Lens categories?

[deudeu]

Originally Posted by RioRico

The trends are clear. By 2010, the entry-level DSLR will have a 20-25mpx FF sensor, and the body will retail for well under US$1K. Will there still be a market for APS-C DSLRs? Yeah, but it'll shrink into improfitability. Lenses aren't semiconductors (yet) so their prices will stay relatively high, which means that a APS-C half-frame (HF) system won't be price/performance competitive with a FF system.

Try comparing the price of a 300mm f4 lens and the price of a 450mm f4.
Now try comparing the IQ of the 5d or even D3 and the K20D at ISOs lower than 1600.

You have to aknowledge the obvious advantage of the APS-C sensor for those who use longer focal length!

So, I still think that both sensors will exist forever, each with their advantages and inconvenients.

[Classvino]

Originally Posted by RioRico

I'm sure the makers of 1/2-frame 35mm film cameras (like my old Canon VFs and my late lamented Olympus Pen-FT system) also thought the format would last. Half-frames thrived under specific economic conditions, then died when domestic (Japanese) consumers wanted (and could afford) MORE. APS-C is basically 1/2 of full-frame. How long will it be sufficient for 1st-world consumers?

I think the market ia a lot more International than it would be if it just catered to the "domestic (Japanese) consumers". And quality will be reaching a point of diminishing returns... Though few marketing departments

Originally Posted by RioRico

Digital sensors, being IC chips, are subject to Moore's Law, where semiconductor costs per capacity drop roughly 50% every 18 months. We've seen that with PNS digicams, where US$150 bought a 1mpx cam in 2003 and a 10+mpx cam in 2008. The equivalent to the 14+mpx sensor on my US$1100 K20D body would have cost US$14K a couple years ago. And a couple years ago, entry-level DSLRs were 5mpx and expensive; now they're 10-12mpx and rather less costly.

You could also say that as a result of Moore's law, then without increasing pixel count, chips can be getting smaller, better and cheaper all the time. It seems to be the assumption of many that 'More is Better' (see The Megapixel Myth) but that is not necessarily so. The biggest advantage to more MP is the ability to crop more... since not everyone wants or needs to print pictures as big as buildings... So, in 5 years, why would I carry around a 25MP camera the size of an EOS1D Mark whatever, when my K100D sized 15MP camera can take pictures that print (at print sizes 99.9 percent of people will actually print at) Just as well?

Originally Posted by RioRico

The trends are clear. By 2010, the entry-level DSLR will have a 20-25mpx FF sensor, and the body will retail for well under US$1K. Will there still be a market for APS-C DSLRs? Yeah, but it'll shrink into improfitability. Lenses aren't semiconductors (yet) so their prices will stay relatively high, which means that a APS-C half-frame (HF) system won't be price/performance competitive with a FF system. By 2015, HF DSLRs will be a small fringe market for those unwilling to give up their pricey DA* lenses.

Actually, I read the exact opposite into the same trends. I agree that APS-C lens systems won't be price/performance competitive with FF lens systems. But that's because I think they're more efficient (less glass for the light to pass through), lighter (making SR even more effective) and cheaper to produce (did I mention - less glass). So until we come up with the semiconductor lenses you foretell, FF lenses will probably always cost more, because of size, not quality.

But the optic nerve thing sounds really cool...

[RioRico]

You have to aknowledge the obvious advantage of the APS-C sensor for those who use longer focal length!

It's XMas 2010. You've bought (or been gifted with) the new K40D with its 31mpx FF sensor. DA lenses don't cover that 24x36mm area, so you snap on your beloved (and pricey) old 2.5kg FA* 300/2.8 barrel. Or, since the K40D supports the new auto-composition feature, you get a new smart FF* 10-300/1.0 adaptive optics pancake. You head out for some casual sniping. There's a faraway bird! You zoom all the way out, and snap! But the image is so small... so you crop down to half the frame, and you've got about the exact equivalent of mounting that 300mm optic on your old K20D.

So, I still think that both sensors will exist forever, each with their advantages and inconvenients.

A few months after that glorious XMas, you scan eBayTv with mixed emotions. Used DA* lens prices are in free-fall. Now's your chance to load up with a great HF (half-frame) K20D kit! But... you worry about ever being able to unload that HF gear. With 20mpx digicams and cellphones going for under US$100, there's just no demand for that low-res HF stuff. Only a few collectors still hang on to the hardware. In 10 years, after most HF DSLRs have been junked, those savvy collectors will proudly display (but rarely use) their now-rare HF gems. SIGs will form. Arguments will rage over which hardware & firmware was best, in their day. Etc.
__________________________________________________ _______________

Is all that fanciful? That's about exactly what happened with 35mm HF film cameras. I could tell myself, "Yeah, the 100mm/2.0 on my Oly Pen-FT is equivalent to 150mm, so fast! And the 300mm cannon is like having a 450mm!" But no, those were still 100mm and 300mm lenses, with images cropped to that HF film area. And after a few years, 35mm HF hardware was available REAL cheap in pawn shops. And 20 years later, what HF hardware is left intact, is now worth something again, to the few collectors who accumulate it.

I'm sorry, I just see APS-C as just another waypoint in the exponential evolution of sensors. With film cameras, you can change the film type and still use your old kit. With digital, the camera IS the film. With improved resolution, older low-res systems will just fall out of the marketplace. Do you see much demand for (and supply of) 1mpx cams? Those once were expensive and now they're about worthless, even though still usable. The same will happen with APS-C DSLRs. Just wait.

[deudeu]

Originally Posted by RioRico

It's XMas 2010. You've bought (or been gifted with) the new K40D with its 31mpx FF sensor. DA lenses don't cover that 24x36mm area, so you snap on your beloved (and pricey) old 2.5kg FA* 300/2.8 barrel.

Or, you use those 31 mpx to the best of their abilitity by puting on your cheap and small DA lense and croping the final image. Still gives you something like 15 mpx to work with... More than enough for... for... Everybody!

Originally Posted by RioRico

I'm sorry, I just see APS-C as just another waypoint in the exponential evolution of sensors. With film cameras, you can change the film type and still use your old kit. With digital, the camera IS the film. With improved resolution, older low-res systems will just fall out of the marketplace. Do you see much demand for (and supply of) 1mpx cams? Those once were expensive and now they're about worthless, even though still usable. The same will happen with APS-C DSLRs. Just wait.

I think that the problem with your way of thinking is that you don't take into consideration the improvement of the APS-C sensors. They, too, are going to become better. They will have better dynamic range, more pixels, and less noise. They will ALWAYS be cheaper to produce than a larger sensor, and they will ALWAYS benefit from the crop factor. I don't see why only FF sensors would benefit from the superconductors's law and not HF...
As long as we use sensors like the ones we use now, they will exist in different size, with different advantages and inconvenients.
If the new type of sensor you are talking about comes to be, then it is a different story. But there is no way you can fit a FF into the body of an optio, or even a K100D... So, as long as they make sensors, they will make them in different shapes and size.

[JCSullivan]

You lost me. Yet another thread gone to the techies.
Keep it Simple for folks like me will ya!

[egordon99]

OK, the focal length marked on the lens is always the focal length of the lens (what else would it be? )

The FOV of that particular lens depends on what camera it is being used with. But if you buy a 28mm lens, you're getting a (suprise!) 28mm lens

Originally Posted by JCSullivan

You lost me. Yet another thread gone to the techies.
Keep it Simple for folks like me will ya!