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?

"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/

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/

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.

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

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

"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.

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

"Steve Wolfe" wrote in message
...

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


All I am saying is that in the future they will get better at making FF
sensors.

Pete D wrote:

"Steve Wolfe" wrote in message
...

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


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