Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Sep 03, 2014 1:37 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:21 am
Posts: 446
Location: San Mateo, CA.
How long do you think they'll stick around? Ive heard some some podcasts say that they think in a few years most all dslr's will be Full-Frame. Yet, last year Ken rockwell said APS-C sensors arent going anywhere. I think that FX sensors will be slowly moving down into cameras sub - $2000, like the d300 and 50d. So whats your take?

_________________
Nikon D300+MB-D10 | Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 | Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro | Sigma 10-20mm
18-200mm VR | 85mm f/1.8 | 50mm f/1.8 | SB-600 | Manfrotto 681B & 3232 Monopod--190XPROB & 488RC2 Tripod
flickr
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:13 am 
I think theres a few things to take into consideration. In the last couple years iso performance has gotten a LOT better, as we are now seeing usable results at 6400 and higher. As this performance gets better the need for full frame sensors will not be as great. Another shift i think we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg of, is the mirrorless 4/3 style camera which will only get better and refined with some time for it to mature a little. For now and the near future i think the aps-c is a good compromise between size and image quality, and the full frame sensors will probably stay in the semi pro or higher end cameras.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8025
Location: UK
I think as long as there is a significant price difference between making a crop sensor camera and a FF one, there will be room for both. Basically I think the manufacturing cost difference will have to disappear to kill APS-C, and I don't ever see that happening. For every person that wants a better camera, I'd also guess there's at least one wanting a cheaper one. You push for better until you get "good enough". Once that point is reached, it then goes to "how cheap" can you get it.

Also, for my shooting, I actually prefer crop sensors to get the boost in focal lengths when shooting wildlife, and also it gives you effective magnification on macro shots.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:43 am 
Quote:
Also, for my shooting, I actually prefer crop sensors to get the boost in focal lengths when shooting wildlife, and also it gives you effective magnification on macro shots.


FF gives the same opportunity. You just also have a much wider view.
If you wann get closer, then you can get closer and still have 10 mp, if you shoot with a 24mp FF than if you shoot with a 10mp FX.

But i know what you mean. You maybe don't need that wider view. And would rather have a better quality 10mp straight from the camera, than you want a 24mp image cropped to 10 mp. There will probably be some quality differences.

Hope you undertsna dwhat i mean. I maybe wrote it a little confusing, but i gotta go.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8025
Location: UK
I see the consideration in two parts. The crop factor is one part, and I'll also argue there is effective zoom potential due to pixel density. Until FF gets MUCH higher in MP count, they can not match APS-C in that respect. For example, a FF which will crop down and match my A350 would have to be around 32MP. We're only 2/3 of the way there... If you do the same with the Canon 50D, you'll need around 38MP FF to match that. Not even close.

That is not to say I don't see the other benefits to FF, just that for my needs, a high quality cropped will be superior even if you disregard body cost.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:43 am
Posts: 512
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Also the APS-C sensors are much more forgiving on the lens quality, since you dont use the outer borders. So its most likely a lot cheaper to produce good lenses for APS-C sensors at a limited price. At least thats what it looks like at the moment, i dont know the actual costs.

_________________
Jake

Canon EOS 400D + EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS + EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS + EF 50mm f/1.8
My Photos - My webpage (danish)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:14 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9817
Location: UK
.
I think there's plenty of life in the cropped sensor dog yet but the nature of the beast is that for some subjects then full frame sensors will offer more at any particular level of process technology.

A couple of threads I created a while ago may make for some reading on the side which is relevant to this thread.
Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8025
Location: UK
There's at least two considerations for lens quality. "crop only" lenses are easier to make as the image circle provided to the sensor can be smaller. But the negative side of having a high sensor pixel density is that the lens itself may need to be sharper to ensure those denser pixels can be put to good use.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:14 am 
It's an interesting question.

I don't believe that this is going to be demand-driven, but more a case of manufacturer-driven market-strategies taht will determine which way things will head.

Assuming that cost of manufacturing sensors will go down over time, one might surmise that every DSLR will eventually become FF and compacts and bridge-cameras may migrate to APS-C/cropped sensors.

On the other hand, is there really a demand for performance that goes much beyond the Nikon D300/Canon 50D level as far as pure sensor-capacity goes? Keeping in mind that the processing chips will improve gradually anyway.

I could see that if the Foveon sensor reach maturity and the cameras that Sigma packs around it also reach more maturity, the big manufacturers might move into similar full-RGB capable sensors as well. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Canon and Nikon haven't already begun some serious R&D into this kind of sensor tech. Some of the best showcase-shots from the Foveon has a certain wow-factor that is pretty impressive.

Eventually the consumer-market will be satisfied with regards to mega-pixels. How many enthusiast photograpers require more than say 24MP or 35MP or something like that?

Either way it is going to be an interesting 3-5 years of development coming up on us. In the meantime I'll enjoy my Nikon D40 and it's very delightful performance under most conditions I shoot under anyway..lol.

Cheers :-)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:48 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 6953
Location: The Netherlands, Ridderkerk
Didn't read all of the above (sorry guys, I'm tired), but here's what I think:
Full frame will take over eventually, but that will still take many years. Cropmodes will be available to make lenses longer.
Apart from full frame camera's, 2x crop camera's (like Olympus' system) and Micro 4/3 will excist to market for users who'd prefer a smaller camera, but maintain flexibility and quality of a DSLR.

- Bjorn -

_________________
Street and documentary photographer | Google+ | Twitter

Leica M9-P (my article on Camera Labs) | Leica D-Lux 5 | 50mm Summilux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:34 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: Germany
To me it's APS-C plus FF will survive!
Why? There are some calculations around that an FF-sensor costs at least 8x to make than a APS-C sensor. And as th sensor still is a significant amount of the total bom (bill of material) there's always a position for someone offering almost the IQ for a lower price. Personally I don't believe that the APS-C quality (=dynamic range plus noise) will ever catch up a 2.5x larger sensor. This is physically not possible. It may only happen if the manufacturers don't built the FF/FX (or even MF) sensor on the same technology than the APS-C sensors.
Will APS-C sensors ever be as noise-free and as dynamic as I would like? Nope, don't think so (again: physical limits of photon-collecting capabilities). I can clearly see noise in a D300 at ISO 200 and some on this forum also see this in D90 shots. And DR (dynamic range) is currently not even close to what HDR afficionados would like to have in a single shot (currently: 10-12 stops at best! needed for HDR: 16 stops).
This might even be behind the push into MF (i.e. double-FF/FX): because even FF-sensors are physically limited in this respect.

Oh and btw: A 24MPix FF-sensor has exactly the same pixel-density as a 10MPix DX sensor. So the stress for the lens to deliver sharp and CA-free images is the same. The only difference is that the FF-lens has to cover a 60% larger image circle.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:06 pm 
LahLahSr wrote:
It's an interesting question.

How many enthusiast photograpers require more than say 24MP or 35MP or something like that?


I wont be satisfied until i can shoot a Gigapixel.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group