Cheapest Full Frame sensor body on market?

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by peter_harris|3, Sep 21, 2008.

  1. Related slightly to my Canon D60 madness project in the EOS forum, anyone know what the lowest price, USED, full
    frame sensor camera out there is? I got the D60 for $200 from KEH, maybe somebody knows of a low price, 3MP+
    older build that's fairly affordable? I can't see the reason behind exorbitantly priced extra pixels... maybe my
    ignorance precedes me. Thanks, -p
  2. Q: "... I can't see the reason behind exorbitantly priced extra pixels .."

    A: Detail.

    The "extra" are there to capture details.

    The more, the merrier.

    The more detail captures, the larger I can blow it up, the more I can crop.

    Same with bits and color space.

    More, more, more.

    "Exorbitant" is in the eye, or pocketbook/wallet, of the beholder.

    So, I guess it;s the same with money.

    So the answer to what's the "... Cheapest Full Frame sensor body on market? ... " is:

    Time. The more time you wait, the cheaper any new or used full frame will become.

    Peter, what are you after? ONLY preserving the angle of view of existing lenses in your kit, or what?

    Me? I want a better printer and a better Raw "developer". I can't get everything out of my pictures that's
    already in there now.

    I don't need a new camera, and a new camera won't help my existing Raw image files anyway!
  3. "I can't see the reason behind exorbitantly priced extra pixels...." Ummmm...why don't you check the original price of your D60, then we can talk about exorbitant pricing/pixel.
  4. The lowest priced used FF out there is the Kodak 14n, but that takes Nikon lenses. Slightly more expensive, but still under $1000 is a used Canon mount Kodak SLR/c (14mp). Fair warning, the SLR/c body is based on the Sigma SD9 body.

    There are no 3mp full frame cameras. The way sensor design works, megapixels do not cost extra money, as long as the sensor remains the same physical size and uses roughly the same technology.

    Personally, having once owned a Kodak SLR/n (the Nikon N80 based sister of the SLR/c) I'd suggest scraping enough pennies together for a used 5D (12mp) or 1Ds (11mp). I've seen both 1Ds and 5D for $1400 on CL.
  5. There is a very simple answer - use a film body and scan. If you have a decent scanner, your only problem will be
    the dust and crud from processing.

    Otherwise, wait a few months for all the "latest thing" crowd to move to the 5D Mk II, and the price of the used
    5D (Mk I) should come down a little, though not as much as you might think. You're going to have much more
    current technology and the Kodaks were not problem free as I recall.
  6. It's easy to get all giddy about "full frame" DSLR's.....until you start checking out the prices. They are far, far, far from becoming mainstream....even used.
  7. So I guess that was the question... Outside of an obvious comparison between an APS-C, Full Frame 35, and say, digital medium format sensor... Why does a full frame DSLR cost twice as much as an APS-C? This argument can go on for weeks, but I was just curious what was available for lower costs.

    If I do what I intend, I'll be posting more on the boards here, but I just like to know what's out in the world and thus determine limitations. The D60 project is going to involve modding the lens mount to support all the Canon FD lenses out in the world... old glass makes a different image than new glass, and I like it. But since I don't color develop in a darkroom, digital editing is going to be an added bonus with that RAW support.

    The other question that people have brought up in that post (EOS department) is this idea of an adjustable BACK for older film bodies. Hard to do, yeah, but I don't see why it is so difficult... outside of demand, R&D, parts, engineering, etc etc etc... why not? Look at relative cost of components over time, and how we all paid so much for CD players twenty years ago. $15 at Walmart or LESS! $99 or less digital P&Shoots.... it's all a matter of time and availability I guess... and being willing to get the work done. Idunno... rambling. Think about that though, umpteen thousand old steel-bodied SLR's and clean lenses, where's our revolution? Somewhere online somebody had this concept, had to be a college design project. It was a cartridge same size as a roll of 35 with a tab on it, like new rolls of film, to fit into anything you wanted that supported the format. Cute idea, a little complicated, but why the hell not? It's coming, I say, as soon as I make my millions.

    And to everyone else, thanks for the Kodak references, I'll look into it. For projects though, not for shooting myself... My 40D works just swell.
  8. "You're going to have much more current technology and the Kodaks were not problem free as I recall."

    Too right. Full frame sensors in less-than-pro-spec bodies (derived from the F80 in the Nikon case, and some sort of Sigma construction in the Canon case). Also I seem to recall quite poor ISO 400 performance in the DSLR/n.

    Skip them and wait for a cheap 5D, like JDM says.
  9. "Why does a full frame DSLR cost twice as much as an APS-C?"

    Because sensor area is much much bigger. Manufacturing costs are not really per sensor (or computer processor) but per wafer they're cut out from. Bigger means less sensors per wafer and each one is more prone to errors. Also, because they cost more market volume is lower which keeps the price high. Bigger vf and good quality prism cost a bit more. There's also the good old "because we can" factor, FF doesn't interest general public that much but pros and advanced amateurs (and tech guys) want new toys and are willing (or forced) to pay the price. I think it's called business, or making money, I have to look into that someday. ;)

Share This Page