snubbr.com

What's the future of FF cameras?
What is the future of full frame sensors? Will the price in these come down and they become the standard, or will the DX sensor just keep getting better and better enabling people to carry lighter more compact lenses. Will full frame remain the medium format of the digital world. (Are there medium format digital cameras?) Will the difficulties surrounding wide angel lenses for DX restrict DX's future?..

Comments (22)

Do you know, as a photographer I don't really care. The camera is just a recording tool and if it works I don't care how the technical bods achieve it. Do I worry about what's under the bonnet of my (highly sophisticated hybrid) car? No. I read about full framee but it doesn't excite me like it seems to many on this forum. I understand that it means the same length lenses can be used on cameras as were with film, but why is that an advantage. Just get used to the new lengths for at the end of the day they do the same thing..

The camera is a tool that's all. 99% of taking a good shot is how you see and frame and the moment that you click that shutter.FF? Who cares?Jules.

Remymartn wrote:.

What is the future of full frame sensors? Will the price in thesecome down and they become the standard, or will the DX sensor justkeep getting better and better enabling people to carry lighter morecompact lenses. Will full frame remain the medium format of thedigital world. (Are there medium format digital cameras?) Will thedifficulties surrounding wide angel lenses for DX restrict DX'sfuture?.

Why can't you blow bubbles with chewing gum?..

Comment #1

JulesJ wrote:.

Do you know, as a photographer I don't really care. The camera isjust a recording tool and if it works I don't care how the technicalbods achieve it..

On the whole, I'd agree with this. However, as I understand it FF sensors do offer definite advantages over DX sensors. Because the lenses used are of a longer focal length, for the same angle of view, the depth of field at equivalent apertures is smaller which offers more opportunities for creativity..

I'm also led to believe that, all other things being the same, the larger sensor is inherently less noisy because of the larger size of each of the individual detectors. This might well be a factor for some sorts of photography..

Pete..

Comment #2

JulesJ wrote:.

Do you know, as a photographer I don't really care. The camera isjust a recording tool and if it works I don't care how the technicalbods achieve it. Do I worry about what's under the bonnet of my(highly sophisticated hybrid) car? No. I read about full framee butit doesn't excite me like it seems to many on this forum. Iunderstand that it means the same length lenses can be used oncameras as were with film, but why is that an advantage. Just getused to the new lengths for at the end of the day they do the samething..

Well Said .... I agree !!!.

The camera is a tool that's all. 99% of taking a good shot is how yousee and frame and the moment that you click that shutter..

Even BETTER SAID !!!.

FF? Who cares?Jules.

Remymartn wrote:.

What is the future of full frame sensors? Will the price in thesecome down and they become the standard, or will the DX sensor justkeep getting better and better enabling people to carry lighter morecompact lenses. Will full frame remain the medium format of thedigital world. (Are there medium format digital cameras?) Will thedifficulties surrounding wide angel lenses for DX restrict DX'sfuture?.

Why can't you blow bubbles with chewing gum?.

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #3

Peter Gaunt wrote:.

JulesJ wrote:.

Do you know, as a photographer I don't really care. The camera isjust a recording tool and if it works I don't care how the technicalbods achieve it..

On the whole, I'd agree with this. However, as I understand it FFsensors do offer definite advantages over DX sensors. Because thelenses used are of a longer focal length, for the same angle of view,.

BUT, many people appreciate the much longer "telephoto" available at LOW COST compared..

The depth of field at equivalent apertures is smaller which offersmore opportunities for creativity..

BUT, many people also appreciate the much WIDER DOF available. Some don't want to be forced into a short-DOF when shooting low-light or otherwise need the smaller aperture..

I'm also led to believe that, all other things being the same, thelarger sensor is inherently less noisy because of the larger size ofeach of the individual detectors. This might well be a factor forsome sorts of photography..

Pete.

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #4

Remymartn wrote:.

What is the future of full frame sensors?.

My Crystal-Ball is a little bit foggy today..

Will the price in these come down and they become the standard, or will the DXsensor just keep getting better and better enabling people to carry lighter morecompact lenses. Will full frame remain the medium format of thedigital world. (Are there medium format digital cameras?) Will thedifficulties surrounding wide angel lenses for DX restrict DX'sfuture?.

I hope not, I want very, very wide-angle. (my 14mm was my most often used back in FF-film days).

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #5

Thanks for the replies. I didn't realize the depth of field differences. Even though DX or APS sensors seem to be the most sensible to me I cant help imagine how sweet a 14-24mm 2.8 on a FF would be...

Comment #6

The cropped sensor is a stop gap measure until FF comes in. Nikon refuses to comment on it's commitment to cropped sensors, this says volumes. Improvements are driven by the serious users and monied crowd, whether pro or amateur..

In the long term, it is more cost effective to have one sized sensor. As in all things electonics, costs will come down. The 6 megapixel camera once upon a time cost $30,000. My first laptop in the mid-80's was a 20 meg (not Gig) jobbie, with a black and white screen (not colour) with no back lighting. Many felt that a colour screen would never make it to laptops as it would be too costly..

Either you are in charge of the camera, or it is in charge of you...

Comment #7

Rsn48 wrote:.

The cropped sensor is a stop gap measure until FF comes in. Nikonrefuses to comment on it's commitment to cropped sensors, this saysvolumes. Improvements are driven by the serious users and moniedcrowd, whether pro or amateur..

Your nuts!Nikon have said that they are committed to Dx format..

You get a real improvement over full frame by using medium format digital, so you're saying that 35mm full frame format is doomed too?.

(actually I think it is - but for another reason, and that is that the "Red One" and probably other digital cine solutions use a format very similar to APS-c, and dslr and digital cine will merge together in the foreseeable future).

With film it was easy to use larger format when it was needed, but vastly inferior 35mm format was easily the most popular for over 1/2 a century..

In the long term, it is more cost effective to have one sized sensor.As in all things electonics, costs will come down. The 6 megapixelcamera once upon a time cost $30,000. My first laptop in themid-80's was a 20 meg (not Gig) jobbie, with a black and white screen(not colour) with no back lighting. Many felt that a colour screenwould never make it to laptops as it would be too costly..

That's relied on miniaturisation - packing more transistors on a same sized chip, or making the chip smaller. Full-frame cameras rely on a larger chip - so it's always going to be more expensive. You can already see the slow progress on Fx. In terms of resolution, there's been only small gains in many years since the Kodak DSLRs were made..

Cost effectiveness of one sized sensor is hardly a big deal. Olympus, Sony, and Pentax don't seem to have problems making very cost competitive cameras in much smaller volume than Nikon or Canon..

Dx is easily capable of exceeding what most people ever did with 35mm format film, and at double the linear resolution of 1920 x 1080 HD screens, it isn't the "weak link" in most chains...

Comment #8

Remymartn wrote:.

Thanks for the replies. I didn't realize the depth of fielddifferences. Even though DX or APS sensors seem to be the mostsensible to me I cant help imagine how sweet a 14-24mm 2.8 on a FFwould be..

When somebody posts a picture taken with 14mm on Fx, where shallow DOF adds to the quality of the image, I'll believe it can be sweet. More light-gathering, sure that's good. But all limited DOF usually "adds" to UWA images is the ability to make the viewer feel drunk or dizzy..

Please don't quote theory - post examples to prove me wrong. I'd like to see them...

Comment #9

Remymartn wrote:.

What is the future of full frame sensors?.

The DX sensor will always have a price advantage over a FF sensor, so I do not see the FF sensor replacing the DX sensor anytime soon..

Will the price in thesecome down and they become the standard, or will the DX sensor justkeep getting better and better enabling people to carry lighter morecompact lenses..

The Oly (4:3) lenses and the Nikon DX lenses are neither smaller, lighter nor cheaper than most FF lenses. The same goes for the DX bodies..

Any advances in sensor technology will be implemented in both FF and DX formats, so no advantage to either format..

Will full frame remain the medium format of thedigital world. (Are there medium format digital cameras?).

Er, no. There are medium format digital cameras, and they just blow 35mm away. Of course, they also cost a small fortune..

Will thedifficulties surrounding wide angel lenses for DX restrict DX'sfuture?.

Yes, at least in the wide angle department. But that is what the FF cameras are for..

If you need good wide angle, go FF, if you need telephoto, go DX..

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler..

Comment #10

Medium format has always been better than 35mm, nothing new here. So if MF is superior to 35mm why isn't everyone using it? Well you've got bigger cameras and larger and heavier lenses, they have always lost out in popularity to 35mm. Look at Art Wolfe, famous for his landscape and wildlife, and his use of 35mm. The 35mm format is more versatile in the field, easier to move and set up, easier to lug around to distant places like Art Wolfe frequents..

I can tell you the MF manufacturing folks are more freaked out about 35mm, than 35mm users are about MF. When I bought my 300D in 2004, the MF folks were almost giving away their gear. In fact, true story, I went into a photo store in Courtney BC to purchase MF, I had specifically driven there from Qualicum Beach for MF; I walked out of the store with a digital 300D instead..

I keep thinking to purchase a MF camera and lens or two (used) and scan the negatives into my computer using a film scanner I have, but I never get around to it. The versatility of 35mm keeps me in this camp.Either you are in charge of the camera, or it is in charge of you...

Comment #11

GodSpeaks wrote:.

If you need good wide angle, go FF, if you need telephoto, go DX..

As a total beginner, the wide is what seems to capture my wonder. Although my photos don't seem to favor any focal length. Could you share your preference?..

Comment #12

GodSpeaks wrote:.

The Oly (4:3) lenses and the Nikon DX lenses are neither smaller,lighter nor cheaper than most FF lenses. The same goes for the DXbodies..

Have you seen the new Oly 14-42 & 40-150 kit lenses? They are tiny. And to say that bodies like the E-410 or D40 are not substantially smaller than a 5D (smallest Full Frame body) is just laughable..

Any advances in sensor technology will be implemented in both FF andDX formats, so no advantage to either format..

Will full frame remain the medium format of thedigital world. (Are there medium format digital cameras?).

Er, no. There are medium format digital cameras, and they just blow35mm away. Of course, they also cost a small fortune..

Will thedifficulties surrounding wide angel lenses for DX restrict DX'sfuture?.

Yes, at least in the wide angle department. But that is what the FFcameras are for..

If you need good wide angle, go FF, if you need telephoto, go DX..

Checked out any images from an Oly 7-14?http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus/zuiko_7-14_4_digital_ed.

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselvesinto thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler..

Comment #13

Personally, I like ultra-wides. Back in the 90's, I bought the Nikon 20-35mm f2.8. Great lens..

Recently I bought the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 (the only one that covers FF). Also a great lens, but slow. Now I am lusting after the new Nilon 14-24mm f2.8..

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler..

Comment #14

Kurt Petersen wrote:.

Have you seen the new Oly 14-42 & 40-150 kit lenses? They are tiny.And to say that bodies like the E-410 or D40 are not substantiallysmaller than a 5D (smallest Full Frame body) is just laughable..

I didn't say they were smaller than the Canon 5D - you did, or impliend I said it..

However, none of the 4:3 cameras are smaller (by any significant amount) than the Nikon D40, or whatever the comparable Canon model is. And that was my point. 4:3 is not smaller than some APS sensored camera offerings..

I have seen the lens, but I would not describe them as tiny..

Personally, I find these cameras to be too small for practical use, at least for me. I prefer the larger bodies of the D3, 5D etc..

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler..

Comment #15

Rsn48 wrote:.

Medium format has always been better than 35mm, nothing new here. Soif MF is superior to 35mm why isn't everyone using it?.

Well, medium format was always more expensive than 35mm, even when film ruled the day. For most people, 35mm served their needs. However, for the pro and dedicated or advanced amateur, MF was the format of choice..

In today's digital world, the digital MF is out of the price range of all but the most well heeled and well off amateurs. Even many pros are going 35mm dSLR, rather than MFD..

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler..

Comment #16

GodSpeaks wrote:.

Kurt Petersen wrote:.

Have you seen the new Oly 14-42 & 40-150 kit lenses? They are tiny.And to say that bodies like the E-410 or D40 are not substantiallysmaller than a 5D (smallest Full Frame body) is just laughable..

I didn't say they were smaller than the Canon 5D - you did, orimpliend I said it..

Well what you said was..

GodSpeaks wrote:.

The Oly (4:3) lenses and the Nikon DX lenses are neither smaller,lighter nor cheaper than most FF lenses. The same goes for the DXbodies..

So what are you saying about the DX bodies?.

However, none of the 4:3 cameras are smaller (by any significantamount) than the Nikon D40, or whatever the comparable Canon modelis. And that was my point. 4:3 is not smaller than some APSsensored camera offerings..

You are correct, the E-410 and D40 are roughly the same size, which is why I compared both of them to the 5D in the same sentence. I think any smaller than this size and they're just getting too small to handle effectively..

I have seen the lens, but I would not describe them as tiny..

Have you really seen the new kit lenses, or just the old ones? There really is no comparison to the new kit lenses unless you put them up against old manual primes. No modern zoom lenses come close to the compactness..

Personally, I find these cameras to be too small for practical use,at least for me. I prefer the larger bodies of the D3, 5D etc..

I'm using an E-510 and find the size great for carrying around all day. No sore hands or shoulders with that one. That said the larger E-3 fits very nicely in the hand and I love it despite so many people complaining it is too big. I'm also a lover of the vertical grip, so I'm not really a proponet of tiny SLR cameras..

Where 4/3rds and even APS-C does show the size and weight advantage is when you get into telephoto reach, which obviously isn't of great importance to you seeing you say you're a wide shooter..

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselvesinto thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler..

Comment #17

The majority of pro's used 35mm in the days of film, not MF. Or they had a MF for some things and the 35mm for others.Either you are in charge of the camera, or it is in charge of you...

Comment #18

Rsn48 wrote:.

The majority of pro's used 35mm in the days of film, not MF..

Maybe yes in sheer "numbers", but you need to define "professionals"..

Most all higher-level professionals used MF for the jobs that needed it..

Or they had a MF for some things and the 35mm for others..

I would not argue that .... of course ALL (professional) photographers probably owned a 35mm..

Either you are in charge of the camera, or it is in charge of you..

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #19

GodSpeaks wrote:.

Personally, I like ultra-wides. Back in the 90's, I bought the Nikon20-35mm f2.8. Great lens.Recently I bought the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 (the only one thatcovers FF). Also a great lens, but slow. Now I am lusting after thenew Nilon 14-24mm f2.8..

I am curious what the "closest" these zooms will focus. Most zooms do not focus as close as an equivalent prime..

With my 14mm, it focused to less than 6", and I used it there very, very often..

I would not accept any extreme WA that didn't focus at least to 6"..

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselvesinto thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler.

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #20

JoePhoto wrote:.

GodSpeaks wrote:.

Personally, I like ultra-wides. Back in the 90's, I bought the Nikon20-35mm f2.8. Great lens.Recently I bought the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 (the only one thatcovers FF). Also a great lens, but slow. Now I am lusting after thenew Nilon 14-24mm f2.8..

I am curious what the "closest" these zooms will focus. Most zoomsdo not focus as close as an equivalent prime..

With my 14mm, it focused to less than 6", and I used it there very,very often..

I would not accept any extreme WA that didn't focus at least to 6"..

From the film plane - or front of lens?.

Sigma 10-20 focuses down to 9 inches from film plane. That's about 4 inches from front element to subject..

The Nikkor 14mm gets to 8 inches from the film plane, not 6", so much the same (give or take an inch - heh)14-24 closest focus is 11 inches..

I'd guess that the 14-24 would be faced with the old problem that 6" from the film plane would be behind the front element - it's a big lens...

Comment #21

FreddyNZ wrote:.

JoePhoto wrote:.

GodSpeaks wrote:.

Personally, I like ultra-wides. Back in the 90's, I bought the Nikon20-35mm f2.8. Great lens.Recently I bought the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 (the only one thatcovers FF). Also a great lens, but slow. Now I am lusting after thenew Nilon 14-24mm f2.8..

I am curious what the "closest" these zooms will focus. Most zoomsdo not focus as close as an equivalent prime..

With my 14mm, it focused to less than 6", and I used it there very,very often..

I would not accept any extreme WA that didn't focus at least to 6"..

From the film plane - or front of lens?Sigma 10-20 focuses down to 9 inches from film plane. That's about 4inches from front element to subject.The Nikkor 14mm gets to 8 inches from the film plane, not 6", so muchthe same (give or take an inch - heh).

Hey .... we know the importance of an "inch". (or a "foot" - if we are lucky).

I have not used it recently, but I have a very OLD (60's) Nikon 14mm, and I think it has (closest focus) 6" marked on the barrel..

I used to do FOOD photography with it. It was neat since if a restaurants specialty was it's "steaks", I could get down to only a couple inches away from the "steak" .... and therefore accent that entree, (with the potatoes/vegetables appearing smaller behind it)..

So I was even closer than the marked 6" (film plane), relying on f/22 to still give me sharp image..

Often also did photos of the waiters/waitresses holding the plates out in "front" of them, (and out-stretched arms length). The 14mm made the plates appear larger, and the (entire) restaurant also visible in the background with wide FOV..

14-24 closest focus is 11 inches.I'd guess that the 14-24 would be faced with the old problem that 6"from the film plane would be behind the front element - it's a biglens..

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #22

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.