Please Canon, release a FF D-SLR for less than $2000!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by The Lone Gunman, Feb 23, 2007.

  1. I see the Canon folks have just announced a new "flagship" hi-speed (ie,
    FPS) d-SLR, the EOS-1D Mark III. All well and good, but I'm STILL hoping
    for a successor to the either the 5D or 30D that is full frame and retails
    for under $2000 (body only). Oh the humanity of it all, is this too much to
    ask?? ;-)

    TLG
     
    The Lone Gunman, Feb 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. The Lone Gunman

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Canon 5D is $2800 at B&H right now. Why not just save the extra $800
    and buy it?
     
    eawckyegcy, Feb 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. The Lone Gunman

    Skip Guest

    Probably, yes it is too much to ask. Notice that each camera body Canon has
    introduced lately has been an improvement over the previous model, but at
    the same price, or nearly so, but not appreciably lower.
    I'd expect the 5D successor to embody many of the improvements of the 1D
    mkIII at a price pretty much in line with the $3000 intro price of the
    current model.
     
    Skip, Feb 23, 2007
    #3
  4. The Lone Gunman

    Lionel Guest

    Wait until the 5D is replaced, then buy a used one. ;)
     
    Lionel, Feb 23, 2007
    #4
  5. On the other hand, if Canon releases the 5D Mk II, or the 6D, or
    whatever, it's reasonable to assume that prices for the remaining stock
    of 5Ds will decrease. Ditto the used market.

    Not list retail price under $2k, but possibly available at that price.

    -dms
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Feb 23, 2007
    #5
  6. The Lone Gunman

    Keith Baird Guest

    I held off going digital for years, waiting for an affordable full frame
    DSLR. I finally concluded it wasn't going to happen soon and bought a
    20D. Now I can't remember why full frame seemed so important.

    What's so important about 36mm x 24mm? Or is it simply Luddite refusal
    to adjust one's habit of equating a given focal length to a particular
    field of view? I'm honestly puzzled.

    --/<eith
     
    Keith Baird, Feb 23, 2007
    #6
  7. The Lone Gunman

    Paul Rubin Guest

    It means the lensmount-to-sensor-plane distance is properly matched to
    the frame size, which helps wideangle lens design. It also means that
    you use all the expensive light-collecting ability of your big fast
    lenses that you paid mucho bucks for. The smaller sensor camera
    throws away half of the photons coming in from those lenses. It
    effectively gives your 70-200/2.8, 600/4 or whatever an extra full
    stop of speed. It further lowers the magnification you need to get a
    print of any given size and dpi. That means making a large sharp
    print puts less demands on the lens sharpness. Finally there are FF
    lenses that don't have small-sensor counterparts, either for technical
    or marketing reasons. The Nikon 17-35/2.8 is a FF professional
    workhorse but the 12-24/4 DX with similar coverage for small sensors
    is a full stop slower; similarly with Canon's counterparts to those
    lenses. Canon has a 35/1.4 AF counterpart to the classic 50/1.4, but
    the 35 is over 3x as expensive, and Nikon doesn't have an AF 35/1.4
    (they discontinued the 28/1.4 that was in the $2000 range). Neither
    Nikon nor Canon has a small-sensor equivalent of the 55/2.8 (or
    thereabouts) macro lenses.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 23, 2007
    #7
  8. I find I've replaced all my most-used lenses since going to 1.5x digital
    (Fuji S2, then Nikon D200, from misc. Nikon film bodies). A 28-70mm
    f/2.8 is no longer a useful walkaround lens for me in the new format.
    So much of the benefit of a DSLR compatible with my old lenses is lost.
    (The longer extreme lenses remain useful, even become *more* useful,
    so it's not a total loss.) FF would have avoided this.

    But it was technically difficult and expensive both then and now. And
    my lens changes cost less than the cost difference between my D200 and a
    Canon 5D (and never mind that that would require much more drastic lens
    changes).

    I've never understood why it's such a visceral issue to so many people
    either. Weird. Maybe they never used any other format? I've shot 127,
    616, 35mm, 110, 6x4.5, 6x6, and 4x5 sheet film at least, before I ever
    hit digital. Other formats are other formats, no big deal.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 23, 2007
    #8
  9. Except Canon's full-frame sensors are widely reported to have *more*
    trouble than smaller sensors with wideangle lenses.
    This is simply wrong. The f-stop of a lens remains what it is, your
    exposures don't change. Sure, some of the photons aren't hitting the
    sensor, and in that sense are wasted, but you don't have to increase
    your exposures.

    Furthermore, using the small sensor extends the reach of your fast
    telephotos for no extra money. It's like getting a free 300mm f/2.8
    (for those of us who have a xx-200 f/2.8 zoom).
    True, and it'd be good if they did some work on that.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 23, 2007
    #9
  10. The Lone Gunman

    tomm42 Guest


    I agree mostly here except for the loss of lens speed. If I take a
    reading on my hand held light meter and use a 35f2 on my Canon F1 or a
    24 f2 on my D200 the exposures are both correct. I get a little more
    DOF with the 24 at the same f stop, but that is the difference. I know
    I'm going against the current trend but I like a lot of DOF. My 55
    f2.8 works wonderfully with the APS sensor one of the sharpest lenses
    I havew ever used. Same size mount same so there is really no
    restriction on the light, just the target is half the size at the same
    intensity as if it was 35mm frame (have you seen the latest Hassleblad
    commercials on fullframe). Wish Nikon would bring out some of there
    faster wides in AF.
    Because of the costs of 35mm sized sensors, and the quality of images
    from APS sensor, I suspect there will be parallel development for a
    while longer.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Feb 23, 2007
    #10
  11. The Lone Gunman

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Think of a 200mm/4.0 Nikkor for FF 35mm and the comparably priced
    200/8.0 Nikkor-M for 4x5 sheet film. If you find a way to mount that
    LF 200/8 on a 35mm SLR, it's still a 200/8, ridiculously slow for an
    SLR lens, because you've paid for the ability to spread those photons
    over a whole LF frame and then you're throwing away most of them. By
    choosing to cover only a 24x36mm area, Nikon's designers were able to
    make their 200mm SLR lens two stops faster than the LF version,
    without increasing the cost.

    The exact same thing happens with FF telephoto lenses on a DX camera;
    It's like mounting a LF lens on a 35mm camera, just not as severe
    (you're throwing away only half the photons instead of over 90% of
    them).
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 23, 2007
    #11
  12. The Lone Gunman

    Paul Rubin Guest

    The 35/2 is a vanilla lens but 24/2 is relatively exotic. The price
    of a 24/2 could nearly buy you a 35/1.4, giving you a full stop.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 23, 2007
    #12
  13. The Lone Gunman

    RichA Guest

    But Canon seems to be (finally) addressing this problem.

    The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is set to become the ultra wide-angle
    zoom of choice for professionals. With vastly improved peripheral
    sharpness, it replaces the popular EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM as Canon's
    leading wide-angle zoom. A constant f/2.8 aperture ensures exceptional
    low light performance and depth-of-field control throughout the zoom
    range.
     
    RichA, Feb 23, 2007
    #13
  14. The Lone Gunman

    Paul Rubin Guest

    I'm not sure what you mean by that. Telecentricity? I know there are
    some 5D users here who aren't complaining about the sensor with
    wideangles. There's one Nikon partisan who thinks Canon's 16-35 is a
    lousy lens and is using a 17-35 Nikkor on a Canon 5D for that reason,
    but says the combination works great.
    Ehh, it's a little more complicated. Say there's a hypothetical D300
    with the same CCD technology and same number of pixels as your D200
    (so the D300's pixels are larger). If you put the same 600/4 on both
    cameras and the exposure doesn't change, it means you're shooting the
    same ISO on both cameras, which means you've cranked up the D200's CCD
    gain by 3 db because of its smaller pixels, getting noisier images.

    If you crank up the D300 to the same gain as the D200, you're now
    operating the D300 at twice the D200's ISO, which cuts the exposure
    time in half for images with the same amount of noise. Or
    alternatively, if you want to run your D200 at the same gain as the
    D300, you have to cut the ISO in half and increase your exposures.
    Nah, it's like getting pictures from a 200/2.8 and cutting the edges
    off with scissors so you get the 300mm field of view. You can get the
    same effect by running the FF image files through a script that crops
    them automatically after you've uploaded them to your computer.

    One variety of full-frame-D3 rumor in fact states that the D3 will
    have a button that makes this DX-like crop happen in the camera, and
    also flips in a viewfinder mask so you see the DX portion of the
    images.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 23, 2007
    #14
  15. The Lone Gunman

    acl Guest

    Well no, for this to work you'd need to have exactly the same pixel
    density, in which case you'll have the same noise behaviour. You can't
    have it both ways: you need to choose between pixel density and noise
    behaviour; so you can claim either that the bigger sensor has better
    noise characteristics, or more pixels (ie you can reproduce the
    "reach" of the smaller sensor simply by cropping), but not both. But
    I'm sure you know that. Anyway, this whole FF thing is getting a bit
    old.
    Well since the D2x has this in-camera cropping feature (with a higher
    frame rate), I think it's a good bet that if Nikon makes a camera with
    a larger sensor it'll again allow this.
     
    acl, Feb 23, 2007
    #15
  16. The Lone Gunman

    Matt Clara Guest

    Don't rush to be a complete jerk, Keith--the fact that my $1500 17-35mm f2.8
    lens is now a medium wide angle zoom, hurts. It hurts in that I now have to
    buy another lens, the cheapest of which appear to start at $500, and it's
    assured that the quality will not approach that of the lens I'm having to
    replace--not even the best of them available can do that.
     
    Matt Clara, Feb 23, 2007
    #16
  17. Which is no loss to me at all; the lens is still f/2.8.

    Now, you're right that they could design *faster* lenses more easily,
    since they only have to cover the smaller sensor. This has been my
    biggest disappointment, really, with APS-sized cameras -- that not
    enough is being done with the potential for faster lenses (although the
    Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX is cheaper than the 17-35mm f/2.8 and has a
    longer zoom range, so perhaps that's *one* example of our benefitting).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 23, 2007
    #17
  18. So they're catching up with Nikon's 17-35mm that was so popular, finally?

    But not yet really taking a swing at the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX?
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 23, 2007
    #18
  19. The Lone Gunman

    Scott W Guest

    To get close to the FOV that a 50mm lens gives me on a FF camera I had
    to go to a 28mm lens. I can get a pretty good 50mm f/1.8 lens for
    about $70, the 28mm is slower at f/2.8 and cost several times as much.

    I am very much looking forward to the day that I can use my 50mm lens
    on a FF camera. This is not to say that the 50mm is useless on the
    20D, but for overall shooting a FF sensor would be a much better
    match.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Feb 23, 2007
    #19
  20. In head on tests, the horrible 17-40 on the 5D is sharper at every point on
    the frame than the wonderful 10-22 on the 20D at the same aperture for all
    apertures. And that was without even testing the 17-40 at f/11 (its best
    aperture).
    With the larger sensor, you get larger pixels. So the 5D is a full stop
    faster than the APS-C cameras.
    You pay a full stop in sensor sensitivity for that reach, almost completely
    negating the advantage thereof.
    They can't do anything about the sharpness problem.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 23, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.