Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56

Thread: Would Full-Frame DSLR Become Affordable?

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    431

    Default

    full frame will only come about when canon/ nikon can think of any improvements to add to their 1.6X body......

    maybe the will add (slowly generations by generations) until the last improvement which is the sensor.... haha

    usb2.0 then firewire.....

    no flaming pls

  2. #22
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nicholas1986
    usb2.0 then firewire.....
    A $40 card reader can solve this problem.

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit
    A $40 card reader can solve this problem.
    i mean for example only mah.......
    maybe they got better ideas?

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nicholas1986
    full frame will only come about when canon/ nikon can think of any improvements to add to their 1.6X body......

    maybe the will add (slowly generations by generations) until the last improvement which is the sensor.... haha

    usb2.0 then firewire.....

    no flaming pls
    S2Pro already has it.

    nicholas1986 ==> <==zombiez

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AReality
    Wooo... at this rate, in 12 months time, I will expect people to be giving me their 300D for free!!!

    & in 18 months, U need to pay me $700 to give me your 300D!!!
    Wow!!!
    Isn't that great?

    yeah.. would pay u $50 for disposal fees...

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Off the shoulder of Orion, near the Tannhauser gate
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit
    CHeck out some of the older news. Nikon has made it very clear that they will not be developing a FF body, not in the foreseeable future at least.
    Maybe Nikon won't, but Canon has and will continue to push it, as it serves a good marketing tactic to make comparisons to what is familiar to the photographic community i.e. 35mm frame size. Nikon may not necessarily pursue a full frame body, as, frankly, you don't need to have FF to produce better pictures (eg concentrate instead on making CMOS/CCDs better rather than just bigger) and Nikon will likely follow this technological "higher ground". I suppose we can use the Intel/AMD analogy - clock speed does not tell the whole picture, and in digital photographic terms, neither does frame size.

  7. #27

    Default

    Why do people want to cling to old concepts is totally beyond me.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YSLee
    Why do people want to cling to old concepts is totally beyond me.
    wat is old concept?

  9. #29
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RSU
    Maybe Nikon won't, but Canon has and will continue to push it, as it serves a good marketing tactic to make comparisons to what is familiar to the photographic community i.e. 35mm frame size. Nikon may not necessarily pursue a full frame body, as, frankly, you don't need to have FF to produce better pictures (eg concentrate instead on making CMOS/CCDs better rather than just bigger) and Nikon will likely follow this technological "higher ground". I suppose we can use the Intel/AMD analogy - clock speed does not tell the whole picture, and in digital photographic terms, neither does frame size.
    Read my message again, together with the quote. I wasn't commenting on the qualities of FF. Just pointing out to another contributor that should Canon face competition where FF is concern, it wil not be from Nikon.

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Off the shoulder of Orion, near the Tannhauser gate
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wilis128
    wat is old concept?
    That a "pro" dSLR needs to be 35mm, so that it is a "real" camera...?

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit
    As I see it, Canon will most probably have multiple approaches where sensor sizes are concerned. Full frame will only be found in their high end bodies(at least for the forseeable future) while the prosumer range will still be using smaller sensors for quite some time.

    Full frame at 3k within a year?? Don't think that's going to happen.
    I agree with Kit. If you are waiting for FF to be below 3K within a year...wait long long. It's not going to happen. The technology is there but they will kill their own market if they do that. Sure the FF prices will drop but it will not drop rock bottom man. Take a look of digital camcorder. how many years does it take for the price to get to where they are today. My advise is if you want to buy something now just buy it. Waiting for the price to drop is not wise because when the price drops you will be thinking ....maybe it will drop some more or maybe they will come out with a new model. Bear in mind that everytime you buy any electronic stuff price will depreciate...no way to escape that.

  12. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RSU
    That a "pro" dSLR needs to be 35mm, so that it is a "real" camera...?
    If You Don'T Own A FF DSLR You Are Not A photographer

    Sounds familiar?

  13. #33
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wilis128
    well.. how much was d30 when it was first announced? close to $5k i believe?

    today u can get a 2nd one less than 1k.. so why not?
    If you think everything will shed 75% - 80% of it introductory price eventually, then sorry... you'd be sorely disappointed.

  14. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Off the shoulder of Orion, near the Tannhauser gate
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Does FF need to be the de facto standard that dSLRs are compared? In a year from now, you'll probably have cameras that will surpass the imaging capabilities of the 1D (even tho it may not be FF) for $3k or less. That's wht we should be taking into consideration, not whether it is FF or not, IMHO.

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RSU
    Does FF need to be the de facto standard that dSLRs are compared? In a year from now, you'll probably have cameras that will surpass the imaging capabilities of the 1D (even tho it may not be FF) for $3k or less. That's wht we should be taking into consideration, not whether it is FF or not, IMHO.
    surpass...yes of cos in terms of quality yes... but it will never surpass the factor that a 17mm will appear 27mm until FF

  16. #36
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RSU
    Does FF need to be the de facto standard that dSLRs are compared? In a year from now, you'll probably have cameras that will surpass the imaging capabilities of the 1D (even tho it may not be FF) for $3k or less. That's wht we should be taking into consideration, not whether it is FF or not, IMHO.
    I think this thread wasn't started to discuss the virtues(or the lack of) of FF. Its a discussion of when or if FF is ever going to be affordable and that stems from the fact that the wide angle lenses are not performing as they should be especially for Canon users.

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,881

    Default

    Hi guys, wide angles for DSLR are already here unlike just sometime back. Look at 12-24mm, 17/18-xx even FF fisheye !. They are not really that expensive now.

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    431

    Default

    12-24 on ff is 12-24
    but 12-24 on dslr is 19-38

  19. #39
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Erm... I wouldn't consider the 17/18-xx lenses as wide angle options on DSLRs with smaller sensors.

  20. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Off the shoulder of Orion, near the Tannhauser gate
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit
    I think this thread wasn't started to discuss the virtues(or the lack of) of FF. Its a discussion of when or if FF is ever going to be affordable and that stems from the fact that the wide angle lenses are not performing as they should be especially for Canon users.
    The relevance is that if the quality of products keeps increasing (whether FF or not) at this pace, FF would be sufficiently commoditised to make it to sub-3k cameras within a short time.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •