FF is the future

[Per Olof Pettersson]

If a full-frame sensor is ever available in a body under $1000, it's
going to be a ridiculously cheapo body. Think Canon Rebel quality.

The rebel is not ridiculously cheapo. It is quite ok. It has about the same build quality as the 85/1.8. It is way better than the kit-lens and the 50/1.4.

Unfortunately I do not think Canon can sell a FF-rebel profitably for $1000 today. My guess is that it would rather be $1500, and that makes the market too small.

And I'm sorry, but Rebel buyers are just NOT interested in
full-frame.

I am!

The 5D is so large and clunky. I do not want such a huge camera but I do want a FF camera.

I really need that extra stop of ISO-sensitivity and my favourite lenses would work so much better on a FF-body. There are no good equivalents for the 28/1.8, 85/1.8 (I hate the 50/1.4) or the 24-85/3.5-4.5 (Maybe I should get a Nikon with the 18-70).

One in a hundred or one in a thousand, maybe.

Heh, that's me then But don't you think that the rebel users outnumbers the 5D users 100 to 1?

 

[ctransj]

The masses are uneducated, and that is where the volume is sold. And
guess what, FF is the future, and crop is a dying breed, the sooner
you get your head around that, the less money you will waste buying
EF-S Lenses.

Complete non-sense. Crop is not dying. Far, far, far from it. As
for the megapixel argument, even "uneducated" consumers are asking
"How many megapixels do I really need?"

I agree that the crop is not going away but you will buy FF anyway. Look at the P&S segment, the market is flooded with low quality P&Ss and people have to go to DSRL if they want to get better quality. There are high end crop cameras but they will be going away because they can't compete for low price FF.

 

[Per Olof Pettersson]

Another very important factor for "uneducated" consumers is the size
factor. For a casual shooter, size is definitely something they
consider. And an APS body with an EF-S kit lens is significantly
smaller and more compact than a FF body with equivalent EF lens.

Nah, the 28-90 is about the same size as the 18-55.

No, it's not. The 18-55 EF-S is smaller. Definitely a difference
that the average size-sensitive consumer will notice.

Canon 18-55 EF-S: 69mm x 66.2mm
Canon 28-90 EF: 68mm x 71mm

That is a very small difference in my eyes.

 

[bush0023]

is a 1.3x camera with a size/build of a rebel. I agree that 1.3x seems like a great compromise. Those 18mm lenses get a 24mm fov (a good wide angle) but you don't have the expensive large sensor. That's what I want - and APS-H rebel.

 

[Per Olof Pettersson]

is a 1.3x camera with a size/build of a rebel. I agree that 1.3x
seems like a great compromise. Those 18mm lenses get a 24mm fov (a
good wide angle) but you don't have the expensive large sensor.
That's what I want - and APS-H rebel.

Yes, I think that would be a good compromise for me too. Even if i'd prefer a FF-rebel, I think it would cost more money than what I would like to spend. A 1.3x rebel would probably not be much more expensive than the current rebel. But of course it will never happen.

 

[photonius]

Nikon has another selling point over Canon. Their lenses for the DX
work on FX bodies. EF-S is dead. Any PRO putting money into these is
not too bright because FF is the future, EF-S is the past and is now
dead. But not for Nikon. Their lenses will be working for generations
to come.

Is there a DX lens which any PRO (your emphasis) would actually want
to use on his full-frame camera?

canon 10-22

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157604422834954/

 

[RovinHoot]

my question was rhetorical

Can someone explain why the 35mm size is THE full frame? why not
35.2? why not 39, or 44 or any other number?

FF refers to the 35mm format that Canon, Nikon, Minolta (now Sony),
Pentax, etc systems were originally based. It is the consensus
reference point. When DSLRs first came out, they couldn't make
sensors that fit the "full" 35mm "frame" because it was too difficult
and to costly. So for practical issues, they went with a small frame
than the standard 35mm frame. Now that technology has caught up,
they can now make a sensor that matches the original 35mm "full
frame" that they originally wanted to go with. Hence the term "full
frame". No one is saying that this is the "ideal". Maybe a
millimeter smaller or a millimeter larger might be the "ideal". Who
knows? But what we do know is that full frame lenses from all these
camera systems were originally designed specifically for the 35mm
frame size. And hence, given that all the major brands have lenses
specifically designed for use on the 35mm frame size, it makes sense
for them to make sensors that also match that 35mm frame size-- not
some other size like 39mm or 44mm.

 

[dmanthree]

Why fixate on a single sensor size at all? Larger sensors will nearly always yield superior image quality, but so what? How is that different from the film days when large format film was superior (in image quality) to MF, MF superior to 35, and so on. Did we settle for a single size of film? Of course not! Why, then, will we settle for a single sensor size and abandon smaller sensors with their obvious size and weight advantages? Is it that far fetched to own both and use whichever one is best suited for the job? 35mm film didn't kill MF, and MF didn't kill 35, and I don't believe FF will kill sub frame.
--
-------------------------------------------------

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Another very important factor for "uneducated" consumers is the size
factor. For a casual shooter, size is definitely something they
consider. And an APS body with an EF-S kit lens is significantly
smaller and more compact than a FF body with equivalent EF lens.

Nah, the 28-90 is about the same size as the 18-55.

No, it's not. The 18-55 EF-S is smaller. Definitely a difference
that the average size-sensitive consumer will notice.

Canon 18-55 EF-S: 69mm x 66.2mm
Canon 28-90 EF: 68mm x 71mm

That is a very small difference in my eyes.

A few months back I found myself in an argument with someone who insisted that the size difference between the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (81.7 x 74) and the Sigma 18-50/2.8 (85.8 x 79) was tremendously important. Having used both, I knew that the two lenses felt essentially the same in use, but people will argue over a millimetre if they feel they can score a point over it.

 

[Chris59]

I'm afraid that what you are saying is nonsense. Your 70 - 200mm lens is the same lens whether it is on a FF or crop body. The only difference is that you are only using a smaller part of the image circle.

A little thought experiment! Imagine your 70 - 200mm with a FF sensor behind it that has twice the pixels of the same quality. You can get exactly the same field of view with this lens as on your crop body by... wait for it... cropping! Another way of looking at it is that a crop body "forces" you into using a permanent digital zoom.

In my opinion, the only reasons for having a crop body (I own a 400D only) is cost and perhaps size and weight. In terms of image quality FF wins hands down and when the cost factor is reduced sufficiently in the future (and not withstanding the improvements that will occur in image sensors overall), most photographers who are serious about image quality will eventually switch.

 

[ed rader]

used the 5d for a year. loved the IQ. hated the loss of reach, which forced me to use a 1.6 crop for a lot of my shooting and thus not benefit from the FF IQ.

now i use the 1d mark III. better IQ. better ISO handling. only need one camera because this one does it all .

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 

[Newspaper Man]

hello there!!

hope we can meet one of these days!!

kababayan!

haha...

\;-7

Danny Tuason

1. The capacity for many more pixels over a crop camera.
2. Getting the correct perspective from EF lenses.
3. Having the option of shallower DOF.
4. More advanced features to go with the more expensive sensor in
some cases.
5. Many more wide angle options (especially from Canon).
6. Larger brighter viewfinder.

And those are just the things that everyone can agree on. There are
many more things which could be debated one way or the other like Iso
and DR.

Of course for me, I prefer the advantages of APS-C.

--



Yawn...

--
'What, me worry?' - Alfred E. Neuman

'Don't worry, be happy' - Bobby McFerrin

'Tawa lang!' - Danny Tuason
('Just smile!')

 

[Richard]

Yes, there are some lenses that a pro may use. But more importantly, once FF comes to the masses in low cost, these lenses will still be usable on Nikon, not so on Canon.

Nikon has another selling point over Canon. Their lenses for the DX
work on FX bodies. EF-S is dead. Any PRO putting money into these is
not too bright because FF is the future, EF-S is the past and is now
dead. But not for Nikon. Their lenses will be working for generations
to come.

Is there a DX lens which any PRO (your emphasis) would actually want
to use on his full-frame camera?

 

[outlawyer]

If all I had was an XTi or Si and a 35 or 50 mm prime lens, I'd be happy as a clam.
--
Flickr: Photos from outlawyer81

 

[Richard]

From a Nikon perspective, not a Canon one because of Canons incompatability with its own lenses.

If I had a Nikon FF, and the price of FF were the same as a crop sensor, and I could switch to crop mode at the flick of a switch and the pixel densitiy of the crop sensors were the same as FF (which is not that far off, behold Canons newest flagship) Then you would carry 2 FF one at the lower cost like your crop sensor and you could have it in FF or you could flip a switch and turn it to a crop sensor. Why would you carry a crop sensor? The only reason to have one now is because of a low cost backup, higher pixel density (and for Canon, you might have one because you made the mistake of buying EF-S lenses that are not compatable with Canon FF cameras). If you own Nikon, you wouldn't you would have 2 FF cameras.

A lot of working pros use both FF and EF-S. Who says I have to use
one or the other? And who says I have to use an EF-S lens on a FF
body? Why would I even want to? I typically shoot weddings with two
or three bodies. I usually have a 5D and a 40D hanging from my
shoulders. Who says they both have to be FF bodies?

 

[ed rader]

believe me if you don't need the reach FF is much better ... but as they say "ignorance is bliss".....

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 

[Richard]

Complete non-sense.

This is your opinion

Crop is not dying. Far, far, far from it. As

Your opinion again, worth about as much as mine, but I have reason to back my position.

for the megapixel argument, even "uneducated" consumers are asking
"How many megapixels do I really need?" I hear it all the time.

So more and more, consumers are being educated by their own

Do you sell cameras? My friends son does at best buy and he disagrees with you.

And an APS body with an EF-S kit lens is significantly
smaller and more compact than a FF body with equivalent EF lens.

This is a true statement, but they can put a FF in a smaller rebel sized body. Expect Nikon to do this first. Since their DX lenses work on either, it does not matter, they can have the lightness of a small FF body, and choose either the bigger FX and DX lenses, they have a choice. Canon messed up in this regard which is why I stand EF-S is dead.

Plus, even as a serious FF shooter, I will always want an APS body.
Each has its advantages.

For now, but if they (and they will or at least Nikon will) put a FF sensor into a small light plastic SLR body with similar pixel density to a crop sensor (Canons flagship is nearing that now), that has the ability to switch from FX to DX lenses at will (which Nikon can do and if you are worried that the FF lens does not have good vignetting, corner CA or softness, you flip a switch and walla you have a crop sensor.

That's why I regularly shoot with both.

And as long as consumers continue to buy both, manufacturers will
continue to off BOTH! And THAT is what YOU DON'T GET!!!

If you had a camera like Nikon that can do both lenses and crop down, you would only own a FF sensor. That is what you don't get, you see only from Canons limited perspective. Nikon does not have that limitation. THATS what you don't get. People like you cannot or will not look to the future to see where things are going.

 

[dtuason]

Aba! Oo! Walang Problema!
(Of course! Yes! No problem!) - I have to translate for the others here.

Nakatira ka pala sa Bellflower so malapit ka lang!
(You live in Bellflower so you are just near (me)!)

Oks isang araw magkita tayo...at inom tayo ng serbesa...at kumuha ng mga litrato!
(Okay one of these days we'll meet...and drink beer...and shoot pictures!)

Ingat!
(Take care!)

Danny Tuason

PS Siyanga pala! Ano ba ang pangalan mo?
(PS By the way! What is your name?)

hope we can meet one of these days!!

kababayan!

haha...

\;-7

Danny Tuason

1. The capacity for many more pixels over a crop camera.
2. Getting the correct perspective from EF lenses.
3. Having the option of shallower DOF.
4. More advanced features to go with the more expensive sensor in
some cases.
5. Many more wide angle options (especially from Canon).
6. Larger brighter viewfinder.

And those are just the things that everyone can agree on. There are
many more things which could be debated one way or the other like Iso
and DR.

Of course for me, I prefer the advantages of APS-C.

--



Yawn...

--
'What, me worry?' - Alfred E. Neuman

'Don't worry, be happy' - Bobby McFerrin

'Tawa lang!' - Danny Tuason
('Just smile!')

--
'What, me worry?' - Alfred E. Neuman

'Don't worry, be happy' - Bobby McFerrin

'Tawa lang!' - Danny Tuason
('Just smile!')

 

[icmp]

because, afterall, bigger must be better, no?

I wonder how many (or, rather, what percentage) of DSLR shooters ever owned and routinely used a 35mm Film SLR? For those that haven't the FF vs. 1.x Crop argument might be largely lost. You're asking them to understand, comprehend, and appreciate a rather 'technical' argument.

True, on DPR, you'll find a more or less willing and capable audience of comprehension... but in the 'market', as a whole, the ability or, rather, the interest-level in comprehending is apt to be quite a bit lower. I'm not convinced the 'the masses' will, or even need to be, educated on the relative merits of FF or 'APS-C' digital sensors. I mean, c'mon, your talking about a segment of folks that get hung up on 3x, 4x, 12x zooms and really don't care, don't understand, or don't care to understand what that might actually mean in '35mm' terms!

Stuff 22MP into a P&S sensor and marry it to a 20x zoom (who cares how much is optical, how much is digital) and tell them "this is better", and you'll probably find loads of takers is the image quality is "good enough".

I see a (near/mid-term) future for both FF and cropped formats. I'm guessing that both Canon and Nikon do, as well. FF just isn't being pushed and isn't 'catching on' like it would need to in order to rule the roost in 2 years. As others might have already pointed out... "why go FF with a high-quality 28-70 lens in favor of 1.6x with a high quality 17-55"? (especially when the 17-55 offers IS). You might be able to mount a highly technical explanation of why one might be more deserving of favor over another, but marketing that technical argument to the greater audience at large (consumers with money to spend), that is an entirely different matter. Few of them even understand the world of photography in 35mm terms. You might first need to issue a series of whitepapers, preceeding your markeing blitz!

mark

 

[Richard]

Watch Nikon or someone else do this, the price of FF sensors will come down. Look at the resolution and size of LCD TV. No one would ever have predicted the size and price of these things.

Nikon will put a FF sensor in a cheap body, Canon will have to follow or close up business. In fact, Nikon put a big sensor in a pro camera, it was call the D1 and it was very expensive and 2.7 mp. Canon put the same size sensor in a cheap body, and walla, the D30 was born. Canon did it to Nikon, I expect the same from a company that has trailed Nikon for some time.

Worry more about Nikon ruining Canons bottom line, not the FF sensor. And if you think I am a Nikon fanboy, think again, I own both.

As I said above, Canon won't sell a FF body in the more
price-sensitive, lower level bodies because by doing so, they only
hurt their bottom line because FF is more expensive to produce than
APS.