4/3 vs 1.x crop vs full frame lens

I wonder which will end up on top 4/3, 1.x crop or full frame.

Cropped and 4/3 lenses are lighter and less expensive, but so far they
have not been produced in the variety and speed of full frame lenses.

At the same time, chip prices are coming down and full frame sensors
could be widely affordable in five years. And we are all sitting on a
*ton* of 35 mm AF lenses.

Do you think the camera companies will shift to producing mostly 1.x
crop (or 4/3) digital specific lenses? Is it worth it to write off and
entire lens product line and start from scratch?

Canon did in the 80's when they moved from FD to EOS. Recently Olympus
has done with their 4/3 line of cameras & lenses.

Or is this just a temporary fad while they wait for cheaper full size chips?

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com

UrbanVoyeur wrote:

I wonder which will end up on top 4/3, 1.x crop or full frame.

Cropped and 4/3 lenses are lighter and less expensive, but so far they
have not been produced in the variety and speed of full frame lenses.

The Oly line of pro glass is quite expensive as well. A 300 f/2.8
(giving an "effective focal length" of a 600mm in full frame) is quite a
bit more expensive than a full frame 300 f/2.8 from Canon, Minolta and
Nikon. This does not make sense since that Oly 300 f/2.8 is quite a bit
smaller than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 so should cost considerably less to
manufacture.

[OTOH, you get the same image as a 600 f/4, faster and at lower price
which seems to be Oly' strategy. For less than the price of a 600 f/4
you can buy the E-1, the 300 f/2.8 and a couple other lenses...]


At the same time, chip prices are coming down and full frame sensors
could be widely affordable in five years. And we are all sitting on a
*ton* of 35 mm AF lenses.

Wouldn't they like everyone to want to replace all that glass? It is a
strategic risk that Nikon has avoided while making lens compatibility a
less sure thing as time marches on. Minolta and Canon started whole new
lens systems when going to AF. Canon have benefited hugely from this
.... could they do it again and not have a user rebellion? There is so
much choice today, that rebellion *is* a very big risk. IAC, Canon have
cropped and full sized sensors, though the later are very pricey.


Do you think the camera companies will shift to producing mostly 1.x
crop (or 4/3) digital specific lenses? Is it worth it to write off and
entire lens product line and start from scratch?

Oly did it, and from all appearances it has not taken over the market.
Further, their professional lenses in this line are quite expensive vs.
the promise of cheaper glass due to 4/3. I believe the 'full frame body
with cropped sensors' will be around for quite a long time.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

UrbanVoyeur wrote:
I wonder which will end up on top 4/3, 1.x crop or full frame.

Cropped and 4/3 lenses are lighter and less expensive, but so far
they
have not been produced in the variety and speed of full frame lenses.

At the same time, chip prices are coming down and full frame sensors
could be widely affordable in five years. And we are all sitting on a

*ton* of 35 mm AF lenses.

Do you think the camera companies will shift to producing mostly 1.x
crop (or 4/3) digital specific lenses? Is it worth it to write off
and
entire lens product line and start from scratch?

Canon did in the 80's when they moved from FD to EOS. Recently
Olympus
has done with their 4/3 line of cameras & lenses.

Or is this just a temporary fad while they wait for cheaper full size
chips?


Well this is just a WAG (wild ass guess) but I think in the long run
the 4/3 system might win out. It seems like a good compromise between
a small P&S camera and a large DSLR. The photos I have seen from the
4/3 look great as 8 x 10 prints, not many people are going to care much
beyond this and their smaller size will be very attractive to many
people.

Having said this I own a 20D, for this price this camera can't be
beat.

Scott

In article ISb8e.33864$qO6.16691@trnddc05,
UrbanVoyeur wrote:

I wonder which will end up on top 4/3, 1.x crop or full frame.

Cropped and 4/3 lenses are lighter and less expensive, but so far they
have not been produced in the variety and speed of full frame lenses.

At the same time, chip prices are coming down and full frame sensors
could be widely affordable in five years. And we are all sitting on a
*ton* of 35 mm AF lenses.

When chip prices go down, smaller-chip prices will go down even more. So
when chip-prices go down, the price difference between DX and 24x36 will
actually GROW.

Also, the "ton of 35mm lenses" in the hands of photographers worldwide
is nice for them, but not for Nikon, Canon, or Olympus. Their business
is to SELL lenses, not to provide a cheap way so that you can still use
your old stuff.

You are making the common mistake of looking at product development from
a consumer point of view. That is not how it works (for the most part,
at least). Nikon and Canon etc. will develop products that will make
them the most money. In the forums, people want a Nikon D200...
semi-pro... Nikon gives them the D50. Those relatively few amateurs that
want something less toy-like than a D70 and who can't afford a D2x,
aren't a "market" to design for. The D50 will sell to *everyone*
including your granny.

Do you think the camera companies will shift to producing mostly 1.x
crop (or 4/3) digital specific lenses? Is it worth it to write off and
entire lens product line and start from scratch?

Time will tell. what I do know is that with digital the entire chain
counts... the lens-body combination is very important, unlike with film
where basically only the lens has influence on image-quality. In that
sense I have seen that there are lenses that used to be "top", that
perform rather average on a digital body... some oldies are still very
good, but most suck when compared to my E1-zooms, even some primes.

Canon did in the 80's when they moved from FD to EOS. Recently Olympus
has done with their 4/3 line of cameras & lenses.

Or is this just a temporary fad while they wait for cheaper full size chips?

Waiting is useless; there will always be something better over the
horizon. I have broken the 20.000-shots barrier with my E1, while you
waited; Among other things, it was also the excellent price/quality
ratio that made me choose it, and also the available lenses at the time.
(17-55dx was still vaporware, Canon had no wideangles for the 10D, and
the still have a lousy choice in 1.6-crop wide and standard lenses, if
you want reasonable speed... and swapping primes all the time, without a
dust-solution...not me.)

Lourens

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:01:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

The Oly line of pro glass is quite expensive as well. A 300 f/2.8
(giving an "effective focal length" of a 600mm in full frame) is quite a
bit more expensive than a full frame 300 f/2.8 from Canon, Minolta and
Nikon. This does not make sense since that Oly 300 f/2.8 is quite a bit
smaller than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 so should cost considerably less to
manufacture.

I bet that the Oly sensor is more demanding than 35mm film in terms
of resolution (for obvious reasons), flare control (because the sensor
is reflective), vignetting (because of the microlenses).

That might partially explain the higher cost.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

Lourens Smak wrote:
In article ISb8e.33864$qO6.16691@trnddc05,
UrbanVoyeur wrote:

At the same time, chip prices are coming down and full frame sensors
could be widely affordable in five years. And we are all sitting on a
*ton* of 35 mm AF lenses.


When chip prices go down, smaller-chip prices will go down even more. So
when chip-prices go down, the price difference between DX and 24x36 will
actually GROW.

Yes, though to a point. Looking at the Canon line (cause its the only
one I know) The digital 20D ($1400) appears to be based on the film Elan
7N camera which sells for about $300. The other $1100 is digital stuff.

If the digital stuff gets to be no more expensive than a good film
transport, and the future 20D's will be about $300, not less. Great for
people looking to by a cheap camera, but...

At the same time the digital 1Ds Mark II ($8000) is based on film 1v HS
($2000). If the digital premium disappears then the future 1Ds full
frame will be $2000-$3000.

At that point, people who used to by the 20D ($1400) will look to buy
the full frame camera, not the cropped less expensive one.



Also, the "ton of 35mm lenses" in the hands of photographers worldwide
is nice for them, but not for Nikon, Canon, or Olympus. Their business
is to SELL lenses, not to provide a cheap way so that you can still use
your old stuff.


True. And while owning existing lenses will mean that some people will
want to stay with the same brand, I imagine that most people do not have
enough lenses that they will mind switching to a new body/lens system.
Especially if the quality is high. Dumping 2 or 3 old lens isn't really
a big deal.



You are making the common mistake of looking at product development from
a consumer point of view. That is not how it works (for the most part,
at least). Nikon and Canon etc. will develop products that will make
them the most money. In the forums, people want a Nikon D200...
semi-pro... Nikon gives them the D50. Those relatively few amateurs that
want something less toy-like than a D70 and who can't afford a D2x,
aren't a "market" to design for. The D50 will sell to *everyone*
including your granny.


Or maybe the digital market is too young for niche cameras. Later, when
things sort out a bit, the manufacturers will cater to sub groups. Right
now the technology is moving too fast to have more than a few price points.


Waiting is useless; there will always be something better over the
horizon. I have broken the 20.000-shots barrier with my E1, while you
waited;

I haven't waited. :-) I have 15,000 images on a 10D and about 5000 on a
20 D. My lens investment was too great to change brands at this point.


--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:01:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

UrbanVoyeur wrote:

I wonder which will end up on top 4/3, 1.x crop or full frame.

Cropped and 4/3 lenses are lighter and less expensive, but so far they
have not been produced in the variety and speed of full frame lenses.

The Oly line of pro glass is quite expensive as well. A 300 f/2.8
(giving an "effective focal length" of a 600mm in full frame) is quite a
bit more expensive than a full frame 300 f/2.8 from Canon, Minolta and
Nikon. This does not make sense since that Oly 300 f/2.8 is quite a bit
smaller than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 so should cost considerably less to
manufacture.

Infinitely maleable reasoning on the marketer's part. They used to
tell you that medium and large format lenses were slower AND more
expensive because they had to be larger and more complex to cover the
film they did. Now, Olympus is trying to convince you that a lens
that covers a sensor much smaller than a 35mm film plane are "costly"
to make??? Maybe if they offered some key visual advantage over the
re-circulated SLR lenses Canon and Nikon and nearly everyone else
uses, I might believe them.
-Rich

RichA wrote:

Maybe if they offered some key visual advantage over the
re-circulated SLR lenses Canon and Nikon and nearly everyone else
uses, I might believe them.


They do. I've compared the new 50mm F2 macro ZD lens to some of the best
35mm macro glass (The OM 90mm F2 macro and the bellow only 80mm F4) and on
a 4/3 camera, the new ZD 50mm beats them.

Yes the 300 F2.8 is stupid expencive (people like to use it as an example of
ZD lenses being overpriced..) , mainly because they aren't going to sell
many lenses with that FOV. Even if you don't buy it's like having a 600mm
lens, that's the FOV and very few people would use that FOV regularly
enough to buy that lens. It does come down to economy of scale.

The other 4/3 lenses are reasonable IMHO for their FOV, speed and
performance.
--

Stacey

In article ,
Ben Rosengart wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:01:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

The Oly line of pro glass is quite expensive as well. A 300 f/2.8
(giving an "effective focal length" of a 600mm in full frame) is quite a
bit more expensive than a full frame 300 f/2.8 from Canon, Minolta and
Nikon. This does not make sense since that Oly 300 f/2.8 is quite a bit
smaller than a 35mm 300 f/2.8 so should cost considerably less to
manufacture.

I bet that the Oly sensor is more demanding than 35mm film in terms
of resolution (for obvious reasons), flare control (because the sensor
is reflective), vignetting (because of the microlenses).

I wonder how the high speed mode of the D2X (2X crop) with a 300 f/2.8 Nikkor
compares to a 4/3 system with a 300 f/2.8.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Ben Rosengart wrote:

I bet that the Oly sensor is more demanding than 35mm film in terms
of resolution (for obvious reasons), flare control (because the sensor
is reflective), vignetting (because of the microlenses).

That might partially explain the higher cost.

That may be, but the more likely reason is as I stated: give 'em
something that gives 600 f/4 images at a much lower price than a 600 f/4
lens while ignoring that a 300 f/2.8 [35mm] that is larger (more gla$$)
is priced lower. Get more cash in. It takes a lot to develop such a
lens, and Oly's bottom line corporation wants that cash back with a
healthy return.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.