FF is the future

[PicPocket]

Investment, that's the worry part.

It's still better than most investments. In fact the only reason you call it an investment is because it holds considerable value (no one buys a computer and calls it an investment). We can lose our money much easier in stock markets if we want. Even if what you say turns true (which is a reasonless debate for now), the crop market wont vanish overnight. You will always have the chance to sell your gear after having enjoyed it

Now, to the argument why crop bodies will exist - because people like me may prefer to buy a crop body for $300 when FF is $1000. Its not because I cannot afford the FF. It's because the crop is doing most of the stuff I need and the $700 saving can be put towards a good lens or another hobby (are you surprised at the turn of events) altogether

And then there is a huge crowd that sees this - look, this cheaper one takes good enough pictures. Cool, lets save some money. Do you think all DSLR wannabe understand the differences between a FF and crop. If you step a little out of this place and venture into the crowd, majority don't even know the classification

--
PicPocket
http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/GalleryIndex.html

 

[PicPocket]

I have a feeling that to sustain higher pixel count, FF is the best
option. Technology have limits to ISO/Noise/Sensor size.

You know that. I know that. All those who don't care buy into the biggest segment of the market - the P&S. Why - is anybody's guess

Simply put, there's no real advantage for companies to go "all FF".
If it was a big issue, then P&S market would be dead - whereas it's
clearly not.

Well, given a choice, i would prefer to use an SLR to P&S, but that's
just me and i respect your opinion.

Which is good. I would do that too. But our preferences have not killed the P&S markets. Same argument, same end result - cheaper formats will survive

--
PicPocket
http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/GalleryIndex.html

 

[PicPocket]

Simply put, there's no real advantage for companies to go "all FF".
If it was a big issue, then P&S market would be dead - whereas it's
clearly not.

It's because majority of consumers don't see or care for the quality
of the photos, they just want as cheap camera as possible. P&S
compacts are kind of a "fast food / junk food of photography", and as
the real food of that kind, you won't see it go away for the qualitiy
reasons only. People just buy it, because it's cheap and instant.

OK, so now the argument is moving from "will FF kill Crop" to "is FF quality better than Crop". The answers to those two questions can be very different

--
PicPocket
http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/GalleryIndex.html

 

[PicPocket]

Well... the future of P&S is with bigger sensors anyway.

Sensor size and price are proportional. I doubt camera majors
increasing sensor size and keeping price down. Common people just
care about pixel count and camera size...nothing else matters to them.

You opened the thread with the pretext that larger sensors will become cheaper. Is there any assumption here that "not so larger" sensors will not become cheaper? So, why would camera makers not be able to increase size and and keep prices down? So if there are cheaper crop DSLRs, and more people move from P&S to those cheaper DSLRs (its already happening), we will have a different market mix

Now what about all those common people who buy the xxxD camera's for their size and weight? canon, please spare us the common people, and since we are the masses, we will bring you the money

--
PicPocket
http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/GalleryIndex.html

 

[Jake Loves Good Glass]

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.

People said the same thing about DSLR's period a few years ago. They would say that any SLR that fell under a grand would be a heap of junk. Well I bet they are eating their words now. You can now find cameras that will produce images suitable for just about any field of published work for under a grand.

Stop being backwards and assuming that technology and cost of production will for some reason stagnate. Things don't work that way.

And I'm sorry, but Rebel buyers are just NOT interested in
full-frame. One in a hundred or one in a thousand, maybe.

They aren't interested because they haven't been told that they are interested. If Canon and other boys starts making a big enough stink about the larger sensor and better image quality it can provide, then they will want it. Magazines will review the cameras and say they are better, sites like this will say it's better, and the easiest way to point this out is to say, "This camera has the technology that used to be only in the realm of the pro, well now you too can have this ability to produce professional quality pictures with the new Canon Rebel XQi." Problem solved on rebel shooters not being interested any longer.

Amateurs who want "something more" will NOT be upgrading from one
cheapo Rebel body to another. They will buy the xxD series, maybe a
50D or 60D etc, which will cost hundreds less and have TONS more
functionality. Maybe they'll make a few sales to the oddball pros who
want an ultra-light backup camera and are willing to compromise
everything other than the image quality.

But the market for a $1000 FF DSLR is almost non-existent, and that's
the bottom line.

So, average Joe customer walks in with consumer reports in hand to his local shiny Walmart and he sees that consumer reports has reported that there is a camera that produces perfect noiseless and sharp images at 20X30" with it's shiny new 20MP sensor that doesn't suffer from smudging in detail due to over aggressive noise reduction required for a similar resolutioned camera with a smaller sensor and can have it for under $1K and you don't think he is going to get it?

I do however think that a 5D sensor in a 40D body, (with 40D speed)
...IF they could hit $1999 or less, would indeed sell extremely well.
But it will be AT LEAST 2 years before we see new (keyword, NEW) FF
DSLR's going for under $2K, not "within" 2 years. Expect the 5D mk2
to be at least $3500 if it's a true semi-pro body, or at least $2500
if it's a 40D + 5D sensor. And these bodies, given their value to
consumers, are not on the 18 month cycle. They are probably on a 2-3
year cycle...

What makes you think that? Product cycles last as long as it takes to come out with the new must have feature. Just because they go to FF does not mean that there will be no more things to add to the cameras. If the price is sub $1k, then they can keep the high pace of product cycles up and keep making all the profit dollars. And even if they body sales drop, they have all the other avenues for profit making. Better accessories, flashes, lenses, adaptors, batteries...you name it. Those items are huge profit makers for them already and it will keep being that way.

=Matt=

--



Cameras capable of making great photographs have become commonplace
these days, but photographers have not. While technical innovations
have made photography ever easier in recent decades, the art of
producing images that other people will care about has become even
more formidable. Galen Rowell

--
Wow...that's a pretty killer camera! Are you any good?

-Jake-

 

[T3]

You don't understand the economic realities of FF versus APS. There are a number of reasons why manufacturers won't let APS go away:

1. 1. Cost. It costs more to make a FF sensor than it does an APS sensor. It always will. One 8 inch wafer yields 20 FF sensors (if there are no defects). That same silicon wafer will yield 72 APS sensors. That's more than three times as many. But the difference in actual yield is even greater since there is a much higher defect rate for FF sensors since they are so much larger than APS sensors. Ultimately, this means that FF sensors simple cost more to produce than APS sensors. And if a manufacterer puts a FF sensor into a low-priced DSLR and sells it for the same price as APS cameras, that means less profit for them. That's a difference in cost and profit that manufacturers will not want to ignore.

1. 2. Selling premium. Whether the actual cost difference between an APS sensor and a FF sensor is a lot or a little, a manufacturer can charge more for the FF sensor because of its percieved higher price. For example, lets say the cost difference of manufacturing an APS 40D versus a FF 5D is only $300. But Canon charges a difference of $500-600 because of the percieved value of a FF sensor. That's why a 40D is $1300 while a 5D is around $1800-1900. They are banking on the percieved added premium value of a larger sensor, above and beyond the actual cost of that larger sensor. It's just like buying an L lens. An L lens doesn't really cost $1000 more to make than its non-L counterpart. But they'll charge that amount anyways. Same goes for APS vs FF. This added profitability is not something that they manufacturers will ignore.

1. 3. Upgrade path. A good many people start off buying an APS body like the 40D. Then, some day they decide they want to "upgrade" to a FF body like the 5D, even though the 40D actually outspec's the 5D in many ways. But the FF sensor is enough of a difference to entice many buyers to "upgrade" to the 5D. Additionally, many people want both the advantages of FF and APS, so they end up with both an APS and FF body. So what the manufacturers get from offering both APS and FF bodies is more body sales. If every body was a FF body, they would be eliminating this differentiation, this opportunity to get people to buy an additional body, this pathway to "upgrading". They would get one sale when they might have gotten two.

1. 4. Lens sales. I have APS bodies. I bought a 10-22 EF-S to give me wide angle on these APS bodies. I have a FF body. I bought a 17-40/4L to give me wide angle on the FF body. The 10-22 and 17-40 are actually duplicates of one another, except for different formats. I don't have a problem with buying both. And I suspect the manufacturer doesn't mind that I bought both either. In fact, many people have EF-S lenses that are duplicated with FF lenses. Some people like their EF-S kit for travel, while using their FF kit for shooting closer to home. In the end, it means more lens sales for manufacturers when you have lenses designed for each respective format.

I'm sure there are many other reasons people can think of for manufacturers not wanting to kill off APS. These are just a few. Any manufacturer who plans on killing off APS and making ALL of their bodies FF bodies is ultimately hurting themselves. They know this. That's why they will always offer APS bodies, and try to keep FF bodies as a "premium" or "semi-premium" position that they can always charge more for.

If Nikon wants to go all FF, let them. Lets see them try to compete price-wise against APS bodies in the mid to lower segments, where margins are a lot thinner, price competition is fierce, and consumers are more price sensitive. Lets see them kill off a big upgrade motivator for many buyers: sensor size. Lets see them kill off the pricing premium they can offer for FF bodies. It's not going to happen. It does not make any business or economic sense for any of the manufacturers to offer FF across the board. And they know it.

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.

 

[T3]

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.

Here's where you're completely missing the point. 2 FF cameras? No, there are many people who will just go with one FF camera. Which means Nikon sells one less camera. And that's why Nikon, or any manufacturer, will not go FF across the board. They want to be able to offer various bodies at various price points, some with more expensive larger sensors, and some with lower-cost crop sensors. They want sensor format to be a purchase motivator, an upgrade motivator. Being able to offer APS bodies and FF bodies increases their selling opportunities. It is to their advantage to keep both. And that's why they always will keep both.

 

[T3]

And I'm sorry, but Rebel buyers are just NOT interested in
full-frame. One in a hundred or one in a thousand, maybe.

They aren't interested because they haven't been told that they are
interested. If Canon and other boys starts making a big enough stink
about the larger sensor and better image quality it can provide, then
they will want it. Magazines will review the cameras and say they are
better, sites like this will say it's better, and the easiest way to
point this out is to say, "This camera has the technology that used
to be only in the realm of the pro, well now you too can have this
ability to produce professional quality pictures with the new Canon
Rebel XQi." Problem solved on rebel shooters not being interested any
longer.

But that won't happen. Why? Because it is to the manufacturers' economic advantage to keep APS bodies. Here's why:

1. 1. Cost. It costs more to make a FF sensor than it does an APS sensor. It always will. One 8 inch wafer yields 20 FF sensors (if there are no defects). That same silicon wafer will yield 72 APS sensors. That's more than three times as many. But the difference in actual yield is even greater since there is a much higher defect rate for FF sensors since they are so much larger than APS sensors. Ultimately, this means that FF sensors simple cost more to produce than APS sensors. And if a manufacterer puts a FF sensor into a low-priced DSLR and sells it for the same price as APS cameras, that means less profit for them. That's a difference in cost and profit that manufacturers will not want to ignore.

1. 2. Selling premium. Whether the actual cost difference between an APS sensor and a FF sensor is a lot or a little, a manufacturer can charge more for the FF sensor because of its percieved higher price. For example, lets say the cost difference of manufacturing an APS 40D versus a FF 5D is only $300. But Canon charges a difference of $500-600 because of the percieved value of a FF sensor. That's why a 40D is $1300 while a 5D is around $1800-1900. They are banking on the percieved added premium value of a larger sensor, above and beyond the actual cost of that larger sensor. It's just like buying an L lens. An L lens doesn't really cost $1000 more to make than its non-L counterpart. But they'll charge that amount anyways. Same goes for APS vs FF. This added profitability is not something that they manufacturers will ignore.

1. 3. Upgrade path. A good many people start off buying an APS body like the 40D. Then, some day they decide they want to "upgrade" to a FF body like the 5D, even though the 40D actually outspec's the 5D in many ways. But the FF sensor is enough of a difference to entice many buyers to "upgrade" to the 5D. Additionally, many people want both the advantages of FF and APS, so they end up with both an APS and FF body. So what the manufacturers get from offering both APS and FF bodies is more body sales. If every body was a FF body, they would be eliminating this differentiation, this opportunity to get people to buy an additional body, this pathway to "upgrading". They would get one sale when they might have gotten two.

1. 4. Lens sales. I have APS bodies. I bought a 10-22 EF-S to give me wide angle on these APS bodies. I have a FF body. I bought a 17-40/4L to give me wide angle on the FF body. The 10-22 and 17-40 are actually duplicates of one another, except for different formats. I don't have a problem with buying both. And I suspect the manufacturer doesn't mind that I bought both either. In fact, many people have EF-S lenses that are duplicated with FF lenses. Some people like their EF-S kit for travel, while using their FF kit for shooting closer to home. In the end, it means more lens sales for manufacturers when you have lenses designed for each respective format.

I'm sure there are many other reasons people can think of for manufacturers not wanting to kill off APS. These are just a few. Any manufacturer who plans on killing off APS and making ALL of their bodies FF bodies is ultimately hurting themselves. They know this. That's why they will always offer APS bodies, and try to keep FF bodies as a "premium" or "semi-premium" position that they can always charge more for.

So if you really think any manufacturer will want to go FF across the board, killing off APS, you have to ask what the economic advantage would be for doing that. Doing so would kill off the (above listed) advantages of keeping APS in the mix. Why in the world would Canon want to sell a Rebel with a FF sensor that costs more for them to produce than a Rebel with an APS sensor, and sell it for the same price as an APS Rebel? Because they want to make LESS profit? Why in the world would they want to eliminate FF as a motivator for APS users to move up to a FF body? Who would be iinclined to buy a more expensive 5D if it had the same sensor as a less expensive 40D?

 

[PicPocket]

If I had a Nikon FF, and the price of FF were the same as a crop
sensor,

How would that be? More than twice the silicon with lesser extraction rate will be same cost?

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)

You must be talking about the FF flagship revealed just now. Have you waited for a full cycle to see whats in store for a crop 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.

Since the above assumptions are likely to be wrong, I would still carry one crop

Why would you carry a crop sensor?

Price / Size / Weight. Does your FF camera become smaller and lighter at the flick of a button? If yes, I would rather carry a Large Format camera that has a knob to switch between LF, MF, FF, 1.3x, 1.6x and 2x

The only reason to have one now is
because of a low cost backup, higher pixel density

Which arent going anywhere, relatively speaking

(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.

Really. I don't think I would be so thrilled about being able to mount a lens on a camera. Lets look at the results that Nikon FF sensors produce out of a DX lens. If the end result is to crop the better half of image, I would perhaps save size, weight and money and have a sharp small form factor assembly as a second alternative

A lot of working pros use both FF and EF-S.

Correct. Though many of the so called 35mm PROs today are the one's who may have never shot LF with huge bellows

Who says I have to use one or the other?

Right. Who says so?

And who says I have to use an EF-S lens on a FF body?

Right. Who says so?

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?

Right. Who says so?

--
PicPocket
http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/GalleryIndex.html

 

[Per Olof Pettersson]

Price / Size / Weight. Does your FF camera become smaller and lighter
at the flick of a button?

There is no reason for a FF-camera to be more than a few mm bigger than a crop-camera. The mount is the same size, the registration depth is the same. The groundglass need to be at the same height above the mirror.

The Canon 5D is similar in size to the 40D
The Canon 1Ds is similar in size to the 1D
and the the Canon 300V is similar in size to the 350/400/450D.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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

I guess you must have written that mainly for its comedy value.

Nikon's lenses are a mish-mash of partial compatibilities that needs a pageful of explanation (e.g. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm ). It seems incredible that people buying an entry-level Nikon DSLR today are still paying the price (in lens incompatibility) for Nikon's decision, over 20 years ago, to graft a half-baked AF actuating system onto their MF mount.

Mean while every Canon EF lens is fully functional on every EOS camera ever made, and in addition there is a very small range of clearly delineated EF-S lenses which are specific to the crop cameras.

If I had a Nikon FF,

[snip]

Yes, there is a hypothetical future in which full frame sensors become so cheap that everybody has one. When I look at the large LCD monitor on my desk - inconceivable a few years ago - I am constantly reminded that technology's ability to turn today's aspirational product into tomorrow's old hat seems to have no limits.

But if and when that future comes I will have had five, eight, maybe even ten years of class-leading image quality from my small, light and very affordable EF-S 60 mm macro, and as many years use from my equally class-leading EF-S 10-22. While you and the many others who express the same view will have had five, eight, ten years of hand-wringing over why buying EF-S is wrong.

 

[Steen Bay]

Can someone explain why the 35mm size is THE full frame?

Certainly. Because it's the maximum size of the sensor or film that
can be illuminated by the most comprehensive and cost-effective
available lens system:

In that case FF is a ø43mm round (or square 43x43mm) sensor, allowing you to capture the whole image circle (in an EVIL camera). Or actually a square 36x36mm sensor would be just fine, because it makes it possible to use the whole image circle with all aspect ratios between 3:2 (36x24mm) and 1:1 (30,6x30,6mm). Take a look here :

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28379079

 

[Simon R B]

APS-C is here to stay. I was all set to buy a 5D, but I'm not going to because it's just going to be too much weight to lug around. The smaller size, and lighter weight of APS-C gear makes it more appropriate for me; I'll simply use it more. A camera left at home does not take good pictures.

 

[Richard]

You basicly admit because you don't try to deny it that the Nikon system is better because it is compatable, but then you bring up some review to try and negate the positive.

First, let me tell you, you make my point. I the review, they state the Nikon is superior to the Canon on a crop body and that is what the lens seems to be desined around. Well guess, what, the answer to your question is, YES, this lens is VERY USABLE. Definition, able to be used. You cannot use the Canon EF-S lens on a Canon FF body without modification which would void warranty, this is not usable.

The Nikon camera, you turn it to crop mode and this lens is not only usable but is superior to the Canon lens. But guess what, I can turn it to FF mode and still use it, and instead of letting the camera do the cropping, I can do it myself in photoshop.

One more thing, you did not take their test and play with the settings, looking at falloff, looking at fstops 2.8, 8 and 11. The Nikon performs great even on DX and only the very outer corners show signs of fall off in light and these in most cases for me look good in the picture to help draw your attention to the center or are cropped out, if you crop down even 4 percent you are often still better than the Canon. YOu see I knew this because I own the lens and you didn't because you are looking at some chart. This lens is very usable even on a DX, and is still superior to the Canon at fstops beween 2.7 and 8 above 100mm.

But if you are not convinced, turn the Nikon to crop mode and it blows the Canon out of the water and is still usable in FF mode. Sorry, if you don't see that advantage over the EF-S system that cannot be used, you are in denyal.

Also, there are a few DX EF-S lenses that are superb, many people like yourself poo poo them because they don't understand how to use a chart or how to use the lens. What is really great about the DP review chart, is it shows me how the get the very best out of any lens. for you it is a tool to try to bash other brands.

I shoot both, I don't bash either Nikon or Canon, but I can see where each has superior features and performance. The differnence in performance between the Canon and nikon IS 70-200 2.8 is not enought to make me go out and get the Canon version of this lens even on FF.

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.

Define usable. Does this look usable to you on FF from 105 to 200?

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/page5.asp

I think that is not usable even for a consumer. Btw... ALL the EF-S
lens can be used on FF by taking out the rubber part. But who wants
results like the example above?

--
A happy Canon user...
http://www.redmin.net

 

[photonius]

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.

There may be some mislabeling in the Canon tech sheets,
on the german web site the micromotor 28-90 was labeled as

ca. 67 x 71 mm in size, rather small, but the 28-90 USM, which is the same in saize, is given as 81 x 121 mm in the tech specs. The lens is clearly longer than the mount width, so the 121mm length must be right.
the 18-55 is 68,5 x 79,9mm

 

[Richard]

matthew saville wrote:
But Sony will be the first to start dealing "fatal blows" to

market share- Their 24 megapixel behemoth, if it does indeed cost
$3500, could put a SIGNIFICANT dent in 1Ds mk3 sales for the same
reasons we're discussing right now- >
That is one reason why I don't think $1000 FF is a good idea- the
profit margins are already very slim on these bodies, they HAVE to
rely on high volume sales in order to make it worthwhile.

I agree with you for the most part, but the 1000 dollar FF will be a good idea. Let me explain, if it goes to the high end market, it will not have weather seal, high frames per second, small buffer and other lack of features. All the things that would turn off amatures and pros. The pro and amature market sells less but has higher profit. High volume sales drives cars, video, tv's, consumer electronics. Everything. It is not a bad thing for manufacturers. Even Nikon and Canon. And it certainly has not been a bad thing for Sony. When Sony is able to produce a FF sensor at comodity prices, then Nikon and Canon better watch out.

 

[photonius]

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.

as mentioned in my other post a few minutes ago, this is an error in the canon tech specs.

 

[photonius]

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.

The problem is also not just the body, but the lenses. Many lenses are already at
their limits at the border, or even at the center wide open, on crop cameras.

So, having a FF camera with the same pixels as a crop, will probably give rise to a lot of pixel peepers yelling that their lenses suck with such high pixel density.
Just look at the nikon lens review of the 70-200 2.8 how that "sucks" on a FF.

Most lenses do ok on the current FF cameras with not too many mega pixels.
So, if someone should be worried about how long lenses will last, one

would have to say you have to throw out all older EF lenses, as already mentioned,
since they are not good enough for upcoming high-resolution FF sensors.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

This is just hilarious Richard. Nikon has just launched its first full frame DSLR, a hugely expensive 'pro' camera, after years of playing second fiddle to Canon in this sector of the market - and now they are the standard bearers for full frame for the masses? Yeh.

Nikon will put a FF sensor in a cheap body, Canon will have to follow
or close up business.

 

[whoosh1]

I see lots of my P&S friends get turned off when they hear that the DSLR does not do video. Manufacturers will be wiser to go after that crowd than the FF crowd.

-Abhijit

Last year I asked why we cant have live preview on SLRs and nearly
got shot. I wished to see a live histogram then.

This year i am predicting that in 2 years there would be so many
versions of FF bodies that you would be asking

'Why would you want a cropped body over a FF when FF are selling

Questions:

1. Who all agrees with me?
2. Would you invest in EF-S lens in future?

--

• Arun