$1800 full frame dSLR within 18 months?

"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/re...ssage=19968444

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

just bob kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...


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

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/re...ssage=19968444

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

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

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

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:11:54 -0500, just bob wrote
(in article ):

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.

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

Verne Arase wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:11:54 -0500, just bob wrote
(in article ):

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

John McWilliams wrote:
just bob wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

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 wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
just bob wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

Nor do I.

--
John McWilliams

I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
[Stephen Wright]