Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tony Spadaro, Sep 4, 2003.

  1. Tony Spadaro

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:bj7t94$g9c71$-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?
    >
    >
    Tony Spadaro, Sep 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony Spadaro

    Eric Gisin Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:4YK5b.3913$...
    | 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
    |
    Eric Gisin, Sep 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tony Spadaro

    Hugo Drax Guest

    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:4YK5b.3913$...
    > 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.
    Hugo Drax, Sep 4, 2003
    #3
  4. Tony Spadaro

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:4YK5b.3913$...
    > | 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
    > |
    >
    >
    Tony Spadaro, Sep 4, 2003
    #4
  5. Tony Spadaro

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:jlO5b.7361$...
    > | 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" <> wrote in message
    > | news:...
    > | > 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, Sep 5, 2003
    #5
  6. "Tony Spadaro" <> 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
    Dave Martindale, Sep 5, 2003
    #6
  7. Tony Spadaro

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:bj946k$k8c$...
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> 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
    Tony Spadaro, Sep 5, 2003
    #7
  8. "Tony Spadaro" <> 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
    Dave Martindale, Sep 5, 2003
    #8
  9. Tony Spadaro

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:bj9dnp$mf2$...
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> 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
    Tony Spadaro, Sep 5, 2003
    #9
  10. "Eric Gisin" <> 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 (08) 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.
    Paul Repacholi, Sep 5, 2003
    #10
  11. "Tony Spadaro" <> writes:
    > 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.


    No, those cases have different amounts of diffraction. The size of the
    diffraction spot depends on both the aperture diameter and the distance
    from the aperture to the image plane. The 50 mm f/45 lens will produce
    *twice* the size diffraction blur as the 24 mm f/22.

    What might have confused you is that if the diffraction formula is
    written in terms of *angle* off-axis, it depends only on aperture
    diameter (and wavelength, of course). But if you want that in terms of
    *distance* on the film plane, you have to calculate tan(theta)*L, where
    L is the distance from the aperture to the image.

    Because of this, all lenses of the same f-number produce the same size
    diffraction blur, regardless of lens focal length, for a subject at
    infinity.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Sep 5, 2003
    #11
  12. Tony Spadaro

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    I've never heard that before -- and I'm not sure I trust it either. I've
    built pinholes of many different diameters -- the smaller the hole the more
    the diffraction -- on the same "body" with the same "Film"

    --
    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" <> wrote in message
    news:bjatqg$8e$...
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> writes:
    > > 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.

    >
    > No, those cases have different amounts of diffraction. The size of the
    > diffraction spot depends on both the aperture diameter and the distance
    > from the aperture to the image plane. The 50 mm f/45 lens will produce
    > *twice* the size diffraction blur as the 24 mm f/22.
    >
    > What might have confused you is that if the diffraction formula is
    > written in terms of *angle* off-axis, it depends only on aperture
    > diameter (and wavelength, of course). But if you want that in terms of
    > *distance* on the film plane, you have to calculate tan(theta)*L, where
    > L is the distance from the aperture to the image.
    >
    > Because of this, all lenses of the same f-number produce the same size
    > diffraction blur, regardless of lens focal length, for a subject at
    > infinity.
    >
    > Dave
    Tony Spadaro, Sep 5, 2003
    #12
  13. "Tony Spadaro" <> writes:
    >I've never heard that before -- and I'm not sure I trust it either. I've
    >built pinholes of many different diameters -- the smaller the hole the more
    >the diffraction -- on the same "body" with the same "Film"


    At the same pinhole to film distance, yes. But if you double the
    distance between the aperture and film, while keeping the pinhole size
    the same, you will get twice the diameter of diffraction blur. If you
    double the distance between aperture and film *and* double the pinhole
    size, you'll get the same diameter of blur.

    This is exactly the same as what happens if you double the focal length
    of the lens while keeping the aperture diameter the same, or keeping
    the f-number the same, respectively.

    Just check the formulas for diffraction in any standard optics text.
    Make sure it is expressed in size of diffraction spot on the image
    plane (which is independent of FL), not in angular measure.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Sep 6, 2003
    #13
  14. Tony Spadaro

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    I'll check it at the library on Sunday.

    --
    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" <> wrote in message
    news:bjb5ni$25h$...
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> writes:
    > >I've never heard that before -- and I'm not sure I trust it either. I've
    > >built pinholes of many different diameters -- the smaller the hole the

    more
    > >the diffraction -- on the same "body" with the same "Film"

    >
    > At the same pinhole to film distance, yes. But if you double the
    > distance between the aperture and film, while keeping the pinhole size
    > the same, you will get twice the diameter of diffraction blur. If you
    > double the distance between aperture and film *and* double the pinhole
    > size, you'll get the same diameter of blur.
    >
    > This is exactly the same as what happens if you double the focal length
    > of the lens while keeping the aperture diameter the same, or keeping
    > the f-number the same, respectively.
    >
    > Just check the formulas for diffraction in any standard optics text.
    > Make sure it is expressed in size of diffraction spot on the image
    > plane (which is independent of FL), not in angular measure.
    >
    > Dave
    Tony Spadaro, Sep 6, 2003
    #14
    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. DaVidaMundi

    Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices?

    DaVidaMundi, Sep 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    354
    DaVidaMundi
    Sep 6, 2003
  2. Charlie Self

    Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices?

    Charlie Self, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    277
    Tim Smith
    Sep 7, 2003
  3. Lucas Tam

    Will Linux eventually take over the desktop market?

    Lucas Tam, Apr 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    76
    Views:
    1,328
    Bo Grimes
    Jun 5, 2004
  4. Chris Long

    Eventually bought the Canon 350d (rebel XT)

    Chris Long, Jan 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    692
    Skip M
    Feb 4, 2006
  5. semi-ambivalent

    Duffer film user needs advice for digital camera body (Nikon)

    semi-ambivalent, Feb 28, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    461
    semi-ambivalent
    Mar 2, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page