Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Will 1.x Crop Cameras Go the Way of the Betamax?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
mexican_equivalent@yahoo.com - 28 Aug 2006 16:52 GMT
Forgive me for such a newbie-ish question, but...

Are 1.x crop cameras here to stay, or will it be obsolete within a
decade (ie by 2015)?

I'm getting the distinct impression that the camera manufacturers
greatly prefer to keep full-frame cameras strictly in the domain of
professionals, while the crop lenses for the consumer level.  This
would be ideal for the manufacturers --- price wars at the consumer
level would not affect the exorbitant over-pricing at the professional
level.  There's a clear boundary.

If the manufacturers were to make full-frame cameras readily available
to the average consumer, then that boundary between amateur and
professional would inevitably fade.  Afterall, with each passing year,
there's less and less features in a $5000 camera that's not found in a
$1000 camera.  Price wars at the consumer level will eventually drag
down the prices for even the most expensive equipments.  No more
overpricing at the professional level, and therefore less control of
prices from manufacturers.

So... I'm thinking that crop lenses are here to stay for a long, long
time.  The "Full vs Crop" factor is the biggest thing keeping
professionals away from cheaper cameras.   It's really in the
companies' best interest to keep it that way.
RichA - 28 Aug 2006 18:50 GMT
> Forgive me for such a newbie-ish question, but...
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> there's less and less features in a $5000 camera that's not found in a
> $1000 camera.

You will be waiting many years to see a FF below $1000.  Crops are here
to stay.
John McWilliams - 28 Aug 2006 20:14 GMT
>> Forgive me for such a newbie-ish question, but...
>>
>> Are 1.x crop cameras here to stay, or will it be obsolete within a
>> decade (ie by 2015)?

No one can say with certainty, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a
market for those, and lenses for same. (such as Canon E series)

>> I'm getting the distinct impression that the camera manufacturers
>> greatly prefer to keep full-frame cameras strictly in the domain of
>> professionals, while the crop lenses for the consumer level.  

Untrue, even now, with Canon's 5D. Under $3 grand, aimed at high end
consumer and backup for Pro's.
This
>> would be ideal for the manufacturers --- price wars at the consumer
>> level would not affect the exorbitant over-pricing at the professional
>> level.  There's a clear boundary.

Conspiracy, huh??

>> If the manufacturers were to make full-frame cameras readily available
>> to the average consumer, then that boundary between amateur and
>> professional would inevitably fade.  Afterall, with each passing year,
>> there's less and less features in a $5000 camera that's not found in a
>> $1000 camera.

But the price of the gear isn't what distinguishes Pro's from amateurs,
nor good photography from mediocre.

> You will be waiting many years to see a FF below $1000.  Crops are here
> to stay.

Just how many, Rich? Care to wager it'll happen within 5 years from now,
 precisely 12:12:49 PM on Monday, August 28, 2006?

Signature

John McWilliams

RichA - 29 Aug 2006 00:34 GMT
> >> Forgive me for such a newbie-ish question, but...
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> Just how many, Rich? Care to wager it'll happen within 5 years from now,
>   precisely 12:12:49 PM on Monday, August 28, 2006?

The only attribution you quoted correctly was the last line.  Have some
coffee.
John McWilliams - 29 Aug 2006 07:08 GMT
> The only attribution you quoted correctly was the last line.  Have some
> coffee.

I know you cannot properly format a response, unless it less than two
lines long, and now you show you can't even 'cept out attributions.

Have a nice day.

Signature

lsmft

RichA - 29 Aug 2006 23:35 GMT
> > The only attribution you quoted correctly was the last line.  Have some
> > coffee.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Have a nice day.

What a dope.
bmoag - 29 Aug 2006 00:13 GMT
The larger the sensor the more difficult it is to manufacture.
Along with the larger sensor is a larger pixel count requiring scaling of
buffers and processing power to match.
As manufacturing processes and market demand evolve the price of both the
sensor and electronics will drop.
The major technical limit of current digital sensor technology is not sensor
size or megapixel count, it is the exceedingly limited latitude of these
sensors, regardless of size or megapixel count, particularly with any degree
of over-exposure. Cameras must expose for the highlights and electronically
amplify the shadows via jpeg algorithm or in a raw converter, exagerrating
the noise floor.
If the APS sized sensor is here to stay, and I have no problem with that, I
wish manufacturers could find a way to shrink and lighten these beasts in
the way that happened to film SLRs in the 1970s. If Pentax can do it why
can't Nikon? Canon is the fat farm of SLR design.
ian - 30 Aug 2006 12:20 GMT
> If the APS sized sensor is here to stay, and I have no problem with that,
> I wish manufacturers could find a way to shrink and lighten these beasts
> in the way that happened to film SLRs in the 1970s. If Pentax can do it
> why can't Nikon? Canon is the fat farm of SLR design.

small cheap and plasticky was what the comparitively huge 300D was
criticised for.  Many 300D was passed over for 10D on that basis alone.
Reassuringly heavy and expensive seems to be the way to go for pros.  small
and cheap and light is what consumers want.
cjcampbell - 29 Aug 2006 01:32 GMT
> Forgive me for such a newbie-ish question, but...
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> greatly prefer to keep full-frame cameras strictly in the domain of
> professionals, while the crop lenses for the consumer level.

Actually, this is true only of Canon. None of the other manufacturers
make professional 35mm sensors. The rumored Nikon D3h will probably
have an APS sensor and consequently it will be very popular with pros
who shoot a lot of fast action -- nature, sports, news, and fashion
photography particularly.

Nikon may eventually introduce a D3x with a 35mm sensor, but most
people are not holding their breath for it.

If you really need a large sensor, consider the Hasselblad H1D.
Steve Wolfe - 29 Aug 2006 16:15 GMT
Look up Canon's recent white paper on full-frame sensors, and look at how
many FF sensors can be placed on a silicon wafer vs. APS-C sensors.
1.6X-sensors will be with us for a loooooong time yet.

 It's simple math:  When you can get 10x more sensors from one wafer, and
most photographers don't *need* (and many don't even *want) full-frame, you
have every reason to keep them around.

steve
AaronW - 07 Sep 2006 17:02 GMT
> Are 1.x crop cameras here to stay, or will it be obsolete within a
> decade (ie by 2015)?

When technology advances, competition will drive down the price. When
the price of full frame camera is $1K, 1.6x will be $300, only on the
bottom of the line camera with very limited features.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.