Longevity 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?

Longevity of APS-C Format
 

"panabiker" writes:

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/

Longevity of APS-C Format
 

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:29:35 -0500, panabiker wrote:

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 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.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Longevity of APS-C Format
 

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.

Longevity of APS-C Format
 

bmoag wrote:
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.

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

Longevity of APS-C Format
 

On 28 Sep 2006 07:29:35 -0700, "panabiker" wrote:

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

Longevity of APS-C Format
 

panabiker wrote:
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

Longevity of APS-C Format
 

"DHB" wrote in message
...
On 28 Sep 2006 07:29:35 -0700, "panabiker" wrote:

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


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.

Longevity of APS-C Format
 

AaronW wrote:

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.

Longevity of APS-C Format
 

panabiker wrote:
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?

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.