$1800 full frame dSLR within 18 months?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by plastic_razor@yahoo.com, Sep 11, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Prices of dSLR cameras have been going down precipitously. Just to put
    things in perspective, consider how fast things changed in a few short
    years:

    (APS-C cropped dSLR):

    1998 $15,000 (Kodak DCS520)
    1999 $5,500 (Nikon D1)
    2000 $3,000 (Canon D30)
    2002 $2,000 (Canon D60)
    2003 $900 (Canon 300D)


    Now look at how the prices for a full frame dSLRs:

    2002 $8,000 (Canon 1Ds)
    2005 $3,300 (Canon 5D)
    2006 $2,650 (Canon 5D today)
    2007 ???
    2008 ??

    If this was a math question on the SATs, most students would notice the
    pattern, and probably write "$1800" in that blank space beside 2008!
     
    , Sep 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. just bob Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > If this was a math question on the SATs, most students would notice the
    > pattern, and probably write "$1800" in that blank space beside 2008!


    Probably 100% correct, but and I can't see them allowing a FF to fall below
    $1800 for a further five years because any lower and people would not buy
    those EF-S lenses.
     
    just bob, Sep 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. bmoag Guest

    The full frame vs APS-c size sensor debate is the equivalent of the 16 vs 8
    bit color debate: a matter of faith not all that relevant to the real world.
    What I would like to see is camera designers abandon the nearly 80 year old
    35mm SLR form factor and take advantage of the APS-c sensor size and
    micro-electronics to make a smaller, lighter camera with controls that can
    be totally customized by the user.
    Canon and Nikon dSLRs need to go on a diet. They are seriously overweight.
    More than a full frame sensor I would like to see a sensor with even 1 stop
    of latitude.
    For the near future I do not see high quality cameras going to a smaller
    sensor size than APS-c. This is not because of problems with the sensors,
    which apart from latitude already exceed the needs of the majority of users,
    but because of refraction problems in the short focal length lenses required
    for these sensors.
    Only Olympus, clunky as their efforts may be, has made a stab at this
     
    bmoag, Sep 11, 2006
    #3
  4. ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:16:04 GMT, bmoag wrote:

    > More than a full frame sensor I would like to see a sensor with even 1 stop
    > of latitude.


    Hasn't Fuji taken some steps in that direction with some of their
    sensors that use a mix of sensor elements of different sizes?
     
    ASAAR, Sep 11, 2006
    #4
  5. Anthony Guest

    bmoag wrote:
    > The full frame vs APS-c size sensor debate is the equivalent of the 16 vs 8
    > bit color debate: a matter of faith not all that relevant to the real world.
    > What I would like to see is camera designers abandon the nearly 80 year old
    > 35mm SLR form factor and take advantage of the APS-c sensor size and
    > micro-electronics to make a smaller, lighter camera with controls that can
    > be totally customized by the user.


    Clearly you are describing point and shoot cameras. When you mention
    taking advantage of micro-electronics and abandonment of traditional
    design, you are describing the paper thin cameras, pen-shaped cameras,
    disposable cameras, and whatnots of the category known as digital point
    and shoots.

    What you are asking for is already here.

    However, people with investments in lenses and who prefer the heft and
    build of traditional SLRs would still buy into DSLRs. Horses for
    courses, as they say. I, for one, am still lusting for an affordable
    full frame digital camera.
     
    Anthony, Sep 11, 2006
    #5
  6. just bob wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> If this was a math question on the SATs, most students would notice the
    >> pattern, and probably write "$1800" in that blank space beside 2008!

    >
    > Probably 100% correct, but and I can't see them allowing a FF to fall below
    > $1800 for a further five years because any lower and people would not buy
    > those EF-S lenses.
    >

    "Them"? You mean Canon, or the wider camera cartel? <s>.

    Some of us decided long ago to not acquire EF-S lenses; others to do so,
    both in mind that we'd someday acquire a FF dSLR.

    And I'd dare say the margins on the FF lenses are probably greater than
    on the S lenses, and on a higher base, to boot.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 11, 2006
    #6
  7. Scott W Guest

    bmoag wrote:
    > The full frame vs APS-c size sensor debate is the equivalent of the 16 vs 8
    > bit color debate: a matter of faith not all that relevant to the real world.
    > What I would like to see is camera designers abandon the nearly 80 year old
    > 35mm SLR form factor and take advantage of the APS-c sensor size and
    > micro-electronics to make a smaller, lighter camera with controls that can
    > be totally customized by the user.
    > Canon and Nikon dSLRs need to go on a diet. They are seriously overweight.
    > More than a full frame sensor I would like to see a sensor with even 1 stop
    > of latitude.

    If is ironic that you are claiming FF camera have no use and then in
    ask for more latitude. You should be aware that the larger the sensor
    the more latitude you are going to get.

    BTW I get at least 3 stops of latitude from my 20D, I believe the 5D
    gives even more.

    If you are not getting even one stop you must be doing something very
    wrong, like not shooting raw or using a P&S camera.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 11, 2006
    #7
  8. ASAAR Guest

    On 11 Sep 2006 10:00:55 -0700, Scott W wrote:

    >> More than a full frame sensor I would like to see a sensor with even 1 stop
    >> of latitude.

    > If is ironic that you are claiming FF camera have no use and then in
    > ask for more latitude. You should be aware that the larger the sensor
    > the more latitude you are going to get.
    >
    > BTW I get at least 3 stops of latitude from my 20D, I believe the 5D
    > gives even more.
    >
    > If you are not getting even one stop you must be doing something very
    > wrong, like not shooting raw or using a P&S camera.


    bmoag didn't ask for more latitude. He asked for just one stop.
    Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought he was referring to digital's
    blowing out of highlights that just barely reach or exceed the
    sensor's photon limit, unlike film which has a slightly more
    forgiving "knee".
     
    ASAAR, Sep 11, 2006
    #8
  9. Jim Townsend Guest

    wrote:

    > Prices of dSLR cameras have been going down precipitously. Just to put
    > things in perspective, consider how fast things changed in a few short
    > years:


    Yep.. Canon seems to be in the forefront when it comes
    to full frame.

    I'm not quite as optimistic as you, but I'd be willing to
    bet the farm that within 3 years they have a full frame
    Digital Rebel for under $2000.
     
    Jim Townsend, Sep 11, 2006
    #9
  10. Shaun Guest

    Na, not a Rebel. No chance.


    "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > wrote:
    >
    > I'm not quite as optimistic as you, but I'd be willing to
    > bet the farm that within 3 years they have a full frame
    > Digital Rebel for under $2000.
    >
     
    Shaun, Sep 11, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    bmoag wrote:

    > The full frame vs APS-c size sensor debate is the equivalent of the 16 vs 8
    > bit color debate: a matter of faith not all that relevant to the real world.
    > What I would like to see is camera designers abandon the nearly 80 year old
    > 35mm SLR form factor and take advantage of the APS-c sensor size and
    > micro-electronics to make a smaller, lighter camera with controls that can
    > be totally customized by the user.
    > Canon and Nikon dSLRs need to go on a diet. They are seriously overweight.
    > More than a full frame sensor I would like to see a sensor with even 1 stop
    > of latitude.


    I can only guess that you mean a more gentle treatment of over-exposed
    highlights, similar to that of film.
    The only way I could see this happening is if digital camera
    manufacturers went to a 16bit ADC, use a file format that could have
    12bits per colour (unlike the 8bits we get today with jpeg), and change
    the exposure calculation slightly to under-expose and preserve the
    highlights.

    > For the near future I do not see high quality cameras going to a smaller
    > sensor size than APS-c. This is not because of problems with the sensors,
    > which apart from latitude already exceed the needs of the majority of users,
    > but because of refraction problems in the short focal length lenses required
    > for these sensors.


    Unfortunately (for the moment, at least) smaller sensors than APS-C
    have a lower signal to noise ratio, which become evident when doing any
    low-light photography.

    > Only Olympus, clunky as their efforts may be, has made a stab at this.


    Olympus (and now Panasonic) have made a huge camera surounding a tiny
    sensor.
    The FourThirds sensor is the same size as a a frame of 110 cartridge
    film.
    Pentax made the ultimate in compact SLR cameras (the Auto110 and Super
    Auto110), that should have been the model to emulate, (at least
    size-wise) for a smaller sensor camera.
    Even the Olympus Pen-F (half-frame 35mm SLR) is much smaller than an
    Evolt.
    Here is a side-by-side picture showing their relative sizes:
    <http://members.iinet.com.au/~therealm/dj_nme/compared_2.jpg>
    Don't forget that the two outer cameras have a sensor (film or CCD)
    that is pretty much the same size.
     
    , Sep 12, 2006
    #11
  12. "Shaun" <> wrote:
    > Na, not a Rebel. No chance.


    The claim is that Canon has said that in the long term, the Rebel line will
    be the only camera they make that's not FF. (I'm just repeating what I've
    read over at dpreview.)

    But here's an interesting noise comparison.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=19968444

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 12, 2006
    #12
  13. Paul J Gans Guest

    just bob <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> wrote:

    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...


    >>
    >> If this was a math question on the SATs, most students would notice the
    >> pattern, and probably write "$1800" in that blank space beside 2008!


    >Probably 100% correct, but and I can't see them allowing a FF to fall below
    >$1800 for a further five years because any lower and people would not buy
    >those EF-S lenses.


    People will still buy lenses. And they make more from the
    regular lenses than they do from the EF-S lenses.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Sep 12, 2006
    #13
  14. <> wrote:
    > bmoag wrote:
    >
    >> The full frame vs APS-c size sensor debate is the equivalent of the 16 vs
    >> 8
    >> bit color debate: a matter of faith not all that relevant to the real
    >> world.
    >> What I would like to see is camera designers abandon the nearly 80 year
    >> old
    >> 35mm SLR form factor and take advantage of the APS-c sensor size and
    >> micro-electronics to make a smaller, lighter camera with controls that
    >> can
    >> be totally customized by the user.
    >> Canon and Nikon dSLRs need to go on a diet. They are seriously
    >> overweight.
    >> More than a full frame sensor I would like to see a sensor with even 1
    >> stop
    >> of latitude.

    >
    > I can only guess that you mean a more gentle treatment of over-exposed
    > highlights, similar to that of film.
    > The only way I could see this happening is if digital camera
    > manufacturers went to a 16bit ADC, use a file format that could have
    > 12bits per colour (unlike the 8bits we get today with jpeg), and change
    > the exposure calculation slightly to under-expose and preserve the
    > highlights.


    Nah. Just underexpose a stop or two. Consumer color negative films can take
    a lot of overexposure, but their shadow detail is really bad, whereas
    digital captures a lot more in the shadows. And most quality films (ISO 50,
    100, or 160 films) are much shorter range than consumer and ISO 400 films.

    >> For the near future I do not see high quality cameras going to a smaller
    >> sensor size than APS-c. This is not because of problems with the sensors,
    >> which apart from latitude already exceed the needs of the majority of
    >> users,
    >> but because of refraction problems in the short focal length lenses
    >> required
    >> for these sensors.

    >
    > Unfortunately (for the moment, at least) smaller sensors than APS-C
    > have a lower signal to noise ratio, which become evident when doing any
    > low-light photography.


    Even APS-C has been getting pretty bad of late.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=19968444

    If you had only shot film, the D200 would knock your socks off. If.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 12, 2006
    #14
  15. David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > Nah. Just underexpose a stop or two. Consumer color negative films can take
    > a lot of overexposure, but their shadow detail is really bad, whereas
    > digital captures a lot more in the shadows. And most quality films (ISO 50,
    > 100, or 160 films) are much shorter range than consumer and ISO 400 films.
    >


    Except for sub-64 speed negative films, all color negative
    35 mm films have essentially the same dynamic range. Some
    very slow films have (or did have before they were
    discontinued) a substantially smaller dynamic range. And ALL
    color negative film is simply overrated on the ASA scale,
    considering the "right" place to put them so get optimal
    shadow detail and still have some overexposure latitude.

    Color positive film, on the other hand, has no overexposure
    latitude at all.

    I'm too new to digital to be sure how it compares to
    film in this regard, but my new Canon D30 seems to
    be more like color positive film. With the preview screen,
    I seem to be able to tell if something is overexposed
    quite reliably. I do store everything as raw, which makes
    it more forgiving.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Sep 12, 2006
    #15
  16. measekite Guest

    bmoag wrote:

    >The full frame vs APS-c size sensor debate is the equivalent of the 16 vs 8
    >bit color debate: a matter of faith not all that relevant to the real world.
    >What I would like to see is camera designers abandon the nearly 80 year old
    >35mm SLR form factor and take advantage of the APS-c sensor size and
    >micro-electronics to make a smaller, lighter camera with controls that can
    >be totally customized by the user.
    >
    >


    That might be nice but the larger size individual pixels assist in high
    quality images that can be enlarged to a greater size.

    >Canon and Nikon dSLRs need to go on a diet. They are seriously overweight.
    >More than a full frame sensor I would like to see a sensor with even 1 stop
    >of latitude.
    >For the near future I do not see high quality cameras going to a smaller
    >sensor size than APS-c. This is not because of problems with the sensors,
    >which apart from latitude already exceed the needs of the majority of users,
    >but because of refraction problems in the short focal length lenses required
    >for these sensors.
    >Only Olympus, clunky as their efforts may be, has made a stab at this
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    measekite, Sep 12, 2006
    #16
  17. Verne Arase Guest

    On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:11:54 -0500, just bob wrote
    (in article <45056eaa$0$96215$>):

    > Probably 100% correct, but and I can't see them allowing a FF to fall below
    > $1800 for a further five years because any lower and people would not buy
    > those EF-S lenses.


    Oh, I dunno.

    There's really nothing magical about FF - except a lower noise level and less
    DOF.

    With an APS-C sensor you get a lot more reach with your telephotos, and if
    they can lower noise levels I could see sticking with a smaller sensor and
    carrying around less glass.
     
    Verne Arase, Sep 14, 2006
    #17
  18. wrote:
    >
    > Now look at how the prices for a full frame dSLRs:
    >
    > 2002 $8,000 (Canon 1Ds)
    > 2005 $3,300 (Canon 5D)
    > 2006 $2,650 (Canon 5D today)
    > 2007 ???
    > 2008 ??
    >


    Until you add another vendor in there, such as Nikon, it will not happen.
    There needs to be competitive pressure to drive the price down.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Sep 14, 2006
    #18
  19. Verne Arase <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:11:54 -0500, just bob wrote
    > (in article <45056eaa$0$96215$>):
    >
    >> Probably 100% correct, but and I can't see them allowing a FF to fall below
    >> $1800 for a further five years because any lower and people would not buy
    >> those EF-S lenses.

    >
    > Oh, I dunno.
    >
    > There's really nothing magical about FF - except a lower noise level and less
    > DOF.
    >
    > With an APS-C sensor you get a lot more reach with your telephotos, and if
    > they can lower noise levels I could see sticking with a smaller sensor and
    > carrying around less glass.
    >


    No, you do not get a lot more reach. You just get cropping for free.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Sep 14, 2006
    #19
  20. Rich Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > just bob wrote:
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >
    > >> If this was a math question on the SATs, most students would notice the
    > >> pattern, and probably write "$1800" in that blank space beside 2008!

    > >
    > > Probably 100% correct, but and I can't see them allowing a FF to fall below
    > > $1800 for a further five years because any lower and people would not buy
    > > those EF-S lenses.
    > >

    > "Them"? You mean Canon, or the wider camera cartel? <s>.
    >
    > Some of us decided long ago to not acquire EF-S lenses; others to do so,
    > both in mind that we'd someday acquire a FF dSLR.
    >

    Any decent lens now sells used for close to what it cost retail, so
    it's unlikely anyone
    will be "hurting" if they have to switch out. I don't see cropped
    sensors or their lenses
    disappearing for a long time.
     
    Rich, Sep 15, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles Schuler

    Re: no full frame cheap dslr on horizon.

    Charles Schuler, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    432
    Dave Martindale
    Aug 26, 2003
  2. Bill Hilton

    review of Canon 1Ds M II (16 Mpixel full-frame dSLR)

    Bill Hilton, Nov 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    391
    Confused
    Nov 17, 2004
  3. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    742
  4. name

    full-frame CMOS non-DSLR

    name, Nov 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    64
    Views:
    1,951
    cjcampbell
    Dec 8, 2005
  5. nospam
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    7,127
    Ray Fischer
    Apr 12, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page