"...there is no compelling reason for going to a full-frame DSLR."

<p>Yep that's the quote from the Pop Photo that just arrived in my mailbox today. Of course, we all knew this because we discuss the reasons for this every other day in this forum...</p>

<p>I'm glad the guys at Pop Photo think $2700 for a body is "down from the stratosphere."</p>

<p>I found the article very interesting and it was nice to see them verbalized by someone who isn't blindly following the Pentax branded lemmings over the cliff for no more than an emotional attachment to a brand name. I also learned that Canon EF-S lenses won't even mount on a FF body - way to screw your customers again, Canon!</p>

<p>I also liked their statement that FF DSLRs are becoming the 'medium format' of the film days.</p>

<p>Now that I've stirred the pot a little, I'll let it boil for a while...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>EF-S lenses won't even mount on a FF body - way to screw your customers again, Canon!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm kind of wondering just what the point is of having a "digital only" lens that covers only a roughly 15x22mm sensor area mount on a "FF" (i.e. 24x36mm) body. The point of the separate mount is that it makes it possible for these lenses to clear the mirror on the smaller sensor cameras, without worrying about having to clear the "FF" mirror. If you really want to force it, there are mods that allow the EF-S lenses to mount, but some of them just won't work with the bigger mirror regardless. Many Sigma and other "digital only" lenses will mount on the larger cameras, but they will not cover the whole 24x36mm area in most cases.</p>

<p>I guess Pentax would never have changed their mount for improvements in functionality, would they? I'm pretty sure I must be able to mount all the latest AF Pentax lenses on my M42x1 mount Asahi Pentax H2, right?</p>

<p>Anyway, Canon customers are not "screwed", they are <em>loved</em> , and basking in post-coital bliss. ;)</p>

<p>Stir your own damned pot.....</p>

<p>Why would anyone want to mount a EF-s lens on a full frame camera? Do you mount your 35mm lenses on your medium format camera? Same deal. EF-S lenses aren't designed to go on full frame cameras. Getting mad bacause they won't is like yelling at the rain because it got you wet. What did you expect?</p>

<p>And here we go...</p>

<p>If I were 20 years younger and started out with dSLR a few EF-S lenses because that's what I could afford, then decided I wanted to upgrade, what incentive would I have to stay with Canon? At least Sony and Nikon have given their users an upgrade path...</p>

<p>What are you talking about Matthew? 20 year younger you would just buy your way up Canon's APS-C sensor product line if what you had bought were EF-S lenses. If you thought you were going to buy a full frame camera eventually, you should have just bought full frame lenses. It's not like there aren't dozens of them out there.</p>

<p>Your argument makes no sense.</p>

<p>Yikes! I'm really a coward at heart...I'm heading over to the Classics forum...and hide out for a while ;)</p>

<p>Sorry to startle you, Scott.</p>

<p>The classics forum sounds like a nice place to hang out... I guess that's where the guys who don't ebay everything they own when they buy a new camera are. </p>

<p>That also reminds me that I need to get a new battery for the Mamiya... CRAP... I forgot I can't put a DA* on it... nevermind.</p>

<p>I personally concur more with the logic Nikon seems to be following with their FF system. Their FF models, as far as I know, will accomodate their DX lenses and the camera will crop accordingly, so the lenses are usable without having to carry two cameras at any one time. That way, APS-C lenses are usable on FF models, and FF lenses are usable on an APS-C DSLR. But I agree with Nikon only to a point, because Nikon also makes all but their more expensive cameras now without the ability to AF with any lens not having its own AF motor. So a large portion of Nikon's very good AF lenses are incompatible with these cameras! That is worse than what Canon has done with FF, IMO. </p>

<p>I don't see the point behind the 28mm DSLR lenses, either. I mean, what gives? The lens structure itself if only slightly smaller; why not build it compatible with 35mm in the first place? I don't think the companies making lenses for 28 millimeters are really saving any money on the overhead; the lens assembly appears to be about the same to me; has anyone seen a real structural difference in a 28 millimeter's lens?</p>

<p>Is there anything there that just cannot be done if it were a 35mm system lens? I don't think so. Hey, I don't know everything there is to know about lens assemblies, especially the newer contemporary ones; so, if you think I'm wrong, let me know; but, I look at these situations, and I see marketing madness more than structural design influence.</p>

<p>This problem with "one platform" is another good reason for all-manual, used lenses. You'll pay 1/3 the cost, and get the same quality; after a full day of using it, you might have burned an extra 1/4 calorie by turning the dials yourself. It'll bayonet on to the 35mm; it'll bayonet onto the 28mm DSLR. The investment will last longer, and provide the user with much more utility.</p>

<p>If the companies had any sense at all, they would re-release old, successful designs onto the market. If you think about what the user is getting for their dollar; it seems to me that the pricing is backwards. It's the 28mm-only lens that should be costing 1/3. How companies get into this, I have no idea. I suppose that is why I am not a mogul.</p>

<blockquote>

<h1>"...there is no compelling reason for going to a full-frame DSLR."</h1>

</blockquote>

<p>For the vast majority of people who use cameras to document their every day life and travels that is a true statement.</p>

<p>Interesting replies. Sony, aka Minolta, didn't stay with the same lens mount, they only added a FF sensor to their existing DSLR lines. They kept the same lens mount from film AF to DSLR to save redesigning existing lenses but they changed the lens mount from their manual focus line, causing users to buy all new lenses. And Nikon lenses are not fully backward or forward compatible, so while your lenses have the same lens mount, they won't necessarily work on every body. </p>

<p>As for FF DSLR's, that simple for me. I went from Minolta MF line (never bought into their AF equipment) to Canon's EOS line with both a film and digital SLR's, so both work with the lenses and I don't have to rethink focal lengths. Makes the work a lot easier. I don't see any boiling, just a lot of hot something else.</p>

<p>[Ellis V] "For the vast majority of people who use cameras to document their every day life and travels that is a true statement."</p>

<p> I'd venture that for more than 3/4 of all the aforementioned people an 8mp decent-quality P&S with a usable ISO 800 would do the job, weigh far less than a DSLR, and as so many here have expressed, the in-camera processing does a great job, too. Add a simple, fast, image processing software for minor tweaks, and that's all one would need. And there are P&S's that allow for filter use, too. As the dynamic range problem is addressed with P&S's, the 'need' for DSLRs will be even lower.</p>

<p> A lot of newbies are intimidated by the ambient technophilia here.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see any boiling, just a lot of hot something else.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. Our reach can easily exceed our credit card limit as hobbyists. I just ordered a less than APS-C sensor body. When will I come to my senses and act my age.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Our reach can easily exceed our credit card limit as hobbyists.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you will be paying 18% on your credit card DSLR soon....But even for cash I can see a compelling reason to not buy a FX camera which is they cost to much for me.</p>

<p>I always pay the bill in full, Ross , but I am in synch with what you wrote. Haven't paid any interest for a long time and think the CC companies are banditos. It has been five years since my last camera body purchase and so I guess I am not really a passionate photo hobbyist, got too many pastimes to be more than a moderate true believer. I could have managed with the good old 5 meg body longer,but you know the feeling. I guess Spring fever. I shop slowly but there is that fatal lure: " promotion good until march 31st." aloha. gs</p>

<p>

<p>". . . it was nice to see them verbalized by someone who isn't blindly following the Pentax branded lemmings over the cliff for no more than an emotional attachment to a brand name. . . "</p>

</p>

<p>C'mon, now. How about attachment to Pentax because I can pick up an entire medium format system for under $2K? How about using lenses older than I am on cameras that still work after 20 years? There's a lot of good in Pentax equipment. And, if they follow through on a digital 645, given the excellent performance and enviable ruggedness of the 1986 645, they'll do well. </p>

<p>The reality of our DSLR situation is, overall, we've got more than enough of what it takes to make a decent still picture in digital these days. We've seen decades of improvement in the technology, and it's good enough to make a decent photo. It's not like we're beset with lines across a monitor, or files so huge you need a network of computers to process one image, anymore. While I still favor film, technology-wise, I think we're fast approaching a point where we're well inside the minimum limit of what we would need to record a good image. If anything, the technology on hand is excessive. </p>

<p>I don't believe it's unreasonable for Pentax to not build a 35mm DSLR. What more is it, that's really needed to go from 28mm DSLR to "full frame"? The main point about a lot of these technology sales is Keeping Up with the Joneses, or some kind of consumer-class prestige. How is it that the 28mm sensor, as it is, is not good enough? 6 megapixel JPEG images are beyond adequate. </p>

<p>I think we're more at a stage where companies would do some good for themselves to kind of broaden up the base a little. How about some interchangeable backs for cameras, so that users can switch from digital to film and back, with the same equipment? Size-wise, that's not unreasonable. How about a little more making use of what's on hand; and making things last a little while longer, rather than racing down the factory line to the trash heap? There are a lot of directions and innovations camera companies can make right now that could be a little better than the standard "race to prestige" manufacturing. </p>

<p>Hey, how about a digital sensor system that you could snap into any old 120mm camera? 127 cameras would be a great place to start. And, why not? Didn't a lot of these companies shell out fortunes to do the R&D on those old camera designs? And, why should those investments be put out to pasture when they could be making someone profit? </p>

<p>Every company that turns its back on its older technologies, that it paid so dearly for, is burning a very expensive bridge behind them. Why rush to a full frame sensor? What exactly is wrong with the sensors we have? Anyone look at their equipment, and really, honestly say, Man, if only I had a few more megapixels, everything would be alright. </p>

<p>I doubt it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon also makes all but their more expensive cameras now without the ability to AF with any lens not having its own AF motor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually Michael, it isn't Nikon's most expensive bodies that AF with most of their lenses, it is only their very low-end bodies that don't. In other words, the only Nikon bodies that don't AF without AF-S or equivalent lenses are a couple very inexpensive consumer bodies. </p>

<p>But to Nikon's credit, the have been consistent with their F-mount for fifty years, meaning even quite old lenses will mount on today's bodies. Moreover, their newer FX (full frame) digital bodies even have a DX mode to accommodate APS-C sensor lenses. There are some sacrifices but at least they continue to work.</p>

<p>As for Pop Photo's comment, I am sure this is true for most DSLR users. But for most pros and some hardcore hobbyists, the benefits of full frame digital are obvious. Certainly they are the minority of total users out there but that's why Canon/Nikon/Sony et al offer so many flavors of ice cream. Gotta love all the choices.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Bob passes Valium out to everyone.....then writes them all a Reality Check......now, if I can just find my violin.............</p>

<p>I have to say I didn't agree with this until recently, but a year or so shooting bands playing in tricky lighting has demonstrated to me that with the right raw file processing (Capture One in this case) my D300 is a more than capable camera, and every time I get full frame lust I find I can still get more from it. About the only thing I'd really like is a viewfinder of the kind you get on a D3, but in the meantime the format suits my needs fine.<br>

Plus, a full-frame camera for when you really need it is pretty cheap. As long as you are comfortable using the old-fashioned floppy sensors that came on a roll in a little tin.</p>

Gerry, paraphrasing Browning! Way to go, Dude.

<p>Well, I have to admit that I haven't seen some of the things in this thread that I expected to. Some of that may be because the thread got moved out of the Pentax forum where there never seems to be any shortage of users whining about no K-Mount FF bodies...</p>

<p>I picked on Canon's EF-S series lenses because I was curious about who would come to the defense of the big C. Actually, I get the EF-S series. They are small, light, and cheap. Most people wouldn't have more than 2 or 3 of them anyway, so at this point someone with the coin for a FF body probably wouldn't blink if they were making a jump from a Rebel to a even a used Mk II. </p>

<p>The fascinating thing about the EF-S is the fact that Canon is taking advantage of the smaller sensor in a way that Nikon and Pentax have not. Historically speaking, Nikon has followed second behind Pentax in forwards <i>and</i> backwards compatibility between lenses and bodies, and this may be why they haven't brought the rear element closer to the sensor plane on their dSLR's. Obviously, Pentax is committed to APS-C (and anyone who argues that this is unprofessional is welcome to come by and look at some of my 20x30 prints) so I would expect Pentax to eventually engineer some lenses that won't clear the mirror on a FF body myself.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Bigger and better files are just more useful. When I capture an image I like, I find myself doing various treatments and crops. I do this with my DX cameras. Fx or Mx would be even better. That is the most compelling reason I can think of for going to a larger sensor.</p>

<p>OP said, "<em> I also learned that Canon EF-S lenses won't even mount on a FF body - way to screw your customers again, Canon!</em></p>

<p>Written like a complete Newb to Canon. Personally I am NOT a fan of EF-S at all, except for tyros who wanna stay in the crop format, but geez...</p>

<p>And intentionally trolling Matthew is a sign of someone who just signed on to the Internet for this first time in her life.</p>

<p>I would like to second what Mr. O'keefe-Odom stated in his last post..When the realities of life are realistically looked at with dispassionate eyes, there are very few photographers, amateur or professional, that are eeking every last bit of performance out of their less-than-full-frame cameras, much less those using full-frame cameras..</p>

<p>I can see several areas that would be of benefit in improving..The primary one would be for a digital body priced under $2000.00 to have a very high ISO performance, say ISO 12500 to ISO 25000, with the ISO 100-200 digital noise performance of one of the current flagship bodies..This would allow people practicing many different types of photography to eliminate the need for flash for 80-95% of their work..Then, the on-board flash systems could be designed out of those cameras, both lightening and simplifying them..Sports, wildlife, night, photojournalists, street, just to name a few, photographers would immediately benefit from such high ISO performance..</p>

<p>It is tempting to lust for the latest, and most advanced digital camera with a plethora of lenses to compliment it..As these cameras get bigger, they also grow heavier..The latest FF bodies with a selection of 3-4 zoom lenses, extra batteries, and all of the necessary ancillary gear weighs as much as a good large format camera and its equipment..What the hell is the difference between lugging 15-25 lbs of digital gear around compared to lugging 15-25 lbs. of large format gear around..A pound weighs the same regardless of the format being used, regardless of whether the camera is film or digital..</p>

<p>It seems to me that the latest and greatest full frame digital camera systems have brought the 21st Century photographer full circle, weight wise at least, to exactly where our 19th Century counterparts were at the dawn of photography..</p>