Full Frame DSLR for under $2,000?

[BJL]

OK, you've made a point. But then, if you're right, ff will never
come available for us, mortals, because prices will not go down...

Agreed, that is the other half of my expectation: 35mm DSLR's for a shrinking high end niche, like the one that Hasselblad and Rollei have been struggling in for some years.

By the way, Canon has discontinued that 50/1 along with the 200/1.8, leaving only the 85/1.2 from its former trio of super-fast lenses. It seems that digital sensors (and maybe even newer films) are fast enough that there is far less willingness than before to put up with the price, weight and greater optical abberations of extremely low aperture ratios.

 

[3D_CARD_EXPERT]

....

Kodak Pro 14n is 2999, PRO 14nx is 3999 at this time. Remember how much u paid for D1 last time? And a N80 body doesn't cost u a lot.
--
The future is bright, the future is Orange.

 

[James McPeak]

Maybe you are not aware, but the APS DSLR's of today already
surpassed film. If you want to get even with say a Fuji S2 then you
only can use Velvia, Astia, etc...

Check out the current March/April issue of Photo Techniques Magazine. There's a very good article where they test out the resolutions of the sharpest 35mm film (if I recall correctly, it was Kodak Technical Pan) against a Canon 10D and a Canon 1Ds. For the film SLR, I think they used a Canon Elan 7, so basically all the cameras were Canon, using the same Canon lens. In controlled lab conditions, they took photos of the industry standard USAF 1951 resolution chart. The results are pretty revealing. And it makes a very strong argument for the value of high-megapixel FF DSLR. A 6MP APS DSLR can not match the lp/mm resolving capabilities of the sharpest 35mm films. But a FF DSLR like the 1Ds can. Basically, they say that the resolving power is still limited by the sensor on a 6MP APS DSLR, but on a film SLR with Tech Pan or a digital SLR like the 1Ds, the resolving power is limited by the lens. If you want the best resolution in a DSLR, FF DSLR is still where it's at!

As long as there are people who demand the best in resolution, there will be a market for FF DSLR. And I don't agree with your comment about FF DSLR never being "for us, mortals, because prices will not go down..." What kind of fatalistic non-sense is that? The price of technology always goes down. The first DVD player cost a couple thousand dollars. Now you can buy a DVD player for as little as $99. And just take a look at the price of APS DSLR cameras. In late 1999, a 2.7MP Nikon D1 was $5,500. Now you have the 6MP Nikon D70 for $1,000. Prices will never go down, huh? Nikon just needs to get off its fat @ass and provide some competition in the FF DSLR category.

 

[James McPeak]

I'm sorry to say, but a ff DSLR (like the 1Ds) will always require
the best glass around. The question is not: give is ff, then we can
keep using our lenses the way we used to, but the question is: "how
can we make ff so we can achieve the same quality as with APS.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. On an APS DSLR, the resolution is limited by the sensor. But on a FF DSLR, the resolution is limited by the lens. Using the same high quality lens on an APS DSLR and a FF DSLR, the image quality is NOT going to be less on a FF DSLR. On the contrary, the image quality is so high from a FF DSLR that it starts to reveal any weaknesses a lens may have.

Your argument is akin to telling people to use a film that is less sharp as opposed to a film that is more sharp.

In its' issue of Chasseurs d'Images (www.photim.com) where they
test lenses/body combinations, they state very clearly that ff
demands top optics. If not then optical performance will be low
compared to APS DSLR's. With a ff you've got more distortion, more
CA, more vignetting, and less corner sharpness.
That compared with the price of making ff makes me predict the
silent death of it...

Read my post below about the current issue of Photo Techniques Magazine. FF DSLR demands top optics because only FF DSLR has the resolving power to take full advantage of the quality and resolving power that top optics can deliver. But using lower-quality optics will not mean lower optical quality than what you get on an APS DSLR. Read the Photo Techniques article. They even go so far as to say that you can use lower quality optics on an APS DSLR because APS DSLR can't resolve enough detail to take full advantage of the best glass anyways.

You're twisting the facts. FF DSLR resolves so much detail that it reveals the weaknesses of lesser lenses. But you twist that around to say that the same lens on a FF DSLR will look worse than it would on a APS DSLR, when in reality, upon very close inspection of images a FF DSLR is so much sharper that the resolving limit lies with the lens. It's like the difference between watching a regular TV broadcast compared to an HDTV broadcast. You thought regular TV was fine, but then when you see HDTV, you say to yourself "Wow, it's incredible what I've been missing!" That's why so many TV personalities are all getting face lifts and stuff. It's because what looked like clear, smooth skin on regular TV is going to reveal SO MUCH MORE on HDTV. So while the people may look "worse" because all their wrinkles are revealed, it doesn't mean HDTV is worse. Same goes for APS DSLR versus FF DSLR. FF DSLR can actually show the wrinkles of lesser lenses, while APS DSLR can hide it.

 

[BobTrips]

Maybe you are not aware, but the APS DSLR's of today already
surpassed film. If you want to get even with say a Fuji S2 then you
only can use Velvia, Astia, etc...

Check out the current March/April issue of Photo Techniques
Magazine. There's a very good article where they test out the
resolutions of the sharpest 35mm film (if I recall correctly, it
was Kodak Technical Pan) against a Canon 10D and a Canon 1Ds. For
the film SLR, I think they used a Canon Elan 7, so basically all
the cameras were Canon, using the same Canon lens. In controlled
lab conditions, they took photos of the industry standard USAF 1951
resolution chart. The results are pretty revealing. And it makes
a very strong argument for the value of high-megapixel FF DSLR. A
6MP APS DSLR can not match the lp/mm resolving capabilities of the
sharpest 35mm films.

It sounds like 6 meg dSLRs exceed some 35 mm films in terms of resolution but not all. Do I have that straight?

BTW, DVD players are now below $60. The first 6 meg digitals were over $30,000.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Dusk on the Buriganga'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

 

[BobTrips]

We're seeing 8 megs on a very tiny sensor. That portends 10+ megs and some decent higher ISO on APS and 4/3rds sensors. Especially with new technology making more of the sensor surface available for light collection, less taken up by wiring.

Most of us, the ones who were satisfied with 35 mm film, will be well served by these 'half-frame' sensors. Especially when we start seeing them in smaller, lighter packages with 'designed-for' lenses.

The others, the folks who wanted/needed a bigger slab of film, who used MF and LF cameras, will be served by full frame sensors and will be willing to pay more than $2k to get them.

In fact, they'll be as happy as a pig in poop to be able to buy a full frame 25 meg digital for $5k.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Dusk on the Buriganga'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

 

[ChrisVJ]

You guys are getting ripped off! Our latest DVD player came free with a two year telephone contract, the cheapest long distance we've ever had and a free new telephone.

At this rate in five years 14 M/pixel FF cameras will come free with a Pizza.

ANY idea that any part of the technology, especially memory or processing, will limit progress in digital photography more than temorarily is just too laughable to contemplate. In three or four years there will be a low consumption 64 bit chip that will process 25 M/pixel pictures faster than you can take them. It's not a question of if, only when.

 

[alistairsyme]

The problem is simply that "full-frame" means a fixed area of silicon. Silicon chips have gone down in price for a given speed and a given number of transistors, but has not gone down for a given area. Full frame sensors could become cheap someday if the low yield problem is conquered, but the fundamental problem is the size of the chip. That isn't going to change. Full-frame (and APS) sensors are going to get a whole lot better, but they probably won't get a whole lot cheaper for the foreseeable future.

ANY idea that any part of the technology, especially memory or
processing, will limit progress in digital photography more than
temorarily is just too laughable to contemplate. In three or four
years there will be a low consumption 64 bit chip that will process
25 M/pixel pictures faster than you can take them. It's not a
question of if, only when.

 

[T3]

The problem is simply that "full-frame" means a fixed area of
silicon. Silicon chips have gone down in price for a given speed
and a given number of transistors, but has not gone down for a
given area. Full frame sensors could become cheap someday if the
low yield problem is conquered, but the fundamental problem is the
size of the chip. That isn't going to change. Full-frame (and
APS) sensors are going to get a whole lot better, but they probably
won't get a whole lot cheaper for the foreseeable future.

To make a DSLR sensor, they make a giant silicon platter, and cut small wafers out of it. Cutting FF wafers simply means you get fewer wafers out of a silicon platter. The cost of APS-sized sensors has dropped astronomically because of high competition. The cost of FF-sized sensors has held steady because of very little competition. To say that FF sensors won't get cheaper for the foreseeably future has more to do with the lack of true competition rather than anything else. In the presence of higher competition, there's no reason why FF sensors couldn't see price drops fairly proportional to APS sensors.

 

[f2zoom]

Most of us, the ones who were satisfied with 35 mm film, will be
well served by these 'half-frame' sensors. Especially when we
start seeing them in smaller, lighter packages with 'designed-for'
lenses.

The others, the folks who wanted/needed a bigger slab of film, who
used MF and LF cameras, will be served by full frame sensors and
will be willing to pay more than $2k to get them.

You, and many others, are satisfied with sub-FF performance, and the attendant compromises one must accept with that format.

Others of us are not! We want to be able to extract the full field of view, full DOF control, the sublime lack of distortion of our ultrawide primes, and the ultimate amount of image resolution that our 35mm lenses are capable of.

Does that mean that us FF advocates need "a pound of flesh" extracted from us for the luxury of migrating seamlessly from film to FF? I think not!

You will get your APS-sized systems. They will continue to improve. And, because of the smaller format involved, the whole system package will shrink over time.

But, just because the rest of us stubbornly cling to the premise that we want that "seamless migration", doesn't mean that we're happy -- or willing -- to shell out $5K for the privilege of doing so!

So, let us agree to coexist peacefully and happily. APS for those of you so inclined, FF for the rest of us.

 

[alistairsyme]

If you simply counted the sensors produced, then it would only take twice as much silicon to make a full frame sensor. However, silicon wafers have defects, and most sensors produced are actually thrown away. This rate of failure goes up geometrically as the die gets larger. This has been discussed to death, but you may want to look at this post - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=7689641

To make a DSLR sensor, they make a giant silicon platter, and cut
small wafers out of it. Cutting FF wafers simply means you get
fewer wafers out of a silicon platter. The cost of APS-sized
sensors has dropped astronomically because of high competition.
The cost of FF-sized sensors has held steady because of very little
competition. To say that FF sensors won't get cheaper for the
foreseeably future has more to do with the lack of true competition
rather than anything else. In the presence of higher competition,
there's no reason why FF sensors couldn't see price drops fairly
proportional to APS sensors.

 

[T3]

Yes, I've seen these discussions. But that assumes that there will be no progress in manufacturing techniques. Against all odds, you'll definitely see the cost of FF sensors drop as time and technology goes by. Besides, I question the poster's assertion that you can only get one FF sensor per wafer, or that you might get only one FF sensor per THREE wafers-- and yet you can still get plenty of APS or smaller sensors per wafer. Something definitely does not jibe there, and it seems like fuzzy math arguments from those who want to discount the viability of FF. Never say never.

To make a DSLR sensor, they make a giant silicon platter, and cut
small wafers out of it. Cutting FF wafers simply means you get
fewer wafers out of a silicon platter. The cost of APS-sized
sensors has dropped astronomically because of high competition.
The cost of FF-sized sensors has held steady because of very little
competition. To say that FF sensors won't get cheaper for the
foreseeably future has more to do with the lack of true competition
rather than anything else. In the presence of higher competition,
there's no reason why FF sensors couldn't see price drops fairly
proportional to APS sensors.

 

[f2zoom]

Wouldn't it be great if Nikon would finally share their premium SLR
bodies (F100 & F5) with Kodak and Fuji?

The resulting Kodak FF DSLR would be sensational!

Yeah, and that would eat even more into Nikon DSLR revenues.
Whatever money Nikon makes from selling Kodak or Fuji their parts
is a fraction of the money Nikon makes from selling its own Nikon
bodies. There's definitely money in selling DSLR bodies.
Otherwise, why would Fuji and Kodak even bother with the
substantial R&D and marketing investment? And with the rise of
Kodak and Fuji, that comes at the expense of Nikon. Sure, some say
Nikon still makes money off of the sale of lenses with those Kodak
and Fuji bodies. But that's an empty savior. After all, whether
you were going to buy a Kodak body or a Nikon body, you were going
to buy Nikon lenses anyways, right? So in a case like that, the
sale of lenses does not make up for the lost revenue that would
have come from the sale of that Nikon body that was instead passed
up for a Kodak body.

Think about it. If what Kodak and Fuji offered were as good or
better than what Nikon offered, but in the same premium Nikon
bodies, would you still buy Nikon? Probably not. So while today,
Nikon are making $100 million from Nikon DSLR bodies and $100
million from Nikon lenses (hypothetically), eventually it becomes
$33 million from Nikon DSLR bodies (because $33 million went to
Fuji and $33 million went to Kodak), while $100 million was still
made from Nikon lenses. So in this example, Fuji and Kodak bled
off $66 million dollars of Nikon's revenue. And only a small
fraction of that $66 million dollars comes back to Nikon in the
sale of parts to Fuji or Kodak.

So there's a definite reason why it would not be to Nikon's
advantage to offer Nikon premium bodies to Kodak or Fuji.

Then, why not let Kodak -- or Fuji -- do it? Seems to me, allowing Kodak to finally package their FF camera in an SLR body worthy of the camera, would allow the Kodak to finally compete head-to-head with the D1s. There would be no more carping about AF, or sync speeds, or the cheap feel of the camera. In fact, if the F5 body was offered -- and chosen -- by Kodak, then the Kodak DSLR would have features the D1s lacks, not least of which is Nikon's famed completely modular platform.

We're talking about a market niche that Nikon has opted -- for whatever reason -- not to serve, so I really think it could pull more sales (of lenses) toward Nikon, than might be lost in sales of their own DSLR (to Kodak).

And this new redesigned competitor from Kodak, might even inspire Canon to reprice the D1s -- as well as attract other players to this segment.

Could be a win-win for all of us!

 

[BJL]

On an APS DSLR, the resolution is limited by the sensor.
But on a FF DSLR, the resolution is limited by the lens.

You seem to be suggesting that FF sensors have higher resolution than APS DSLR's. On the contrary, the resolution (measured in lp/mm) of the current APS sensors is at least as good as for the current 35mm format sensors, basically because they in general have smaller photosites. And neither has resolution as as good as you can get with the highest resolution films using the same lenses, as shown by the tests that you quoted, comparing DSLR's to Tech Pan. So in that sense, both APS and FF sensors limit resolution.

If lens limitations are more noticable for FF sensors, it is because of the fall-off in performance of lenses towards the edge of the large image circle. But I suspect that you are confusing "resolution" (roughly, the finest details than can be resolved at all, under close scrutiny of large prints) with "sharpness" (how well the sensor or film handles details that are visible in viewing a print under normal circumstances, typically measured by how well contrast is held in details at about 30 or 40 lp/mm for 35mm format.) Roughly, it seems that DSLR sensors have better sharpness than most films (Tech pan is probably an exception), but many films have higher resolution than DSLR sensors.

There are various examples around of how image sharpness varies with different lenses used on the same sensor (300D, 1Ds, etc.), even at the centre of the field of view, and even if comparing already fairly good zoom lenses to even better ones.

 

[RémiG]

After seeing the CdI tests (same set of lenses on 10D/300D & 1Ds tested with DxO Analyzer), I'm sorry but I certainly don't want a FF DSLR.

Why on earth would I want to sell the car to be able to get way more CA, vignetting and distortions than with APS-sized sensors ??

Please, if you can, read these tests, they are really eye-opening !

--
Rémi

 

[alistairsyme]

I have no doubt that manufacturing will improve and full frame sensors will get cheaper. I just doubt that it will be by that much, or that soon. The poster was using assumptions to demonstrate a principle, and so his yield figures are educated guesses and not assertions. However, he did clearly show that FF sensors will always be at a great premium to APS sensors. One day, FF sensors might be affordable, but by the time that day comes, we're unlikely to still be using legacy 35mm gear. You're certainly welcome to believe differently, and you may yet be correct. I doubt it, though.

Yes, I've seen these discussions. But that assumes that there will
be no progress in manufacturing techniques. Against all odds,
you'll definitely see the cost of FF sensors drop as time and
technology goes by. Besides, I question the poster's assertion
that you can only get one FF sensor per wafer, or that you might
get only one FF sensor per THREE wafers-- and yet you can still get
plenty of APS or smaller sensors per wafer. Something definitely
does not jibe there, and it seems like fuzzy math arguments from
those who want to discount the viability of FF. Never say never.

 

[BobTrips]

Most of us, the ones who were satisfied with 35 mm film, will be
well served by these 'half-frame' sensors. Especially when we
start seeing them in smaller, lighter packages with 'designed-for'
lenses.

The others, the folks who wanted/needed a bigger slab of film, who
used MF and LF cameras, will be served by full frame sensors and
will be willing to pay more than $2k to get them.

You, and many others, are satisfied with sub-FF performance, and
the attendant compromises one must accept with that format.

Others of us are not! We want to be able to extract the full field
of view, full DOF control, the sublime lack of distortion of our
ultrawide primes, and the ultimate amount of image resolution that
our 35mm lenses are capable of.

Does that mean that us FF advocates need "a pound of flesh"
extracted from us for the luxury of migrating seamlessly from film
to FF? I think not!

You will get your APS-sized systems. They will continue to
improve. And, because of the smaller format involved, the whole
system package will shrink over time.

But, just because the rest of us stubbornly cling to the premise
that we want that "seamless migration", doesn't mean that we're
happy -- or willing -- to shell out $5K for the privilege of doing
so!

So, let us agree to coexist peacefully and happily. APS for those
of you so inclined, FF for the rest of us.

I hope you get a full-frame for ninety-nine cents. But I don't think the market is going to give it to you. As more and more photographers become satisfied with half-frame digitals, as half-frames improve, the market demand/market share of FF digitals will drop. There's just going to be less economy of scale.

The FF buyers are, in general, going to be pros who now drop the big bucks for digital backs. They've got the income to pay a few thousand for a camera that will print fine detail larger than 12x18.

More and more FF will become a niche market. And if I'm proved wrong. That's fine. I got no dog in this fight. I'm just watching the market pressure for everything (except food servings) to get smaller.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Dusk on the Buriganga'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

 

[DavidMillier]

jay kelbley said the choice of the f80 body was entirely kodak's decision.

Anyway what's to stop k or f from buying f100s from a shop!

Wouldn't it be great if Nikon would finally share their premium SLR
bodies (F100 & F5) with Kodak and Fuji?

The resulting Kodak FF DSLR would be sensational!

Yeah, and that would eat even more into Nikon DSLR revenues.
Whatever money Nikon makes from selling Kodak or Fuji their parts
is a fraction of the money Nikon makes from selling its own Nikon
bodies. There's definitely money in selling DSLR bodies.
Otherwise, why would Fuji and Kodak even bother with the
substantial R&D and marketing investment? And with the rise of
Kodak and Fuji, that comes at the expense of Nikon. Sure, some say
Nikon still makes money off of the sale of lenses with those Kodak
and Fuji bodies. But that's an empty savior. After all, whether
you were going to buy a Kodak body or a Nikon body, you were going
to buy Nikon lenses anyways, right? So in a case like that, the
sale of lenses does not make up for the lost revenue that would
have come from the sale of that Nikon body that was instead passed
up for a Kodak body.

Think about it. If what Kodak and Fuji offered were as good or
better than what Nikon offered, but in the same premium Nikon
bodies, would you still buy Nikon? Probably not. So while today,
Nikon are making $100 million from Nikon DSLR bodies and $100
million from Nikon lenses (hypothetically), eventually it becomes
$33 million from Nikon DSLR bodies (because $33 million went to
Fuji and $33 million went to Kodak), while $100 million was still
made from Nikon lenses. So in this example, Fuji and Kodak bled
off $66 million dollars of Nikon's revenue. And only a small
fraction of that $66 million dollars comes back to Nikon in the
sale of parts to Fuji or Kodak.

So there's a definite reason why it would not be to Nikon's
advantage to offer Nikon premium bodies to Kodak or Fuji.

Then, why not let Kodak -- or Fuji -- do it? Seems to me, allowing
Kodak to finally package their FF camera in an SLR body worthy of
the camera, would allow the Kodak to finally compete head-to-head
with the D1s. There would be no more carping about AF, or sync
speeds, or the cheap feel of the camera. In fact, if the F5 body
was offered -- and chosen -- by Kodak, then the Kodak DSLR would
have features the D1s lacks, not least of which is Nikon's famed
completely modular platform.

We're talking about a market niche that Nikon has opted -- for
whatever reason -- not to serve, so I really think it could pull
more sales (of lenses) toward Nikon, than might be lost in sales of
their own DSLR (to Kodak).

And this new redesigned competitor from Kodak, might even inspire
Canon to reprice the D1s -- as well as attract other players to
this segment.

Could be a win-win for all of us!

 

[f2zoom]

jay kelbley said the choice of the f80 body was entirely kodak's
decision.

 

[f2zoom]

Most of us, the ones who were satisfied with 35 mm film, will be
well served by these 'half-frame' sensors. Especially when we
start seeing them in smaller, lighter packages with 'designed-for'
lenses.

The others, the folks who wanted/needed a bigger slab of film, who
used MF and LF cameras, will be served by full frame sensors and
will be willing to pay more than $2k to get them.

You, and many others, are satisfied with sub-FF performance, and
the attendant compromises one must accept with that format.

Others of us are not! We want to be able to extract the full field
of view, full DOF control, the sublime lack of distortion of our
ultrawide primes, and the ultimate amount of image resolution that
our 35mm lenses are capable of.

Does that mean that us FF advocates need "a pound of flesh"
extracted from us for the luxury of migrating seamlessly from film
to FF? I think not!

You will get your APS-sized systems. They will continue to
improve. And, because of the smaller format involved, the whole
system package will shrink over time.

But, just because the rest of us stubbornly cling to the premise
that we want that "seamless migration", doesn't mean that we're
happy -- or willing -- to shell out $5K for the privilege of doing
so!

So, let us agree to coexist peacefully and happily. APS for those
of you so inclined, FF for the rest of us.

I hope you get a full-frame for ninety-nine cents. But I don't
think the market is going to give it to you. As more and more
photographers become satisfied with half-frame digitals, as
half-frames improve, the market demand/market share of FF digitals
will drop. There's just going to be less economy of scale.

The FF buyers are, in general, going to be pros who now drop the
big bucks for digital backs. They've got the income to pay a few
thousand for a camera that will print fine detail larger than 12x18.

More and more FF will become a niche market. And if I'm proved
wrong. That's fine. I got no dog in this fight. I'm just
watching the market pressure for everything (except food servings)
to get smaller.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Dusk on the Buriganga'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.