problem (which means it's affordable now, since the Kodak 14n/Pro-whatevert is below $10k).
Larry said:
Heheh... I guess you are right Larry... it's a relative thingy... maybe when I started this thread, I was thinking of FF sensors becoming a feature of models nearer to the normal consumer end... i.e. models ranging betw $2 - $4K...
It's definitely a paradigm shift from film to digital... as a post previously stated, we are perhaps witnessing a transition period. Correct me if I'm wrong, camera bodies seem to be evolving quicker than lens do. Our current crop of lens (except the Canon EF-S) have to 'straddle' between film usage and digital usage and it's not truly a fair comparison in that respect since our wide-angle lens were designed for film bodies at the beginning...
Maybe we'll see more of the EF-S lens and the like which is designed for DSLRs (even though Canon has indicated that the kit lens for 300D is the only EF-S one they'll produce)... Exciting times huh, for all of us? :bsmilie: Definitely something to keep us all engaged in our passion... :thumbsup:
Cheers, everyone!
Actually, another thing has changed: the price people are willing to pay for a camera seems to be going up.
The prices of dSLRs today are the prices of yesterday's pro-SLR bodies. Yet, so many more are willing to take the plunge, and these same people would never have considered spending 2-3 k on a film SLR just a few years back.
Wow, "$2k-$4k" now considered 'consumer model' ... :bigeyes:
The prices of dSLRs today are the prices of yesterday's pro-SLR bodies. Yet, so many more are willing to take the plunge, and these same people would never have considered spending 2-3 k on a film SLR just a few years back.
Wow, "$2k-$4k" now considered 'consumer model' ... :bigeyes:
Jia Wang said:
The EF-S lens unlike Nikon's DX lenses is not designed for DSLRs across the board. It is designed only for the 300D. You won't be able to fit it on other bodies without modifications. And also, I don't see any reason why we should let equipment dictate your interest/passion in this hobby unless you're more of a camera collector than a photographer.
yup ;p I used to find $1k pro/semi-pro SLR bodies awfully expensive.... now, I'm using a "cheap" $1.8k "consumer" DSLR ;p
mpenza said:
hi
actually cannot compare like this cos the dslr enables us to save on films and have instant preview.
Jia Wang said:Been considering seriously to get a DSLR but the thing holding me back is the the prosumer range DSLRs (10D/ 300D/ D70) has multiplier effects of 1.6/1.5. Didn't like the idea of spending so much on wide-angle lens but end up effectively not enjoying any WA effects.
As far as I know, only EOS 1D is full-framed. But price is beyond normal consumer reach.
So I'm wondering, how long more would prosumer range DSLR get full-frame sensors, or would it ever become a feature at all for such cameras? Anyone out there also waiting for full-frame DSLRs to become affordable? :think:
Yah I'm agree with u..but looking at the trend now..DLSR will be the latest trend as well as compact camera with bigger MP and lesser noise. The thing is when the DSLR is getting so popular, there will be a demand on lens as well
when there is a market competition going on, price will drop.
I'm a newbie in DSLR, i owned a 300D but if given a choice I would have chosen nikon D70.. Y? slightly higher price but better features and comestic.
Need not wait for too long...If u need a affordable fullframe DSLR, mayb by 2005....Guess first the camera manufacturer will come out one with 1.2-1,3 X factor first then the fullsize. I always believed that technology is not the problem. Looking at the CPU chip for example....always the business strategy..ALWAYS...
Lastly, I guess lens price will not dip that much as the camera does . Optically i guess its hard to come out with any angle lesser than 15mm..
PS : I have seen threads saying the minolta is coming out an DSLR that have IS capablilities on its bodies. Wow! brilliant right? It makes all the lens come with IS feature. Perhaps the following bunch of DSLR will have this feature as well..
- Status
Similar threads
