Sigma 70-200 on D40x

[epicwelshman]

Morning all,

I'm looking to pick up the Sigma 70-200 2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens. Now I'm familiar with Nikon's random letters (ED, DX, etc) but Sigma's I'm a little confused with. I believe that HSM means that it'll work with the D40/x/60 which have no focus motors - am I right?

I've heard some great things about this, and for half the price of a comparable Nikon it seems like the most sensible choice. What do you guys think of it? I am aware that it has no VR, and I'm fine with that, it'll be mainly used for portraits and fast action (sports etc) so VR becomes moot.

[cube]

HSM is the Sigma equivalent of Nikon's AF-S, so theoretically it should work.

[jhamerphoto]

HSM stands for hyper-sonic motor, which means it has the built-in AF motors that your D40x requires.

So to answer your question, yes, it will work.

I personally love sigma lenses, and I usually buy them over the actual branded lenses for myself or for my old school. Not only are they great quality optics, but at around half the price of branded lenses, you really can't go wrong.

[epicwelshman]

Thanks guys, I appreciate your prompt responses. I figured that's what HSM meant, but before putting down $800 I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask!

I thought of another, minor, question - is the 70-200 full-frame compatible? I don't think I'll be going full-frame anytime soon (D40x -> D3 is quite a jump) but, just in case, it would be nice if this lens worked.

[cube]

Sigma's DC is the equivalent of Nikon's DX. Crop.

Sigma DG are full frame "optimized for digital".

[cube]

Are you sure you want that lens and not one of Sigma's 50-150 f2.8 DC HSM (even if it's crop)?

[Mr.Noisy]

Morning all,

I'm looking to pick up the Sigma 70-200 2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens.

This is a cracking Lens, but the early version before the II came out is cheaper and will be just as sharp, I use one on a D70s & D2Xs & love it :)

[taylorwilsdon]

This is a cracking Lens, but the early version before the II came out is cheaper and will be just as sharp, I use one on a D70s & D2Xs & love it :)

But doesn't have the necessary hsm...

[Hmac]

I didn't/wouldn't buy a DX or crop lens. It's looking like full frame is the direction digital SLR's are heading. Most dSLR users these days will keep their lenses far longer than they'll keep their camera bodies.

I suspect cropped sensors ultimately will only be found on the lowest end of the dSLR market if at all. IMHO, anybody who's getting ready to spend several hundred dollars on a camera lens is somebody who's going to be looking hard at a full frame camera in the next 3-5 years as that becomes the bulk of the market and prices fall.

[taylorwilsdon]

I didn't/wouldn't buy a DX or crop lens. It's looking like full frame is the direction digital SLR's are heading. Most dSLR users these days will keep their lenses far longer than they'll keep their camera bodies.

I suspect cropped sensors ultimately will only be found on the lowest end of the dSLR market if at all. IMHO, anybody who's getting ready to spend several hundred dollars on a camera lens is somebody who's going to be looking hard at a full frame camera in the next 3-5 years as that becomes the bulk of the market and prices fall.

That is such terrible logic. This guy has a D40, he isn't going to buy a $5000 D3 any time soon. I'm all for being future proof, but full frame isn't going mainstream anytime soon and the only other lens available that fits his requirements costs $1700, and it doesn't even work right on the d3 (70-200 vr).

[cube]

Yes, the Sigma 50-150 might be DX, but its range is a better fit for a crop camera, plus it weighs almost half as the 70-200. But it seems a tad expensive, given that it only costs a little less.

[Mr.Noisy]

But doesn't have the necessary hsm...

Erm yes it does have HSM, it's official title is : APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM. and it's optically as sharp as my 70-200vr.

I didn't/wouldn't buy a DX or crop lens. It's looking like full frame is the direction digital SLR's are heading

DSLR's aren't heading in a full frame direction, full frame is used by the pro's and the D3 just happens to be Nikons first DSLR thats FF directed at Pro users, DX crop sensors will always be with us ;)

[Hmac]

That is such terrible logic. This guy has a D40, he isn't going to buy a $5000 D3 any time soon. I'm all for being future proof, but full frame isn't going mainstream anytime soon and the only other lens available that fits his requirements costs $1700, and it doesn't even work right on the d3 (70-200 vr).




As sensors continue to get cheaper (Moore's Law), the move to full frame is inevitable. Other than cost, what advantages to you propose that APS-C (cropped) sensors have over a full-frame 35 mm sensor? Why else would anyone prefer the smaller, cropped sensor besides cost-efficiency? APS-C is a compromise. When full frame sensors get cheap enough...we no longer have to compromise.

Anyway, I said 3-5 years, he'll be looking at a camera with a full frame sensor, not that he'll be buying a D3 tomorrow. How much will a 12.1 mp full-frame sensor cost in 3-5 years? Same as today, do you think? No. But the lenses will cost the same, or more. I haven't bought a new lens in 4 years. I'm saying that within the lifespan of the lens that he buys tomorrow, he's going to be looking at upgrading to a $1200-$1400 (or more if he has the money) full frame camera. And when he does, he'll likely regret having spent $700 on a lens that won't work well with it - a lens that still works fine, but he takes a bath trading it in for a NON-cropped lens.

IMHO

[Hmac]

DSLR's aren't heading in a full frame direction, full frame is used by the pro's and the D3 just happens to be Nikons first DSLR thats FF directed at Pro users, DX crop sensors will always be with us ;)

Full frame is currently used by pros because they are generally the ones that can afford it (business expense). So far. At the current state (and cost) of the art....

[ChrisA]

That is such terrible logic. This guy has a D40, he isn't going to buy a $5000 D3 any time soon. I'm all for being future proof, but full frame isn't going mainstream anytime soon and the only other lens available that fits his requirements costs $1700, and it doesn't even work right on the d3 (70-200 vr).

The lowest price option for a D40 ower is this: Sell the D40 and buy a used D50. (Cost maybe $100) then buy a used Nikor 80-200 f/2.8 for about $650. The total cost is about $750 but now you have a better camera (with a built-in focus moter) and a Nikon brand full frame lens. With the "new" D50 you can take advantage of all kinds of great Nikon primes too.

Some people don't like used gear but any brand new camera is "used" the day after to take it home. We all have nothing but used gear in our bags.

Yes the DSLR world is headed to full frame. But I think it will be 10 or 12 years before FF reaches the low end SLRs. If it ever does. But the low end will move below the $200 price point and the FF bodies will be priced like the D80 is today. IN 2018 I expect to be able to buy an $800 FF Nikon body.

already many pros are using medium format digital camera that have sensors that are just about double the FF size. Today you have to be selling your work to justify a $30K camera but they to will come down in price.

[taylorwilsdon]

The lowest price option for a D40 ower is this: Sell the D40 and buy a used D50. (Cost maybe $100) then buy a used Nikor 80-200 f/2.8 for about $650. The total cost is about $750 but now you have a better camera (with a built-in focus moter) and a Nikon brand full frame lens. With the "new" D50 you can take advantage of all kinds of great Nikon primes too.


I agree with this alternative. The 80-200 is a great lens (I have used a push pull one, 2 ring can only be better) and the internal focus motor opens up a whole world of non-afs AF lenses.

[66217]

Some people don't like used gear but any brand new camera is "used" the day after to take it home. We all have nothing but used gear in our bags.


That's just an incorrect way of seeing things. The D50 is used in the sense that someone else had already used it before you. And above that, is an old camera with old technology. The D40 is superior in almost everything except the built-in motor. Which isn't that a big disadvantage for a beginner. The D60 is even a little better than the D40.

[Hmac]

Yes the DSLR world is headed to full frame. But I think it will be 10 or 12 years before FF reaches the low end SLRs. If it ever does. But the low end will move below the $200 price point and the FF bodies will be priced like the D80 is today. IN 2018 I expect to be able to buy an $800 FF Nikon body.



In 1999, Nikon started the dSLR craze with the D1 (the Kodak was too expensive). It was revolutionary in that it was "affordable" at $5000. It was 2.7 megapixels. Today, that same $5000 will buy you full frame at 4x the resolution and associated electronics that give the D3 an IQ that blows the D1 away. Three years ago, there was only one consumer-level full frame dSLR, by this fall there will be five.

You could be right about the time frame, but silicon baking techniques are getting better and better with better and better yields and the dSLR market continues to get hotter and hotter thereby putting marketing pressure on the move to full-frame. And each successful new sensor design makes the next one that much cheaper to develop, especially since we all seem to be moving to CMOS.

I'll stick with my 3-5 year guess.

[epicwelshman]

Haha, you've gotta love how a simple lens question can lead to a full-blown battle of opinions :)

Here's where I stand.

I fully agree with Roco regarding the D50 issue. The only reason I would want a D50 is for the focus motor. I fully beleve that the D40/x is better in every way. Better viewfinder, better performance, better sensor technology etc. Sure, it bums me out to no end that a nifty-fifty would be manual focus only, but it's not the end of the world. Also, the D40x was a gift. If I had been buying my camera I would have gone for the D80. My next camera will be a D300 (or whatever the next gen of that model may be), and it'll be a moot point.

Who knows, there is a huge possibility that in 5 years the D300 "series" could be full frame, and I would jump on that.

Also, as far as I'm concerned these issues about me getting full frame in the future or not are moot, as AFAIK the Sigma 70-200 is a full frame lens anyway.

<rant>

There's something else that bothers me too. People, and I'm speaking in very broad terms here, seem to assume that D40 owners are "wanna be" photographers, or that they only want something better than a P&S. I don't think this is the case at all. Sure, these lower end DSLR's do help to appeal to the lower end of the market, but the simple fact of owning a lower end DSLR doesn't make one any less of a skilled photographer. I've routinely sold prints for a few hundred dollars made with my "lowly" D40x and the kit lens. I think we need to dispel the notion that just because a D40/x/60 doesn't have the bulk, build quality or the few additional features that the D300 offers that it's somehow not worthy of being used for "real" photography.

</rant>

Anyway, that being said. Thank you so much to everyone who has given me advice, and shared their opinions. The world would be a boring place if everyone agreed all the time. We just need to remember to stay civil and act like adults, something the MR community is very good at.

[66217]

Who knows, there is a huge possibility that in 5 years the D300 "series" could be full frame, and I would jump on that.

Also, as far as I'm concerned these issues about me getting full frame in the future or not are moot, as AFAIK the Sigma 70-200 is a full frame lens anyway.


I think that for all cameras to go full frame we still have a long waiting time. 5 years? 10 years? I'm not sure, I think the best indicator is if we see Nikon showing new professional DX lenses. Which I think they will.

[cube]

450mm wafers won't start until 2012, and it will be a very expensive transition.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208402622

[OreoCookie]

You could be right about the time frame, but silicon baking techniques are getting better and better with better and better yields and the dSLR market continues to get hotter and hotter thereby putting marketing pressure on the move to full-frame. And each successful new sensor design makes the next one that much cheaper to develop, especially since we all seem to be moving to CMOS.
No, there is no pressure at all to move the entire line-up to full frame. You've bought an entry-level dslr and it makes exactly zero sense to put a full-frame sensor in it. The image quality you get from even small sensors (think four-thirds which has half the surface area of a fullframe sensor) is so good that you don't need to increase the size of your camera and lenses.

Unless you have a clear plan to go pro, you should not buy lenses, pretending you have a full-frame sensor. In practical terms, the 50-150 is a lot better: the viewing angle range is pretty much that of a 75-225 lens (i. e. that's the 70-200 bread and butter lens). It's considerably lighter and having 70 mm as initial focal length is limiting more times than not.

[Hmac]

No, there is no pressure at all to move the entire line-up to full frame.

At the very basic entry level, DX format will persist for years for the same reason it exists now -- it's a suitable compromise to hit a price point. Beyond that entry level, full frame. 3-5 years. IMHO.

[OreoCookie]

At the very basic entry level, DX format will persist for years for the same reason it exists now -- it's a suitable compromise to hit a price point. Beyond that entry level, full frame. 3-5 years. IMHO.
Even if the D300/40D-class cameras have full frame in three (that'd be the next generation of the 300D/40D) or more like six years (= two generations), what good would that do? Would you be willing to use a lens that's not ideally suited for the DX format for that long? You will still be able to sell the 50-150 then or even continue to use it. And what makes you think that then, you will want to/can spend the money to get a full frame dslr? (Keep in mind that full frame sensors need first-rate lenses.) Full frame sensors make the cameras and lenses larger (a 50-135/150 weighs about half of what my Nikkor does), cameras with a small form factor that appeal to quite a few people will not be possible.

Just to buy full frame lenses, because you may switch to a full frame camera one day is stupid.

JFYI, I own a 2.8/80-200 Nikkor and not a 50-135/150 zoom (although I'd be happy to trade it for a Tokina 2.8/50-135).

[leighonigar]

As sensors continue to get cheaper (Moore's Law), the move to full frame is inevitable. Other than cost, what advantages to you propose that APS-C (cropped) sensors have over a full-frame 35 mm sensor? Why else would anyone prefer the smaller, cropped sensor besides cost-efficiency? APS-C is a compromise. When full frame sensors get cheap enough...we no longer have to compromise.
...
IMHO

Uh, Moore's law is really about things getting smaller, being able to put more in the same space. Since we need the sensor to be of a certain size getting smaller doesn't really help. Bigger will always be more expensive, there will always be price competition in the lower-mid part of a camera makers range. DX works well. Thus, for at least the foreseeable future DX will continue to exist and be the dominant amateur format.

[Hmac]

Would you be willing to use a lens that's not ideally suited for the DX format for that long?

I have been for years. I've never owned a DX lens.

[Hmac]

Uh, Moore's law is really about things getting smaller, being able to put more in the same space. Since we need the sensor to be of a certain size getting smaller doesn't really help. Bigger will always be more expensive, there will always be price competition in the lower-mid part of a camera makers range. DX works well. Thus, for at least the foreseeable future DX will continue to exist and be the dominant amateur format.

You should re-read Moore's 1965 paper. He addresses transistor density at minimum cost per transistor as well as the implications of cost per transistor.

To not see the relationship of Moore's Law to the cost of integrated circuits...well, that's amazing. How much did you pay for your last computer compared to what you paid for your first one?

[OreoCookie]

You should re-read Moore's 1965 paper. He addresses transistor density at minimum cost per transistor as well as the implications of cost per transistor.
He's correct, Moore's law relates transistor count and costs, but not die size. Full frame sensors are more expensive to manufacture than crop sensors and this will remain true in the future. Full frame sensors don't necessarily have a higher transistor count than smaller sensors (12 MP is 12 MP).

Shrinks (i. e. building the same cpu/gpu using a smaller process) is the major driving force behind Moore's law: you can put more cpus on a wafer of a given size, they run cooler and you can usually clock them higher, because the signal paths are shorter. This is not really that relevant for cmos sensors, because you don't shrink them and the transistor count doesn't double every 18 months anymore. At least I don't see 50 MP dslrs in the near future using crop sensors made for the mass market (I'm not talking about digibacks for medium format cameras that cost as much as a car here).

[compuwar]

As sensors continue to get cheaper (Moore's Law),


Moore's law is price/performance for CPUs, it's not directly applicable to imaging sensors (if it were, it'd be relative to number of photosites, not physical size.) Imaging sensors are very sensitive to defects on the wafers, and the photosites can't simply be remapped, they have to be in a particular physical location. Larger sensors are more sensitive to defects, so yield per wafer is a significant issue with imaging sensors.


the move to full frame is inevitable. Other than cost, what advantages to you propose that APS-C (cropped) sensors have over a full-frame 35 mm sensor? Why else would anyone prefer the smaller, cropped sensor besides cost-efficiency? APS-C is a compromise. When full frame sensors get cheap enough...we no longer have to compromise.


The sensor is the *single highest cost component* in a dSLR, so the cost issue can't be minimized. Secondly, larger sensor are disproportionately more expensive than smaller sensors. Why would a camera manufacturer purposefully make a camera that's significantly less profitable? Why would a camera manufacturer not want to maximize the number of sensors they could get on a wafer?

Full frame digital is the Medium Format of today. Look at the low adoption rate of Canon's full-frame offerings and you'll see that it's a niche product that has a vocal following, lots of "want it" people and not a lot of "bought it" people. APS-C is "good enough" for most people, and isn't likely to go away because it's "good enough" and the costs for the manufacturer go down a lot compared to 35mm.

Full-frame is a temporal anomaly, which is why Olympus bet on 4/3rds (I think they went too small too soon, but longer-term it's probably not going to be a bad move.)

The other main advantage a crop sensor has over a full-frame sensor is higher resolution over a smaller area (detail) without breaking the bank in terms of sensor costs for ultra-high resolution. The offsetting problem is diffraction.

I highly doubt we'll see the manufacturers stop building APS-C and like-sized sensors unless there's a significant breakthrough that makes smaller work even better. Just like film, there's no going back size-wise even though the results are technically superior.

[Hmac]

Moore's law is price/performance for CPUs, it's not directly applicable to imaging sensors (if it were, it'd be relative to number of photosites, not physical size.) Imaging sensors are very sensitive to defects on the wafers, and the photosites can't simply be remapped, they have to be in a particular physical location. Larger sensors are more sensitive to defects, so yield per wafer is a significant issue with imaging sensors.



The sensor is the *single highest cost component* in a dSLR, so the cost issue can't be minimized. Secondly, larger sensor are disproportionately more expensive than smaller sensors. Why would a camera manufacturer purposefully make a camera that's significantly less profitable? Why would a camera manufacturer not want to maximize the number of sensors they could get on a wafer?

Full frame digital is the Medium Format of today. Look at the low adoption rate of Canon's full-frame offerings and you'll see that it's a niche product that has a vocal following, lots of "want it" people and not a lot of "bought it" people. APS-C is "good enough" for most people, and isn't likely to go away because it's "good enough" and the costs for the manufacturer go down a lot compared to 35mm.

Full-frame is a temporal anomaly, which is why Olympus bet on 4/3rds (I think they went too small too soon, but longer-term it's probably not going to be a bad move.)

The other main advantage a crop sensor has over a full-frame sensor is higher resolution over a smaller area (detail) without breaking the bank in terms of sensor costs for ultra-high resolution. The offsetting problem is diffraction.

I highly doubt we'll see the manufacturers stop building APS-C and like-sized sensors unless there's a significant breakthrough that makes smaller work even better. Just like film, there's no going back size-wise even though the results are technically superior.


So, you're saying that a 12 megapixel full frame sensor 5 years from now will cost the same that it costs today?

[OreoCookie]

So, you're saying that a 12 megapixel full frame sensor 5 years from now will cost the same that it costs today?
12 MP at what sensor size?
At 1/1.8"? At APS-C? Without mentioning sensor size, there is no way to answer that question. Cheaper, yes, but only up to a certain degree. Certainly the yield correlates clearly with sensor size and that basic math won't change.

The major manufacturers would not sacrifice margins, unless it's absolutely necessary. For entry-level and amateur-level cameras, I don't think it's necessary. If the Nikons and Canons have the choice between making dslrs a bit cheaper by using improvements in manufacturing in their smaller cameras to make them cheaper or increase the sensor size which makes the whole camera bigger and more expensive (larger mirror box, pentaprism, etc.), I think they'll head the same direction they've been heading now: making them cheaper. FF will stay an upgrade for the time being.

Have a look at the resolution: this has stagnated, too, in main stream cameras. The Nikon went from 10 to 12 MP when they've released the D300, ditto for Canon with its 450D and 40D. Nikon's D3 has 12 MP as well and writing is on the wall that this won't be increased substantially at least for mainstream cameras (Canon's 1 Ds series is not main stream `enough'). In the same way, sensor size will not increase for the main stream either. Whether there will be a $1500 FF dslr in three or four years is another question, but that still wouldn't be main stream. And still you'd need very good glass for it (= $$$).

[Hmac]

12 MP at what sensor size?
At 1/1.8"? At APS-C? Without mentioning sensor size, there is no way to answer that question. Cheaper, yes, but only up to a certain degree. Certainly the yield correlates clearly with sensor size and that basic math won't change.

So you're saying that a 12 mp full-frame, 35 mm, image sensor will cost the same to manufacture in 3-5 years as it does today? Maybe you're right. Maybe not. I suspect not, but that's just my opinion.


The major manufacturers would not sacrifice margins, unless it's absolutely necessary. For entry-level and amateur-level cameras, I don't think it's necessary. If the Nikons and Canons have the choice between making dslrs a bit cheaper by using improvements in manufacturing in their smaller cameras to make them cheaper or increase the sensor size which makes the whole camera bigger and more expensive (larger mirror box, pentaprism, etc.), I think they'll head the same direction they've been heading now: making them cheaper. FF will stay an upgrade for the time being.

Have a look at the resolution: this has stagnated, too, in main stream cameras. The Nikon went from 10 to 12 MP when they've released the D300, ditto for Canon with its 450D and 40D. Nikon's D3 has 12 MP as well and writing is on the wall that this won't be increased substantially at least for mainstream cameras (Canon's 1 Ds series is not main stream `enough'). In the same way, sensor size will not increase for the main stream either. Whether there will be a $1500 FF dslr in three or four years is another question, but that still wouldn't be main stream. And still you'd need very good glass for it (= $$$).

Yes. As I said, entry level with a DX sensor is reasonable to keep the prices low enough. Other than than, in the $1500-level and up cameras, I'm guessing that the prices of full frame, 35mm sensors will come down to the point where they can still hit their price point and maintain their margin. As with most digital electronics, the tendency is to maintain the price point while performance, whether it be die size, pixel count, transistor count, increases. I think the first 5 or 6 computers I ever owned were all $3000 +/- , while the performance of CPU, RAM, etc increased dramatically. I realize we're talking about larger image sensors with lower yields, but I am still of the opinion that over 3-5 years, the price per sensor will fall, as will performance of non-sensor digital electronics (Expeed will be cheaper, for example) making them available at the same respective price points with suitable margins for the mfgr. If those prices do indeed fall, the mfgrs can indeed keep the price point and make that same camera full frame rather than compromise on a DX sensor. And, I believe that the marketing pressure comes from the fact that selling a D300-equivalent camera that is full-frame instead of 1.5 crop, in 3-5 years, at that $1600 price point will give them a competitive advantage. The D3, even at $5000, has been a huge seller and given Nikon a competitive advantage.

I agree, full frame cameras aren't currently mainstream. I believe that's because of the cost, not performance. I never saw APS film cameras supplant 35mm film cameras. I don't see why, given the option of moving digital cameras from APS sensors to 35 mm sensors at the same price point, people would prefer APS.

I get the impression that arguments against this concept are based on observations of current technology and the current market. I 'm not talking about current technology or the current market. I'm guessing that the technology will advance in the time frame I'm talking about, and that the market will be substantially different. I do see a trend to full frame. Nascent, I agree, but by this fall, we'll have gone from one full frame camera in the market to five in three years. The D3, even at $5000, has been a huge seller. The D700 vs 5D MkII is a market segment that is also generating a huge amount of buzz among photographers. That stuff was WAY off the radar screen 3-5 years ago.

Things just aren't going to stay the same in the technology arena. Look at how digital photography has changed in the last 3-5 years. This whole concept represents my GUESS as to how things will change in the next 3-5 years. You may not agree. That's fine. I could be wrong. Or you could be wrong. But this is the internet and we all have a soapbox.

[compuwar]

So, you're saying that a 12 megapixel full frame sensor 5 years from now will cost the same that it costs today?

We're talking about manufacturing- it's not about unit cost, it's about deltas. The delta will stay about the same, so if a 35mm sensor costs 20x more than an APS-C sensor, that's going to be the same. If you can increase your margins by 10% you're a winner, if you decrease your margins by 10% you're a loser. Even if a 35mm sensor were to come down to APS-C prices, APS-C would still be cheaper by a large margin. Using the rule of thumb that a sensor with 2x the area costs 4x as much at the wafer, you can see that larger is always going to be resisted by manufacturing, especially while it's the single biggest component cost- and given that it's area-based, even if full-frame sensors dropped by 25%, APS-C would be even cheaper. Make a million cameras with a $50 sensor price difference and you're making $50,000,000 more in your margins. The delta is not likely to change, yields per wafer are always lower for larger sensors.

Here are Canon's 2006 numbers for sensors per wafer (yield):

APS-C: 200
APS-H: 46
35mm: 20

That means that you get 10 times as many APS-C sensors per wafer. Then you need three exposures for each sensor instead of one- Canon says that a FF sensor is about 20x the cost of an APS-C sensor when it's all done. Now, that's with older steppers, so once you start to amortize the cost of new steppers that can do FF in one exposure you may get costs down another 5x or so.

Even if you had FF sensors as low as $20, an extra $15-$19/unit profit is huge when you're making 100,000 units, and let's face it, FF sensors still cost hundreds of dollars- five years isn't going to help that much.

[OreoCookie]

So you're saying that a 12 mp full-frame, 35 mm, image sensor will cost the same to manufacture in 3-5 years as it does today? Maybe you're right. Maybe not. I suspect not, but that's just my opinion.
Nope, that's not exactly what I've said. I've said that it will become cheaper but not a lot. I can imagine that the D300 and 40D may one day have FF sensors (at a price point somewhere in between the two). Improvements in manufacturing will level off at one point.

The second point was that any improvement in the manufacturing process will trickle down to smaller sensors, too. And that small sensors are much more than `good enough already' that it doesn't make sense to increase costs of cameras.

Just think of it this way: if there are x defects per unit area (it's reasonable that this is independent of sensor size, we assume they are produced in the same machine). Full frame sensors have twice the area, so you can produce less than half of the sensors (wafers are circular) and it's twice as likely that there will be a defect. This is a primitive model. In fact, the larger the chip, the lower the yield for more complicated reasons (the mask has to be larger and focussed on a larger area, etc.), but you get the gist.

So yes, I think there will be a full frame `bonus' you need to pay even in five, six years time.
Yes. As I said, entry level with a DX sensor is reasonable to keep the prices low enough. Other than than, in the $1500-level and up cameras, I'm guessing that the prices of full frame, 35mm sensors will come down to the point where they can still hit their price point and maintain their margin.
I wouldn't call this main stream, these are price points of semiprofessional bodies already.
I agree, full frame cameras aren't currently mainstream. I believe that's because of the cost, not performance. ...

I get the impression that arguments against this concept are based on observations of current technology and the current market. I 'm not talking about current technology or the current market.
No, these comments aren't based on current technology. Although current technology already shows that the main direction is to make things faster and cheaper. The same with computers: cases got cheaper (and more cheaply built, too), etc.

But cameras aren't computers: the megapixel count is levelling off, so are many features (do you need 5 fps on an entry-level camera, I'm sure that this is no problem electronics-wise).

There is too little of an advantage in terms of image quality for consumers to switch to full frame. Even most ambitious amateurs' needs are more than met with crop sensors. But even if you're right, do you think it's worth it taking pictures with lenses that aren't harmonizing fully with crop sensors (in terms of focal length) for at least five years to come? That's half the life of a lens or so.

[compuwar]

I agree, full frame cameras aren't currently mainstream. I believe that's because of the cost, not performance.


Manufacturing consumer items is about cost, not performance. I give you $200M to make a camera, you can make 3M FF cameras or 20M APS-C cameras for the consumer market, you have to come up with a FF camera that's almost 7x more profitable to make the same amount of money. You don't get to alter the yields per wafer on your costliest component- so you're constrained in material costs, which change the number of units you can build for your capital investment. Those numbers are made up, but the principle is the same (just more complex,) it's basic manufacturing.


I never saw APS film cameras supplant 35mm film cameras. I don't see why, given the option of moving digital cameras from APS sensors to 35 mm sensors at the same price point, people would prefer APS.


But we did see 35mm supplant 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 3x4, and 4x5, 5x7 film cameras in the general marketplace. Why? Because it was the smallest size that was "good enough" for most photography. In fact, 110 film was the consumer film for a good while, where 35mm went from consumer to professional once enlarging lenses, film speed and grain got "good enough."

Bigger was always better quality-wise, but smaller was good enough, and to the manufacturers, smaller meant better margins. People in a consumer market don't prefer or not prefer something, they get something that works for them, or they don't. APS-C is "good enough" and cheaper for the manufacturer by a large margin.

[Hmac]

I have nothing else to add. I'm not entirely persuaded, but I'm not invested enough in the argument to pursue it. I opted for a full frame camera, not because I believe in the superiority of full frame, but because I believed in the superiority of the D3, which happened to be full frame.

Nevertheless, some of the arguments provided here are illuminating and I appreciate the well-reasoned and polite discourse.