New Canon full frame?

FF camera's other than the viewfinder, do not 'need' to be larger, at least with DSLR's.

Secondly, as long as they keep making crop sensors denser, as well as glass that can continue to resolve the denser sensors within the limit's of diffraction. Crop bodies will stay somewhat relevant from a performance perspective for niche markets, and a cost perspective for the lowest end market's.
Btw, what are the current diffraction limit's of the D800.. I think I heard F8?
By the time F4 becomes the diffraction limit on APSC, it's game over for APSC's 'reach advantage'. You would then effectively get the same reach with a 35mm lens.
The only way to get more reach would be to get a longer lens, and put it on a 35mm sensor as the diffraction limit would then be F5.6 on 35mm.

There is currently NO advantage to an APSC sensor Vs 35mm, apart from economic reasons, and possibly the size of lenses (the size advantage of the camera's themselves is mostly artificial).
The 'reach' advantage is over hyped as you do not actually get 1.6x the reach, as crop camera's are also 1.6x more demanding on the lens. Again it boils down to economic's, because if you actually needed more reach, you would buy the appropriate lens.

As time passes, and the silicon economic relevance mostly disappears, APSC will suddenly become allot less prevalent as 35mm sensors become the new marketing tick-box that a DSLR 'must' have.

With all this said, I'm not against APSC, and am actually very tempted by a X-pro 1 body!
 
An Exception said:
FF camera's other than the viewfinder, do not 'need' to be larger, at least with DSLR's.

Secondly, as long as they keep making crop sensors denser, as well as glass that can continue to resolve the denser sensors within the limit's of diffraction. Crop bodies will stay somewhat relevant from a performance perspective for niche markets, and a cost perspective for the lowest end market's.
Btw, what are the current diffraction limit's of the D800.. I think I heard F8?
By the time F4 becomes the diffraction limit on APSC, it's game over for APSC's 'reach advantage'. You would then effectively get the same reach with a 35mm lens.
The only way to get more reach would be to get a longer lens, and put it on a 35mm sensor as the diffraction limit would then be F5.6 on 35mm.

There is currently NO advantage to an APSC sensor Vs 35mm, apart from economic reasons, and possibly the size of lenses (the size advantage of the camera's themselves is mostly artificial).
The 'reach' advantage is over hyped as you do not actually get 1.6x the reach, as crop camera's are also 1.6x more demanding on the lens. Again it boils down to economic's, because if you actually needed more reach, you would buy the appropriate lens.

As time passes, and the silicon economic relevance mostly disappears, APSC will suddenly become allot less prevalent as 35mm sensors become the new marketing tick-box that a DSLR 'must' have.

With all this said, I'm not against APSC, and am actually very tempted by a X-pro 1 body!
Click to expand...
well said.

the trend will start if the d600/canon entry ff is a real deal.
give it another 4-5 years and rebels will have FF sensors for a reasonable price.

physically, a FF sensor is not gigantic big compared to a crop sensor.

a NEX sony cam could easily house a FF sensor without increasing the size of the camera.
 
An Exception said:
***ALL else being equal***
Yes it does.
Click to expand...

Hard to define better. A 1DX may be a better camera for a pro but with no auto modes at all an amateur may well end up taking a horrendously out of focus and hideously exposed image because they couldn't handle an 85 1.2 whereas with a compact there's so little that they can get wrong they may well end up taking a better photo.
 
^^^
In that case it could be argued that the 1DX isn't a better tool if we include chimps and gorillas as the user base.
However if the 1DX has auto ISO, aperture priority and auto area focus selection/facial recognition, and the handler set's the camera to those settings before handing it over to the chimp, the chimp will likely produce better images.
 
Well if you keep making concessions like that it's not long before you start defining better equipment as better suited to taking an image in which case you're saying more suitable equipment is more suitable equipment, which is a bit tautologous.
 
All else being equal, better tools = better pictures.

What is the better tool?
What you have highlighted is that there are variables, so it depends on the user in question.
I think it's pretty strait forward to understand, not sure why you want to argue.
 
An Exception said:
All else being equal, better tools = better pictures.

What is the better tool?
What you have highlighted is that there are variables, so it depends on the user in question.
I think it's pretty strait forward to understand, not sure why you want to argue.
Click to expand...

You're saying that the better tool is defined by what results in better pictures, so saying better tools = better pictures is completely tautologous and therefore meaningless.

I'm not disputing it, just questioning the point of saying it at all. Your original argument was to say that better equipment, in this case a full frame camera, will always give a better picture, when you just said that a full frame camera isn't necessarily the better tool for the job and you're going on a case by case basis, so it becomes meaningless as you're saying whichever is best for a given photo will give a better version of that given photo.

It's like defining group A as the top 10 fastest runners in the world, and then saying group A runners are the fastest runners in the world - it's utterly pointless as you've covered it in your formulation of the group; i.e. saying better tools are defined as best suited to a person and scene, then saying that those better tools are best suited to a person and scene.
 
Ksanti said:
You're saying that the better tool is defined by what results in better pictures, so saying better tools = better pictures is completely tautologous and therefore meaningless.

I'm not disputing it, just questioning the point of saying it at all.
Click to expand...

I'v stopped reading here, your whole argument is pointless, probably the most pointless one in this entire thread. I get it you like to argue, but please don't be so pedantic, if you don't agree with what I said then fine, but I don't have the patience to field pointless arguments for 'why' I'v said something when you don't dispute what I have said.

But to save any more discussion, I said it because it's an obvious truth, yet doesn't seem so obvious to some people.
 
I know what he meant, but it had no meaning.

Original point:
Better equipment makes better photos

How do you define better equipment?
Equipment that takes better photos

How do you not see the circularity there?

Either you can be consistent and say a 1DX is always better than a 600D which would be wrong, or you take your current stance of evaluating it as whatever would take the best photo in a given set of circumstances, in which case it's meaningless.
 
I accept the general premise that equipment of choice leads to better photos but what you're saying (better gear = better photos) is tautologous in pretty much every sense of the word when you define better gear as stuff that gives better photos.

In the same way that people hound on people for grammatical errors, I get bugged when people give flawed arguments, tautologies etc.
 
It wasn't a flawed argument. It was a factual statement. If you want me to completely pick apart your last couple of utterly weak posts then let me know, I'll save it for when I'm bored.. but right now I'm off out with my camera...
 
Getting back on topic, I've been thinking and to me it looks fairly certain that both Canon and Nikon will release new entry level FF bodies. The 5DMK3 is very expensive and although MK2 bodies are being sold up on the cheap production has stopped. The D800 is relatively amazing value but there still is space for a lower end body and there is also space for a camera with slightly pulled back specs with a lower res sensor.


What is clear is that camera market size is fairly stagnant and so to gain sales both Canon and Nikon would love for crop users to upgrade to a FF camera and purchase new FF lenses. Cheap FF makes this more feasible. What is also clear is that the new crop bodies are so advanced that he entry level FF camera must be at least as advanced, preferably more so.
 
D.P. said:
What is clear is that camera market size is fairly stagnant and so to gain sales both Canon and Nikon would love for crop users to upgrade to a FF camera and purchase new FF lenses. Cheap FF makes this more feasible. What is also clear is that the new crop bodies are so advanced that he entry level FF camera must be at least as advanced, preferably more so.
Click to expand...

I'm not expecting a full frame D7000 and 7D, I think they would be too good for the price.
 
That's the problem.

How do you make an entry level Full Frame DSLR that doesn't steal sales from the MK3, but isn't so gimped that people choose the XXXD line because its better featured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom