18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?

In article dee40474-3fa1-4f4c-9e28-0d412c85a708
@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says...

I don't think so. For resolution freaks, this will be welcome,
provided it doesn't cost $2500. This is apparently a cheaper 5D II.
Now, the only question is, will Nikon facing two high res camera at
low prices from Canon bring out their own?
One good thing, the lenses don't need to be hyper-expensive like for
the FF cameras in order to properly support this chip.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09...os7d.asp#specs

Why the ****ing **** can't Canon get us a full-frame camera for a
reasonable price? It's just insanely frustrating that FF cameras are so
stubbornly expensive; why the hell is this? What's so *magic* about a
full-frame sensor that a body housing one can't cost $1,200? Fer
chrissakes, everything else in the digital world halves in price or
doubles in performance every 18 months.

The 7D is just ludicrous. Dear Canon; *enough with the ****ing
megapixels, already*!! I need an 18MP APS-C sensor like I need another
asshole.

Full frame. 12 MP. Super-high ISO performance. $1,200.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"While liberals wave the Justice Department's report on CIA
interrogation techniques at the rest of the world and tearfully beg them
for forgiveness, the rest of us are wondering why we don't reduce the
deficit by selling the rights to these interrogations on pay-per-view.
The contestants on your average Japanese game show go through more
intense ordeals."
- Doctor Zero

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 06:58:21 -0400, Giftzwerg
wrote:

In article dee40474-3fa1-4f4c-9e28-0d412c85a708
, says...

I don't think so. For resolution freaks, this will be welcome,
provided it doesn't cost $2500. This is apparently a cheaper 5D II.
Now, the only question is, will Nikon facing two high res camera at
low prices from Canon bring out their own?
One good thing, the lenses don't need to be hyper-expensive like for
the FF cameras in order to properly support this chip.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09...os7d.asp#specs

Why the ****ing **** can't Canon get us a full-frame camera for a
reasonable price? It's just insanely frustrating that FF cameras are so
stubbornly expensive; why the hell is this? What's so *magic* about a
full-frame sensor that a body housing one can't cost $1,200? Fer
chrissakes, everything else in the digital world halves in price or
doubles in performance every 18 months.

That's because those other devices are further miniaturized over time
and require smaller and smaller expanses of sufficiently flawless
silicon, enabling more and more of them to be produced at once on a
wafer.

A sensor of a particular size, well that just stays at that particular
size, so a major avenue of cost reduction is unavailable to it.

In message , Alfred Molon
writes
In article ,
Giftzwerg says...
What's so *magic* about a
full-frame sensor that a body housing one can't cost $1,200?

Perhaps larger sensor being more expensive to make?

Fer
chrissakes, everything else in the digital world halves in price or
doubles in performance every 18 months.

And in fact prices are coming down. Just compare with what DLSRs were
costing just a few years ago.

By the way, what is so magic about "full-frame" sensors? How about even
larger sensors?

That is the Medium format sensors used in MF cameras. There is no such
thing s "full frame" digital. Some time ago I suggested we have

CX (camera-phone size sensors)
DX
FX
MX

and drop the "full frame" marketing rubbish. Ask any plate or field
camera user what "full frame" is and it ain't 35mm :-)

In 10 years time the "full frame" marketing will have gone away as will
most 35mm cameras.



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Giftzwerg says...
What's so *magic* about a
full-frame sensor that a body housing one can't cost $1,200?

Perhaps larger sensor being more expensive to make?


everything else in the digital world halves in price or
doubles in performance every 18 months.

And in fact prices are coming down. Just compare with what DLSRs were
costing just a few years ago.

By the way, what is so magic about "full-frame" sensors? How about even
larger sensors?

Hmmm ... if the sensor is larger than a 35mm frame then what lenses would we
use with it?
How much were (are?) the digital backs for Hasselblads?
Why are some large-Mp camera bodies actually bigger and heavier than 35mm
bodies?
I had a play with a 40D and I'm sure it is bigger and heavier than my old
35mm Canon bodies.

Regards, Ian.

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:37:16 +0100, "No spam please"
wrote:

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Giftzwerg says...
What's so *magic* about a
full-frame sensor that a body housing one can't cost $1,200?

Perhaps larger sensor being more expensive to make?


everything else in the digital world halves in price or
doubles in performance every 18 months.

And in fact prices are coming down. Just compare with what DLSRs were
costing just a few years ago.

By the way, what is so magic about "full-frame" sensors? How about even
larger sensors?

Hmmm ... if the sensor is larger than a 35mm frame then what lenses would we
use with it?
How much were (are?) the digital backs for Hasselblads?
Why are some large-Mp camera bodies actually bigger and heavier than 35mm
bodies?
I had a play with a 40D and I'm sure it is bigger and heavier than my old
35mm Canon bodies.

Regards, Ian.


Because every DSLR owner wants their camera to be a DSLR-looking P&S
camera. All those automatic point & shoot features that DSLR snapshooters
depend on today come at a price. Tons of extra servos, USMs, and solenoids
are required to make their DSLR act as a P&S camera. They won't buy one
designed like a professional's SLR, it has to have at least the base
capabilities of any P&S camera today. Without that they are lost.

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message

In article ,
Giftzwerg says...
What's so *magic* about a
full-frame sensor that a body housing one can't cost $1,200?

Perhaps larger sensor being more expensive to make?

Why would a larger sensor with lower pixel density be more expensive to
make?

Chris H wrote:
In message , Alfred Molon
writes

By the way, what is so magic about "full-frame" sensors? How about even
larger sensors?

That is the Medium format sensors used in MF cameras. There is no such
thing s "full frame" digital. Some time ago I suggested we have

CX (camera-phone size sensors)
DX
FX
MX

and drop the "full frame" marketing rubbish. Ask any plate or field
camera user what "full frame" is and it ain't 35mm :-)

In 10 years time the "full frame" marketing will have gone away as will
most 35mm cameras.

Bet??

I believe you're wrong on this. Please archive my post and show me I am
wrong in a decade, though.
It's not just about marketing. It's coin of the realm now, even though
you don't like it.

--
john mcwilliams

Giftzwerg wrote:
In article dee40474-3fa1-4f4c-9e28-0d412c85a708
@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says...

I don't think so. For resolution freaks, this will be welcome,
provided it doesn't cost $2500. This is apparently a cheaper 5D II.
Now, the only question is, will Nikon facing two high res camera at
low prices from Canon bring out their own?
One good thing, the lenses don't need to be hyper-expensive like for
the FF cameras in order to properly support this chip.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09...os7d.asp#specs

Why the ****ing **** can't Canon get us a full-frame camera for a
reasonable price? It's just insanely frustrating that FF cameras are so
stubbornly expensive; why the hell is this? What's so *magic* about a
full-frame sensor that a body housing one can't cost $1,200? Fer
chrissakes, everything else in the digital world halves in price or
doubles in performance every 18 months.

The 7D is just ludicrous. Dear Canon; *enough with the ****ing
megapixels, already*!! I need an 18MP APS-C sensor like I need another
asshole.

Full frame. 12 MP. Super-high ISO performance. $1,200.


Uh ... full frame need 20 MP just to EQUAL the performance,
in the central APC-C sized part, of the lowly 30D (8 MP).

At 18 MP there will be many, many lenses that are simply inadequate.
Sure, the 50-100 primes and macros will be OK, as will the $2500
super teles (which are essentially diffraction limited at f/4),
but few others will really make better pictures at 18 MP than at 10 MP.

Doug McDonald

In article , "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY
REACH says...

Full frame. 12 MP. Super-high ISO performance. $1,200.


Uh ... full frame need 20 MP just to EQUAL the performance,
in the central APC-C sized part, of the lowly 30D (8 MP).

Tell it to Nikon, m'man; the D3 was the hottest ticket a year ago,
mainly due to - yup - full frame, 12 MP, super-high ISO performance.
The only area where the D3 fell down was the obvious one; price.

I opted for the 5D Mk II, but even here, it's Canon trading price for
massively more megapixels, and I simply don't need them. I'd much
rather have a 5D Mk II with the same pixel-count as the earlier model,
for less money, and with better high-ISO performance.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"While liberals wave the Justice Department's report on CIA
interrogation techniques at the rest of the world and tearfully beg them
for forgiveness, the rest of us are wondering why we don't reduce the
deficit by selling the rights to these interrogations on pay-per-view.
The contestants on your average Japanese game show go through more
intense ordeals."
- Doctor Zero

In article
, DRS
wrote:

What's so *magic* about a
full-frame sensor that a body housing one can't cost $1,200?

Perhaps larger sensor being more expensive to make?

Why would a larger sensor with lower pixel density be more expensive to
make?

larger sensors cost more because they are larger. the number of pixels
doesn't matter all that much.

the other factor is people are more than happy to pay $2000-3000 for a
full frame camera, so why in the world would anyone release one that
costs less? eventually sure, but there's little point right now.