When will these people get it? Telephotos can't shrink

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 10, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Telephotos of specific speeds cannot be shrunk like wide angle lenses
    and normal primes just because a sensor is smaller.

    A 300mm f2.8 needs a lens at least 110mm across and it needs multiple
    elements because aspherics are not used on large elements yet.
    Whether the sensor is 4/3rds or FF, the lens is going to be that big.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=40554613
     
    RichA, Feb 10, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Yes yes, if it is literally the same focal length then it will be the same
    > size, however the point is that to get the same MAGNIFICATION on a smaller
    > format you only need a smaller lens. Look at all those D lenses that will
    > only fill an APS-C sensor. They are lighter and smaller, but if you use
    > them in full frame then the area outside the sensor area has aberrations
    > at best or nothing at all.


    Which of course ignores the fact that you can simply crop a FF camera image
    (same *actual* focal length lens) to achieve results similar to the smaller
    sensor image. So a 100mm lens on a FF camera with 2:1 crop, is exactly the
    same as a 100mm lens on a 4/3 camera. Except the FF camera gives you the
    choice of 100mm field of view, 200mm field of view, or anything in between,
    with similar levels of performance to the 200mm equiv. only 4/3 camera.
    The argument by proponents of smaller sensor camera's that their lenses are
    smaller is simply "smoke and mirrors" or we'd all be using phone camera's
    with "telephoto" lenses :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Feb 15, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    On Feb 13, 6:14 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    >
    > > Equivalency has nothing repeat, nothing to do with the physics of lenses.

    >
    > And everything to do with how we use lenses.
    >
    >   BugBear


    Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
    pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
    36mp FF, more or less. So a Panasonic G3 and a 200mm lens would match
    the resolution (sensor differences aside) of a Nikon D800 with a 300mm
    lens for a specific object. A 200mm f2.8 lens is considerably smaller
    than a 300mm f2.8 lens with the same speed. But it's NOT a 300mm lens
    and there are the usual arguments about f2.8 not being worth as much
    on a small sensor as a large, so noise control isn't comparable.
    In fact, a 200mm lens at f2.0 is almost as heavy as a 300mm f2.8 lens,
    it's just shorter. Even then, you won't be able to match the FF
    quality with a m4/3rds camera, not with only 1 stop of lens speed
    advantage.
     
    RichA, Feb 15, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    DanP Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    On Thursday, 16 February 2012 13:34:26 UTC, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > On Feb 13, 6:14 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > > Rich wrote:
    > >
    > > > Equivalency has nothing repeat, nothing to do with the physics of
    > > > lenses.

    > >
    > > And everything to do with how we use lenses.
    > >
    > > BugBear

    >
    > Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
    > pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
    > 36mp FF, more or less. So a Panasonic G3 and a 200mm lens would match
    > the resolution (sensor differences aside) of a Nikon D800 with a 300mm
    > lens for a specific object. A 200mm f2.8 lens is considerably smaller
    > than a 300mm f2.8 lens with the same speed. But it's NOT a 300mm lens
    > and there are the usual arguments about f2.8 not being worth as much
    > on a small sensor as a large, so noise control isn't comparable.
    > In fact, a 200mm lens at f2.0 is almost as heavy as a 300mm f2.8 lens,
    > it's just shorter. Even then, you won't be able to match the FF
    > quality with a m4/3rds camera, not with only 1 stop of lens speed
    > advantage.
    >
    > If it has the same number of pixels it will. You might have to compensate
    > for the lower light gathering by increasing the exposure time!


    So, will a 300mm f/8 do it for you? Must use a tripod and forget about shooting birds in flight or kids running around.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Feb 16, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    In article <>, R. Mark Clayton
    <> wrote:

    > Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
    > pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
    > 36mp FF, more or less.


    4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm on
    full frame.
     
    nospam, Feb 16, 2012
    #5
  6. Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> writes:

    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    > news:160220121825503191%...
    >> In article <>, R. Mark Clayton
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
    >>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
    >>> 36mp FF, more or less.

    >>
    >> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm on
    >> full frame.

    >
    > Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the number
    > of pixels.
    >
    > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller
    > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full frame
    > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the area is
    > a rip off.


    Not sure what you mean by "D" rated. In the Nikon line, for example,
    the D700 isn't even twice the price of the D300s, and that's where the
    jump from APS-C to full-frame takes place (they're reasonably similar
    otherwise).

    And the full-frame sensor costs a LOT more than the APS-C one;
    semiconductor yields go down drastically as size increases.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 17, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    > >>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
    > >>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
    > >>> 36mp FF, more or less.
    > >>
    > >> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm on
    > >> full frame.

    > >
    > > Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the number
    > > of pixels.
    > >
    > > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller
    > > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full frame
    > > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the area is
    > > a rip off.

    >
    > Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.


    crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
     
    nospam, Feb 17, 2012
    #7
  8. Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    nospam <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> >>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
    >> >>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
    >> >>> 36mp FF, more or less.
    >> >>
    >> >> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm on
    >> >> full frame.
    >> >
    >> > Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the number
    >> > of pixels.
    >> >
    >> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller
    >> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full frame
    >> > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the area is
    >> > a rip off.

    >>
    >> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.

    >
    > crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.


    Thanks.

    And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
    D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
    about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
    difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
    2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 17, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> Which of course ignores the fact that you can simply crop a FF camera
    >> image (same *actual* focal length lens) to achieve results similar to the
    >> smaller sensor image. So a 100mm lens on a FF camera with 2:1 crop, is
    >> exactly the same as a 100mm lens on a 4/3 camera. Except the FF camera
    >> gives you the choice of 100mm field of view, 200mm field of view, or
    >> anything in between, with similar levels of performance to the 200mm
    >> equiv. only 4/3 camera.
    >> The argument by proponents of smaller sensor camera's that their lenses
    >> are smaller is simply "smoke and mirrors" or we'd all be using phone
    >> camera's with "telephoto" lenses :)

    >
    > That depends - 35mm cameras were limited by the grain size and sensitivity
    > of the films loaded in them. Indeed when David Bailley started using 35mm
    > SLR's professionally ~fifty years ago, he was criticised because the
    > images would be too grainy to print at full page size.


    The same goes for comparing a FF film SLR and a half frame film SLR. Lets at
    least stick with like for like OK?


    > With digital sensors the same resolution can be extract from a smaller
    > image (within the laws of physics obviously), so the camera can be smaller
    > and still capture the subject at the same magnification / field of view.


    For same sensor technology you can have twice the resolution for same noise,
    using a sensor twice the size. So yes you can make a camera and sensor
    smaller (your choice) but a 100mm lens is still a 100mm lens, whether you
    crop before or after the photo is taken.

    >
    > Obviously less light will enter a smaller lens


    Not obvious at all unless the aperture is smaller as well as the focal
    length.

    >so for low light work you might still want a bigger lens and bigger sensor,
    >however with cameras now boasting thousands of ASA (against a typically few
    >hundred for film) this will seldom be an issue.


    Right, IF you want a smaller camera, with smaller sensor, the choice is
    there. Many people are happy with phone camera's these days. (I'm not)
    However there is no magic pudding, fixed cropping in the camera is no
    different from cropping afterwards from a strictly quality point of view.
    And a 100mm lens is still a 100mm lens. That was my point.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Feb 18, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    In article <>, R. Mark Clayton
    <> wrote:

    > >>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller
    > >>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full frame
    > >>> > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the
    > >>> > area is
    > >>> > a rip off.
    > >>>
    > >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
    > >>
    > >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.

    >
    > Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
    > works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).


    wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
    dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
    some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.

    > > And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
    > > D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
    > > about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
    > > difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
    > > 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.

    >
    > It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
    >
    > Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
    > Canon 330 1700
    > Nikon 430 1840
    > Sony 290 1850
    >
    > so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS
    > size.


    bogus comparison.

    the cheapest slrs are cheap not just because of a smaller sensor
    (that's obviously part of it), but because they lack many other
    features in the higher end full frame bodies.

    for example, the cheapest full frame nikon has a 51 point autofocus and
    internal focus motor, while the cheapest crop sensor nikon has an 11
    point autofocus and no internal motor. there are many other differences
    between those two, *all* of which contribute to the price difference.
     
    nospam, Feb 18, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
    > D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
    > about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
    > difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
    > 2x


    Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer to
    keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit
    margins!

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Feb 18, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    >
    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
    >> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
    >> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
    >> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
    >> 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.
    >> --
    >> David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/

    >
    >
    > It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
    >
    > Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
    > Canon 330 1700
    > Nikon 430 1840
    > Sony 290 1850
    >
    > so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS
    > size.


    But the market for a FF camera with the lowest levels of focussing speed,
    continuous shooting speed, metal used for chasis, lack of weather sealing,
    and every other feature the FF camera's have that the very cheapest APS
    SLR's don't have, would be very limited indeed. At least David is comparing
    camera's that are fairly similar. You might as well compare the cost of a FF
    DSLR with a P&S in your example! :)
    However even twice the camera price is rather more than the actual sensor
    price difference by 4 to 5 times at least!!

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Feb 18, 2012
    #12
  13. Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    In rec.photo.digital Trevor <> wrote:

    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
    >> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
    >> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
    >> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
    >> 2x


    > Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer to
    > keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit
    > margins!


    Doesn't the price of any camera depend on two quantities, firstly the
    development and setting up production line costs, which are fixed,
    secondly the marginal cost of producing one more camera off the line?
    In which case the price will vary a lot depending on how many they can
    sell. This is epecially the case for sensors, quite apart from yeild
    differences once the production line is running.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Feb 19, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    In article <>, R. Mark Clayton
    <> wrote:

    > >> >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
    > >>
    > >> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
    > >> works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).

    > >
    > > wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
    > > dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
    > > some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.

    >
    > You get [serious] vignetting* or even just black.


    depends on the lens and the focal length.
     
    nospam, Feb 19, 2012
    #14
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    In article <>, R. Mark Clayton
    <> wrote:

    > >> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
    > >> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
    > >> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
    > >> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
    > >> 2x

    > >
    > > Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer
    > > to keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit
    > > margins!

    >
    > Yes - well someone needs to break the mould!
    >
    > 1972 - 8 digit scientific pocket calculator (HP35) £600 ~= £6k today
    > 1975 - 8 digit scientific pocket calculator £200
    > 1988 - 10 digit graphical scientific pocket calculator £80
    > 2005 - 10 digit scientific pocket calculator £1 in the pound shop


    once again you're comparing different feature sets. the hp-12c (still
    sold!) is about $70 us, not much cheaper than it was back in the 1980s
    when it originally came out.
    <http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/calculator/Financial/1/storefronts/1
    2C%2523ABA>

    > OTOH with my 12Mp phone camera as an example, the writing is on the wall for
    > Kodak and the low end point and shoot camera market is faltering... Most
    > smart phones pack 5-8Mp and will take quite good snaps. Time for this
    > technology to bring down the price of FF SLR's


    the first full frame slr was the canon 1ds in 2002 for $8000. the canon
    5d followed a few years later at around $3500. the nikon d700 is $2700
    right now (and probably will be less after the d800 ships).

    meanwhile, they're selling everything they make, including the crop
    sensor cameras for less, so obviously the prices are just fine where
    they are. there's no point in dropping it any further at this time.
     
    nospam, Feb 19, 2012
    #15
  16. Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> writes:

    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> nospam <> writes:
    >>
    >>> In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> >>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
    >>>> >>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
    >>>> >>> 36mp FF, more or less.
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm
    >>>> >> on
    >>>> >> full frame.
    >>>> >
    >>>> > Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the
    >>>> > number
    >>>> > of pixels.
    >>>> >
    >>>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a
    >>>> > smaller
    >>>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full frame
    >>>> > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the
    >>>> > area is
    >>>> > a rip off.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
    >>>
    >>> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.

    >
    > Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
    > works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).
    >
    >>
    >> Thanks.
    >>
    >> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
    >> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
    >> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
    >> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
    >> 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.


    > It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
    >
    > Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
    > Canon 330 1700
    > Nikon 430 1840
    > Sony 290 1850
    >
    > so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS
    > size.


    But that's comparing unrelated models. It tells us as much as comparing
    mirrorless cameras to 4x5 digital backs.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 20, 2012
    #16
  17. Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> writes:

    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    > news:170220122022340993%...
    >> In article <>, R. Mark Clayton
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> >>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a
    >>> >>> > smaller
    >>> >>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full
    >>> >>> > frame
    >>> >>> > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the
    >>> >>> > area is
    >>> >>> > a rip off.
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
    >>>
    >>> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
    >>> works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).

    >>
    >> wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
    >> dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
    >> some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.

    >
    > You get [serious] vignetting* or even just black.


    Depends on the lens and the focal length. The Tokina 12-24/4 DX lens
    actually covers FF out to about 18mm, for example (one I tested
    myself).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 20, 2012
    #17
  18. Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    "Trevor" <> writes:

    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
    >> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
    >> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
    >> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
    >> 2x

    >
    > Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer to
    > keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit
    > margins!


    What is the actual difference in sensor prices? And what's your source
    for it?

    I think you're vastly over-simplifying how pricing a line of modern tech
    products is done.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 20, 2012
    #18
  19. Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    R. Mark Clayton <> wrote:
    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >> In article <>, R. Mark Clayton


    >>> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)


    >>> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
    >>> Canon 330 1700
    >>> Nikon 430 1840
    >>> Sony 290 1850


    >>> so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS
    >>> size.


    >> bogus comparison.


    >> the cheapest slrs are cheap not just because of a smaller sensor
    >> (that's obviously part of it), but because they lack many other
    >> features in the higher end full frame bodies.


    >> for example, the cheapest full frame nikon has a 51 point autofocus and
    >> internal focus motor, while the cheapest crop sensor nikon has an 11
    >> point autofocus and no internal motor. there are many other differences
    >> between those two, *all* of which contribute to the price difference.


    > Well compare the cost of full frame film SLR's then - they were just £££ as
    > well.


    Nikon F6. Costs $3000. Today (amazon.com).

    This being a pro level camera, one would expect *at least*
    50,000 shots over the camera life. So please add 1400 films
    and development to that cost. That should be at least $2 per
    film and $3 for developing (which a pro user would not use ...),
    so add at least $7000, probably twice or thrice the cost. Add a
    good scanner, too, probably another $2000, plus scanning software.
    Add the time spend cleaning negatives and scanner and actually
    scanning. Add a climate controled negative archive.


    Compare that to the D3x ($7600), one 32GB CF card
    ($50-$200), one card reader ($10), and 3*1.5TB HDs (one for
    storage, 2 for backup, for 50,000 shots at ~28 MB/shot:
    3*$100-$300).

    Photo editing software, printing of photos, lenses, flash, studio
    rooms, models, location costs etc. is assumed to be needed for
    both variants.


    So the ownership cost if a pro full frame film SLR versus a
    highest end full frame DSLR from Nikon is:
    SLR DSLR
    Body 3,000 7,600
    50,000 frames >7,000 <510
    100,000 frames >14,000 <810
    transfer to computer 2,000 + time 10 + seconds
    simple longterm archival $,$$$ 600 for 5 years
    675 for 10 years
    685 for 15 years
    690 for 20 years
    720 for forever
    ======= ======
    12,000 8,180
    + archival including archival

    And one would assume the extremely low frame count per storage
    medium, the additional cost and time in using a scanner to convert
    to a computer manipulatible format, the time to change the storage
    medium (especially as it's needed so often), the extra time and
    cost in development (can't just let the computer churn through
    the RAW queue or use out-of-camera JPEGs, not even for a first
    sorting), the non-reusable media, the media cost, etc. would
    drive down the price of an analogue camera.

    The full frame film SLR would be more expensive even if it
    was FREE!

    > Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.


    Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?


    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 22, 2012
    #19
  20. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Re: When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

    "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > R. Mark Clayton <> wrote:
    >> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.

    >
    > Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?


    I think he means it does NOT cost the manufacturer so much more to make that
    the retail price should be over $1k more. If you think it adds more to their
    manufacturing cost than building one of their cheaper DSLR's with a couple
    of kit lenses, you're crazy! They have simply made a choice to keep that end
    of the market more exclusive with lower volumes and higher profit margins,
    same as nearly every manufacturer does. Have a look at the cost of some cars
    where a better engine and a few extra toys can add $50k to the cost of a
    $50k car. THAT's where they *really* make a killing, not on the basic
    models.
    Whether YOU *think* it's worth $1million extra is irrelevant to their actual
    costs.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Feb 22, 2012
    #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. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE?=

    Has anyone had any experience with these people?

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE?=, May 5, 2004, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    481
    The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere
    May 5, 2004
  2. Vigo Breadcrumbs

    OT: these people are saving capitalism?

    Vigo Breadcrumbs, Apr 7, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    423
    Sartan Dragonbane
    Apr 8, 2004
  3. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    4,703
    escapeartist69
    Sep 21, 2004
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,316
    Owl Jolson
    Sep 10, 2004
  5. cam slade
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,000
    Oldus Fartus
    Jan 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page