Originally posted by northcoastgreg Actually, far from repairing misinformation, this just once again misses the very point at issue. The question is not whether this or that individual dislikes large, expensive zooms, but whether there is a large enough market of photographers who would be willing to shoot smaller, slower, inexpensive primes with expensive FF cameras to make it worth while, in terms of profitability,
No, you've missed my point as well. It's actually tangential to the main point of this thread, but it's vital. See my item #1 in the original post on the subject (quoted below), it basically describes what you're talking about
:
Quote: Well, now I think you're combining two concepts here:
1) The 'requirement' for a DSLR company to provide large f/2.8 zooms for FF customers
2) The 'requirement' for a shooter to buy those huge, expensive zooms to 'get the most out of the FF camera'
#1 I have always pretty much agreed with, because a company makes a large profit on each of those zooms (depending on asking price, of course.)
#2 is a myth, largely. As I said, it's about as true as 'you need to buy zeiss lenses to get the most out of your Pentax'. Maybe technically true, but the small difference in output quality between a zeiss and it's equivalent Limited for example is only detectable in a controlled test and would be virtually invisible when viewing real-world results.
Quote: for Pentax to introduce such a camera. All indications strongly suggest that the expensive FF/cheap prime market is very small, and that most people interested and capable of buying an FF camera will wish to use it with an FF zoom. And even among those who wish to use primes with FF, how many of them will be eager to use, not the slow, inexpensive primes favored by the handful of budget minded FF consumers, but the expensive professional primes, like the Canon 50/1.2 and the Nikkor 24/1.4? Again, it's all about what most people will do, not what they can do.
Yet there are people continually saying "I don't like or can't afford the big zooms, so I doubt I'd gain much from FF."
Incidentally, one of the kick-in-the pants events that got me considering FF in the first place was a chance meeting with a pro getting some prints made in my local camera shop. He mentioned to me that the lens he probably used most on his D700 was the pre-D 50 1.8. I thought that was encouraging to hear, and made me re-think the whole idea of FF... Of course I was sure I wouldn't do that, I'd get the best primes and at least the 14-24 2.8 at some point, but now 1.5 years after I bought my D700, my most used lens is... the 50 1.8D.
Now, Pentax would/should offer the big zooms for a number of reasons, if they bring out a FF DSLR.
But someone doesn't need to buy those zooms to take advantage of FF. Read the following in green again carefully:
Quote: I'll try once more, just in case: From a DSLR manufacturer's perspective, large expensive zooms are a something close to a requirement in order to maximize profits and accelerate ROI.
To an individual shooter, they are not - they are simply an option. It's a refutation of your statement that "D700 loses value because it requires big glass at high cost", when
1) 'value' is determined by the individual shooter, not the manufacturer, and
2) It obviously doesn't require big glass at high cost, from that shooter's perspective. Unless they've been misinformed.
In other words: if you dislike large, expensive zooms, that need not be a reason you stay away from FF. Because they're not required.
In my experience, one of the biggest advantages of FF lies in the wide-normal focal lengths, where the FOV/DOF combos can bring results aps-c physically or financially can't match. For example, there is no 13mm f/1.8, no 16mm f/1.8, no 35mm f/1.2, etc for aps-c. The small primes bring you these combos for a fraction of the cost it would require to approach them on aps-c. This is an advantage for FF.
Quote: It should also be noted that many of the slower primes in the Canikon lineup, particuarly the wide angles, are not as well regarded as the f2.8 zooms.
Can't speak for Canon, but I've found that the Nikon 20 2.8D is very good. It doesn't have the flare control of the DA 15ltd, but in just about every way it compares - including size. It's a joy to shoot in the D700 because of it's size and sharpness, and provides, In aps-c equiv FOV/DOF terms, a 13mm f/1.8 lens.
The Nikon 24 2.8D was sub-par, IMO, but I've found a Sigma Super-wide II 24mm f/2.8 AF for $77 that is better than the Nikon 24-70 2.8 I tried at 24mm wide-open. And it's tiny. The little 50 1.8D provides an incredibly useful FOV on FF, locks focus very, very quickly, allows incredible DOF control, and basically out-resolves the sensor. It's going to be a while before I reach the limits of this equipment, if I ever do.
Quote: Since the primary reason for FF is incremental improvement in IQ, most photographers who can afford a $2,500+ camera are not going to be inclined to stick a $300 prime in front of it.
Those who actually know what they're doing may, as long as what they don't actually require is the versatility of a zoom. And if they do need the versatility, there are some excellent alternatives to the big $2K zooms - like the smaller, $300 Tamron 28-75 2.8 in the example I gave. And FWIW, for most telephoto users I'd recommend the $1200 Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM on FF before the $2300 Nikon 70-200 2.8. I think it's sharper, focuses just as fast if not faster, It's a bit lighter, and gets you more reach.
Quote: If you are an IQ junkie and you need your fix (and that's what seems to be driving the FF mania among the enthusiast crowd), what's the point of spending all the money for an FF and then taking a step backward with the glass?
That's entirely the point - it's not a a step back at all, especially when size is a value criteria. And keep in mind that 'enthusiasts' outnumber 'pros' by a huge margin among FF customers. Thom Hogan has said that there are not enough pros out there to account for sales of the D3 alone, let alone the D700, 5DII, 1DSII, A900, etc.
Enthusiasts are in it for the fun - and the D700 with a set of small, sharp primes and/or 3rd party zooms is very fun, and can be relatively affordable. As could a Pentax K-1 with the incredible FA LImiteds, and various other FF primes and zooms.
.
Last edited by jsherman999; 08-10-2011 at 01:51 PM.