The Hype For New DSLR

is getting out of hands...
just take a look at one of the other DSLR forum....
since the competition is on for all vendors, the prices are coming down...
makes you wonder if anyone is paying any attentions to glasses nowadays?
after all, the glass is just as important don't you think?

In some ways, DSLR's are being marketed like computers and when the price comes down it can mean only one thing; a new better whizz bang model is waiting just around the corner, ready to be introduced giving retailers a chance to dump the old stock.

I have a Digital Rebel 300D that I purchased knowing that if I waited eventually what I wanted would come out, and I believe that is soon coming to pass. I wanted a full sensor camera with dust control in a price range of around $1500. I believe in less than five years there will be a new model of the Rebel (lets call it the XT5) that will feature what I have been waiting for. But there is a new option I really want and has just entered the market place with Canon's newest whizz bang DSLR and that is very fast high ISO speeds with virtually no noise (this will almost obsolete IS and VR by the way). My understanding is that the new DSLR can go up to 6400 ISO and still produce very good pics; nature photographers will love it.

What the new quality of high ISO is telling me is we can expect new ISO numbers in the 12800 and 25600 range or even higher. Recall we are still in the horse and buggy stage of DSLR's and options we haven't even dreamt about could be coming down the pike in as little as 5 years from now.

I would recommend two approaches to those who already own DSLRs.

1) If you don't have to, don't purchase a new DSLR for at least another few years; that new model camera will be full sensored with a megapixel count that will knock your socks off with high ISO options.

2) Because of full sensor finally hitting its stride in the next 5 years - that is, making it into camera models that are prosumer oriented - don't purchase digital only lens that won't work on a full sensor camera; the only exception might be very wide angle tele's.

'There are over a thousand great pics just beyound my camera lens and I've yet to find one.'
Inner Discourse

Ammend my last sentence to read "wide angle zooms" not "teles."
--

'There are over a thousand great pics just beyound my camera lens and I've yet to find one.'
Inner Discourse

There is one benefit of buying now, even digital lenses. That is, the ability to take the photographs you need to take, right now.

Admittedly, the wide-angle digital only lenses are really where one really needs them, due to the cropped sensor. However, they're not the only lenses to benefit from crop sensor cameras.

Telephotos lenses on crop sensor cameras still gain some resolution advantage over the full-frame cameras. Even the 1DSmk2 doesn't have the pixel density of the 20d. Macro also benefits from the same pixel density.

All this being said, I only know one digital only macro lens for Canon, and no Canon digital only telephotos being 200mm.

There's no discounting the fact that purchasing digital only lenses potentially limits your future usability of the lenses. That shouldn't stop you from buying what you need to get the job done.
--
'Be right, fearless, faithfull, and true to others...'--T.S. Elliott

Er, much like the parent post, I have an amendment. I meant to say that I don't know of any digital only lenses for Canon EF mount MORE than 200mm.
--
'Be right, fearless, faithfull, and true to others...'--T.S. Elliott

without these hypes, Phil wouldn't be where he is today!

rsn48 said:

I would recommend two approaches to those who already own DSLRs.
1) If you don't have to, don't purchase a new DSLR for at least
another few years; that new model camera will be full sensored with
a megapixel count that will knock your socks off with high ISO
options.

Click to expand...

I'd counter that with "Use the tool you have until the new tool gets you shots you can't get with the current tool, then upgrade to one that does. Waiting is silly if not waiting will put money in your pocket. It's a tool, if you can't ROI it then you can't afford it, and if you can then what are you doing without it?

rsn48 said:

2) Because of full sensor finally hitting its stride in the next 5
years - that is, making it into camera models that are prosumer
oriented - don't purchase digital only lens that won't work on a
full sensor camera; the only exception might be very wide angle
tele's.

Click to expand...

I've got a box or two of "full frame" 5x7 Velvia that you can buy. I probably still have half a dozen boxes of "full frame" 4x5 Velvia that you can buy too. I'm starting to have trouble remembering the last time I shot "full frame" 6x7, 6x6 or 6x4.5. Anyone who thinks the medium will get larger over time hasn't looked very much at the history of the art, "Full frame" 35mm is an anomaly that will eventually get esoteric, then disappear.

Paul
--
http://www.fluiditgroup.com/blog/pdr

I'm not sure we're on the same wave length on the meaning of full sensor, which is what the 5D Canon is, for example. The number of full sensors (no crop factor) is increasing - models that is - and the crop factor is dropping to 1.3 in Canon's latest offering.

As a company it makes more sense to move to full sensor as the lens are already developed and marketed. It would be cheaper to go to full sensor (no crop factor) rather than designing new digital lens only.

I think Canon will keep smaller sensors like on the 10D, 20D, 30D, Rebel XTi, but over time the number will decrease. Why? So they can sell the digital lens they have already put out.

I do a lot of heavy cropping and I definitely want a full sensor camera.
--

'There are over a thousand great pics just beyound my camera lens and I've yet to find one.'
Inner Discourse

rsn48 said:

I'm not sure we're on the same wave length on the meaning of full
sensor, which is what the 5D Canon is, for example. The number of
full sensors (no crop factor) is increasing - models that is - and
the crop factor is dropping to 1.3 in Canon's latest offering.

Click to expand...

No, we're on the same wavelenght, you just don't seem to be factoring in the history of film and its ever decreasing size over the history of photography.

rsn48 said:

As a company it makes more sense to move to full sensor as the lens
are already developed and marketed. It would be cheaper to go to
full sensor (no crop factor) rather than designing new digital lens
only.

Click to expand...

Actualy, it's significantly more expensive to go with a full-sized 35mm frame than it is to do anything smaller- the sensor is the single-most expensive part of a digital camera, and sensor yeild per-wafer changes signficantly as you go from 35mm to APS-C (both in terms of size and in terms of the negative effects of imperfections which may be even bigger.) The amount of glass in "crop factor" lenses is significantly less, and the shipping costs for those lenses decreases as well. So, with "crop factor" sensors and lenses your manufacturing costs and distribution costs go down over time. You can stick with the same lens mount, or design a new one- from a manufacturing perspective that's a trivial cost compared to the number of bodies being shipped out and the ability to hit price points that grow your market (such as the Nikon D40.)

rsn48 said:

I think Canon will keep smaller sensors like on the 10D, 20D, 30D,
Rebel XTi, but over time the number will decrease. Why? So they
can sell the digital lens they have already put out.

Click to expand...

Canon's "full frame" sales haven't been all that great compared to their sales of "crop factor" bodies.

rsn48 said:

I do a lot of heavy cropping and I definitely want a full sensor
camera.

Click to expand...

While I find it much more efficient to use the correct lens so as to not have to crop heavily, I find that when I need to crop from my 2Dx's APS-C sensor it works just fine.

However, if you're cropping "full frame" then APS-C will put you into cropped territory, so your argument is a little illogical.

Paul
--
http://www.fluiditgroup.com/blog/pdr

Paul Robertson said:

rsn48 said:

I'm not sure we're on the same wave length on the meaning of full
sensor, which is what the 5D Canon is, for example. The number of
full sensors (no crop factor) is increasing - models that is - and
the crop factor is dropping to 1.3 in Canon's latest offering.

Click to expand...

No, we're on the same wavelenght, you just don't seem to be
factoring in the history of film and its ever decreasing size over
the history of photography.

Paul
--
http://www.fluiditgroup.com/blog/pdr

Click to expand...

But wasn't the decreasing film size driven by a desire to make the cameras smaller, rather than cost or a technical advantage? With current D-SLRS, sonsor size has a lot less effect on camera size.

--
Steve

Over the long haul, the smaller APS (I thiink it was called) was a failure, even though many were sold.

Logically far fewer full sensor cameras have been sold when you take into consideration price point, just a computer sales picked up in the 80's once price points were achieved.

I am saying the price of sensors is dropping and full sensors will be cheaper - scales of economy - soon. There are more models of full sensor cameras than ever before, and the price for a 5D can now be had for around $2800, much cheaper than a full sensor camera five years ago. $2800 is still to steep for many 'prosumers" pocket book, but I believe when the full sensor cameras hit around $1500 you'll sales dramatically pick up, me being one of them.
--

'There are over a thousand great pics just beyound my camera lens and I've yet to find one.'
Inner Discourse

Steve Ives said:

But wasn't the decreasing film size driven by a desire to make the
cameras smaller, rather than cost or a technical advantage? With
current D-SLRS, sonsor size has a lot less effect on camera size.

Click to expand...

While that's one factor, so was the film size/cost (remember the original APS?) The 4/3rds folks are trying to harp on camera size, and we've seen the demand the D40 has been experiencing. I don't think we've seen the end of the shrinking camera syndrome, and sensor yields per wafer are likely a bigger cost driver than film emulsion.

Paul
--
http://www.fluiditgroup.com/blog/pdr

rsn48 said:

Over the long haul, the smaller APS (I thiink it was called) was a
failure, even though many were sold.

Click to expand...

Sure, it was a failure because it sucked quality-wise. APS-C works really, really well for 99.998% of photography. Poster-sized prints and below are astounding, and you can upsize very well.

rsn48 said:

Logically far fewer full sensor cameras have been sold when you
take into consideration price point, just a computer sales picked
up in the 80's once price points were achieved.

Click to expand...

That's not the only story though- if you look around the higher price points, there are more APS-C cameras being sold than 35mm-sensor-sized ones.

rsn48 said:

I am saying the price of sensors is dropping and full sensors will
be cheaper - scales of economy - soon. There are more models of

Click to expand...

You're still not addressing yield per wafer, that's a very big deal in fabrication and a huge cost/profit driver for the folks making the sensors.

rsn48 said:

full sensor cameras than ever before, and the price for a 5D can
now be had for around $2800, much cheaper than a full sensor camera
five years ago. $2800 is still to steep for many 'prosumers"
pocket book, but I believe when the full sensor cameras hit around
$1500 you'll sales dramatically pick up, me being one of them.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure we'll see another 50% drop in price anytime soon. Hey, when 4x5 digital backs come down under 5K, I'll get one, but I've no illusion that it'll have any long-term impact on LF being anything other than a niche market.

Here's my reasoning: If I'm a manufacturer, and I can get 8 APS-C sensors out of a wafer, or 5 35mm sensors, and the sensor is the single-most expensive part of the camera and I make 3M cameras a year, I don't even have to think twice about which model I'm pushing without a very high price premium that makes me more per-unit. Sensor yield isn't just about size of the sensor, it's also about being able to work around imperfections, and smaller sensors make that easier.

See for instance:

http://www.naturescapes.net/092006/ej0906.htm

Paul
--
http://www.fluiditgroup.com/blog/pdr

Interestingly the explanation I heard for the APC camera not catching on - and I think it was Kepler in Pop Photo - was the name of it; the name "APC" sounded technical, a number of people thought the system was poorly name. Instead if it had been called something like - the "Simplar" camera system (sounding like the word simple), or something like it, more cameras would have been sold. But if you know nothing about cameras and want a P & S for your family shots, you wouldn't buy an "APC" camera, that must be a camera for pros.


'There are over a thousand great pics just beyound my camera lens and I've yet to find one.'
Inner Discourse

No doubt that marketing is a big deal. I guarantee you that there are folks out there who made decisions right along that line.

However, marketing is rarely the only thing that kills a product. If you market it close enough to your previous product, but don't offer something worth getting over and beyond the other product, it'll probably fail.

If you have less quality, you need lower price, more convienience, or some other benefit. APS cameras didn't deliver, and neither did the film. If the film was half the size, it should have been half the cost. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough of a benefit for people to switch to it.
--
'Be right, fearless, faithfull, and true to others...'--T.S. Elliott

rsn48 said:

I'm not sure we're on the same wave length on the meaning of full
sensor, which is what the 5D Canon is, for example. The number of
full sensors (no crop factor) is increasing - models that is - and
the crop factor is dropping to 1.3 in Canon's latest offering.

Click to expand...

Within the Canon system there is no reason why a "cropped" sensor is better, Canon creates their system in such a way that big sensor = good lenses = good quality. But Canon-influenced people tend to think that other systems also have that bigger=better disease and the only fault of the other systems are the small sensor and that is a false assumption.

Out of the Canon system things are different, Nikon has the best lenses in the DX size and the sensor for it and FourThirds has only lenses for 4/3 size and the award-winning lens quality there. And There is only one rule: Big lenses designed for the system sensor size = good quality, Small lenses = Bad quality or small aperture, no matter where the sensor size is. Maybe The quality of big-sensored cams lie more in the high-iso-area and the quality of small-sensored cams more in the sharpness-of-zoom-lenses area, but both have its benefits. And sharpness and high-iso can be traded: sharpening and increasing noise or noise-reduction and softening.

regards
Martin

-----------------------------
Typing errors are intended to provide a basis for global amusement.

Almost all other vendors have crop sensors...

marf said:

rsn48 said:

I'm not sure we're on the same wave length on the meaning of full
sensor, which is what the 5D Canon is, for example. The number of
full sensors (no crop factor) is increasing - models that is - and
the crop factor is dropping to 1.3 in Canon's latest offering.

Click to expand...

Within the Canon system there is no reason why a "cropped" sensor
is better, Canon creates their system in such a way that big sensor
= good lenses = good quality. But Canon-influenced people tend to
think that other systems also have that bigger=better disease and
the only fault of the other systems are the small sensor and that
is a false assumption.

Out of the Canon system things are different, Nikon has the best
lenses in the DX size and the sensor for it and FourThirds has only
lenses for 4/3 size and the award-winning lens quality there. And
There is only one rule: Big lenses designed for the system sensor
size = good quality, Small lenses = Bad quality or small aperture,
no matter where the sensor size is. Maybe The quality of
big-sensored cams lie more in the high-iso-area and the quality of
small-sensored cams more in the sharpness-of-zoom-lenses area, but
both have its benefits. And sharpness and high-iso can be traded:
sharpening and increasing noise or noise-reduction and softening.

regards
Martin

-----------------------------
Typing errors are intended to provide a basis for global amusement.

Click to expand...

at an industry standard of 40 defects per wafer, the cost economy of crop sensors defeats FF variants by a factor approaching 20x. It is you the customer that pays for that difference.

Dependent on where those defects are located, but at an average yield, if 4/3 sensor where to cost US$41, an APS C would cost around low $90's, and a FF sensor would be around US$650 or some more.

Add to this, it is not the only reason APS C exists, there are despite the particular issues related to sensor behaviour as opposed to film, that affect the output adversely. Sensors do not respond well to angular light paths common to film lenses and film size sensors. Containing this angle has led to several technical innovations, in particular the 4/3rds format and the use of microlenses on the sensor roof.

APS C exists, not for the cost shortcuts it offers alone, but because it is a good technical solution. Canon's own 1DMkIII release in 1.3x crop underlines this experience as a fact.

--
Riley

not all that counts, can be counted

"how much brands use the cropped sensor strategy" ?

Nikon not: when you have only DX lenses then the sensor does not "crop" the possible image of the lens. Newer serious owners will buy DX lenses, the 35 mm lens compatibility is only there that the old lenses work for those ( more hobbyists ) who have it.

Pentax yes, Sony Yes: Ok they do not have much lenses for small sensors,
but also have a smaller market share.

Leica M8 half: I think the 1.3 factor is not because of expensive sensors ( Leica users are used to expensive things ) but more because Leica lenses perform best in 1.3 smaller image circle, and the 1.3 factor is not much "crop". Ok they may change it to 1.1 factor some day.

FourThirds Not: Always the same sensors size with lenses designed for it, except some third-party lenses.

Non-DSLRs ( i think the Sony R1 and some older Sonys, or Fuji S9000 and some older Fujis, or sigma DP-1 are serious cameras ): The lens is always designed for the sensor, so the sensor does not "crop".

So i guess 50% / 50% in the sum.
--
regards
Martin

-----------------------------
Typing errors are intended to provide a basis for global amusement.

is a bit anti-Canon don't you think?

marf said:

"how much brands use the cropped sensor strategy" ?

Nikon not: when you have only DX lenses then the sensor does not
"crop" the possible image of the lens. Newer serious owners will
buy DX lenses, the 35 mm lens compatibility is only there that the
old lenses work for those ( more hobbyists ) who have it.

Pentax yes, Sony Yes: Ok they do not have much lenses for small
sensors,
but also have a smaller market share.

Leica M8 half: I think the 1.3 factor is not because of expensive
sensors ( Leica users are used to expensive things ) but more
because Leica lenses perform best in 1.3 smaller image circle, and
the 1.3 factor is not much "crop". Ok they may change it to 1.1
factor some day.

FourThirds Not: Always the same sensors size with lenses designed
for it, except some third-party lenses.

Non-DSLRs ( i think the Sony R1 and some older Sonys, or Fuji S9000
and some older Fujis, or sigma DP-1 are serious cameras ): The lens
is always designed for the sensor, so the sensor does not "crop".

So i guess 50% / 50% in the sum.
--
regards
Martin

-----------------------------
Typing errors are intended to provide a basis for global amusement.

Click to expand...