peter_andrew Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Folks, Will the reduction factor of 1.4 or 1.6 or whatever go away in the future? I love my current lenses and am worried that there might be changes in technique or framing with a DSLR. Should I be worried? Curiously, Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_t Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Yes, it will going away after 20 years. After 20 years or so, the chip maybe bigger NOT smaller. Why need to down scale now? Profit and cost. Look at the Canon 1Ds, how much it costs? I guess you know the answer. But after 15 years or so, you lenses are considered not electronically up to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Stone Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 "Should I be worried?" That's entirely your choice. There is NOBODY here that can say with any degree of accuracy what the future holds. Some may make an educated guess, but that's it. If you're really worried, avoid photography altogether, that way you won't make any mistakes. Of course you won't have made any images either. This forum has no secret info, nor does it have anyone that Nikon would entrust it to. It is a fact that current DSLR's from Nikon do not perform in exactly the same manner as Nikon filkm cameras. Make yourself a list of all of the things that you can think of, and then mark down which things have never changed, and which are in a constant state of change. Now check to see if the things that haven't changed are still around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 <em>"That's entirely your choice. There is NOBODY here that can say with any degree of accuracy what the future holds." --Carl Stone<br> </em><br> Death and Taxes?<br> <br> Sorry,<br> <br> Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_mcloughlin Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Yes, sure, be worried. No hurry to switch to digital, if you don't want to or if you have concerns. Remember, the digital options will only get better and cheaper the longer you wait. No rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feli Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 The problem boils down to cost. Full frame sized chips have a low manufacturing yield (i.e. lots of defective chips on each wafer. You also get less chips per wafer, which also drives up the cost. These days you can now buy a full frame Kodak DSLR (14MP) for $5000 or one from Canon (11MP) for $8000. Ten years ago the company I used to work for spent over $50,000 for a 4MP CCD chip which they installed a film scanner. I think you will see full frame chips at reasonable prices in a few years. The new Canon Eos-1D II has a 1.3 mag factor. If anything the marketing race will get us there sooner or later. Feli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_andrew Posted June 17, 2004 Author Share Posted June 17, 2004 Dear Mr. Stone, A simple, concise contribution to this forum would be sufficient. Thanks for your wisdom/cynicism. Yours, Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Stone Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 "Death and Taxes?" Ah yes, the dynamic duo. You're right Dave, I didn't consider those two constants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_andrew Posted June 17, 2004 Author Share Posted June 17, 2004 Feli, Thanks for the insight, it's exactly what I was looking for. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Stone Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 " A simple, concise contribution to this forum would be sufficient." Digital photography is a very rapidly advancing technology. Now, as long you can ask impossible questions, I'll reserve the right to respond in kind. You have two choices, forget photography, or get over it and learn to live with technological leaps. That's just exactly what the rest of us have to do. Hand wringing interferes with image making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Yes, it will. Intel estimates that the size of chips grows by 7% every year. This places sub- $2000 full-frame DSLRs in 2010. Notice that Canon has been using 1.3x on all their pro models (except the 1Ds) since about 1995. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Is has: see the Kodak $4400 body that has full-frame use....and takes the Nikon [and one model takes EOS glass] AF lens mount. Nikon just wants you to continue brushing up on your math: let's see -- 1.4 x 60 = 84.::.now wasn't that worth spending $999 for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_t Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 To: Jean Intel chip is different than a CCD chip. It may takes longer to get the cost down. And remember, we have computers way ahead of time before digital cameras developed. Full frame digital by 2010 for US 2000? Not likely to happen. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_campbell1 Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 The cost to manufacture a sensor should be roughly proportional to it's size. Does anyone know how much does a Drebel/N70 CCD costs? I'm guessing it's $200 at the most. All other things being equal, a full frame "Drebel+" should cost ~$200 more. Not a big deal, and well worth the $ if you want to shoot wide angle scenes. As I see it, camera manufacturers are dragging out the adoption of full frame CCDs for several reasons. A) sell everyone a batch of new lenses. B) Extend the upgrade path, 'encouraging' you to buy several bodies along the way. C) Artificially inflate the price of current 'pro' cameras like the DS-1. High end cameras produce massive profit margins. In short, the EOS1-Ds does not cost umpteen thousand because it's sensor is twice as large and twice (OK, maybe 3x) as expensive. I have little doubt that all the major brands will eventually drag out a mainstream camera with 35mm sensor. Only their bean counters know when it will happen. -Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelvinphoto - arlington, t Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Should I be worried? No, you should not. If it is not broken or still compatible w/ dslr, don't fix it or upgrade it. If you want to switch to digital, then happy what is available now or wait. If you want Nikon FULL-FRAME DSLR NOW, then you have to get the Kodak Body. Else wait for Nikon to come out with FULL-FRAME SENSOR or go with the 1.5x factor. Really simple! And don't play catch up w/ technology. BUY ONLY WHAT YOU NEED FOR THE JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_milner2 Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 You could stop worrying and continue using film. It's always full frame whatever frame size you shoot. It makes sense to introduce a smaller camera and lenses to complement the small chip. The Olympus 4/3 system, for example. Nikon are already moving away from lens mount compatibility with the lenses that have no aperture ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 I recall reading that the Kodak CMOS chip costs $1000 a piece. So making a 24x36 mm DSLR for $2000 should not be too unrealistic. Computer chips are not that expensive because the volumes have been very large for a very long time. Besides, chip size in them is immaterial in most cases as the size of the computer is usually much larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 The sensor is only part of the story; you'll also need plenty of electronics to move so many bits and everything has to fit inside the camera body without drawing too much power. Recall that when the F5 was first introduced back in 1996, it was $2850 and that was without any expensive large sensors. Therefore, with inflation, any future full-frame DSLR from Nikon is not going to be inexpensive, but hopefully they'll do a better job than Kodak putting some expensive electronics into a low-end N80 body. It has already been demonstrated that 6MP can get the job done for a large majority of the applications. If you shoot news, sports, PJ, or make 8x10 prints, even 4MP is sufficient. Therefore, the demand for full-frame will be limited to a small number of users who can afford it or have genuine need for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sander_vesik Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 DSLR reduction factor going - or not going - away is a important question to those of us owning film cameras and not wanting planning to move to digital for a simple reason: if the future are DX lense, all or almost all R & D will happen there. So all new cool lenses (and developments) will only be for DX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Stone Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 The "important answer" to your "important question" is that particular information IS NOT AVAILABLE. One would expect a full frame model at some point, but that point is unknown, and it's not going to be soon. For those that don't like to hear it in english, the truth is the same in any language, "quien sabe?", capish? You can keep asking the same question over and over, but you're gonna get the same answer. There are no crystal balls here, why is this so hard to grasp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buford1047 Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 If you shoot Nikon, no, don't worry. With the retention of the F mount and the practicability of updating old lenses to matrix metering (which can be done at home, but skip the coffee before hand) there will always be economical ways of getting the tools you need for whatever camera or task you have. As for technique, nothing much changes. My 105 f/2.8 MF micro was my favorite on the F3 and is my favorite now on the D70. I think the biggest impact of the sensor size issue is the rennassiance (sp?) of the fast 50mm lens; with a 50mm becoming a 75mm f/1.8 or 1.4 that can be had in AF mount for 90 to 150 bucks we've come full circle back to the standard lenses that started it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Let me try this one more time. IMO the information is not entirely unavaiable. Obviously this is still an educated guess, but I simply don't see any medium to low-end full-frame DSLRs at all for years to come, if ever, from any manufacturer. They are simply too expensive and exceed most people's needs. Therefore, unless you are planning to spend $4000+ on a DSLR, whether Nikon will some day introduce a full-frame DSLR is pretty much a non-issue to you. Small DX sensor DSLRs not only won't go away but have already become main stream. If there is ever a full-frame Nikon DSLR, it will be a high-end specality item. If you look at Canon's DSLR line up, that is already the case. The 1Ds is a high-end expensive item while most Canon DSLRs sold in these days are the lower-end 10Ds and D Rebels. Moreover, Sigma is taking full advantage of the lack of DX-type lenses from Canon and is producing several DX-type lenses for Canon and Nikon DSLRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Having a image circle of DX size is only a majoradvantage for wide angle lenses, so we pretty much have the DX lenses we're likely to see on the market IMHO. Maybe a fast wide angle such as a 20/1.4 DX will be added to the line. I think anyone thinking at staying with film only is going to change their mind quite soon, because of image quality considerations alone. The quality of the images from even a lowly D70 is much better than scanned 35 mm film in my opinion. And the operations that can be performed in Photoshop on noise-free images add to this, making a digital camera a very versatile tool for high-quality print-making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sander_vesik Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 I don't agree with the "DX sensor SLR-s are here to stay". Remember APS SLR-s? People still have Pronea-s around, you may be even be able to buy new ones. There is no real way to tell that DX does not end up being the APS of teh digital world. Doesn't mean it will go away, just... be the low end variant only. Nikon certainly seems to be covering the DX / 3/4 sensor ground extensively Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now