Closing the gap at Photokina.

Started Sep 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
azazel1024
Senior MemberPosts: 1,093Gear list
Like?
Re: Not only size, $$$
In reply to amalric, Sep 27, 2012

Even though I am "hardcore m4/3", you can make a FF body significantly cheaper. These days the complexity of a dSLR is one of the bigger costs. An entry level dLSR body, even APS-c is significantly more costly to manufacture than an ILC body. The mechanical complexity of the mirror, mirror box, etc adds a lot of cost in manufacturing.

So going from a small dSLR FF body to an ILC FF body, especially if you are comparing it to a dSLR FF body with a real pentaprism, I'd bet you could easily slice 200-300 off the body cost and have similar margins for the ILC compared to the dSLR, even taking in to account the possible cost of an EVF.

FF's also tend to be bigger margin, even for this "cheap ones" probably have twice the margin or more than the entry level APS-c dSLRs have.

So if one wanted to, I'd bet Nikon or Canon could sell a FF ILC camera AT COST, for well under $1,000. Probably under $500. Now, if they want to make a profit, obviously they need to price it well above that.

That said, if they moved to ILC FF bodies, I see no reason why the manufacturers couldn't be making FF ILC bodies in the $1,500 range for an entry level body and $2,000-2,500 for a more "pro" ILC FF body. They'd likely still have great margins.

Now, the truth is, even with an ILC over a dSLR, you just can't shave that much off lens size. You CAN do some of that though. For shorter focal length lenses, you don't need retrofocus designs, so you can save size, weight, cost and complexity on some of those lenses, which could be significant. You could also still shave maybe 10-25mm off some of the shorter lenses as well by not needing to make room for the mirror box. Though there isn't too much you can shave of the lens size without making it a telephoto design (IE lens length from front element to sensor plane is less than the distance of the focal length I believe is what actually defines a telephoto).

In the end, an ILC FF camera is going to have lenses that are longer, wider, heavier and likely more costly than an APS-c ILC camera, or a m4/3 ILC, or a 1" sensor ILC.

There are certainly some interesting things you can do with an ILC FF camera though, and supposing someone where to make one and made one with really good and compact (for FF) lenses, and not just an ILC FF and an adapter and a "have a nice day", I might be interested at some point.

To me the advantages of a smaller sensor are manifest. Its a lot happier I am carting something even as massive as this prototyped Panasonic 150mm f/2.8 appears to be and I have a 300mm f/2.8 lens in everything that really matters to me!

However, a nice compact (again, for FF) FF ILC camera, with a fast 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lens would be really nice. It probably wouldn't get nearly the use my m4/3 kit would, but hey, when I wanted "ultimate" image quality, and the additional ability for shallow DoF, it could be really nice (say a 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8).

I like choices. Choices are good.
--

Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/

 azazel1024's gear list:azazel1024's gear list
Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow