Digital SLRs and the future!

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Danny Rohr, Jul 30, 2003.

  1. Danny Rohr

    Danny Rohr Guest


    I have been into photography for a couple of years now and I am really
    starting to take some decent pictures (in my opinion anyway!). I originally
    owned a Pentax SLR a few years back but made the decision to swap over to
    the Canon EOS system a couple of years ago because I wanted to start getting
    some decent lenses and wanted to go with a pro system like everyone else I

    Like most people I choose Canon or Nikon because I thought that the AF
    lenses I invest in now will more or less last for ever and be able to be
    used on a digital body like the EOS 10D or D1 etc.

    At the moment I only own a few of the great quality cheapish primes such as
    the 50mm f1.8, 28mm f2.8, 85mm USM. I was about to by my first L series
    200mm telephoto (which is quite big bucks for me, about $1800, but after
    about the new Digital SLR system used in the Olympus E-1 backed by Kodak,
    Olympus and Fuji, I am worried I may be ivesting in a lense system that will
    outdated when I switch to digital.

    Okay, Nikon and Canon make bodies to fit the current EF and Nikkor lenses,
    but does the new FourThree system risk making these two long stand systems
    obsolete? Which would make my colelction of L's a bloody big waste?

    I would probably be up for buying a D10 now, but have always been put off
    but the lack for a 35mm full size CCD/CMOS sensor. The D1s has one, can we
    expect to see a full frame sensor in a prosumer SLR any time soon? This
    would certainly ease my concern, as getting a 24 or 28mm focal equivalent on
    a 1.6x CCD is bloody expensive.

    I still have other concerns however, the FourThree system seems to have a
    few other advantages that worry me even if the Canon and Nikon covert all
    their digital SLR's to 35mm CCDs, and that is lense cost. If you are going
    to standardise on a smaller CCD, does that mean a lense is going to be
    cheaper for the smaller CCD system for a an equivalent focal length? If so,
    the new system seems to have one already. The new system seems to mean you
    will be getting smaller and more compact lenses, is this so? This also
    would be a selling point, especially for pros who have to carry around huge
    heavy lenses.

    The FourThree propaganda also mentions that the lenses are designed to place
    the light onto the CCD in a way that 35mm lenses cannot, even onto a 35mm
    sensor. This pretty much sounds like a load of bull shit to me, but its the
    anything in this?

    On the surface, the whole FourThree system seems to have a great deal of
    advantages over the 35mm/Digital SLR systems of Canon/Nikon.

    - Standardized system between participating manufacturers
    - Smaller lenses of equivalent performance to 35mm lense.
    - Lenses that can communicate focal length to camera body, useful for data
    logging of shots.

    - Needs to buy new lenses
    - Smaller CCD only provides 5megapixels currently, but unlikely to stay that
    way (where will it end!)
    - 4:3 aspect ratio.

    One last thing, what is with the 4:3 aspect ratio? I *love* the 3:2 aspect
    of 35mm film (and 35mm CCDs), sure, you can crop the 4:3 in the computer,
    but the the last thing I want to think about when composing an image is what
    I am going to do in Photoshop!

    Any comments on all of this? Anyone? Should I buy that L glass and have to
    replace it in a couple of years?

    I know a lot of you are thinking "you can't wait for new technology", but
    you are
    talkin huge amounts of money with a lense, I want to make sure it can be
    used for
    a long time AND perform with digital into the future. I am not waiting for
    the last digital body, I am just concerned about the lenses.

    Danny Rohr, Jul 30, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Danny Rohr

    Cameron Guest

    I still have other concerns however, the FourThree system seems to have a
    FourThree system??? 4:3 aspect ratio??? I might be a mushroom but I don't
    know of any 4:3 aspect digi slr's and I haven't heard of the FourThree

    Please enlighten me...


    Cameron, Jul 30, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Danny Rohr

    Danny Rohr Guest

    FourThree system??? 4:3 aspect ratio??? I might be a mushroom but I don't

    Sorry for the mistake in the systems name, ist actually "FourThirds". But
    yeah, the image sensor has a 4:3 aspect ratio rather than the traditional

    Danny Rohr, Jul 30, 2003
  4. No matter how much money you spend on the latest Digital SLR. You are
    getting the same resolution as an APS camera.

    So why not save some money and buy a Canon Ix :)
    David in Perth, Jul 30, 2003

  5. My 400 2.8 arrived this morning fresh from it's plane ride from b&h .. ;-p

    James R.I. Worrell, Jul 30, 2003
  6. Danny Rohr

    Admiral Guest

    What's your address again?

    I need to send you some lovely tickets to a popular sports match. Or
    something... yeah, that's it.

    Admiral, Jul 30, 2003
  7. Danny Rohr

    Glen F Guest

    It's a really interesting question - this digital technology race.
    Will we end up with most higher-end digitals running a full-frame
    35mm sensor, or some smaller standard format? As someone pointed
    out recently, it seems Nikon can't decide yet; but it looks like
    Olympus/Kodak have taken the punt...

    My 2c worth:
    Full frame sensors are still way too expensive, and they place
    too much stress on already slow camera data handling, on limited
    portable memory space, and perhaps on battery technology (which
    presumably limits processing speed). Most of the players seem to
    be ferreting around for short-term alternatives.

    BUT, data storage costs halve at least every 18 months, while
    handling rates double, or nearly so. How small will 6Mp look to
    a serious photographer in just a couple years? Very small, I'd
    say. And even assuming some more Mp can be squeezed onto that
    small-format sensor, that can only reduce it's inherent sensitivity.
    Of course, the CCD sensitivity/noise trade-off will improve too,
    but by enough to compensate? How far are we from the physical
    limits of that equation?

    There are good reasons for 35mm as the minimum "real" format for
    film. CCD sensors are potentially superior, but not by all that
    much really. I think that once the digital-technology limitations
    currently constraining sensor Mps have eased, most will be looking
    to 35mm full-frame for serious cameras. And it will be 3:2!
    Glen F, Jul 30, 2003
  8. Danny Rohr

    Gavin Cato Guest

    out recently, it seems Nikon can't decide yet;

    Nikon can't decide? It looks to me like they've decided pretty firmly, for
    1.5x sensors. Otherwise they wouldn't be investing money into DX crop

    Gavin Cato, Jul 30, 2003
  9. Danny Rohr

    Ubiquitous Guest

    Theres nothing to say that they aren't developing two systems.. one top end
    full frame and the cheaper prosumer 1.5x crop ratio..

    they're two very different markets
    Ubiquitous, Jul 30, 2003
  10. Danny Rohr

    Andrew Mc Guest

    Seems to me that Nikon are going a little bit both ways, especially with the
    release of the 200-400 VR. Surely that would have been a more successful lens in
    DX format, particularly given it's price point (assuming it would have been
    quite a bit cheaper as a DX). As it is, they are surely considering a full frame
    DSLR at some point.
    Andrew Mc, Jul 30, 2003
  11. My money would be on Nikon developing a 1.5x system with DX lenses,
    etc for the 'home' or 'prosumer' markets, and having a full-frame
    top-of-the-line dSLR for their true professional market. There's just
    so much great nikon glass out there :) (oh go away you canon

    Although as has been mentioned, full-frame sensors have data transfer
    rates & speeds to overcome before they really take off... but I reckon
    give them another 12 months & they'll be here in force.

    but on the other hand, if you can get the pixels into the smaller
    sensor, why do you need the size? bit like the 35mm vs medium format
    question. Gimme a 6x9 anyday for landscape, but for now I'll stay
    with my F90x & F100 for everything else.

    Andrew Hennell, Jul 30, 2003
  12. Danny Rohr

    Gavin Cato Guest

    The D2h is certainly not aimed at the cheap prosumer market and it has 1.5x
    Gavin Cato, Jul 30, 2003
  13. Danny Rohr

    Henrik Guest


    You could have told us this earlier :)

    Henrik, Jul 30, 2003
  14. Danny Rohr

    Admiral Guest



    Admiral, Jul 30, 2003
  15. Danny Rohr

    Henrik Guest

    There is nothing wrong with 1.x FOV unless you are into WIDE ANGLE, then FF
    is the only real way :)

    any of the current DSLR cameras will do a fantastic job, doens't matter
    which brand they are, even the Sigma isn't the worst thing in the world.

    You just have to come to terms with the pro's and con's of DSLR!
    I am loving it, but I am also looking forward to playing with my 4x5 Sinar,
    that to me is a whole new world and very exciting.

    Just remember to have fun

    best regards


    PS: only problem is that they are all so bloody heavy! now a nice little
    Leica M6 with a digital back or and XpanII with one, that would be nice! and
    very portable
    Henrik, Jul 30, 2003
  16. Danny Rohr

    Henrik Guest

    Hi Danny,

    have you checked out the prices on the 4/3 system? That would be
    It looks good on paper, but we will have to wait to see how they perform in
    real life!

    best of luck


    PS: get out there and have some fun - making images!
    Henrik, Jul 30, 2003
  17. Danny Rohr

    Cameron Guest


    Nikon or Canon will not be a part of the 4:3 system, don't worry.

    Cameron, Jul 30, 2003
  18. Just trying to make a market for the Canon Ix I just happen to have for sale
    here ;)
    David in Perth, Jul 30, 2003
  19. What are the odds of Canon producing some limited coverage wide
    angle ("DX") lenses to use on the D30/D60/10D line?

    Peter Marquis-Kyle
    Peter Marquis-Kyle, Jul 30, 2003
  20. Danny Rohr

    Ubiquitous Guest

    That is interesting, but it doesn't even begin to go into detail about how
    lens resolution affects ACTUAL digital equivalent output. A lot of lenses
    wouldn't allow Velvia to hit 16 megapixels of DETAIL, because they're simply
    not sharp enough.
    Ubiquitous, Jul 30, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.