If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
$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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
$1800 full frame dSLR within 18 months?
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
$1800 full frame dSLR within 18 months?
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
$1800 full frame dSLR within 18 months?
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
$1800 full frame dSLR within 18 months?
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
$1800 full frame dSLR within 18 months?
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
$1800 full frame dSLR within 18 months?
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
$1800 full frame dSLR within 18 months?
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
$1800 full frame dSLR within 18 months?
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
$1800 full frame dSLR within 18 months?
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] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Anyone Else Not Really Fussed About Full Frame? | Luke | Digital Photography | 9 | July 4th 06 07:51 PM |
Nikon will not go to full frame... | Escaper | Digital SLR Cameras | 29 | February 6th 06 01:19 AM |
Developing labs - wanting full frame prints | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 2 | December 13th 04 04:16 AM |
NIKON digital with full frame for under $1000? | J Stryker | 35mm Photo Equipment | 15 | September 2nd 04 09:22 PM |
full frame 35mm display | k | In The Darkroom | 17 | April 3rd 04 04:23 AM |