Will 1.x Crop Cameras Go the Way of the Betamax?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by mexican_equivalent, Aug 28, 2006.

  1. Forgive me for such a newbie-ish question, but...

    Are 1.x crop cameras here to stay, or will it be obsolete within a
    decade (ie by 2015)?

    I'm getting the distinct impression that the camera manufacturers
    greatly prefer to keep full-frame cameras strictly in the domain of
    professionals, while the crop lenses for the consumer level. This
    would be ideal for the manufacturers --- price wars at the consumer
    level would not affect the exorbitant over-pricing at the professional
    level. There's a clear boundary.

    If the manufacturers were to make full-frame cameras readily available
    to the average consumer, then that boundary between amateur and
    professional would inevitably fade. Afterall, with each passing year,
    there's less and less features in a $5000 camera that's not found in a
    $1000 camera. Price wars at the consumer level will eventually drag
    down the prices for even the most expensive equipments. No more
    overpricing at the professional level, and therefore less control of
    prices from manufacturers.

    So... I'm thinking that crop lenses are here to stay for a long, long
    time. The "Full vs Crop" factor is the biggest thing keeping
    professionals away from cheaper cameras. It's really in the
    companies' best interest to keep it that way.
    mexican_equivalent, Aug 28, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. mexican_equivalent

    RichA Guest

    You will be waiting many years to see a FF below $1000. Crops are here
    to stay.
    RichA, Aug 28, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. No one can say with certainty, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a
    market for those, and lenses for same. (such as Canon E series)
    Untrue, even now, with Canon's 5D. Under $3 grand, aimed at high end
    consumer and backup for Pro's.
    Conspiracy, huh??
    But the price of the gear isn't what distinguishes Pro's from amateurs,
    nor good photography from mediocre.
    Just how many, Rich? Care to wager it'll happen within 5 years from now,
    precisely 12:12:49 PM on Monday, August 28, 2006?
    John McWilliams, Aug 28, 2006
  4. mexican_equivalent

    bmoag Guest

    The larger the sensor the more difficult it is to manufacture.
    Along with the larger sensor is a larger pixel count requiring scaling of
    buffers and processing power to match.
    As manufacturing processes and market demand evolve the price of both the
    sensor and electronics will drop.
    The major technical limit of current digital sensor technology is not sensor
    size or megapixel count, it is the exceedingly limited latitude of these
    sensors, regardless of size or megapixel count, particularly with any degree
    of over-exposure. Cameras must expose for the highlights and electronically
    amplify the shadows via jpeg algorithm or in a raw converter, exagerrating
    the noise floor.
    If the APS sized sensor is here to stay, and I have no problem with that, I
    wish manufacturers could find a way to shrink and lighten these beasts in
    the way that happened to film SLRs in the 1970s. If Pentax can do it why
    can't Nikon? Canon is the fat farm of SLR design.
    bmoag, Aug 29, 2006
  5. mexican_equivalent

    RichA Guest

    The only attribution you quoted correctly was the last line. Have some
    RichA, Aug 29, 2006
  6. mexican_equivalent

    cjcampbell Guest

    Actually, this is true only of Canon. None of the other manufacturers
    make professional 35mm sensors. The rumored Nikon D3h will probably
    have an APS sensor and consequently it will be very popular with pros
    who shoot a lot of fast action -- nature, sports, news, and fashion
    photography particularly.

    Nikon may eventually introduce a D3x with a 35mm sensor, but most
    people are not holding their breath for it.

    If you really need a large sensor, consider the Hasselblad H1D.
    cjcampbell, Aug 29, 2006
  7. I know you cannot properly format a response, unless it less than two
    lines long, and now you show you can't even 'cept out attributions.

    Have a nice day.
    John McWilliams, Aug 29, 2006
  8. mexican_equivalent

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    Look up Canon's recent white paper on full-frame sensors, and look at how
    many FF sensors can be placed on a silicon wafer vs. APS-C sensors.
    1.6X-sensors will be with us for a loooooong time yet.

    It's simple math: When you can get 10x more sensors from one wafer, and
    most photographers don't *need* (and many don't even *want) full-frame, you
    have every reason to keep them around.

    Steve Wolfe, Aug 29, 2006
  9. mexican_equivalent

    RichA Guest

    What a dope.
    RichA, Aug 29, 2006
  10. mexican_equivalent

    ian Guest

    small cheap and plasticky was what the comparitively huge 300D was
    criticised for. Many 300D was passed over for 10D on that basis alone.
    Reassuringly heavy and expensive seems to be the way to go for pros. small
    and cheap and light is what consumers want.
    ian, Aug 30, 2006
  11. mexican_equivalent

    AaronW Guest

    When technology advances, competition will drive down the price. When
    the price of full frame camera is $1K, 1.6x will be $300, only on the
    bottom of the line camera with very limited features.

    AaronW, Sep 7, 2006
    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.