Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices?

 
 
Tony Spadaro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2003
If you add film costs, processing costs, scanner costs, etc to the
equation you'll see that for any serious shooter digitals are cheaper than
film cameras now.
Digitals will continue to get cheaper too - I doubt it will take any 5
years before there is a 300 dollar digital SLR body. At current Canon rates
I suspect 2-3 years might be closer to accurate


http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"Hugo Drax" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bj7t94$g9c71$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> Currently the EOS 1V top of the line film body sells for 1500 I can see
> digital going the way of film body pricing in 10 years, ie a high end
> digital selling for 1500 body only and a rebel type DSLR with lens for
> 300-350?
>
> Remember when a high end 486 IBM model 50 sold for 20,000 dollars?
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eric Gisin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2003
It would be far better for the industry to abandon 35mm SLR as a basis, and
define a new standard for professional digital cameras. They could begin with
a standard sensor size of 18x24mm, which reduces costs and halves the camera
size.

"Tony Spadaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4YK5b.3913$(E-Mail Removed) m...
| If you add film costs, processing costs, scanner costs, etc to the
| equation you'll see that for any serious shooter digitals are cheaper than
| film cameras now.
| Digitals will continue to get cheaper too - I doubt it will take any 5
| years before there is a 300 dollar digital SLR body. At current Canon rates
| I suspect 2-3 years might be closer to accurate
|


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Hugo Drax
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2003

"Tony Spadaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4YK5b.3913$(E-Mail Removed) m...
> If you add film costs, processing costs, scanner costs, etc to the
> equation you'll see that for any serious shooter digitals are cheaper than
> film cameras now.
> Digitals will continue to get cheaper too - I doubt it will take any 5
> years before there is a 300 dollar digital SLR body. At current Canon

rates
> I suspect 2-3 years might be closer to accurate
>
>


I agree regarding the savings in film/processing/scanning expenses but due
to the economies of scale I just do not see the top of the line DSLR selling
for more than 1500-7000 retail. I see the CMOS+CPU costing as much as the
precise motor/mechanical parts of the current 1v in the future.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Spadaro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2003
Are you going to halve the amount of diffraction too. The last 50 or so
years of attempts to create smaller than 35 mm standards has led to nothing
but blind alleys, dead ends, and orphaned equipment.
Smaller than 35mm sensors are standard now, but they are stopgaps and
will dissapear in the near future. The price of full size sensors will
continue to come down and the customer base will happily move up to meet it,
since they will be no more expensive than the current (1.5X multiplication
factor size) is now.


--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"Eric Gisin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> It would be far better for the industry to abandon 35mm SLR as a basis,

and
> define a new standard for professional digital cameras. They could begin

with
> a standard sensor size of 18x24mm, which reduces costs and halves the

camera
> size.
>
> "Tony Spadaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4YK5b.3913$(E-Mail Removed) m...
> | If you add film costs, processing costs, scanner costs, etc to the
> | equation you'll see that for any serious shooter digitals are cheaper

than
> | film cameras now.
> | Digitals will continue to get cheaper too - I doubt it will take any

5
> | years before there is a 300 dollar digital SLR body. At current Canon

rates
> | I suspect 2-3 years might be closer to accurate
> |
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Spadaro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2003
You are still doubling the diffraction - there is no way around it
(actually you might be squaring the diffraction). For snaps it's fine to
have a small sensor but when full size sensors get cheap enough (and they
are dropping in price still - and will continue to drop in price) no one who
is serious about photography will use undersized sensors for anything where
image quality counts.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"Eric Gisin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The price of sensors for DSLR are high because silicon chips are have a

high
> price per mm2. This will NOT drop much, silicon fabrication is very

expensive.
> That's why compacts have such small sensors.
>
> So a 24x18 will always be half the price of 36x24 mm. Changing the size in
> digital does not require the major changes film does, just new lenses.
>
> "Tony Spadaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:jlO5b.7361$(E-Mail Removed) m...
> | Are you going to halve the amount of diffraction too. The last 50 or so
> | years of attempts to create smaller than 35 mm standards has led to

nothing
> | but blind alleys, dead ends, and orphaned equipment.
> | Smaller than 35mm sensors are standard now, but they are stopgaps

and
> | will dissapear in the near future. The price of full size sensors will
> | continue to come down and the customer base will happily move up to meet

it,
> | since they will be no more expensive than the current (1.5X

multiplication
> | factor size) is now.
> |
> | "Eric Gisin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> | news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> | > It would be far better for the industry to abandon 35mm SLR as a

basis,
> | and
> | > define a new standard for professional digital cameras. They could

begin
> | with
> | > a standard sensor size of 18x24mm, which reduces costs and halves the
> | camera
> | > size.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2003
"Tony Spadaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>Are you going to halve the amount of diffraction too. The last 50 or so
>years of attempts to create smaller than 35 mm standards has led to nothing
>but blind alleys, dead ends, and orphaned equipment.
> Smaller than 35mm sensors are standard now, but they are stopgaps and
>will dissapear in the near future. The price of full size sensors will
>continue to come down and the customer base will happily move up to meet it,
>since they will be no more expensive than the current (1.5X multiplication
>factor size) is now.


Diffraction isn't a significant problem here. With tiny sensors that
are 1/5 the dimensions of a 35 frame, it *is* signficant - it limits the
smallest useful aperture to about f/8, which is likely to be noticeably
less sharp than f/5.6.

But for a full-frame 35 sensor, you wouldn't get the same level of
diffraction blur until f/32 or f/44. Using a 24 mm wide sensor is only
a 1.5X reduction in size, and you'd get blurring of the same
significance just one stop earlier - somewhere around f/22 to f/32.
Most 35 lenses don't even stop down that far.

A bigger issue is resolution. For the same resolution in the print,
you need 1.5X the limiting resolution in the lens. If you scale down a
35 lens design to cover the smaller image circle, you almost
automatically get higher resolution in the bargain (and some
manufacturers are building a few lenses like this). But if you're
going to use a lens that was designed for 35 mm full-frame use with a
small sensor, it had better be a higher-quality lens to avoid
degrading the image. That's not so important when the small sensor is
only 4 or 6 megapixels, but if anyone tried putting 10-15 megapixels in
a small sensor this would become much more significant.

The other problem with lots of pixels in a small area is it reduces
sensitivity and dynamic range. Given the same number of pixels, a
larger-area sensor always has the advantage.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Spadaro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2003
Remember though if a 24mm lens is your standard it will have teh diffraction
at f22 that a 50mm lens has at f45. A 12 mm lens would have that same
diffraction at f11. But, I agree lens resolving is another insurmountable
hurdle. Hard to say what will happen in sensor developments over time so I
wouldn't care to make any predictions.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"Dave Martindale" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bj946k$k8c$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Tony Spadaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >Are you going to halve the amount of diffraction too. The last 50 or so
> >years of attempts to create smaller than 35 mm standards has led to

nothing
> >but blind alleys, dead ends, and orphaned equipment.
> > Smaller than 35mm sensors are standard now, but they are stopgaps and
> >will dissapear in the near future. The price of full size sensors will
> >continue to come down and the customer base will happily move up to meet

it,
> >since they will be no more expensive than the current (1.5X

multiplication
> >factor size) is now.

>
> Diffraction isn't a significant problem here. With tiny sensors that
> are 1/5 the dimensions of a 35 frame, it *is* signficant - it limits the
> smallest useful aperture to about f/8, which is likely to be noticeably
> less sharp than f/5.6.
>
> But for a full-frame 35 sensor, you wouldn't get the same level of
> diffraction blur until f/32 or f/44. Using a 24 mm wide sensor is only
> a 1.5X reduction in size, and you'd get blurring of the same
> significance just one stop earlier - somewhere around f/22 to f/32.
> Most 35 lenses don't even stop down that far.
>
> A bigger issue is resolution. For the same resolution in the print,
> you need 1.5X the limiting resolution in the lens. If you scale down a
> 35 lens design to cover the smaller image circle, you almost
> automatically get higher resolution in the bargain (and some
> manufacturers are building a few lenses like this). But if you're
> going to use a lens that was designed for 35 mm full-frame use with a
> small sensor, it had better be a higher-quality lens to avoid
> degrading the image. That's not so important when the small sensor is
> only 4 or 6 megapixels, but if anyone tried putting 10-15 megapixels in
> a small sensor this would become much more significant.
>
> The other problem with lots of pixels in a small area is it reduces
> sensitivity and dynamic range. Given the same number of pixels, a
> larger-area sensor always has the advantage.
>
> Dave



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2003
"Tony Spadaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>Remember though if a 24mm lens is your standard it will have teh diffraction
>at f22 that a 50mm lens has at f45. A 12 mm lens would have that same
>diffraction at f11.


That's not correct, as it stands. A 24mm lens has the same amount of
diffraction, in terms of the diffraction spot size, as a 50 mm lens at
the same aperture. So the change in focal length does not change the
contribution of diffraction, if you keep the format size the same.

On the other hand, if you're comparing two different cameras where the
image dimensions differ by a factor of 2, so the 50 mm lens is the
"normal" lens for one and the 25 mm lens is the normal lens for the
other, then you're right. The smaller format needs to be enlarged twice
as much as the larger format. Thus, even though the 25 mm lens at f/22
has only half the diffraction spot size at the sensor as the 50 mm lens
at f/45, the diffraction blur ends up the same size on the print.

Making this sort of comparison, the results depend on whether you're
talking about changing only the lens but keeping the image format, or
changing both lens and image format at the same time.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Spadaro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2003
The same size aperture. A 24mm is close enough to half 50 mm that I
discount the difference. The actual aperture at f22 on a 24 mm lens is the
same size as that on a 50mm lens at f45 - therefore the diffraction, which
is caused by the bending of light rays around the edges of the hole, is the
same.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"Dave Martindale" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bj9dnp$mf2$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Tony Spadaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >Remember though if a 24mm lens is your standard it will have teh

diffraction
> >at f22 that a 50mm lens has at f45. A 12 mm lens would have that same
> >diffraction at f11.

>
> That's not correct, as it stands. A 24mm lens has the same amount of
> diffraction, in terms of the diffraction spot size, as a 50 mm lens at
> the same aperture. So the change in focal length does not change the
> contribution of diffraction, if you keep the format size the same.
>
> On the other hand, if you're comparing two different cameras where the
> image dimensions differ by a factor of 2, so the 50 mm lens is the
> "normal" lens for one and the 25 mm lens is the normal lens for the
> other, then you're right. The smaller format needs to be enlarged twice
> as much as the larger format. Thus, even though the 25 mm lens at f/22
> has only half the diffraction spot size at the sensor as the 50 mm lens
> at f/45, the diffraction blur ends up the same size on the print.
>
> Making this sort of comparison, the results depend on whether you're
> talking about changing only the lens but keeping the image format, or
> changing both lens and image format at the same time.
>
> Dave



 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Repacholi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2003
"Eric Gisin" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> The price of sensors for DSLR are high because silicon chips are
> have a high price per mm2. This will NOT drop much, silicon
> fabrication is very expensive. That's why compacts have such small
> sensors.


A 12" wafer is reported to be $400-$2000 each. For CCDs in production
you should be well down the cost scale.

> So a 24x18 will always be half the price of 36x24 mm. Changing the
> size in digital does not require the major changes film does, just
> new lenses.


No, you are looking at more like a n^2 or n^3 ratio depending on your
defect rate and distribution. So your 18x24 will be about 1/4 to 1/8
of the cost of a 24x36. BTW, using s non square CCD is pretty dumb.

Better to go for a CCD that give the best tradeoff with the lenses
and go with that. At a SWAG, I'd punt on about 40mm sq or so for a
pro quality unit. Sub sample for higher yields in lower range units,
use a corner for P&S units for CCDs that are really bad...

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (0 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duffer film user needs advice for digital camera body (Nikon) semi-ambivalent Digital Photography 10 03-02-2007 08:52 PM
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses Joseph Chamberlain, DDS Digital Photography 27 11-13-2005 05:28 AM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices? Charlie Self Digital Photography 2 09-07-2003 12:40 AM
Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices? DaVidaMundi Digital Photography 3 09-06-2003 04:29 PM



Advertisments