 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006Longevity of APS-C Format
I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital" lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it be before the manufacturers migrate to full-frame format. I ask because I don't want to buy several "digital" lenses and 5 years later, no new bodies can use them. On the other hand, I suppose, at the same cost, the smaller coverage lenses can be made sharper than the 35mm lenses because of less design constraint? > I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital" > lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it > be before the manufacturers migrate to full-frame format. I ask because > I don't want to buy several "digital" lenses and 5 years later, no new > bodies can use them. Search on past articles we recently had a long thread on that, and I don't think anyone felt that APS-C was going away any time soon, at least not in 5 years. The overriding reason is that it is and will remain rather difficult, and definitely a lot more expensive to fabricate a full frame sensor. I sunk $1100 into Canon's EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens and feeling fairly safe in having done so. Full frame sensor cameras will drop in price a bit, I think, but I think we're not likely to see one under the $1000 price point any time soon. > On the other hand, I suppose, at the same cost, the smaller coverage > lenses can be made sharper than the 35mm lenses because of less > design constraint? Within the tradeoffs of money and size, yes, it's a lot easier to achieve a given sharpness level in a cropped view. That's why I see no shame in well constructed EF-S lenses. -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ > I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital" > lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the smaller coverage lenses can be made sharper than the 35mm lenses > because of less design constraint? I think the short answer to this would be: If you think it's likely you will someday want to go full-frame regardless of the availability of APS-C sensor sized cameras, then stick with EF lenses. If you are happy with the APS-C size sensor you will most likely be able to buy new models for the forseeable future, I'd guess they will still be making new models in 10+ years. So if APS-C is good for what you do, don't worry about EF-S vs EF lenses.  SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ Image quality does not scale linearly with sensor size in digital imaging the way it does in film. When you can wrap your head around that idea check out the new 10mp APS-c sensors dSLRs and find fault with image quality compared to even scanned medium formal film. The APS-c sensors are technically superior already to the capabilities or needs of the vast, vast majority of photographers, whatever their level of experience. Then try on a real earthshaking idea: perhaps a serious camera does not have to resemble a 1936 Exacta in order to be capable of technically excellent results even in the hands of most photographers, aesthetically challenged and specification obsessed though they may be. > Image quality does not scale linearly with sensor size in digital imaging > the way it does in film. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > results even in the hands of most photographers, aesthetically challenged > and specification obsessed though they may be. I agree here the 10 or 12mp APS sensor is more compariblr to 6x4.5 than 35mm. It may even compare favorably to 6x6. The full frame sensor costs about 10x an APS sensor and give a little better results (maybe 6x7) definitly not 4x5 (Hassleblads new back comes close there). So APS may be the standard and 35mm sized sensors if you want slightly more resolution. Since the res we are dealing with now is unprecidented and APS sensor are fairly cheap to produce I think they will be here a long time. Tom >I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital" >lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it >be before the manufacturers migrate to full-frame format. Most are already their but I suspect you meant *exclusively*. Even if Full Frame sensor prices drop to the same cost of present day crop factored sensors, don't you think the cost of crop factored sensor will still be less expensive to produce? >I ask because I don't want to buy several "digital" lenses and 5 years later, >no new bodies can use them. On the other hand, I suppose, at the same cost, >the smaller coverage lenses can be made sharper than the 35mm lenses >because of less design constraint? Think cost to benefit ratio. Some of us (like myself) like the crop factored cameras in part because we favor the telephoto end for most of our photographic needs. Here a crop factored DSKR can be a plus in providing a boost in the equivalent effective focal length(s). I for 1 like my very inexpensive ($75 USD) Canon EF 50mm f1.8 lens which acts much like an 80mm lens on my 300D & or 30D. The bottom line for me & I suspect others, is that a crop factored DSLR will very likely always be less costly to produce than a FF DSLR. So if that's all I need & or it actually meets my needs better than a FF DSLR, why would I want a FF DSLR? Also I do like the fact that a crop factored DSLR does to some extent use the sweat spot (central) portion of most EF lenses to achieve better corner sharpness. If I include the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my 300D, I own 3 EF-S lenses & they each have a purpose & each still get used for certain things. The original 300D (1.6x crop factored sensor) brought the DSLR within affordable range for many. I suspect they will continue to do so for a great many years to come, bringing more P&S owners over to a DSLR sooner than they might have come were there only FF DSLR cameras to choose from. Also I still own P&S cameras & always will because they each have their place. Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >>I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital" >>lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Respectfully, DHB Of course this all goes out the door at some time in the future when you realise that all these nice new cheap FF D-SLR's take a much better pic, yes better lenses will be more expensive but if you want better pics then that is the price you will have to pay. > Of course this all goes out the door at some time in the future when you > realise that all these nice new cheap FF D-SLR's take a much better pic, > yes better lenses will be more expensive but if you want better pics then > that is the price you will have to pay. People who talk about cheap FF dSLRs have no clue as to what it takes to produce a full-frame sensor. Making a single silicon wafer and taking it through all of the various steps can cost as much as $20,000. Even as that drops, you only get 20 full-frame sensors on a wafer, according to Canon. Because of the advantagers of packing around the periphery, you can get 200 APS-C sensors on a wafer. Right off the bat, your sensor costs are 10x lower with APS-C. Making it better, defects *will* ruin some sensors on each wafer. If you lose two full-frame sensors out of twenty, that's a big deal. If you lose two out of 200, it's nothing. So the cost of an APS-C sensor is *less* than 1/10th that of a full-frame sensor. Making it even better, the lithography required to make full-frame sensors is much more demanding (and hence, more expensive) than it is for an APS-C sensor. So, that means that APS-Cs are even cheaper. Add that all together, and as long as manufcturers can produce APS-C sensors (which can actually provide an astoundingly good image) at less than 1/10th the cost of full-frame, and if you think they're going to ditch them, you're just plain nuts. It ain't going to happen. Then again, there are people who *prefer* APS-C size. Folks who need fast, super-long lenses (which tend to provide obscene resolutions) can get more reach and use from an APS-C sensor than by cropping down the image from a full-frame sensor. When getting a lens that's 1.6x longer (at the same aperture) means $20,000 - or isn't even possible - then that gets awfully appealing. Sit down and figure out how much it would cost you to get a lens for a 5D that would give you the same as a 400mm f/2.8L on a 20D. steve >> Of course this all goes out the door at some time in the future when you >> realise that all these nice new cheap FF D-SLR's take a much better pic, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > steve All I am saying is that in the future they will get better at making FF sensors. >>> Of course this all goes out the door at some time in the future when you >>> realise that all these nice new cheap FF D-SLR's take a much better pic, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> >> steve >All I am saying is that in the future they will get better at making FF >sensors. All this makes no sense to me. In the film era some liked 35mm, others used 'Blads. Still others used view cameras. There was room for all of these because they served different purposes. Today, among other sizes, one can get APS-C, full frame, and extra large as in backs for Hasselblads. I see no reason why any one will totally drive the others out. And I see no reason why the lighter APS-C with its lighter lenses will not survive, while full-frame also has a strong representation. Different media for different users. --- Paul J. Gans >>>> Of course this all goes out the door at some time in the future when >>>> you [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > --- Paul J. Gans Of course they will but FF cameras will also reduce in price. >>>I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital" >>>lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> >> Respectfully, DHB >Of course this all goes out the door at some time in the future when you >realise that all these nice new cheap FF D-SLR's take a much better pic, yes >better lenses will be more expensive but if you want better pics then that >is the price you will have to pay. The problem is how long do we wait for the FF dSLR's. For you folks in your 20s, it might make sense to wait. I'm past 70. Shall I wait also? I have no idea why some of you get a fixed idea into your heads that solution A is better than solution B in all cases. Photography is a complex subject with many tradeoffs. What works for one may not at all work for another. ---- Paul J. Gans >>>>I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital" >>>>lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans Paul, Seriously look at what I wrote, if your time is so short then you will have to spend the money now if you want better photos, thats just the way it is. 5D is affordable now, go for it. > Paul, Seriously look at what I wrote, if your time is so short then you will > have to spend the money now if you want better photos, thats just the way it > is. 5D is affordable now, go for it. Sure, if you think you can buy your way into better pictures with a bigger sensor, then Canon will be happy to take your money. There are valid reasons to want a 35mm sensor, but really, if you think you're at the point where the difference between APS-C and 35mm is the limiting factor in your photography, you're probably wrong. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Paul, Seriously look at what I wrote, if your time is so short then you >> will [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you're at the point where the difference between APS-C and 35mm is the > limiting factor in your photography, you're probably wrong. Agree completely, now please go and read the rest of the thread. >> Paul, Seriously look at what I wrote, if your time is so short then you will >> have to spend the money now if you want better photos, thats just the way it >> is. 5D is affordable now, go for it. >Sure, if you think you can buy your way into better pictures with a bigger >sensor, then Canon will be happy to take your money. >There are valid reasons to want a 35mm sensor, but really, if you think >you're at the point where the difference between APS-C and 35mm is the >limiting factor in your photography, you're probably wrong. I've answered that in a previous post. There are other factors as well. Speaking for myself I'd rather put my money into decent lenses (FF and APS-C) and keep my APS-C camera body. There are few pictures, as you say, that are made or ruined by the camera body. The lens is far more important. And that's where I choose to spend my money. ---- Paul J. Gans >>>>>I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital" >>>>>lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >> >> ---- Paul J. Gans >Paul, Seriously look at what I wrote, if your time is so short then you will >have to spend the money now if you want better photos, thats just the way it >is. 5D is affordable now, go for it. Sure. So is a Ferrari. Seriously, it isn't quite the same thing. I get rather nice pictures with an APS-C sensor and a really good lens. Since I regard digital as still being a work in progress, I may well buy the successor to the 5D, or perhaps its successor. And if I can afford that, I can afford to junk an APS-C lens or two (or e-bay them, of course.) So no reason to avoid APS-C unless you have active plans to buy a 5D. ----- Paul J. Gans > I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital" > lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it > be before the manufacturers migrate to full-frame format. I ask because > I don't want to buy several "digital" lenses and 5 years later, no new > bodies can use them. When full frame gets down to $1000, 1.6x will be about $300. They will stop making expensive EF-S lenses for the cheap 1.6x cameras by then. If you have an 1.6x camera, do you want to be without the lenses you want for 5 years by not buying EF-S? You can buy a 5D now, and EF lenses only. But full frame cameras will drop in price, too. And even EF lenses will drop in price when new lenses come out. So you might lose more money by going full frame and EF lenses instead of 1.6x and EF-S. > On the other hand, I suppose, at the same cost, > the smaller coverage lenses can be made sharper than the 35mm lenses > because of less design constraint? And EF-S lenses should be cheaper than comparable EF lenses at the same quality level. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > When full frame gets down to $1000, 1.6x will be about $300. They will > stop making expensive EF-S lenses for the cheap 1.6x cameras by then. I doubt 1.6x cameras will ever be $300. The overriding factor will be the price of *good* lenses, which hardly change over the years. It makes little sense to market a $299 camera body for use with $600 lenses. People who can only afford a $299 dSLR will not be splurging on $600 lenses. Sure, Canon can make cheapie EF-S lenses for $200. But the best $500 point-and-shoot cameras will be cheaper and better than budget $299 dSLRs with cheapie $199 lenses, don't you think? I do think that cropped sensor cameras are here to stay though. For most people, the low noise images of dSLRs in the 10-12 megapixel range is enough. Not many amateurs make prints larger than 19"x13" for personal use. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that most casual photographers are shocked at how big these digicam pictures appear on their monitor! At some point, people will stop caring about the megapixels. Not when their baby pictures start appearing on the monitor as humongous portraits with the baby's iris taking up the entire screen. It's getting ridiculous. As Canon has *explicitly* said in the past, they do intend to go full frame in the future for ALL their dSLR models except the entry level. In other words, the digital rebel will remain 1.6x crop practically forever. The 10/20/30D series will be full frame. Eventually, I suspect the crop camera bodies will have its prices settle in the $600 range, and the most expensive EF-S lenses drop to roughly the same price ($600). Full frame bodies will be $1200, and the best EF "L" lenses priced similarly at $1200. A clear and defined line between "consumer" and "prosumer" dSLR equipment. For most amateurs, they really don't need to use (or spend) anything more than the 1.6x bodies and compact EF-S lenses. That's why those 1.6x cameras will be here to stay. >> When full frame gets down to $1000, 1.6x will be about $300. They will >> stop making expensive EF-S lenses for the cheap 1.6x cameras by then. > > I doubt 1.6x cameras will ever be $300. If (or when) full-frame cameras ever get down to $1,000, it's not unreasonable to imagine that 1.6x will be that cheap, or at least nearly so. Even for the most advanced fabs in the world, making a chip with even 400 square millimeters is a very big task, and carries a very big price tag - and a full-frame sensor is more than double that size. So, again - if full-frame cameras ever do get to $1,000, a $300 "Rebel" camera would be reasonable. The real question is "Will full-frame cameras ever get down to $1,000", or at least "How long will it take". Personally, I think it's going to be quite a while. > As Canon has *explicitly* said in the past, they do intend to go full > frame in the future for ALL their dSLR models except the entry level. I could be wrong, but I don't rememeber them saying that. They've said that they're going to do away with 1.3x, and they've said that the 1.6x will live on *at least* in the entry models - but I'd love to see actual quotes where they say that *all* cameras but the entry models will be full-frame. steve > If (or when) full-frame cameras ever get down to $1,000, it's not > unreasonable to imagine that 1.6x will be that cheap, or at least nearly so. Certainly, there's no question that 1.6x crop dSLRs can be built and sold at $300 in the future. But the real question is: Will it make any sense to market a product like that? The answer is a resounding NO. By the time APS-C sized sensors are cheap enough to be sold in $299 dSLRs, it'll be cheap enough to be installed in point & shoot cameras. Now, does it make any sense to market APS-C dSLR in the same price range as Point & Shoot cameras with the exact same sensor? Of course not. Historically, good lenses don't go down in prices. Does it make sense to try and sell $299 dSLRs that require the use of $600 lenses? Probably not. There aren't many people in the world who would be willing to pay $600 for a lens, but not $999 for a full frame dSLR body. But I'm not saying 1.6x crop cameras will be obsolete soon. I'm saying that when the price reaches a certain treshhold (ie $600), it no longer makes sense for Canon to lower the price any further. Not unless some technological breakthrough brings lens prices down significantly. > I could be wrong, but I don't rememeber them saying that. They've said > that they're going to do away with 1.3x, and they've said that the 1.6x will > live on *at least* in the entry models - but I'd love to see actual quotes > where they say that *all* cameras but the entry models will be full-frame. http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=59456 Look for the name "Brian Worley". >> If (or when) full-frame cameras ever get down to $1,000, it's not >> unreasonable to imagine that 1.6x will be that cheap, or at least nearly so. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > makes sense for Canon to lower the price any further. Not unless some > technological breakthrough brings lens prices down significantly. You omit the forces of comptetion. >> I could be wrong, but I don't rememeber them saying that. They've said >> that they're going to do away with 1.3x, and they've said that the 1.6x will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Look for the name "Brian Worley". Here's the paragraph: "Brian Worley, product manager of D-SLR cameras at Canon Europa, said that it's a long way before all EOS models will have a full size sensor, but Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm sensor in the future." He's been sacked by Canon Japan as a result of misrepresentation and generally shooting off his mouth. SignatureJohn McWilliams > > When full frame gets down to $1000, 1.6x will be about $300. They will > > stop making expensive EF-S lenses for the cheap 1.6x cameras by then. > > I doubt 1.6x cameras will ever be $300. The overriding factor will be > the price of *good* lenses, which hardly change over the years. New f/5.6 zooms can be very good, much better than old designs, but at about the same price of $200. Cheap f/2 primes are very good, e.g., 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. Right now, without IS, good f/2.8 zoom is about $1000, good f/4 zoom is about $500, and good f/5.6 zoom is about $200. > It > makes little sense to market a $299 camera body for use with $600 > lenses. People who can only afford a $299 dSLR will not be splurging > on $600 lenses. Sure, Canon can make cheapie EF-S lenses for $200. > But the best $500 point-and-shoot cameras will be cheaper and better > than budget $299 dSLRs with cheapie $199 lenses, don't you think? A dSLR with $200 sharp f/5.6 zoom has many advantages over a compact. A dSLR with cheap but good f/2 primes like 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 is much better than a compact. So a $300 dSLR does not need expensive lenses to be very useful. > I do think that cropped sensor cameras are here to stay though. For > most people, the low noise images of dSLRs in the 10-12 megapixel range > is enough. It is not a question of whether you think something is enough now. When much better technology is available in the future at a low cost, many will buy that even if it is more than enough for them. > Not many amateurs make prints larger than 19"x13" for > personal use. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that most [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > monitor as humongous portraits with the baby's iris taking up the > entire screen. It's getting ridiculous. People don't use large format not because it is more than enough for them, but because it is too expensive or too difficult to use for them. When good quality high resolution is available at a low cost, people will welcome that. Right now some people go to the trouble of stitching mosaic to get high resolution. > As Canon has *explicitly* said in the past, they do intend to go full > frame in the future for ALL their dSLR models except the entry level. > In other words, the digital rebel will remain 1.6x crop practically > forever. When the price of full frame gets lower, 1.6x will be pushed even lower. When it gets low enough, even if Canon still makes 1.6x, you may not want to buy one, because at a price too low, many features you want have to be left out. > The 10/20/30D series will be full frame. Eventually, I > suspect the crop camera bodies will have its prices settle in the $600 > range, and the most expensive EF-S lenses drop to roughly the same > price ($600). You said lens price does not drop. Why then $1200 lens would drop to $600? > Full frame bodies will be $1200, and the best EF "L" > lenses priced similarly at $1200. Full frame f/2.8 zoom with IS is close to $2000 now. Again why did you change your mind and thought those would drop from close to $2000 to close to $1000? http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital" > lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the smaller coverage lenses can be made sharper than the 35mm lenses > because of less design constraint? A lot of people *LIKE* APS-C. The camera is smaller and lighter and so are the lenses and you get sharper pictures. If you are shooting dollar bills from 20 feet away and then blowing them up to 10x life size so you can see the red and blue threads, you will get slightly sharper results with a 35mm sensor. Otherwise, no one can tell the difference. > If you are shooting dollar > bills from 20 feet away and then blowing them up to 10x life size so > you can see the red and blue threads, you will get slightly sharper > results with a 35mm sensor. Otherwise, no one can tell the difference. Wait until you see what ISO 3200 looks like from a 5D compared to a 30D... steve > > If you are shooting dollar > > bills from 20 feet away and then blowing them up to 10x life size so > > you can see the red and blue threads, you will get slightly sharper > > results with a 35mm sensor. Otherwise, no one can tell the difference. > > Wait until you see what ISO 3200 looks like from a 5D compared to a 30D... So what? If you like awful pictures, why not crank up the ISO to a million? Or a billion? Or a googleplex? Yeah, that's what you need. Foo. I remember film. For a long time, the highest ISO you could get was 1000. And then only in B&W. Okay, if you are one of those teensy weensy minority of photographers who actually need a high ISO, then by all means, make that your only criterion for judging the worth of a camera. But too often high ISO is being used as a poor substitute for good technique. Frankly, when someone starts telling me "ISO 3200" my first thought is "crappy photographer." Sometimes I am wrong, but 90% of the time I am not. >> Wait until you see what ISO 3200 looks like from a 5D compared to a >> 30D... > > So what? If you like awful pictures, why not crank up the ISO to a > million? Or a billion? Or a googleplex? Yeah, that's what you need. Equating high ISO with awful pictures is like equating small apertures, large apertures, short focal lengths, long focal lengths, or a certain color of neckstrap with poor pictures. Outisde of your mind, the theory doesn't hold. > Foo. I remember film. For a long time, the highest ISO you could get > was 1000. And then only in B&W. How do the limitations of the past have any bearing on whether we should use current technology? > Okay, if you are one of those teensy weensy minority of photographers > who actually need a high ISO, then by all means, make that your only > criterion for judging the worth of a camera. But too often high ISO is > being used as a poor substitute for good technique. That's funny. I usually see it as a substitute for better lighting. Oh, wait... there's some magical technique that will let me take pictures at f/1.2, 1/2 second at ISO 400 that will somehow give me both adequate depth-of-field and a lack of motion blur, right? steve > >> Wait until you see what ISO 3200 looks like from a 5D compared to a > >> 30D... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > f/1.2, 1/2 second at ISO 400 that will somehow give me both adequate > depth-of-field and a lack of motion blur, right? "DOCTOR! DOCTOR! IT HURTS WHEN I DO THIS!" "Well, don't do that." >> If you are shooting dollar >> bills from 20 feet away and then blowing them up to 10x life size so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >steve Wow, am I the only 1 who notices the similarities in this APS-C versus FF sensor debate & the same either or thinking of RAW versus JPEG? They *both exist now* & there are pros & cons for each, cost, time & need are just a few considerations. DSLRs provide different options not easily reproduced with P&S cameras. 1 does *not need* to take an either or stance on APS-C / FF / P&S any more than 1 *needs* to take an either or stance on RAW versus JPEG when most DSLRs provide options to shoot *both*. With memory price continuing to drop while write speeds rise, there is increasingly less reason to opt for *either or*. Why would a photographic company produce a very low cost APS-C DSLR in the $300 USD range if/when they could afford to do so? Simple, we are increasingly living in a disposable age & a $300 DSLR with reasonably priced, light weight EF-S type lenses would appeal to those adventurous types who would be comfortable taking such a lower cost DSLR on high risk adventures. Thinks like, scuba diving, sky diving, hang gliding, mountain climbing, snow skiing, etc.......... In all of these cases a P&S may work OK too but a relatively small & inexpensive APS-C DSLR with even just an inexpensive $75 USD 50mm f1.8 lens would likely be a better choice & also be a much better cost effective alternative. Last point is that if you plan to migrate over to a FF DSLR in the future than only buy EF lenses that will work on both. As for me, I buy what I *need* & what I can afford so long as it meets "my needs", the needs of others will be very different. Bottom line is that I might *prefer* a BMW or Mercedes Bens but either my budget or practicality might have me choosing a Toyota or a Honda because it's what's best for "my needs". Life is full of choices & what's right for 1 may be very different for another! Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Megapixel for megapixel a full frame system will always have lower noise output than the 1.6. That is because the individual pixels are much larger for full frame. When 6 megapixels came out people said 'at last the mp race can slow down we've got wot we need'. However 8,10 and now 12 are available. No doubt this will mean 14, 16,18 for full frame. Marketing wise there will always be entry level aps c and FF machines. product cycles will continue on 18 month schedules. What may happen is that the increase in pixels will mathmatically be less significant. Frame rates, startup times, times battery efficiency and size will continue to change incrementally. Apart from perceived or actual image quality the other big plus for FF is wideangle lenses, viewfinder brightness and size. For me apsc size viewscreen means i am less likely to mistake magnification in viewfinder for actual. using FF film final prints were smaller than i imagined. The shrunken image in my apsc cameras have balanced things back out. Not to mention 'top end' features will stay in the top end cameras. The Eos 1v was always over £1000 in the uk. Rather than gradually drop the price there was the 1, the 1n, then the 1v. Alot of features percolate down to lower price points but weather sealing and build quality will be held back for the 'pro' equipment. So it comes down to viewfinder brightness, size, and wide angle. I would only consider EFs lenses if i wanted to go wider than 24mm equivalent.for the tele end i bought ff L lenses. I use a 28-105 for basic stuff, keep the 18-55 if i want to travel light or if i know i will want landscape shots. my 20D does 5 fps and my 70-200 x1.6 is fantastic for football work. I'll probably learn to stitch photos better rather than spend money on wideangle. There is also more and more software for correcting deficiencies in lenses. Should my 20D die of old age and by then FF available for the same price i paid for it then i'll buy one. I have a 300D too so i would probably keep an apsc for sport work and FF for weddings etc. >Megapixel for megapixel a full frame system will always have lower noise >output than the 1.6. That is because the individual pixels are much larger >for full frame. All other factors being equal, I completely agree. >When 6 megapixels came out people said 'at last the mp race >can slow down we've got wot we need'. However 8,10 and now 12 are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >times, times battery efficiency and size will continue to change >incrementally. Sadly I too think that *most* people expect an increase in MP with every new version DSLR or P&S for that matter. The very vocal disappointment of the 30D over the 20D & it's very slow acceptance is clear proof that more MP is simply expected. >Apart from perceived or actual image quality the other big plus for FF is >wideangle lenses, viewfinder brightness and size. For me apsc size >viewscreen means i am less likely to mistake magnification in viewfinder for >actual. using FF film final prints were smaller than i imagined. The >shrunken image in my apsc cameras have balanced things back out. Not to >mention 'top end' features will stay in the top end cameras. Certain top end features will never filter down to low end DSLRs, in part because they are not needed there & would make them too costly. However I would expect high end DSLRs to gain more intelligent features as their in camera processors get faster & more high speed RAM is added for both an image buffer & work space to process the image(s). Just as virtually all DSLR have switched to AF lens systems, soon we will want & be able to have the camera do more of our thinking for us. Things like: A> Face recognition so the camera will not only focus on the face but meter off it as well in-spite of possible backlighting that would usually lead to an incorrect exposure unless the photographer dialed in Exposure Compensation. B> Semi-intelligent AF tracking onto a bird in flight even when it's not always kept in the center of the viewfinder. In can figure this mainly by it being surrounded by a mostly blue & white background. C> Dual Flash Memory card slots that can be user programmed to automatically shift over to the other when the card in the 1st slot is full. This way you miss nothing & I are alerted to change the 1st card when you have a chance to do so. Some such features are good things & most will be primarily firmware upgrades but just like automatic shift car transmissions, most photographers will get a bit lazier. >So it comes down to viewfinder brightness, size, and wide angle. >I would only consider EFs lenses if i wanted to go wider than 24mm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >spend money on wideangle. There is also more and more software for >correcting deficiencies in lenses. Yes post processing can very often & very well correct for a less than great lens. That trend, including easer panorama & auto-stitching programs will make stitching pictures together a better solution in many cases to quality wide angle lenses. It will also reduce the need for cramming more MP in the same size sensor space, whether APS-C or FF. >Should my 20D die of old age and by then FF available for the same >price i paid for it then i'll buy one. I have a 300D too so i would >probably keep an apsc for sport work and FF for weddings etc. Without Question both APS-C & FF sensor have their place & very likely always will even if the feature divide between them widens as ASP-C sensor are increasingly used on lower end cameras with far less features compared to those of high end or even 20D & 30D class DSLR of today. In general, I go with what does what I need it to do @ a price I can afford & right now that is being meet nicely by a Canon APS-C 300D & 30D DSLR. Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
Reply to this Message |
 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.