Longevity of APS-C Format

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

Pete D wrote:

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.

--
Jeremy |

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Pete D wrote:

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.

--
Jeremy |

Agree completely, now please go and read the rest of the thread.

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.

wrote:
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.

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
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.

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

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:36:57 GMT, "ian" wrote:

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
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.

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
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.

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

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

Pete D wrote:

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
...
Pete D wrote:

"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.

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

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Pete D wrote:

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

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
...
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

Of course they will but FF cameras will also reduce in price.