Reading mode: Light Dark

FF is dead...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walter Freiberger
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
W

Walter Freiberger

Guest
... but some people did not yet realize this and keep spending too much money for transitional products like the 1Ds and DCS 14n.

If the Olympus E-system has a positive start (and I believe it will) and Nikon provides a significant lineup of DX lenses and a 10-12mp DX sized D2 who needs full frame? Who wants to pay $8000 for a transitional product like Canon's 1Ds?

With "significant lens lineup" I mean something like this:

8/2.8 DX
10-24/2.8 DX
16-70/2.8 DX

12-24/4 DX
16-70/3.5-4.5 DX

The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design. If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter
 
Walter Freiberger said:
... but some people did not yet realize this and keep spending too
much money for transitional products like the 1Ds and DCS 14n.

If the Olympus E-system has a positive start (and I believe it
will) and Nikon provides a significant lineup of DX lenses and a
10-12mp DX sized D2 who needs full frame? Who wants to pay $8000
for a transitional product like Canon's 1Ds?

With "significant lens lineup" I mean something like this:

8/2.8 DX
10-24/2.8 DX
16-70/2.8 DX

12-24/4 DX
16-70/3.5-4.5 DX

The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO
not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design.
If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the
smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead
end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter
Click to expand...
Thank you and good night. NEXT!

--
Dave C
 
..................... it proves conclusively why the FF approach is the best, 4/3rds may be good as it is a matched setup, buy DX is just another Nikon patch and their 10MPs is hitting their theoretical limit, it's all in the Nikon SLD forum, if Canon persue their own approach their limit is some 22MPs and so it goes on.
 
Eigentlich teile ich deiner Meinung. Alte Optik und neue Technologie haben immer dazu geführt, dass einer auf der Strecke blieb. Es lebe die neue Technologie und erwache die neue Optik.

Laurence
Walter Freiberger said:
Member said:
Thank you and good night. NEXT!

--
Dave C
Click to expand...
Good morning. It's already morning... time to wake up ... ;)))

Regards
Walter
Click to expand...
--
Gone Alinghi

--------------------
Final Standings
Alinghi 5

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
 
Old Timer63 said:
Old Timer63 said:
Walter
Click to expand...
Thank you and good night. NEXT!
Click to expand...
Dave C

Hello Walter and Dave,

Nikon and Minolta, they both have experienced with a own lens line for APS-cameras. That was a total flop. Kodak has tried so many film-sizes and all are gone with the wind. And now Olympus has made a stillborn size. In a few time you will come back to FF. Why you will spend money for a system with a small range on lenses? Canon will be the leader for a long time.
Otto
 
Walter

This is exactly the same thread as you have posted over on the News forum. So many here will simply wonder why you also bothered posting such an anti-Canon thread here - and simply conclude that you are a troll...
Andy
 
the reality is, Nikon is totally dissing their base while making yet another ultimately incompatible lens line.

Why is it incompatible? Because the Full-Frame chips will always have higher quality than smaller ones just like digital backs for medium format have better qualtiy than the full-frame chips. So, down the road, Nikon's shortsightedness will leave them with an odd-ball lens line that simply won't work with a full-frame sensor. A full-frame sensor Nikon will have to come out with to survive.

Why do I use the word survive? Because ultimatly film will dissapear. When Nikon has bet it all on these odd little lenses, to avoid competing with full-frame sensors, yet the price keeps dropping on full-frame, Nikon will be out on a long little limb.

I think the Olympus solution is technically far more viable and here is why. While everyone, even Nikon, seems to be touting why go larger, Nikon has snowed everyone by shrinking the lens while leaving the mirror box size the same. This means Nikon, by retaining their full-frame 35mm mirror, can not truly take advantage of their new little lenses. A wide angle on a leica is small and works so good (on their rangefinder) because the back of the lens is just off the film plane. On 35mm SLR's designers can't do this because of the mirror.

Contrast this with the E10 and I suppose the new Olympus system. If Olympus continues to use it's split prism system instead of mirrors they will retain a much smaller back of lens to sensor distance making these lenses the true bargin/performance combination.

So where will this lead? It is unavoidable that the larger sensor will be better than the smaller sensor. There is just to much physics involved. Does that mean that the smaller sensor won't work? No. Just that the larger one will be lower noise, higher resolution, etc. But, if the larger one is 32meg and the smaller one is 20 meg it ain't gonna make a hoot of difference since both will resolve more than the lens anyway. When that golden time arrives (5 years off) then the Olympus solution will really have a winner. Till then, the pros will continue to want and get full-frame solutions from, at this point anyway, Canon.

Gazing into the crystal ball extrapolating where things are going now with the above constraints, I see Canon getting the pro market but having the low cost steping stone cameras to keep the low end to allowing people to build a single lens collection as people upgrade (unlike Nikon's current direction). I see the Olympus solution offering a credible high performance low end for Pros just starting out or for any advanced amature that want's capability but isn't willing or can't shell out the bucks for the larger sensor based camera.

Nikon is painting itself in a pretty bad corner. People on the threads here are saying at PMA they are dissing the whole idea of full frame sensors and saying their goofy small lenses are the answer even though they are keeping their big bodies and large mirror box. If they truly optimize for their 1.5 sensors, then their bodies can shrink too. But then their little lenses will be obsolete since all the focus distance info will be wrong.

I guess I would say I disagree with your feeling full-frame is dead. Maybe it should be, but it isn't going to pan out that way.

Postscript..... Of course, Nikon will compete. They will come out with a full-frame at some point. Then all the people with those toy lenses will wonder what to do with them. This is inevitable no matter what Nikon says now if they want to compete and not loose it all to their competitors.
Walter Freiberger said:
... but some people did not yet realize this and keep spending too
much money for transitional products like the 1Ds and DCS 14n.

If the Olympus E-system has a positive start (and I believe it
will) and Nikon provides a significant lineup of DX lenses and a
10-12mp DX sized D2 who needs full frame? Who wants to pay $8000
for a transitional product like Canon's 1Ds?

With "significant lens lineup" I mean something like this:

8/2.8 DX
10-24/2.8 DX
16-70/2.8 DX

12-24/4 DX
16-70/3.5-4.5 DX

The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO
not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design.
If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the
smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead
end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter
Click to expand...
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN
 
Walter Freiberger said:
... but some people did not yet realize this and keep spending too
much money for transitional products like the 1Ds and DCS 14n.

If the Olympus E-system has a positive start (and I believe it
will) and Nikon provides a significant lineup of DX lenses and a
10-12mp DX sized D2 who needs full frame? Who wants to pay $8000
for a transitional product like Canon's 1Ds?

With "significant lens lineup" I mean something like this:

8/2.8 DX
10-24/2.8 DX
16-70/2.8 DX

12-24/4 DX
16-70/3.5-4.5 DX

The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO
not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design.
If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the
smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead
end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter
Click to expand...
 
Your statement depends on 2 points: the wideangle problems of FF sensors and the question if it will be possible to develope very short wideangle lenses though the restriction due to necessary retrofocus constructions of such lenses for SLR cameras. Because not any top performing superwidenangle still exists, i fear the last is impossible. On the other hand the 1Ds, used with longer lenses is the absolutely top perfomer so it is no problem of FF.

Therefore it may be the best solution to develope a small not SLR viewer camera like Leica M, Hasselblad X-Pan with a big sensor using normal constucted superwideangles. Perhaps a Bessa digital even may be such a solution.

I don't believe the Oly system will solve any of theese problems. With its small sensor picture quality never will reach that of bigger sensors. The wideangle problems will be absolutely the same due to SLR construction type.

Perhaps the Nikon way using medium sized sensors with higher sensor density may be a good compromise when they will be possible to deliver sufficient wideangle performance - but I fear they will have the same problem as all others.
Walter Freiberger said:
... but some people did not yet realize this and keep spending too
much money for transitional products like the 1Ds and DCS 14n.

If the Olympus E-system has a positive start (and I believe it
will) and Nikon provides a significant lineup of DX lenses and a
10-12mp DX sized D2 who needs full frame? Who wants to pay $8000
for a transitional product like Canon's 1Ds?

With "significant lens lineup" I mean something like this:

8/2.8 DX
10-24/2.8 DX
16-70/2.8 DX

12-24/4 DX
16-70/3.5-4.5 DX

The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO
not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design.
If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the
smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead
end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter
Click to expand...
--
H. Kretzschmar, Germany
 
Have you ever compared an full-frame viewfinder to a cropped DSLR? Big difference!
 
on yer way out............
Walter Freiberger said:
... but some people did not yet realize this and keep spending too
much money for transitional products like the 1Ds and DCS 14n.

If the Olympus E-system has a positive start (and I believe it
will) and Nikon provides a significant lineup of DX lenses and a
10-12mp DX sized D2 who needs full frame? Who wants to pay $8000
for a transitional product like Canon's 1Ds?

With "significant lens lineup" I mean something like this:

8/2.8 DX
10-24/2.8 DX
16-70/2.8 DX

12-24/4 DX
16-70/3.5-4.5 DX

The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO
not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design.
If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the
smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead
end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter
Click to expand...
 
i'm willing to pay the cash for a ff for just one reason:

i 've always liked my pictures to show as little dof as possible for portraits and stillife
this was my reason to go medium format, 4x5 inch or even up to 8x10 view cameras
sure, there's lots of other arguments
but the smaller the chip the more dof
no way to avoid this optical logic

just my opininion

cheers,

j.
Member said:
The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO
not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design.
If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the
smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead
end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter
Click to expand...
--
jpm
 
I still have my D60 and now the 1Ds and the 1Ds is a really great viewfinder.

I don't have to "squint" anymore :)
mart1234 said:
Have you ever compared an full-frame viewfinder to a cropped DSLR?
Big difference!
Click to expand...
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN
 
Your clarity is wonderful. There was that odd little "DOF doesn't actually vary by sensor size" thread going on. Of course, anyone that actually works in different formats knows the truth about DOF and sensor size.
johan mangelschots said:
i 've always liked my pictures to show as little dof as possible
for portraits and stillife
this was my reason to go medium format, 4x5 inch or even up to 8x10
view cameras
sure, there's lots of other arguments
but the smaller the chip the more dof
no way to avoid this optical logic

just my opininion

cheers,

j.
johan mangelschots said:
The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO
not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design.
If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the
smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead
end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter
Click to expand...
--
jpm
Click to expand...
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN
 
Olympus started out with small SLR's. People called them 'toylike' so they came out with the rather massive E10/E20. The old line and the new line both have/had 2/3" sensors. So far, Oly seems to be going with the 'massive' approach. Why? They could look at the LCD-SLR's, the Dimage, 717, 5700, which are small. Which market are they aiming for? Will 4/3 kill off the 2/3" sensor?

You could easily stick with the sort of pseudo-APS sized sensor, but build a system around it. Canon and Nikon have full lines of 35mm lenses. It's definitely to their advantage to sell cameras with small sensors that use these lenses. Eventually, the FF sensors WILL be very cheap. Can Canon maintain their control with the old system, using it with smaller sensors? Well, so far they have.

Face it, Oly has to really overcome some obstacles. If you are going after the LCD-SLR crowd, someone with a Dimage, will a sub $1000 Canon Rebel or whatever, move these folks? What price will 4/3 come on the market at? They may have to match Canon's price. They will have all the development costs to recoup. Canon is well down that line.

FF could win because no one can come up with enough money to buy a share of the market and build it up over time to maturity. If EVERY manufacturer signed on to 4/3, the 'rest' of the pack, maybe they could do it. But they are surely running out of time.

The pros can afford to throw money at their equipment. It's nice to have that market, or a big piece of it. Can Oly really get this with 4 or 5 lenses? If you want the prosumer market, does it even care about something new? If you own a Dimage or Nikon 5700, how happy are you. I think Mike Reichmann said the quality of the images was OK, but the autofocus and the firmware sucked. Plus the viewfinders, the mini LCD's, leave a lot to be desired. Gee, can't all these things be fixed? Maybe this will be where most advanced amateurs end up.

People should understand the problems with the small sensor cameras. First off, it isn't the lenses. The Dimage has a remarkable lens, at least in terms of sharpness, and it covers a lot of ground. You want the balance point where the advantages of lens design for a small sensor are balanced against the deficiencies of the small sensor. That probably isn't FF 35mm for most users. They could probably put 10 million pixels on the current 1.6X lens factor sensor, and still keep the noise down and the colors pure.

I guess the pros will want the overkill of 25mp on an FF sensor. Since they bring a lot of money to the market, they will subsidize advanced amateurs. In the sense, it's hard to believe FF won't survive, given that lenses and systems exist for it, and Canon is pushing to nail it down. That must be why they named the 10D after a nail?

George Sears

http://www.pbase.com/gsears3025/root
Walter Freiberger said:
... but some people did not yet realize this and keep spending too
much money for transitional products like the 1Ds and DCS 14n.

If the Olympus E-system has a positive start (and I believe it
will) and Nikon provides a significant lineup of DX lenses and a
10-12mp DX sized D2 who needs full frame? Who wants to pay $8000
for a transitional product like Canon's 1Ds?

With "significant lens lineup" I mean something like this:

8/2.8 DX
10-24/2.8 DX
16-70/2.8 DX

12-24/4 DX
16-70/3.5-4.5 DX

The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO
not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design.
If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the
smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead
end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter
Click to expand...
 
One can always stop down for more depth of field, but when you really want that 3d effect you can't "open up" as much as you can stop down.

Thus there is more DOF flexibility with FF.
 
the "undertaker"

or "nail in cofin"
George Sears said:
You could easily stick with the sort of pseudo-APS sized sensor,
but build a system around it. Canon and Nikon have full lines of
35mm lenses. It's definitely to their advantage to sell cameras
with small sensors that use these lenses. Eventually, the FF
sensors WILL be very cheap. Can Canon maintain their control with
the old system, using it with smaller sensors? Well, so far they
have.

Face it, Oly has to really overcome some obstacles. If you are
going after the LCD-SLR crowd, someone with a Dimage, will a sub
$1000 Canon Rebel or whatever, move these folks? What price will
4/3 come on the market at? They may have to match Canon's price.
They will have all the development costs to recoup. Canon is well
down that line.

FF could win because no one can come up with enough money to buy a
share of the market and build it up over time to maturity. If EVERY
manufacturer signed on to 4/3, the 'rest' of the pack, maybe they
could do it. But they are surely running out of time.

The pros can afford to throw money at their equipment. It's nice to
have that market, or a big piece of it. Can Oly really get this
with 4 or 5 lenses? If you want the prosumer market, does it even
care about something new? If you own a Dimage or Nikon 5700, how
happy are you. I think Mike Reichmann said the quality of the
images was OK, but the autofocus and the firmware sucked. Plus the
viewfinders, the mini LCD's, leave a lot to be desired. Gee, can't
all these things be fixed? Maybe this will be where most advanced
amateurs end up.

People should understand the problems with the small sensor
cameras. First off, it isn't the lenses. The Dimage has a
remarkable lens, at least in terms of sharpness, and it covers a
lot of ground. You want the balance point where the advantages of
lens design for a small sensor are balanced against the
deficiencies of the small sensor. That probably isn't FF 35mm for
most users. They could probably put 10 million pixels on the
current 1.6X lens factor sensor, and still keep the noise down and
the colors pure.

I guess the pros will want the overkill of 25mp on an FF sensor.
Since they bring a lot of money to the market, they will subsidize
advanced amateurs. In the sense, it's hard to believe FF won't
survive, given that lenses and systems exist for it, and Canon is
pushing to nail it down. That must be why they named the 10D after
a nail?

George Sears

http://www.pbase.com/gsears3025/root
Walter Freiberger said:
... but some people did not yet realize this and keep spending too
much money for transitional products like the 1Ds and DCS 14n.

If the Olympus E-system has a positive start (and I believe it
will) and Nikon provides a significant lineup of DX lenses and a
10-12mp DX sized D2 who needs full frame? Who wants to pay $8000
for a transitional product like Canon's 1Ds?

With "significant lens lineup" I mean something like this:

8/2.8 DX
10-24/2.8 DX
16-70/2.8 DX

12-24/4 DX
16-70/3.5-4.5 DX

The main arguments for and against FF or other sensor sizes are IMO
not about resolution or noise. In fact they are about lens design.
If it possible to make more versatile and sharper lenses for the
smaller format, then the markets will decide and FF will be a dead
end.

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN
 
Let's see.

I have a 10D on order with the expectation that it might very well be the last 1.6X that I buy.

We all know that Canon is moving forward in FF technology and that the price will drop e.g. D30 to D60 to 10D in 1.6x.

Now, I purchase a FF when the "price is right" keep the 10D and have the advantages of 1.6X for tele shots with no loss of f-stop, FF for wide and both for "normal" AND both use the same glass.
Looks like a pretty neat system.
What am I missing????
Regards,
--
**** S, Temecula, CA
'Capturing The Essence'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top