What's the Word on DSLR Lens "Multipliers?"

It has always bothered me that digital SLR's cannot accomodate a lens in the way that we learned with film cameras. We must take our lens and multiply the focal length by 1.5 or some other factor supplied by the manufacturer to determine what we see through the viewfinder. Not only is it a pain in the bumpkus to relearn what has become second nature to us, but it is yet another expense (as if the camera bodies are not outrageous enough) to obtain complete lens "coverage" - particularly at the wide angle end of the spectrum. I know that a (very) few cameras have recently been introduced that correct this problem, but my question is

What is the future?

Are we expected to continue using the multipliers in the digital world, or will the manufacturers make the "correction" and accomodate our way of thinking as they introduce new models? More to the point, are they nuts?! Why didn't they take this into account in the first place?

I'm not sure whay you're talking about. I just look through the viewfinder and see the same field of view as I would capture.

Plus, thinking in terms of multipliers is something you're doing to yourself. If you had a larger format camera would you be relating the focal length of it back to 35mm? A 0.5x multiplier, or something? Or would you just be thinking in terms of field of view?

Moreover, after very little use you would know what lens to grab. Needing a wider or longer one than you currently own can always be an issue.

Instead of thinking of multipliers, just think of it as a smaller format camera that excepts your 35mm lenses. Lenses for a given manufacturer working between formats is nothing new.

I really can't get worked up about this at all, it's a total non-issue for me.
It's not a big deal.
Just pick up the camera, look in the viewfinder and shoot.
I'm waiting to pick up a D2X :)

I agree with Paul on this. I pick up my camera and take a look. If I can't see what I want, I switch lenses. I don't give any thought at all to the numbers on the side of the lens. If I want to get closer than my 55mm lens will allow, I grab a longer one.

It's a hassle when you know what an 85 looks like thru a 35mm frame, but it can be learned. You'll get used to it pretty quickly, actually.

I do understand about the big camera expense (to say nothing of other software, memory cards, etc) and then having to get a wide angle lens again. The widest I have is a 20mm, and I do miss having that perspective on digital (only a 30mm equivalent) but haven't felt like parting with another grand to take care of that problem, either! I understand Tokina has a 12-24 coming out for about half that - should be pretty good which is my experience with other Tokina lenses. OTOH, an 80-200 f2.8 is now up to a 300 f2.8 - and you'll have better luck cropping a 6mp digital file than a 35mm slide, so the advantage could even be greater.

The canon 1ds has a 35mm ccd so there is no magnification at all. The camera however does cost $8,000 but I can't imagine that it will be all that long until we see other cameras with 35mm ccds coming down to more affordable price ranges.

"What is the future?"

I wish I knew :) If I did I'd be a smarter consumer. Somehow, I don't think the manufacturers want that.

From what I have seen, it appears that Canon wants to maintain full frame lenses for 35mm DSLR's side by side with these newly designed lenses for the camera that have the crop factor. My guess is that they'll eventually phase out the full frame DSLR's. That's a guess.

Nikon seems to be more quickly going in the direction of phasing out full frame sensors.....(they don't even have any do they?).

Feel free to argue with me as I have no idea what I'm talking about.

What about the pending release of Mamiya's 22Mp MF? Which is still an SLR. It will use current 645 lenses. But the back isn't interchangable. I think similar offerings are coming.

There are always going to be advantages to the larger sensors. Though they, including full frame 35mm, are probably going to be a niche just like MF and LF were in film.

Kodak has a "reasonably" prices full frame dslr with canon and nikon mounts. With current rebates it's ONLY $3500. It's not the fastest and doesn't have the best high iso noise control or eos 1 type build. However, if you don't need either of those, say for landscapes, studio, etc, it's a serious option. At low iso's it clearly outperformed, image quality wise, the 1ds (not mkII).

I wonder if kodak is actually making money on them? Heck, I've read olympus isn't making money on their dsrl's (yet).