Nikon D90 or Pentax k20d or Cannon 50d

Why do you all think that Nikkon jumps from a 12mp camera to a 24 mp??? I'm looking for something in between... but affordable. I would go for the 24 if it wasn't $7,000... if you get into the 15 or 14 mp get get into using like the Pentax k20d which seems like an off brand that I don't hear too many raving reviews about and the Cannon 50d which I often hear complaints about. Is it possible that a 12 mp camera is better than 14 or 15 mp camera? I was always told that the higher the mp the better. I'd love to hear from any of you. I'll definitely respond back. :)

I'm not on any camera company's payroll and don't automatically think that what I'm shooting is the best, just because I'm using it.
Even though I shot film Nikons for a couple of decades, when I finally decided to take the plung into digital, it seemed to me that Nikon had priced themselves out of the market share and that Canon had taken over. So my choice was between Pentax and Canon.
I went with Pentax, because it seemed to be the best deal for the money. I shoot a K20D (14.6 mp), and I'm pretty happy with it, and expecially with Pentax DA* and Limited glass. But sensor size also factors into it.
I'm not sure about Nikon, but I believe theirs is a full frame sensor, like Canon, while mine is a bit smaller, and the way I've come to understand it, the larger size sensor makes better use of the megapixels, just as a medium format made better use of film than did 35mm. That may not be a good comparison, but in principle, I believe it is correct.
So, the way I understand it, that would make Nikon's 12 mp camera with a full range sensor very near the image capturing quality of my Pentax 14.6.
What is seldom considered in these type of camera discussions is the quality of the glass you put in front of the sensor. All the talk is about bodies. But a cheap lens in front of 24 mp probably would not give one better results than a great lens in front of a 12 mp camera.
There were a few reasons I went with Pentax, but one of the biggest was that Pentax, I think, offers prime lenses with a quality unsurpassed this side of Zeiss. For picture quality, I think the glass the image passes through is more important than all the bells and whistles that control it, and maybe even the megapixels it lands upon.

By the way, I'm not trying to sell you a K20D, because while I'm pleased with the equipment, I have reservations about the company.
Nor am I trying to say that Pentax's glass is far superior to the best that Canon or Nikon offers. It's apples and oranges.
What I am trying to impress upon you, is the importance of glass, and while you are considering the prices of various bodies, also factor in what their top line of lenses will cost to complete your package. Here, again, I think Nikon has priced themselves out of market share.
Also, if you are already shooting Nikon digital, lens compatibility is also a price consideration. Another reason I chose Pentax was that instead of requiring a whole new line of lenses with each major upgrade, the K20D is compatable with all K-mount lenses ever made.
One of my thoughts was that I might be able to pick up some really good used lenses at very cheap prices, but what I've found out is nobody sells their old Pentax lenses, because they don't go "out of style."

Well, megapixels aren't everything. Keep in mind Nikon/Sony's 24 megapixel sensors are full frame (vs APS on all other ones you mentioned). The 50D still has a greater pixel density at 15 on an APS. They do some impressive things with noise performance on the 50D, utilizing that pixel pitch very well, other then that, performance differences between it and 10-14 Megapixel APS sensors is minuscule. On its own, 10 megapixels is plenty to work with, also consider - the higher the megapixel, the slower the work flow on your pc, and 12 Megapixels even take quite a bit. Processing one of those 24 megapixel Raw files and pulling it through a multi-layered 16 bit workflow will *require* quad core cpu and copious amounts of memory (vary by OS). That is one thing I miss about my 6 MPix DSLR – very very fast and easy workflow, even the 16-bit layered raws.

I can't just suggest one camera though - all manufacturers make great options, and each has their own nook in the market where they perform particularly well. If you tell us more about what kind of shooting you do, we could give you a better suggestion on a DSLR system.

'This side of Zeiss' - you know there is a DSLR manufacturer that actually uses newly designed, autofocus Zeiss glass?

The d90 isn't does not have full frame sensor.
As mentioned, megapixel count is mostly a manufacturer way of thinking theirs is better than yours. 8 to 10 is plenty for just about everything and there's a lot of beautiful large prints out there using only 6.
The factors you really need to look at are the systems that you'll be buying into, the type of photography you are doing.

I'm going to be doing a lot of work with people... doing portraits, head shots, modeling portfolios. I actually wrote a thread with the details above... Mostly those type of thing and some events like weddings, parties, etc...

I want my portraits to be Magazine quality... beautiful resolution... I'm learning more every day (constantly training as a photographer) but I want to be working with something that will be ABLE to deliver what I'm trying to do... prints that models and actors will be proud to use in their portfolios. Sooo what do you think?

Pentax K20d
Cannon 50d
or Nikon d90

I understand that it also matters what quality lens you use. What do you think is more important? The lens or the megapixels? You guys are AWESOME for replying!!! Thanks so much. I look forward to hearing from anyone with an opinion on the subject.

Lynn :thumbsup:

Anbesol actually mentions another factor that is supposed to make a difference also, which is sensor type. My Pentax has a CMOS sensor, and I've seen this recommended on the guidelines of the top international stock photo agencies and other places, but I don't know what it means or what the difference is between other sensors?
Anyone?

CMOS - Complimentary Metal Oxide Semi-Conductor, as opposed to the alternative - CCD - Charged Coupled Device.

CCD's require much more power, and generally don't produce as wide dynamic range, and comparatively speaking produce a lot more in-camera electrical noise (largely created by much higher voltage input). CMOS runs off of much less power, thus extending the shutter-cycle life of the camera, produces better image performance on noise and color, etc.

I've been saying it for years, CMOS is the future, CCD is just biding its time until its history. Probably something like APS-sensors ;).

All the cameras you mentioned have CMOS, another Camera you might find worth looking at is the Sony A700, its an APS CMOS as well, its what I shoot with, I am thrilled with its performance, and its right at that price point you are looking at. But ultimately, you know you are not only just buying a camera, you are buying into a system, there are a lot of variables worth considering. Keep in mind that what camera you are shooting with makes *no* difference to any client, *any* DSLR system can produce great results that even the pickiest of clients would love - the difference it makes is exclusively for the photographer. When someone gets a painting, they don't care what brand the brush was, the type of brush matters only to the painter.

Ok I'm THINKING about the Nikon D90... I've seen deals on a site where the following lenses are included with the purchase of the camera... What do you guys think? Do these lenses suck??? Is that why they're free...

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (Vibration Reduction)
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor
Titanium .45x Wide Angle Lens
Titanium 2X Telephoto Lens

**You mentioned for the portraits, head-shots, and event photography that I should also invest in a
30-100 (18-70 APS equiv) and
50mm

***what do you think... any other lenses that I should look at for what I'm trying to do?"

-------------------------------------------------------------
It also includes the following... What do you think about the type of flash? Good/bad?

3 Piece HIGH Resolution Filter Kit

Bower SFD728N TTL Zoom Shoe Mount Flash for Proffesional SLR Cameras

You all are grrrreat by the way!

Another D90 package offered these lenses... a better choice?

Nikon 18-55mm AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor f/3.5-5.6G Lens
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor AF Prime Lens
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom - Nikkor Lens
2X Telephoto Autofocus Lens
Wide Angle Autofocus Lens

& Power Auto Digital Flash Clip-On and Slave
hummm what about this flash???

The Canon 50d is a tad more expensive... but if it's the better choice, I'll definitely get it. The camera comes with:

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer Autofocus Lens

Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens

Wide Angle Autofocus Lens

2x Telephoto Lens

& Bower SFD728N TTL Zoom Shoe Mount Flash for Proffesional SLR Cameras

*what do you guys think about this package*
Anyone with experience dealing with this camera. I've heard that despite the 15.1 mp that the resolution isn't good. They said that it was no different than dealing with a 10 or 12 mp camera.... humm... decisions, decisions....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynnzora

Ok I'm THINKING about the Nikon D90... I've seen deals on a site where the following lenses are included with the purchase of the camera... What do you guys think? Do these lenses suck??? Is that why they're free...

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (Vibration Reduction)
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor
Titanium .45x Wide Angle Lens
Titanium 2X Telephoto Lens

---

Nothing is wrong, per se with the first 2 lenses, except that Nikon has replaced the 70-300 with a VR version, and for a lens that length, which is fairly slow, VR would be a very desirable feature. The 2 Titanium front converters are probably complete junk. The package with the 50mm f1.8 added is much more desirable. That lens is quite good, and you'll learn a lot of very useful stuff using a lens with a fast maximum aperture like that.

BTW, I wouldn't let the Megapixel issue concern me at all. 12 MP is plenty, even for most professional applications - In fact, 10 MP is plenty. A highly sensitive 12 MP sensor is more worthwhile than a 15 MP sensor that is noisy at high ISOs. In fact, quite a few folks believe that the less expensive Canon 40D and it's extremely sensitive 10 MP sensor, is a better camera for most applications than the Canon 50D and it's noisier at high ISOs 15 MP sensor.

The fact is, all of the cameras you are looking at are more than sufficient. But you need, I feel, to give more weight to the SYSTEM you are buying into than to the camera itself at that level, as all of those cameras are excellent tools. At the system level - and when one looks at the long term ability of the company to compete, I think Pentax drops off considerably compared to Nikon and Canon (Same issue with Olympus - and one reason I personally just switched from Olympus back to Nikon).

If you're seriously looking at the Canon 50D, you probably should also look seriously at the Nikon D300 which is the apples to apples competitor for it. But frankly, I think both of those cameras are overkill for you. You'd be much better off with either a Nikon D90 or a Canon 40D, and getting better lenses, not just kit-level lenses. Again, it's foolish to get carried away with Megapixels. Once you're looking at 10 MP or more, it's more than enough even for professionals. Nikon makes a $5K pro camera (the D3 - but trust me, you DON'T need it) that blows away all the ones you are looking at, and it's only 12 Megapixels. But it happens to be the most sensitive 12 MP camera in the world.

If I were you, I'd put my hands on the Nikon D90, and the Canon 40D, and decide which one I felt most comfortable with, and then I'd buy a couple of GOOD lenses for the one I picked, not the kit lenses. All of the brands make lenses that are better by a long ways than the lenses you're mainly looking at.

Yes you say you want hte magazine cover type of look, but all those lenses you mentioned are quite entry level performers (with the exception of the 50mm primes). If its between those 3 I would personally probably lean a bit towards the Canon 50D, but really for that great look the lens will matter more than which of these camera bodies you pick.

Like Doug mentioned, maybe you should stick with a lower dollar body and spend that extra cash on the lens.

I see you've listed packages so I will say to be sure to look at the camera dealer feedback forum and if you are looking on ebay where a lot of packages are offered, be sure the dealer is an authorized Nikon dealer or Canon or whichever way you choose. You won't have a manufacturers warranty if they aren't.
The teleconverter and wide angle are, as Doug says, are probably junk.

Ok thanks, this has been extremely enlightening! I've talked to many people in the last couple of days and realize that it's all in the lens... (mostly)... What type of lens would you suggest for a nikon D90 and/or Cannon 50d..? Again this would be for portraits, modeling portfolios, head-shots for actors, and on some occasions events like weddings and parties... Thanks again everyone... Anbesol, DougjGreen, Ron, Sushigaijin, Frog, etc...

So what lenses should I invest in for what I'm trying to do?

Also good quality, yet affordable... I can't afford that $1000 lens quite yet :)

Well I don't know what lens I would say for the Nikon, definitely get a 50 prime. For the Canon the 24-105 L, and the 50mm f1.8 (the prime will be for more dramatic DOF and individual/double portraits). That 24-105 would give you the *entire* needed coverage for portfolio/wedding shots, great quality packed into one lens. Its ~$1K with IS. If you want good quality affordable lens, Sony has a great legacy lens series (Minolta) and the in-body stabilizer renders them all IS equiv. If you could drop down to the 40D and then afford the 24-105 I would go for that, before the 50D with a crappy cheap lens. At the very least, get the 50mm f1.8 (~$100) and use that until you can get that 24-105. I also might look into some of Canon's legacy lens and look for some fast ones, go to the Canon forum for input on specific lens'.

I think that this would be easier if we combined the answers into 1 thread, rather than the 2 threads that have been going on simultaneously.

In any case, as you can see, Anbesol and I have each recommended that you get a 50mm f1.8 prime, and a high quality zoom ranging from 24mm into moderate telephoto range, that is noticeably better than the camera makers' kit lenses. The difference between 85mm and 105mm at the long end is not all that significant. I think that's the right starting point lens-wise, no matter which system you go with. The more significant differences between those zooms is that the Nikon is one stop faster at the wide end, while the Canon has built in image stabilization, and costs more as a result of that feature.

Yes should have combined the two threads. Anyway, with what hes saying and what he wants to afford he might want to save the $600 and get the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, faster f-spot across the zoom and a full-frame on APS would make that lens work great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Yes should have combined the two threads. Anyway, with what hes saying and what he wants to afford he might want to save the $600 and get the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, faster f-spot across the zoom and a full-frame on APS would make that lens work great.

---

The Nikon lens only costs $600. In the Canon family, what he's really saving is mostly due to the lens having built in IS. And on a digital sensor, the difference between 24mm and 28mm at the wide end is significant, and he'll miss it if he's doing weddings.

Ok what I'm understanding is that it would be cool to get a 50mm lens... That actually comes in most of the kits that I've looked at... Other ones that I seem to see in all of the kits I've seen online are the 18-55mm, and the 70-300mm. What should those be used for?

Anyway those 3 are included... IN ADDITION... I'll be probably investing in ONE ADDITIONAL one for now that will get me through at least a year of doing portraits, creating actor and modeling portfolios, and the occassional event (weddings, and parties)... Which ADDITIONAL ONE lens should I get that will produce excellent pictures? Thanks.

So far you've said the:

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 &

24-105mm

What do you think?

Also in regards to the comments about buying into the system... Is it true that all cannon lenses fit on each other? All nikon lenses fit on each other... So if I buy lenses for the canon 50d right now... Whenever I'm ready for the cannon Mark III... will I be able to put the lenses that I've used on my 50d onto my Mark III? Or if I choose the D90 now and get lenses for that and lets say in a couple of years I'm ready for the D3X... will I be able to use the same lenses?

I'm currently online trying to figure out which company's lenses are more affordable.

Ok what I'm understanding is that it would be cool to get a 50mm lens... That actually comes in most of the kits that I've looked at... Other ones that I seem to see in all of the kits I've seen online are the 18-55mm, and the 70-300mm. What should those be used for?

Anyway those 3 are included... IN ADDITION... I'll be probably investing in ONE ADDITIONAL one for now that will get me through at least a year of doing portraits, creating actor and modeling portfolios, and the occassional event (weddings, and parties)... Which ADDITIONAL ONE lens should I get that will produce excellent pictures? Thanks.

So far you've said the:

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 &

24-105mm

What do you think?

Also in regards to the comments about buying into the system... Is it true that all cannon lenses fit on each other? All nikon lenses fit on each other... So if I buy lenses for the canon 50d right now... Whenever I'm ready for the cannon Mark III... will I be able to put the lenses that I've used on my 50d onto my Mark III?

The reason most "kits" come with a 18-50 and a 70-300 lens is that those 2 lenses together cover a long range, and they are reasonably cheap. The 18-50 is what is known as a general purpose walking around lens, and the 70-300 is a long telephoto, typically used for bringing far away objects closer. Often used for sports and wildlife, but the kit telephoto lens is too slow to really be good at that. Pros usually use lenses like a fast f2.8 70-200 or 80-200 for those applications, or even longer specialty telephotos that cost a fortune (like $5-10K each).

But, these two kit zoom lenses have some serious disadvantages. The Kit lenses typically have an f5.6 maximum aperture at all but their shortest focal length, which means that they are slow, and cannot blur the background as well as faster lenses can. They are also generally not well made enough to withstand the rigors of professional use. And finally, they are not particularly useful for wedding photography or portraiture, both for those 2 reasons, and because you would find yourself having to switch lenses too frequently, as when shooting a wedding, you would frequently need to move between a fiarly wide length of around 24-30mm, and a portrait length of 60-85mm. Both Anbesol and I recommended one better, faster zoom that spanned that range, because if you'll be shooting weddings, you'll need to cover that range quickly without changing lenses.

The 50mm f1.8 lens is a no brainer because it makes a fine portraiture lens, it has a great deal of speed to blur backgrounds and home in on the subject, and they are all inexpensive and high quality. But if you shoot weddings and parties, you'll need that fast moderate wide to moderate tele zoom.

The issue about lenses that span the whole product line is complex, because both Nikon and Canon make cameras with different sensor sizes. The ones that are what is called FX or Full Frame, are very expensive top of the line pro gear. Generally speaking, a good lens - especially at the wide angle end, that covers the whole frame will be very expensive. Those lenses work on smaller sensor cameras, but you will be paying a premium for them. The GOOD thing about using those lenses on small sensor cameras is that the small sensor only uses the sweet spot of the lens. Both of the expensive zooms that Anbesol and I recommended happen to be full frame zooms that could go with you to the full frame bodies. The cheaper kit zoom lenses do not span the larger frame size, and they won't work if you move up to full frame. The Nikon D90 and D300, and the Canon 40D and 50D are NOT full frame cameras. If you DO make a move to full frame eventually, you will find that your lenses all just either became wider-angles, or they became unusable, depending on whether the lens can span that bigger frame or not.

There is no general rule of thumb as to whether Nikon or Canon lenses are cheaper - they tend to be very similar - but, full frame zooms cost more (especially at the wide end), faster maximum apertures cost more, and built in image stabilization costs more. A true apples to comparison between the brands would show that they are generally similar. If one brand's lens costs noticeably more than the other, it's generally because it has one or more of these features that the other one lacks.

One thing I didn't mention, but Anbesol did, is the 3rd party brands, like Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron. They all make some very good lenses, and also some cheap junk. It's tough to give you any simple guidelines with them, other than they are generally not build to the same standard of ruggedness of the BEST, MOST COSTLY Nikon and Canon lenses. But, the better 3rd party brand lenses tend to be better than the Nikon and Canon cheap kit lenses. I don't have any experience with the Tamron lens Anbesol recommended, except that it has a good reputation as one of the better 3rd party zooms.

forget those 18-55's, save the money and apply them to a better lens.

Canon has 3 different types of lens, manual focus, of course those wont work on any DSLR. And EF and EF-S, the EF-S (short backfocus) is specifically built for aps sensors and will not work on the 1Ds Mk III (or any full frame), stick with EF. Same situation with Nikons DX. Sony makes all their stuff for full frame though ;)

Quote:

---

But, the better 3rd party brand lenses tend to be better than the Nikon and Canon cheap kit lenses. I don't have any experience with the Tamron lens Anbesol recommended, except that it has a good reputation as one of the better 3rd party zooms.

---

For portraits and weddings, it will be more than built well enough. I dont own the 28-75 myself, but I've played around with it quite a bit and it is impressive, the perfect focal range for portraits, and the perfect f-stop.

And of course, it *blows away* any kit lens you throw at it.

Ok so you're saying that if I buy the d90 or the 50d... since they aren't full-frame cameras... I need to stick with the EF lenses because those are the ones that will fit on the MIII or Dx later on. So for the portraits, modeling and acting portfolio, etc.. I should be cool with owning a 50mm and 28-75 for now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynnzora

Ok so you're saying that if I buy the d90 or the 50d... since they aren't full-frame cameras... I need to stick with the EF lenses because those are the ones that will fit on the MIII or Dx later on. So for the portraits, modeling and acting portfolio, etc.. I should be cool with owning a 50mm and 28-75 for now?

---

I'm really not saying that. It's all a trade-off of investment now, vs investment later. One thing that is clear is that there are more cheapo poor quality lenses made for small sensors than for full frame sensors.

I'm frankly not a big fan of a 28-75mm lens being the only zoom you get, because it's not wide enough at the bottom end to cover all the wide needs you may have when used on a small sensor body. I think you'll find that for weddings, you will wish you had something wider.

Frankly, you need to start putting your hands on some gear, and see how it feels in your hands, and what the field of view of various lenses looks like through the viewfinder. There's not much more you'll get from forums, other than opinions from folks who's needs and views may be different from your own.

If you won't say it I will. Stick with full frame, two reasons - full frame is the future, moreover, even if you stuck with APS forever, they give you a greater sweet spot. Problems of the lens are far greater from the outer ends of the elements, the APS only uses the center. the only thing you really miss with full frame lens is a bit on the wide end (10-24mm). I've shot with some wide DX ED lens before and the difference is substantial and for me, instantly noticable, flare, distortion, aberration, of course vignetting. DX lens are the Nikon version of EF-S. Most sony's are full frame coverage as well (sans a few ultra-wides and cheap-o's).

Doug has a point about the 28 as a weak wide, *particularly if you go with Canon* (which has a 1.6x crop factor instead of 1.5, a difference significant at 20-28mm). Personally I use something wider then 30mm on my APS *very* rarely, but it is obnoxious to not have it be there when you need it. 42mm field of view (equiv) can take care of a lot of wide situations given the right amount of distance, still - the 24-70mm f2.8 Sigma may be another one worth looking at, I'd say the 4 on the wide is much more valuable than the 4 on the end, keep your f-stops the same, damned similar performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

If you won't say it I will. Stick with full frame, two reasons - full frame is the future, moreover, even if you stuck with APS forever, they give you a greater sweet spot. Problems of the lens are far greater from the outer ends of the elements, the APS only uses the center. the only thing you really miss with full frame lens is a bit on the wide end (10-24mm). I've shot with some wide DX ED lens before and the difference is substantial and for me, instantly noticable, flare, distortion, aberration, of course vignetting. DX lens are the Nikon version of EF-S. Most sony's are full frame coverage as well (sans a few ultra-wides and cheap-o's).

Doug has a point about the 28 as a weak wide, *particularly if you go with Canon* (which has a 1.6x crop factor instead of 1.5, a difference significant at 20-28mm). Personally I use something wider then 30mm on my APS *very* rarely, but it is obnoxious to not have it be there when you need it. 42mm field of view (equiv) can take care of a lot of wide situations given the right amount of distance, still - the 24-70mm f2.8 Sigma may be another one worth looking at, I'd say the 4 on the wide is much more valuable than the 4 on the end, keep your f-stops the same, damned similar performance.

---

FYI, I definitely don't buy Full Frame being the future. IMHO both sensor sizes are the future for pros. Full frame will be at most 30-50%of the pro market, and 5% of the hobbyist market. APS will always be over half of the pro market, and well over 90% of the hobbyist market. Which isn't to say that Full Frame is not ultimately higher quality. But you will need to pay big bucks for it.

In 2010, $3K will buy a lot more quality in APS size camera + lenses than it will in Full Frame. In 2010, you will need to spend at least $1000 more for a comparable full frame body as an APS body, and figure on at least $400 more per equivalent speed lens which can support the full frame sensors with quality. Unless your budget for camera and lenses in 2010 is at least $5K, you will get better quality in an APS size camera and lenses that support it well. You could spend the ~ $400 more on lenses now, and preserve the investment, or not, it's up to you. But in the digital world, when an investment is deferred, the cost definitely declines over time.

I agree 100% with Doug...full frame has a future, but it isn't the future...absolute image quality is a pretty small fraction of photography.

The top of the line crop cameras are really, really, really nice cameras and there is no reason why crop sensors won't continue to improve in quality with technological advances. Sure full frame may always have an absolute rendering advantage, but most people - even publishers and clients - aren't going to notice or care.

I'd buy lenses that you need now, not lenses that you may need one day later down the line. Besides, a lot of the old film lenses are pushed pretty hard by the new digital sensors - full frame manufacturers are going to have to redesign a lot of full frame lenses in order to keep up with extremely resolution-hungry sensors...Why buy twice?

You need FAST and high quality lenses. Zooms that cover about 28-100mm, 100-200, and a nifty 50 (50mm f/1.8, because it's awesome and dirt cheap). Those are 35mm equivalents. I know a wedding photographer who has a full frame 5d, a 28 prime and a 50 prime, and shoots EVERYTHING with them. His only flash is a ring flash from his glamour/fashion magazine days. In short, you'll be a step ahead as far as gear but a few years in the trenches is more important than fancy kit...

Micro processor technology keeps getting smaller, and smaller, and smaller. Of course full frame cameras will, in the future, be built at much lower prices, and much lower sizes. The large requirement being only the pentaprism really, all other pieces of technology can be reduced in size. I dont expect full frame to be the future in 5 years, but in the next decades, I am willing to bet that full frame technology will outdate APS sensors.

Quote:

---

In 2010, $3K will buy a lot more quality in APS size camera + lenses than it will in Full Frame

---

Yes, 2010 is 1 year. A change that big couldn't possibly transition that quick, even if instantly recognizable. I was saying 'the future' in the grander sense of things. Keeping in mind that lens are built to last decades.

Yes there is plenty of quality in APS but I think in 10 years full frame technology will be so comparably priced that the cost-benefit of manufacturing APS sensors will be obsolete.

Point remains though, the significantly improved sweet spot makes full frame lens the way to go, I still don't ever think that buying APS-lens is a good idea unless starting at 10-20mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Yes there is plenty of quality in APS but I think in 10 years full frame technology will be so comparably priced that the cost-benefit of manufacturing APS sensors will be obsolete.

---

That's simply not true - It's never going to happen. The cost of a full frame sensor alone DWARFS the other electronics in a DSLR - and full frame sensors are very process limited. Unlike everything else in a DSLR, the sensors can't really come down in cost (although they CAN move up the performance/feature curve without going UP in cost). The fact is, excluding the sensor, the cost of parts for a D700 is, at most $50 more than that on a D300. The difference between an 5D Mk II and and a 50D is similar.

So, other than the sensor itself, the parts cost of full frame only makes up around $2-300 of the difference in selling price of these full frame. A full frame Sensor costs around $300 or more, while a leading edge APS sensor costs well under $100 in volume. Move ahead 10 years, and an APS sensor might cost $25-40, but a full frame sensor is STILL going to cost around $200, and the economics of the Semiconductor industry won't allow that to change fundamentally.

So, even 10 years from now, a full frame DSLR will still cost $1000 more than a comparable APS DSLR. And there is not a damn thing that can change that fact. Moore's Law does not apply to Sensors, because they cannot get physically smaller over time. The support electronics can, but the support electronics are becoming a diminishingly small portion of the die in a CMOS sensor.

Note: I spent over a decade working for a Semiconductor company that made, among other things, CMOS imaging sensors. So I know what I'm talking about as far as the underlying costs and process economics involved with making these sensors.

That doesn't mean that full frame won't be offered in significantly cheaper DSLRS, of course they will be.

10 years ago, could you have predicted that 4gb flash drives would be in the dollar bin at 7/11? You may have even been inclined to think that Zip drives would catch on and become the standard medium...

Just for clarification: I'm not saying that polymagnesium/relatively high performance full frame slrs are the future, just full frame on its own.

Quote:

---

So, even 10 years from now, a full frame DSLR will still cost $1000 more than a comparable APS DSLR

---

Okay, I'll mark your words and you can mark mine. Time will tell this one ;)
In any event its a moot issue, full frame lens still give a greater sweet spot, which is reason enough on its own and the point of the argument in the first place, whether or not to get full frame lens .

Curious - which semiconductor company? What clients did you sell those CMOS sensors to?

5 years ago I had this same conversation with Nikon fans, I insisted that CMOS was the future and that CCD was a dying technology, 5 years later and while CCD is still commonly used, it is *crystal clear* that CMOS is the sensor technology of the future, undeniable at this point.

Curious, what do you mean by larger "sweet spot?" I find that crop sensors have MUCH larger sweet spots than full frame, because the lenses aren't pushed as hard since only the center of the image circle is used. A wide angle crop will almost always be sharper and brighter edge-to-edge, given the same field of view. Same for telephotos too, except edge sharpness isn't as important for most applications. I think that legacy lenses are holding FF back.

In my opinion, a better sensor in a smaller format is the future as far as image quality AND cost effectiveness goes; FF isn't going anywhere, but crop sensor technology will only get better - and it's pretty good already!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

That doesn't mean that full frame won't be offered in significantly cheaper DSLRS, of course they will be.

10 years ago, could you have predicted that 4gb flash drives would be in the dollar bin at 7/11? You may have even been inclined to think that Zip drives would catch on and become the standard medium...

Just for clarification: I'm not saying that polymagnesium/relatively high performance full frame slrs are the future, just full frame on its own.


Okay, I'll mark your words and you can mark mine. Time will tell this one ;)
In any event its a moot issue, full frame lens still give a greater sweet spot, which is reason enough on its own and the point of the argument in the first place, whether or not to get full frame lens .

Curious - which semiconductor company? What clients did you sell those CMOS sensors to?

5 years ago I had this same conversation with Nikon fans, I insisted that CMOS was the future and that CCD was a dying technology, 5 years later and while CCD is still commonly used, it is *crystal clear* that CMOS is the sensor technology of the future, undeniable at this point.

---

The company I worked for was Conexant. Our sensors were pretty much used in phone cameras, and a few point and shoots, but the economics of sensors with respect to size are straightforward to understand. Full Frame is a special problem, because a full frame sensor can only be made using a die with a minimum 43 mm diagonal, which can't ever be reduced. That constrains it to very specialized photolithography which will become ever more of a niche over time. The way electronics are cost reduced is to downsize the die, and SLRs have fixed format sizes that can't get smaller over time. Very few other semiconductors, other than the most costly processors, require a die of around 43mm diagonal. In addition, the process to add microlenses to the finished die is specialized and extremely low volume as far as semiconductors are concerned. A big sensor is extremely difficult to cost reduce, and Moore's law doesn't apply to anything that can't be physically down-sized (unlike Camera-phone and point and shoot sensors, which are still getting smaller). The only real cost reductions that can be gained over time is to improve the process yields, and to improve the efficiency of adding the microlenses. But most of the cost is reflected in sheer silicon real estate, which can never be reduced in a sensor of fixed format size - in fact, that's going UP somewhat over time, although not as fast as yields and adding microlenses costs are going down.

The only GOOD news about this is that both APS and Full Frame sensors will keep getting BETTER over time, because they can't get smaller, each new process generation gives the designers more free real estate to make either more pixels, or more sensitive pixels and other support circuitry around the pixels.

Oh, and anyone who understands semiconductor process technology COULD predict that a given size memory device will continue to get cheaper forever - and that 4 GB of flash memory would soon cost under a dollar. And that Zip drives would NEVER displace solid state memory in the long term because of this. But the cost reduction mechanism which makes flash memory forever get cheaper is by downsizing the memory - that's the Moore's Law mechanism, and that mechanism doesn't apply to sensors that have to have a fixed physical size.

The bottom line is that a full frame sensor will NEVER cost under $200. Which means that a full frame camera body will NEVER cost under $1000 - and more likely, never cost under $1500 if it's made of metal with an optical pentaprism and a rugged shutter. And when they do cost $1500, otherwise similar APS bodies will cost $500 tops.

Well 10 years is a long time.

Quote:

---

The bottom line is that a full frame sensor will NEVER cost under $200

---

I understand your reasoning, and its pretty sound, I just disagree. I could be wrong, but the last thing I think we can do is to be positively certain about a market 10 years from now.

Quote:

---

Oh, and anyone who understands semiconductor process technology COULD predict that a given size memory device will continue to get cheaper forever - and that 4 GB of flash memory would soon cost under a dollar.

---

10 years ago floppy disks were still being used, but their size was a little less than favorable. Zip disks became moderately popular for a brief period but the cost of the disks were pretty high, yet at that time they were still much much cheaper than flash memory. 10 years ago many had predicted (including the people of Iomega) that Zip disks would become some sort of standard medium. Today, flash memory costs 1/1000th the price of zip disks, 10 years ago they cost 3 times more.

Quote:

---

I find that crop sensors have MUCH larger sweet spots than full frame, because the lenses aren't pushed as hard since only the center of the image circle is used.

---

Yes, thats what I was saying, you must have misunderstood me. Thats why I said he should still stick with full frame <B>lens</b> even paired with APS sensors. I didn't say that full frame *sensors* give greater sweet spots, but their lens on APS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Well 10 years is a long time. I understand your reasoning, and its pretty sound, I just disagree. I could be wrong, but the last thing I think we can do is to be positively certain about a market 10 years from now.

---

You are wrong. As long as these sensors are Semiconductors, they will follow the immutable economic trends that Semiconductors have followed for the entire 40 year history of the technology. In fact, the things that keep making MOST semiconductors cheaper over time, are actually working to make DSLR sensors MORE expensive over time - see below:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

10 years ago floppy disks were still being used, but their size was a little less than favorable. Zip disks became moderately popular for a brief period but the cost of the disks were pretty high, yet at that time they were still much much cheaper than flash memory. 10 years ago many had predicted (including the people of Iomega) that Zip disks would become some sort of standard medium. Today, flash memory costs 1/1000th the price of zip disks, 10 years ago they cost 3 times more.

---

And that was all predictable, and predicted by those same economic trends I have referred to. The folks who made memory chips knew damn well when their technology would become viable for mass storage. The fact that the likes of Iomega did not understand this is immaterial - they were not chip makers. Chipmakers knew and know when they would be displacing each type of non-semiconductor storage media, as Moore's Law marches inexorably on. But again, remember - Moore's law does NOT apply to sensors - so the cost arguments of MOST semiconductor technology does NOT drive sensors that must comport to a fixed format size. In fact, it works COUNTER to it, because as the REST of the chip market keeps going to smaller and smaller chips, the processes that are needed to make sensors get more and more exotic and specialized over time, and economies of scale work AGAINST SLR sensors when they can't be made on commodity process fabs.

who knows what the future holds? Personally I think that all of the formats will diverge and mature - FF for fine art pros, APS and 4/3 for hobbyists and working pros. The differences will become more severe as technology improves, and they can all refine and develop their strengths.

Now I see what you are saying about sweet spots - FF lenses will have a larger sweet spot on crop sensors. Agreed. However, some manufacturer's digital specific lenses create finer images, all things equal. The ZD lenses correct incidence angle so that light strikes the sensor at the optimum angle. They are engineered for corner to corner sharpness and brightness. Sure the sensor lags behind the APS sensors, but the lenses are superior to 90% of the other stuff out there.

Canikon could really improve their lines by making digital specific superior lenses. it's just a matter of building lenses for the format rather than building a format that works with out-of-date lenses. A FF camera with a digital-corrected FF lens would be killer - but that's gunna be one huge and heavy lens! They are going to have to consider things like this if FF sensors are going to be built to have more resolution - the lenses are already showing flaws on the sensors we have today! The benefit of a large sensor is only as good as it's lens! I see lens quality as the limiting factor for FF format...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sushigaijin

Now I see what you are saying about sweet spots - FF lenses will have a larger sweet spot on crop sensors. Agreed. However, some manufacturer's digital specific lenses create finer images, all things equal. The ZD lenses correct incidence angle so that light strikes the sensor at the optimum angle. They are engineered for corner to corner sharpness and brightness. Sure the sensor lags behind the APS sensors, but the lenses are superior to 90% of the other stuff out there.

---

Some are, most aren't. I'd go so far as to say that, other than the 7-14, 9-18, 11-22, 12-60, and 14-50, and 25mm pancake, none of the other Olympus lenses do anything special in this regard. Some of the others, like the 35-100, and 55-200 are very good lenses, but there is nothing unique in their designs to make them telecentric - other than the fact that the format itself requires a smaller image circle, thus causing more direct angle of incidence. And other super-wide lenses that use retrofocus designs from other manufacturers are also designed this way - it's not at all unique to Olympus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sushigaijin

Canikon could really improve their lines by making digital specific superior lenses. it's just a matter of building lenses for the format rather than building a format that works with out-of-date lenses. A FF camera with a digital-corrected FF lens would be killer - but that's gunna be one huge and heavy lens! They are going to have to consider things like this if FF sensors are going to be built to have more resolution - the lenses are already showing flaws on the sensors we have today! The benefit of a large sensor is only as good as it's lens! I see lens quality as the limiting factor for FF format...

---

It is true that one thing Olympus had going for it was that they actually NEEDED to design many of their lenses, especially the shorter ones, from scratch, because they started with a new format. Canon and Nikon did take a short cut initially, in that they used the same lens mount as their film cameras. But, for the smaller sensor cameras, they too needed to design new wide angles, and in doing so, they did the same things that Olympus did as far as telecentricity. And Olympus also pulled many of their longer telephoto designs off the shelf from 35mm land - some were their own, and some were licensed from partners like Sigma. The only thing that makes those lenses more telecentric than the ones for Nikon and Canon is that Olympus crops the image circle even tighter for their smaller sensor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougjgreen

...And when they do cost $1500, otherwise similar APS bodies will cost $500 tops.

---

I would agree with those kinds of figures, but in 5~7 years instead of 10+

I also agree with the others who think that APS, full-frame, and 4/3 formats will all continue to develop their own markets.

But I don't think the price differential will be strictly due to the manufacturing costs of the sensors alone. I can imagine APS cameras taking on a more agressive evolution route of "smaller, lighter, cheaper" and thus diverging from the full-frame group. To me, the Canon 40D/50D line doesn't make marketing sense in light of the falling prices of the 5D (and eventually the 5DmkII and its future replacement). I think that that physical size will eventually become the hallmark of only full-frame cameras.

And when they do become $500/$1500 cameras, who's to say that one of the manufacturers won't pop out a $3000 medium format sensor? Even if the pixel technology remains the same across the formats, there will always be those who want the small, medium, and large stuff. Given the same imaging technology, "bigger" always equalled "better" in terms of image quality (OK not exactly, but I think you get my drift).

Or do we think that, when that time comes, there won't possibly be any need to have imaging sensors larger than 24mm x 36mm? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loupey

And when they do become $500/$1500 cameras, who's to say that one of the manufacturers won't pop out a $3000 medium format sensor? Even if the pixel technology remains the same across the formats, there will always be those who want the small, medium, and large stuff.

---

The only fly in this ointment is that it's probably always going to be impossible to make a monolithic semiconductor sensor that's that big. In general, Medium format sensors use multiple die (usually 4) packed together on the same substrate. And this introduces other costs needed to align and calibrate the 4 sensors together, as well as more complex packaging. So, at a minimum, the cost of a medium format sensor will always be several times the cost of a full 35mm frame sensor.

BTW, I don't doubt that APS sensor SLRs might some day - even rather soon, diverge from the current form factor - Just look at what Panasonic has done with the G1, eliminating the optical finder light path, for a preview.