FF is the future

[john120588]

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

FF is not everything, you need better auto focus system to drive the lens, and you need more light to have more DOF, if you can't solve these problem on FF, you will end up lot of soft images when you compare the results from a cropped CCD/CMOS.

I can easy get blade like sharpness from my 10D and S5 pro, but I have yet to see anything as sharp from cameras like 5D or 1dm3, sure you can apply lot of sharpness in photoshop, but that is not the real thing.

in the old days it is like someone said that 120 film camera will beat down 135mm camera, but if you really have worked on 120 film cameras you will know that it is so hard to get the sharpness and DOF you used to get in 135mm cameras, it is the same if you compare FF to a crop.

 

[Chez Wimpy]

I'm sure a
$1999 FF DSLR could be profitable, in a couple years,

The 5D is putting Canon in the red now then? ;-)

--
-CW

 

[Chris59]

What I said was that if a FF camera had TWICE the pixels of a crop you woud get the same image once you had cropped the image to the same size as a crop factor camera.

I do take your point though, a lot of existing FF lenses look pretty ordinary at the edges (let alone corners) and the coming high resolution FF cameras will only serve to highlight the problem. However, it is these very same high resolution FF sensors that in my opinion will drive the much needed improvements to existing lenses.

Some people disparage "pixel peepers" but when you can clearly see poor resolution at the edges with the click of a mouse button, the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of the lens. You cannot blame curled up film, poor enlarger lens or misaligned lens board!

 

[Per Olof Pettersson]

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

The huge 24-70/2.8 is 83 x 123 mm, so 81x121 for the 28-90/5.6 seems absolutely unreasonable.

If I instead compare the 18-55 with a lens that I do own, the 24-85/3.5-4.5 (69,5 x 73 mm), the latter is only slightly bigger, even if it is a half-stop brighter and have ring USM. I would choose the 24-85/3.5-4.5 on FF over the 18-55-lens any day, even if I am very concerned with lens size. Together with the one stop ISO/DoF-advantage of FF, that lens would give me 1.5 stop extra at the cost of a few mm in size.

If only there was a small FF-body...

 

[Richard]

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:

I think I do.

1. 1. Cost. It costs more to make a FF sensor than it does an APS

sensor. It always will.

As we have seen with LCD monitors and screens, prices keep falling for even the largest of areas. Manufacturing costs and technology cause this so the price will continue to fall, even on sensors.

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.

The problem with this is that before FF sensors really became reality, crop sensors were all there was, and they were able to differentiate between higher, lower using the same size sensor with camera body MP and feature difference rebel compared to D30. I don't think this is a valid point because it was done with crop bodies already, FF will be no different.

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.

Again see above, crop sensors had an upgrade path between the rebel and a D30 with a large price difference. There will be an upgrade path even with all FF sensors on the market, just as it was when there was when crop sensors were the dominant chip. As a consumer, would I rather start off with a crop sensor or FF, if the price difference is negligable then FF will have the advantage. If they decide to upgrade, they upgrade to higher MP, better body, bigger buffer size, faster frames per second, weather seal, better feature set, wireless connection, better incamera processing, better display, longer shutter life, and the list can go on.

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.

Many people will have a problem buying both at least on the Canon side. Nikon has a major advantage here because they will be able to produce both DX and FX lenses that will work on FF sensors. You see only from the Canon perspective. When pixel density becomes similar between FF and crop, then for Nikon it will not matter, you will be able to buy the cheap crop lens or the FF lens for any mount. Canon will have a problem here and will have to keep the crop bodies around longer, Nikon will not have to and dedicate all plants manufacturing to FF and still create lower prices crop lenses for even FF low end cameras thus lowering cost. Cameras are upgraded every few years, lenses however last a very long time, which is bad news for the EF-S. I would predict Canon will replace EF-S with and new type of EF-SFF which will work on both crop and FF but only cover the crop sensor area. Thus again putting and end to the limited EF-S that is why I say that format is dead or near dead in the near future because Nikon thought ahead, Canon did not.

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.
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.

I believe lower pixel density will go to the low end consumers, Nikon will be able to tout that FF with lower pixel density will have better ISO/niose performance over crop sensor. The largest costs are RandD, design and manufacturing. Low volume is another thing that raises prices. If you sell large volume the price will go down. All you have to do is look at trends, once MP reach the cost effective maximum then larger realestate will be the differentiating factor. Sony does well in the low margin high volume segment and may take over that area leaving Nikon and Canon to fight for the upper end while Sony will be selling thousands of cameras.

I would worry more about Sony than Nikon as far as competition because Sony has more clout and money period, but do they have the business sense to compete with Canon and Nikon? Only time will tell but they have certainly learned how to dominate other markets with no signs of slowing.

Nikon has been trailing Canon but has learned from the mistakes of Canon, being first to market is not always best because competition can improve on your ideas and products.

 

[munro harrap]

Well, about time you all regained TOG-like senses!!

APS-C was a neat marketing trick, but Full-Frame sensors date back to the 1Ds Canon in 2002, whose image quality betters ANY Aps-C machine 6 years later.

The idea behind APS-C was not to give us any advantages like DOF and cheaper smaller lenses (cheaper-u r kidding me) but to provide a system that was inherently obsolescent to people with not enough money to buy Full-Frame in the first place. Like selling you a car that runs on petrol instead of water or electricity.

The 1Ds cost a huge amount of money when it was released-much more than a 1DsIII costs now.

APS-C and smaller sensors are great and DO have advantages, but I never saw anyone seriously imagining than APS, 110, half-frame, or Instamatic film COULD get anywhere near 35mm quality. Depth of field is not an advantage at the same distance with the same lens anyway!

The pretension several excellent mnachines recently released have of equalling full-frame is not doable if you simply compare files with ANY full-frame DSLR, shot for shot, ISO for ISO, aperture for aperture.

Until nano-technology allows it, a small sensor is physically limited, and one wonders why recent highcount APS-C DSRS were released- is this symptomatic of the deathroes of a decadent culture, perhaps! Like fase boobs and viagra!!

Nikon reassured me that the new rumoured Full-frame portable in a D300, Live View with D3 sensor body will IMPROVE on the 1DS..... they really said so on the phone last week.

But then the Pope still considers God a Catholic, so what to do?

Full-frame is the past. A past still contemporary, timeless, relevant and necessary.

Rescale the cost per square centimetre of a small sensor into the 35mm area and you will gain insight, wisdom, and understanding of the business world...if crippling machines to have no low ISO, no mirror lock-up, no RAW+jpeg variable, or no metering or focussing with "COMPATIBLE" lenses has not already chastened your outlook, if not, lets hope, your vision.

I stay full-frame and await the final solution- a mobile phone with a fast zoom and equal quality to a 1Ds. My children will get one for their 21st!!

 

[Steve Balcombe]

When pixel density becomes similar
between FF and crop, then for Nikon it will not matter, you will be
able to buy the cheap crop lens or the FF lens for any mount.

You keep flogging this idea but it makes no sense. What possible reason could anybody have for using a small image circle lens on a full frame sensor? Give us one example of where it is actually useful. And please don't answer with "because you can use your existing DX lenses", that is just a circular argument. Tell us where it is actually desirable as a choice of equipment.

I have a Canon-fit Sigma 18-50/2.8, which (being a DC lens) is a small image circle lens with an EF mount. The Canon equivalent of DX, in a sense. If I ever move to a full frame body there is absolutely no way I would want to use this lens on it. It would be pointless when I can fill the whole frame and get vastly superior image quality by trading it for an equivalent full-frame lens.

 

[Richard]

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.

You are correct Nikon is setting new standards as we speak/type, being first to market is not always the best thing. Nikon is learning from mistakes and are able to think through better the ideas presented by Canon, this happens in every industry especially to those companys that play catch up, they have to or they die. Nikon has played second fiddle to Canon only in the sensor area including ISO and noise. In flash, ergonomics, feature set in similar price range and in many other areas Nikon is a clear winner. I can see that listinging to Canon users whine because of lacking features of Canon, them threatning to jump ship. I listen to the whining of Nikon users who feel they are in the back seat of IQ.

Nikon lead the digital revolution with the D1. Canon quickly put Nikon in the back seat as far as sensor and price. Nikon has been playing catchup ever since, but now the tables are turning. Don't think I am disrespecting Canons accomplishments. I shoot both. The winner of this battle will be the consumer, whether they own Nikon or Canon. For me, I don't get into petty arguments over which is better. They are both great, and I want more competition between both companies and Sony as well. Nikon has better flash, display and other features including DX lenses that work on both FF and crop. Canon has had better noise IQ, lens selection. I love it. I have the best of both worlds and pick and choose which features and advantages and lenses suit me best and am able to see objectivly advantages and disadvantages of both systems. It also allows me to wait instead of having to instantly upgrade because my current camera lags behind the competition. I am a happy camper while others argue about which system is better, I look at the argument and laugh saying, doesn't matter to me. I just want them to compete harder against each other so I can benefit either way.

Laugh all you want at my perspective, you will defend your choice in brand to the bitter end. I on the other I see what is on the horizon for both brands, and I am elated either way.

 

[Knipser63]

There will be the opportunity to choose in future: either ASP or FF. For Pro's and Amateurs with lots of money FF will be the one to go for, but all those advanced shooters with limited budgets will stay on ASP. Especially when they invested in god lenses like Canon 17-55 or Nikon 17-55.

-ilk
http://home.fotocommunity.de/clauswilk

 

[Steve Balcombe]

... Nikon
has played second fiddle to Canon only in the sensor area including
ISO and noise.

"Only" ?? "Only" sensor size, high ISO performance and noise? I know you say that you shoot both are are not biased in favour of Nikon over Canon, but your opinion is so skewed it is hard to take seriously.

 

[Richard]

When pixel density becomes similar
between FF and crop, then for Nikon it will not matter, you will be
able to buy the cheap crop lens or the FF lens for any mount.

You keep flogging this idea but it makes no sense. What possible
reason could anybody have for using a small image circle lens on a
full frame sensor?

Give us one example of where it is actually

useful. And please don't answer with "because you can use your
existing DX lenses", that is just a circular argument. Tell us where
it is actually desirable as a choice of equipment.

There are some really good performing DX lenses Nikon makes better than Canon.
Comapre these two lenses.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/174-canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/229-nikkor-af-s-12-24mm-f4g-if-ed-dx-lab-test-report--review?start=1

The Nikon outperforms the Canon. So what, a good photographer will be able to get good results from either lens.

But when both photographers upgrade to a FF camera, the Nikon lens will be usable and the Canon will not. The Canon users will have to keep his crop sensor around for a second camera to use this lens. The Nikon user will not. He may have 2 FF cameras one for back up and still keep this lens because he can flip a switch and use it. The user may be a first time buyer of an digital SLR and does not have a second crop sensor camera and needs a lower price lens for his purchase. This is not an option for the Canon user.

Compare these similar performing lenses

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/231-nikkor-af-s-17-55mm-f28-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1

Canon has IS, advantage Canon.

Many people have bought both lenses. When both users upgrade to FF, the Nikon will still be usable, the Canon will not. The canon user will have to sell the lens, which will be hard because EF-S is a dying format, everyone knows it, (everyone who has a brain, logic and reasoning and is upgrading to a FF camera as prices come down). If the Nikon owner wants to keep the lens when he upgrades to a FF sensor, he can. If he wants to upgrade to a true FF lens, when he goes to sell his DX lens there will be people that have FF Nikons that may want to buy a lightweight good performing lens and a discounted used price. This is not an option for a newbie who just bought thier first low price FF Canon camera.

I have a Canon-fit Sigma 18-50/2.8, which (being a DC lens) is a
small image circle lens with an EF mount. The Canon equivalent of DX,
in a sense. If I ever move to a full frame body there is absolutely
no way I would want to use this lens on it. It would be pointless
when I can fill the whole frame and get vastly superior image quality
by trading it for an equivalent full-frame lens.

Thank you for this example. Lets say you do upgrade to a FF and it is 3k. You are not a pro photographer so you are on a budget, if you were not on a budget, you would have bought a Canon lens instead of cheaping out and buying a Sigma lens. So now you sold your crop body to help you buy the new 3k dollar FF. Do you have the money to go out and replace your lens, probably not, are you going to be able to get much money out of that sigma to help you afford a FF canon quality lens? probably not. So you now have a lens that is worthless to you and you HAVE to sell it or you HAVE to keep your crop sensor camera around.

The Nikon user does not have this problem. Period, his lens works. He does not have to keep his crop sensor camera and can sell it to help finance his FF. Or he can keep his old lens and use it. He may be content with the quality of the above lenses and choose to keep it and buy a true FF lens.

If you don't see the logic in this, then it is a pointless debate because you are a fanboy and cannot accept each brand has advantages and disadvantages, and this IS an Nikon advantage. I shoot both so I can see clearly that it is.

Here is an example that applies to me. When I get a FF Nikon I will not have to have a second crop Nikon body which will allow me to have a second body which is a Canon FF. Since I was smart enough not to purchase any EF-S lenses. I will not have the burden of having to sell any of them because I upgrade to a FF Canon camera all my lenses will work (except for the throw away kit lens (18-55) that came with the Canon camera I won) So for me another example.

Sorry that you are stuck with a cheap sigma EF-S compatable mount, you will have a hard time giving that thing away. And if you argue with me that that sigma is a pretty good lens on your crop body, then it would be worth keeping when you upgrade to a FF Canon camera with similar pixel density allowing you not to have to cover that focal lenth with a similar lens allowing you to purchase that new 300 2.8 IS you wanted, instead of trying to upgrade a lens that works well for you. Thus you have created your own example of why having lenses that are compatable with both crop and FF is a good feature.