Full Frame for the masses...good idea?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#1
prices are going south for FF cameras now so its imminent there will be a model targeted at the mass consumer model. I am not sure what will be stripped to get the pricepoint but the thing is, would you pay for a full frame but less features compared to crop camera?
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#2
prices are going south for FF cameras now so its imminent there will be a model targeted at the mass consumer model. I am not sure what will be stripped to get the pricepoint but the thing is, would you pay for a full frame but less features compared to crop camera?
what features are you referring to?

# of af points? metering? flash sync speed? max shutter speed? fps? noise control? shake reduction? quality of viewfinder? battery life?
 

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#3
what features are you referring to?

# of af points? metering? flash sync speed? max shutter speed? fps? noise control? shake reduction? quality of viewfinder? battery life?
I wouldnt know since cant find a Bill for full frame cameras.

maybe the intelligence part of the camera like noise control or dynamic range...can be anything.
 

Dec 2, 2005
175
0
0
East
www.spadeaho.com
#4
Full frame should be made available to anyone. Just like P&S 35mm film cam for everyone else without an EOS 1, F-1, F3, blah blah... they are all still 35mm.

It's about time we made it a fair game lolz.
 

jaRv1s

New Member
Jun 5, 2009
611
0
0
Singapore
#5
I wouldnt know since cant find a Bill for full frame cameras.

maybe the intelligence part of the camera like noise control or dynamic range...can be anything.
i personally think that if there's more dynamic range... naturalist wouldn't say no to it.. they're using GND, ND and CPL extensively to cope with the high dynamic range... i can't see a reason they're shouting no to that.. (i'm a naturalist so basically i'm shouting it out loud for myself..)

by yet... the price is still too steep for hobbyist... :cry:
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#8
Yupe. Well said.:thumbsup:
FF body would certainly drop southward in terms of price in time to come.
But glass fit for a King (Queen) would never be cheap.
that's why.

it's like saying, i drop 5d mark II pricing to $1.4K, let's just make its speed so slow, i.e. 0.5 fps maximum.. :bsmilie: i don't really care about that, since i shoot landscapes.

so what? entire set of lenses that i need still speak louder. :bsmilie:
 

twnll

New Member
Mar 23, 2008
215
0
0
North
#9
The day FF cameras come in the size of the G11 then we are talking. Genral consumers wouldn't care less about that.
 

2evans

New Member
Nov 8, 2007
1,862
0
0
#10
Most people would not know what a FF sensor means, and would probably judge based on the size of the mounted lens... Bigger is better?
 

Xtol19

New Member
Dec 13, 2008
520
1
0
#11
prices are going south for FF cameras now so its imminent there will be a model targeted at the mass consumer model. I am not sure what will be stripped to get the pricepoint but the thing is, would you pay for a full frame but less features compared to crop camera?
You've been taken by the marketing. "Full-frame" means nothing in a 35mm context, except when compared to half-frame cameras.

Stripping features actually costs more.
 

Baracus

New Member
Mar 24, 2008
1,466
2
0
The Far East
#12
I just need a bigger sensor for low-light shots and better DR. Size needs to be smaller too. Still, it'll cost at least 3k. Not justifiable for me now.

When the FF bug bites, I just whip out my $150 Pentax MX + M50/1.7. ;)
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#13
I just need a bigger sensor for low-light shots and better DR. Size needs to be smaller too. Still, it'll cost at least 3k. Not justifiable for me now.

When the FF bug bites, I just whip out my $150 Pentax MX + M50/1.7. ;)
i just whip out my mz-30 and take my 50mm lens off my k20d. :bsmilie::bsmilie:
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,662
68
48
lil red dot
#14
As FF pricing drops, so will crop sensor cameras.

Don't think a crop sensor camera will ever be more expensive than a FF camera. This is just simple marketing and product line differentiation logic. If you offer a FF model that is cheaper than crop sensor, you will end up cannibalizing the sales of your crop sensor models. Will never happen.:nono:
 

KY1977

New Member
Jan 3, 2008
947
0
0
#15
In some ways, I think the current 'affortable' FF cameras are already stripped off of features. Relatively slower AF speed, no 100% VF, no weather sealing (Canon only?), no in-built flash (prob no need). I can't think of what more to reduce.
 

Last edited:

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#16
prices are going south for FF cameras now so its imminent there will be a model targeted at the mass consumer model. I am not sure what will be stripped to get the pricepoint but the thing is, would you pay for a full frame but less features compared to crop camera?
As long as those features are sufficient for my general shooting needs, it's fine.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#17
prices are going south for FF cameras now so its imminent there will be a model targeted at the mass consumer model. I am not sure what will be stripped to get the pricepoint but the thing is, would you pay for a full frame but less features compared to crop camera?
The masses are feeling that the smaller the sensor, the easier to get good pictures. Just look at the number of people buying digital compact cameras and some even thinks that their mobile phone suffice.

Full frame should be made available to anyone. Just like P&S 35mm film cam for everyone else without an EOS 1, F-1, F3, blah blah... they are all still 35mm.

It's about time we made it a fair game lolz.
Question is whether everyone needs full frame.... and what is full frame? Four thirds, I still get my picture. APS-H, I still get my picture. APS-C, I stilll get my picture. 135 format film, I still get my picture. DX, I still get my picture. FX, I still get my picture. Full-frame (sic) I still get my picture. 6x4.5, I still get my picture. 6x6, I still get my picture. 6x7, I still get my picture. 6x9, I still get my picture. 4"x5", I still get my picture. 8"x10", I still get my picture.

So what's the difference? Can the masses tell? Full frame only makes sense to those who were transiting from 135 format film to digital. Otherwise, each format should be deemed as a full frame in it's own right. So don't let the marketing people confuse us.

As long as the person has no prior experience with 135-format film, there should not be much of a motivation to push for full frame for the masses because it's simply more expensive, both in terms of sensor as well as optics.
 

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom