Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 14, 2012, 10:02 AM   #21
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Cheaper? Yes of course, but see above.

Smaller and Lighter?

Not necessarily. http://camerasize.com/compare/#378,154

The new D600 is pretty much the same size as the 7D, and a bit lighter.

And almost exactly the same size and weight as the D300s.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#378,188

The sheer number of lenses is hardly relevant, but as it happens the mirrorless systems can mount a large number of their own lenses, and with adapters can take lenses from other systems too so they actually have access to more lenses.

IQ advantages to DSLR? No. Plainly nothing that comes from the sensor as many of them have identical sensors.

Why not even bigger sensors? Well of course. The bigger the better, but the same trade-offs apply.

It doesn't really matter whether you agree about the advantages. The market is speaking and moving to mirrorless in droves.

But we can agree that there is nothing magical about the 24x36 size.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 10:38 AM   #22
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

TCAV - let me ask it another way: what do you perceive to be the advantages of APSC DSLR over mirrorless besides the number of lenses?

My position is the few advantages APS-C currently holds over mirrorless are easily solved. The only major issue is focus performance and that will be solved. Mirrorless is a form factor more similar to digicam experience people are upgrading from. Image quality out of the latest group is outstanding. Lens selection is small but will grow over the next 5 years. Meanwhile full frames will continue to come down in price. With lens and focus issues addressed, APS-C dslr has no competitive advantage over mirrorless for the majority of shooters while mirrorless has significant advantages over DSLR.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 11:48 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
Not necessarily. The only real extra cost involved in the FX camera is the large sensor and the electronics needed to move the data.
To quote the new Super Moderator (Congratulations again, btw.) "Not necessarily." The (unstabilized) Tamron 17-50/2.8 "Di-II" (an APS-C only lens, btw) provides the same abngle of view and performs at least as well as Canon's 24-70/2.8 USM, Nikon's 24-70/2.8, and Sony's Zeiss 24-70/2.8, yet it is from 90% to 130% lighter, 15% to 60% smaller, and 350% to 400% cheaper.

That's just one example. There are others like Nikon's 85/3.25 DX Macro vs, their 105mm f/2.8 FX Macro, and the Canon 17-55/2.8 (which is stabilized) vs. their 24-70/2.8 (which ain't.) And that doesn't take into consideration all 'Full Frame' lenses that, on an APS-C body, are smaller, lighter, and cheaper than 'Full Frame' lenses needed for a 'Full Frame' body to obtain the same angle of view. Sony has a 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss lens that, on an APS-C body, is equivalent to a 200mm f/1.8 lens on a 'Full Frame' body. How many of those do you have lying around?

It's not just about the bodies!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
In the early days it was estimated that with the lower yields and larger chips an FX sensor cost at least 10x that of a DX sensor - roughly $100 v $1000. Now if the manufacturers can get yields up then there is no reason why that shouldn't come down to 2.5x the cost. That could be a $750 cost advantage right there which will not accrue to the DX sensors whose yields have always been very high.
Again, not necessarily. At best, the yield of a chip that is twice as large as another will always be 4X less. Your figure of 2.5X can't ever happen.

Remember that every advance in every technology that benefits 'Full Frame' dSLRs also benefits APS-C dSLRs at least as much! APS-C dSLRs have a significant advantage today (except for the advantages that come specifically from a larger sensor and a larger body), and the gap will only get wider as time progresses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
But don't all of those advantages accrue to mirrorless too, and even more so? The NEX system has fairly weak lenses for the moment, but m4/3 has some very good lenses, and the new Fuji E-mount lenses are very good.
But again you're missing the point. APS-C bodies can use the APS-C lenses, plus the 'Full Frame' lenses. APS-C users have an embarrassment of riches that other systems don't enjoy.

The NEX system has fairly weak lenses because of a fundamental design flaw: the short flange focal distance and (relatively) large sensor, which requires a lens to bend light more, resulting in more vignetting, more lateral chromatic aberration and more field curvature. That problem will not go away. It will require either acceptance of lower image quality or extraordinarily expensive lenses.

Micro4/3 owners are limited to OEM lenses, unless they're willing to ignore the battle between whether image stabilization should be in the lens or the body. Fuji users are similiarly limited. And the third party offerings are few and often limited in their capability.

For someone that wants or needs a photographic system, these just are not suitable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
Of course larger sensors need larger lenses, but until the pixel densities match those of the smaller sensors they don't necessarily need better lenses. To this point the FX cameras have been pitched as premium products, but if it gets to the point where the manufacturers can build an FX camera for maybe $300 more than a DX we might see that change.
For a variety of reasons I've described above, it just won't happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
I think we might easily see the market of 10 years dividing the consumer market into essentially camera phones, mirrorless and FX DSLR.
This site is littered with predictions that members here have made about how 'Full Frame' bodies will recapture the market share they deserve. Some of them go back quite a while. They were just as wrong back then as I suspect you are today.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 11:51 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
The sheer number of lenses is hardly relevant, but as it happens the mirrorless systems can mount a large number of their own lenses, and with adapters can take lenses from other systems too so they actually have access to more lenses.
Absolutely, if you count manual focus and manual exposure. Lots of people do, but I doubt that many people buy an autofocus, autoexposure body specifically so they can use manual focus, manual exposure lenses with them.

It's not a factor.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 12:25 PM   #25
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The thing is that mirrorless are eating up the low end DSLR market. In H2 2011 50% of interchangeable lens cameras sold in Japan were mirrorless. I believe it's closer to 70% in H1 2012.

(If anyone has access to the exact numbers I'd be grateful.)

The manufacturers are betting we're right. Canon has killed their 1-series APS camera and now only have an FX, plus they have the 5D3 and 5D2 currently in production, with another widely expected at photokina. Nikon now has 3 FX cameras. Sony has 2. That's 8 in all. 5 years ago there was no m4/3, no NEX, no Nikon 1 series, no Fuji X series, no Canon M series, no Samsung EX. That's 6 whole new mirrorless SYSTEMS spanning how many cameras? 20? The P&S market is disappearing fast as smart phones eat it up. Mirrorless are killing off the low end DSLRs. Panasonic and Olympus have essentially abandoned their 4/3 DSLR business.

You don't need to like it, but you can't deny it's happening. Okay so the US is lagging the rest of the world in the trends, but they will catch up eventually. Japan leads the way, and where they go we all follow.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog

Last edited by peripatetic; Sep 14, 2012 at 12:29 PM.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 1:28 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Canon and Nikon both make more money off their dSLRs than they do from their other cameras. dSLRs are mature technologies, while Mirrorless systems are barely out of R&D. That's why Mirrorless Cameras cost about the same as entry level dSLRs even though they're cheaper to make. Canon and Nikon aren't betting you're right. They're covering their butts and riding a wave.

Panasonic and Olympus dropped their dSLR lines because they were getting their butts kicked. They created a new market that they now lead in.

Both Smartphones and Mirrorless are cutting into P&S sales, but dSLR sales are actually up!

Reuters: Still in the frame, the camera defies smartphone onslaught

Bloomberg: Nikon Slumps in Tokyo After Cutting Profit Outlook
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 3:54 PM   #27
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
Well in the UK the impact at the MRP will be close to zero. The D800 goes for 2250, at 1950 for the D600 I simply cannot see anyone buying one.

We saw something similar with the Sony A900 & A850, they didn't sell any 850s because their retail price was only 200 less.

UK pricing is sometimes impossible to understand.
Agreed. I think if it was closer to say 1500-1700 the difference would have been substantial enough to get those on the D7000 to upgrade if they were inclined to go FF with all the added benefits. It's just too close to the D800 pricing wise.
Halfloaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2012, 2:38 PM   #28
Dig
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 98
Default

Reading through this thread I find one of the sticking points for some is the lens quandary. It appears that some feel the dx is a better choice because it allows a greater selection of lenses.

But from what I read ( http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Ex...X-Formats.html ) it appears this is moot.

It seems from this page that you can use the dx lenses on the fx cameras with no downside unless I am missing something.

As technology marches on I cannot see how the FX cameras will not overtake the DX line but maybe I am just dreaming.

Who would not prefer an FX sensor over a DX sensor in a DSLR if it is affordable?

I have a D7000 and am thinking of changing it for a D600 BUT having said that someone mentioned Sony and their new A99 looks like a monster.
Dig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2012, 2:57 PM   #29
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dig View Post
As technology marches on I cannot see how the FX cameras will not overtake the DX line but maybe I am just dreaming.

Who would not prefer an FX sensor over a DX sensor in a DSLR if it is affordable?
full-frame is not likely to overtake APS-C by itself. There is a huge segment of the buying public that wants smaller/lighter. That is total solution - including lenses. For that segment of the population, a full frame is unlikely to be desirable. But, that's where Craig and I are saying the mirrorless cameras will (in another generation or 2) meet the needs of the entry level APS-C user.

At the professional end - we're already seeing that. Canon, Nikon and now Sony have implemented full frame as their professional solution.

However, the price point needs to continue to come down - there's still a large gap between cost of full frame and similarly spec'd APS-C. Canon's new 6d has specs very similar to a minor 60d replacement - only major change being a full frame sensor. That sensor change costs a consumer $1000 premium. That needs to come down. And, it will. Faster if Sony decides to stick with their full frame solution instead of ignoring it for so many years as they did between the 850 and a99.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2012, 3:11 PM   #30
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
full-frame is not likely to overtake APS-C by itself. There is a huge segment of the buying public that wants smaller/lighter. That is total solution - including lenses. For that segment of the population, a full frame is unlikely to be desirable. But, that's where Craig and I are saying the mirrorless cameras will (in another generation or 2) meet the needs of the entry level APS-C user.

At the professional end - we're already seeing that. Canon, Nikon and now Sony have implemented full frame as their professional solution.

However, the price point needs to continue to come down - there's still a large gap between cost of full frame and similarly spec'd APS-C. Canon's new 6d has specs very similar to a minor 60d replacement - only major change being a full frame sensor. That sensor change costs a consumer $1000 premium. That needs to come down. And, it will. Faster if Sony decides to stick with their full frame solution instead of ignoring it for so many years as they did between the 850 and a99.
Notice though that there is no technical reason that the 6D couldn't have had all the features of the 7D, where there is only a $400 price difference. Canon makes some marketing decisions, which presumably they research very carefully, but some find them annoying.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:36 PM.