The camera market is full of no clue finance people just like me and these no clue people will decide with their wallet which format is going to live.
mb as an issue is well superceded by DR and noise
This happens with all electronic products, it will mostlikely mean more buying dslr who have no interest in frame size.
People even less interested in frame size
They appear to be working at maximun production now, the majority who are led by market exspectation are not the type who distinguish frame size, unless that is the marketing hype. Equaly the next marketing hype may be the longer reach with a 1.6 crop.
Some might want width, some lengh, most peoples widest zoom was 28mm with 35mm, the 18mm covers that and they couldnt then get to 300mm on a 35mm camera. Dx seems to have a clear advantage here.
They are making money
It might.What has the end of the world to do with FF?7. The world will not come to an end in the next 5 years – I hope
They may well do, there is definetly a market for it and for some its a key feature. For the people I mix with its a non issue, they all want DX, but for others there is a different bias.
Spend a day working with 3 canon shooters, all long term pros. All they theorised on was when canon would bring in the HSC like the nikon D2x. There are a lot of sports and wildlife shooters who want the exta reach. The savings in fast glass are enormous.
Early dslr's were a get by till something better came. I have a D2x, D2h & D70 and have no plans to buy another camera this year. With those camers I can make a living for the rest of my life.Take a look at the Minolta (god rest her sole
– 8Mp, Anti-shake, USB-2 at less than $300. Now compare it with the
Canon EOS-1D (released 2001) – The sensors of both these cameras
are not that different from each other. It took the industry 4
years to get from one to the other.
Where do you get your statistics on the above....or did you just make it up?
Your statements have self contradictions in them.
I'm not convinced this is true for the pro lenses. For consumers, do they really want or need 20mp cameras, or do they want cheaper 10-12mp cameras?
Here's where you statement in the Subject line fails miserably. FF increases cost of the most expensive part in the camera by at least an order of magnitude. As I've pointed out time and again, it would take one heck of a reduction in FF sensor cost to pull the price into the true consumer range (the 5D is not in the true consumer range). And reducing the FF sensor cost reduces the APS sensor cost.
Nikon is on a something closer to a 36-month cycle, actually. But the bigger question is this: what would you rather have, something with more features and performance than the D200 at the same price, or the D200 at a much lower price?
Wow. That's a pretty harsh dismissal. Have you actually shot with a D200 and an 18-200mm? Exactly what was it you wanted to do that you couldn't? As to the we-want-35mm-because-that's-what-we-had argument, there are gains and losses if that becomes the norm. You likely gain a brighter viewfinder and your old lenses working the same. You gain DOF isolation and a stop or so of diffraction-free zone. You lose money (it costs more), wildlife shooters lose pixel density, you lose overall DOF. The lens issue (having to buy new WA for APS sensors) evens out, I think, as you're going to find that many of your old film WA don't perform as well as you'd like on FF. The noise and resolution issues are non-starters for me, though I suppose if you always shoot at ISO 1600 and above you could argue for larger photosites (although you're betting against technology solving problems, usually a bad bet).
Again, FF runs counter to that. It costs more. So if prices really are going to drop, you don't want to increase your costs. That very well may be Nikon's primary reason for not going FF.
Do you think your statements will be less worthwhile if you express them in a more friendly tone?
X1 (released 2005) – 8Mp, Anti-shake, USB-2 at less than $300. Now compare it with the Canon EOS-1D (released 2001) – The sensors of both these cameras are not that different from each other. It took the industry 4 years to get from one to the other.As you've already received more than enough feedback, I just want to respond with a few comments to this single point more than any other.
--As you've already received more than enough feedback, I just want
to respond with a few comments to this single point more than any
other.
35mm is a legacy format, and I grant you people have trouble with
change. You don't need to look much further than the Imperial vs.
Metric resistances to comprehend this. However once people are over
a hump, they stay there. It's the interial force that presents the
greatest challenge. In this case it's certainly not
insurmountable--especially if cost is a contributing incentive.
For commercial photography, the client's needs drive the solution.
The bottom line is cost-effectiveness. As more and more workflows
switch to digital, everyone from the client to the photographer is
looking to minimize expense during the transition. In the field I
work in, designing books and magazines, there's no premium
distinction between APS-C & FF. Photographers still get paid the
same scale regardless of the technology they use, and qualitatively
there is not enough of a difference to justify FF when a book or
magazine goes to press. In many cases a 6MP camera will do just
fine. A 10 or 12MP APS-C camera is usually more than sufficient.
Who then is left to pay the premium for FF? Consumers? Prosumers?
Perhaps I can see studio photographers commanding a premium where
the clients specifically request their services--but that niche is
relatively small. As the market is driven by cost efficiencies, and
APS-C cameras can fulfill a vast portion of the commercial market's
needs, there would have to be some real market incentive to command
a premium for FF. I just don't see what that is.
If the only incentive to move to FF is it's "what photographers
were once used to"--they'll get over it-- especially if it's going
to cost them double to keep that preference. It's economics that
must drive a preference for FF --and not much else.
the born 2 design
design guy
Sorry about my tone earlier. I was up with a bit of a stomach ache and had to sit up for a bit till it calmed down. Look, you simply don't know who wants what and who has actually voted with their wallet or not.
Yeah, your right, eh? I guess that is why we now see all these camera ads with amateurs. "Legends in the lens" is now becoming "Enthusiasts in the lens".
