How should I "approach" full format, throwing my lenses away in two years??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by igmolinav, Sep 20, 2010.

  1. igmolinav macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #1
    Hi,

    Unfortunately, one can only post in one forum, but I also wish some people in the digital video could read this post. Anyway, ....

    Canon came out recently with the Canon 60D, (perhaps is not to be seen yet in some shops). I was told it lies between the 550D (or Rebel 2Ti), and the
    EOS 7D. Looking at the EOS 5D Mark II, I wonder how long will it take for Canon or Nikon to bring out a full format out to the market for a bit more or a bit less than a 1,000 *units* ??

    I have no rush, but I would like to plan a bit (ahead of time??). Currently, I own a Nikon D50 with an 18-55 zoom lens. I dream of buying two lenses that would do good for the things I am interested to photograph:

    A 16-85mm zoom lens. Canon makes that too (but 15-85mm)
    A 11-16mm zoom lens from Tokina.

    Each of these lenses costs about 600 *units*, and both of them are meant to be used only with cameras with a crop factor, not with full format cameras.

    I am not a working pro. My gear has to last. Or at least I can only think of changing it after four to five years. I don't abuse it, and I don't use it everyday.

    My thought was to buy one, or the two lenses before the end of the year. A new camera next year. I am happy with the D50 I have now. Unfortunately they don't make them anymore, and I am also interested in using the video features of the newer dSLRS.

    So what to do?? In two or three years to throw away the lenses because the new full format cameras will displace the cameras with a crop factor ??

    It would be interesting for me to hear your thoughts and comments.

    Very kind regards,

    igmolinav.

    *units* - Depending on your market, a unit is in $,€, or pounds.
     
  2. powerhouse7 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    #2
    Full format cameras are for semi and full pro use and will not be coming out in cheaper consumer cameras anytime soon. You don't need to worry about your lenses becoming redundant for many many years to come so don't worry about it. If your not a pro or semi-pro shooter, just buy the lenses and camera (DX ie. not full format DSLR's) you want that's in price range. Lenses are one of the few technologies that don't really become redundant that quickly (quite often, newer lenses are actually worse than older ones)
     
  3. igmolinav thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #3
    Hi,

    Because of some comments of people in this forum is that I thought that full format cameras would arrive on the market in two to four years, maximum four. Even if they were to arrive on the market tomorrow, perhaps many people would find it cool to two have the two systems. That way your 50 mm. lens would also be your 75mm with a 1.5x crop factor camera.

    Kind regards,

    igmolinav.
     
  4. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #4
    Cameras with full frame sensors will remain a lot more expensive, because full frame sensors are about 10 times as expensive than APS-C-sized sensors. Unless you plan on buying a used full frame camera (your choices are Sony Alpha 850 and 900, Nikon D700, D3, D3s and D3x as well as Canon EOS-1Ds series cameras and 5D Mark I and II), the chances are exactly zero that you will be able to buy a full frame camera within the next 5-8 years for <= €1,000.

    I would not buy lenses that do not fit your current style of photography, just because you may switch to full frame in 10 years time. Lenses retain their value very well, just go out and get whatever you want now. Lenses are a lot, lot more important than bodies. Even with your relatively old body, you will still be able to take very, very good photos if you stay within ISO 100-400. The lenses you list are indeed very good and I see no reason whatsoever to even think about selling them for something that is full-frame compatible.

    If you think of getting a new body, try them before you buy them. Don't rely on reviews which tell you that camera A has 2 % less noise than camera B and is thus preferable. You should get whatever body happens to feel comfortable in your hands.
     
  5. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #5
    Hi, fullframe sensors are totally different in design and manufatcuring process. I could wager that they won't com in a sub 1000 USD package.

    It took years for Canon and Nikon to come with a full Frame cam in the league of the 5d and D700 The 5D is still over 1000 USD.

    DX lenses and cameras a cheaper to produce so my take: if you will stick for a few years with DX, then go get those lenses...
    If you have plans for FX soon then hold off on your purchase but don't expect an FX body for less than a grand unless it is used (heavily)
     
  6. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #6
    The Tokina 11 - 16 mm comes as both a Nikon and Canon lens and especially suitable for a full frame body, like the Canon 5D Mark II.

    Just to clarify on the lens.
     
  7. wheezy macrumors 65816

    wheezy

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Alpine, UT
    #7
    Here's a Canon Whitepaper on their CMOS sensors.

    http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/White Papers/Canon_CMOS_WP.pdf

    On page 11 they say out of the Wafer they cut the sensors from they can get 200 crop 1.6 sensors, but out of the exact same wafer they can only get 20. For that reason alone you won't get a sub $1000 full frame camera anytime in the near future. They'd take a loss every time.
     
  8. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #8
    I think you meant to write that it is not suitable for a full frame body. Tokina has released a 16-28 mm f/2.8 zoom which is meant for full-frame bodies.

    Thanks a lot for the link :)
     
  9. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #9
    I have no clue what you are on about but the Tokina 11-16mm is a wonderful lens on a full frame body. It even comes as an EF-mount.
     
  10. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #10
    ???

    http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx116prodx-b.html

     
  11. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #11
    The 11-16 mm is a lens designed for crop bodies. While you can mount and use it, you get dark corners from 11 to 14 mm. Even 15 and 16 mm, you cannot expect good image quality in the corners -- the lens simply isn't designed for full frame.
     
  12. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #12
    forget about "planning" it. buy the lenses for the camera you have now, not the one you might have in 5 years. no one who shot 35mm film bought medium format lenses so they wouldn't have to buy more lenses when they became a "pro" (or rich, whatever comes first).

    while I'm on the topic of "crop" vs "full", 35mm film was considered a small format, only suitable for consumers, and it would go away sooner or later. look where we are now.

    "crop" cameras will never be replaced. no matter how inexpensive a 24x36mm sensor might become, a smaller one will always be cheaper.
     
  13. funkboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Location:
    elsewhere
    #13
    For the record, I have a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, & while 99% of the time I use it on my 40D, I've played with it a bit on friends' 1.3x & FF cameras:

    - on 1.3x, the corners black out at full-wide, but by about half way through the zoom range the vignetting is acceptable (between 1-2 stops in the corners). At 16mm there's no more vignetting than there would be on a 1.6x body at the equivalent focal length.

    - on FF, it should really be considered a 16mm lens. ~15mm has stronger vignetting as mentioned above, and anything below 14 the corners are black.

    Given what it costs compared to the competition, I'll be keeping this one even if I go full-frame. It's in the same ballpark as the 14L, but at 1/3rd the price it's worth looking at, especially if you have a 1.3x camera or a lower-resolution FF like the original 5D that doesn't push lenses as hard as a 1DsIII or 5DII.
     
  14. Cliff3 macrumors 65816

    Cliff3

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #14
    Thanks for the authoritative discussion on why FF sensors will always be substantially more expensive than APS-C sensors.
     
  15. jdavtz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Location:
    Kenya
    #15
    Buy second hand lenses to fit what you want to shoot today, and sell them for minimal loss if/when you find an affordable full-frame body that you want to upgrade to.
     
  16. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #16
    That's a great find, and one everyone should read so they finally can understand why FF will be expensive for quite some time.
     
  17. igmolinav thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #17
    Hi,

    Thank you again for your answers : ) !!!

    Very kind regards,

    igmolinav.
     
  18. jadot macrumors 6502

    jadot

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    Keep what you've got.

    35mm Equivalent DSLR cameras are more capable in some situations than smaller format Digital cameras.
    DX, or 1.5x, or APS-C, Sensor sized cameras are also very capable of producing great photography.
    People who buy cameras will, it seems, assume that what they're currently shooting with is the reason that their photography isn't to a standard that they'd like. A new camera will make them a better photographer.
    There is also the assumption that new cameras render old cameras useless.

    This isn't true, as you have proved by shooting with your 'old' D50. It still performs it's duty as a useful camera, and a very good one too.

    Keep your camera, or if you really want to splash out, buy a new d3100 or a second hand D60. Spend any money you were going to spend on lenses if you need them. You need them if you want to get closer or further away from your subject.

    Let's say that your hypothesis is true (it isn't) that Full Frame sensors will make their way into the sub £$1000 market (they won't). This doesn't mean that your current system of Crop sensor camera and equivalent lenses will dissolve and become unusable. You will still be able to capture the world, put your picture on the internet, leave it on your hard drive, make a poster for your bedroom.....and so on.

    Some people still use film, darkrooms, and slide projectors. None of which are going away any time soon because of digital photography.

    So, three things to remember:
    1) Full frame isn't coming to a cheap camera any time soon.
    2) Your camera will take better pictures when you point it at more interesting things.
    3) There will always be the prospect of better technology than what you have, no matter what you do to keep up with it.
     
  19. carlgo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    #19
    In the next year or so some FF cameras will be up around 40 mp. There will be controversies over whether we need all these mps, etc., just like today.

    They will be marked way, way up, far beyond the cost factor of some mass produced wafer segments.

    Its all marketing.

    You can research forever and you get the same answers, mostly long-winded ones based on theory and not actual experience. And what has that gotten you?

    What you can do:

    Rent examples of both formats and see what you think. If you think the FF experience is better for what you do, then there is your answer. If DX looks to be awfully close to FF, in your work (and it likely is), then clearly you should invest in the handier and much less expensive DX system.

    Everyone says "invest in good glass". Really? Think about that. What will you get, what will you get back? I would not count on camera stuff being a good investment, money-wise.

    DX lenses are designed on super-computers and made in modern factories. The lens elements are perfectly shaped and everything works just fine. The difference is that expensive lenses open up wider and are made in satisfying metal, not plastic.

    Don't get me wrong. Bigger and more expensive is better 90% of the time, it is just a matter of is it better for the photography you do or not. Do you actually want to carry a huge heavy FF camera and pounds and pounds of expensive lenses around? Can you afford it? Is it more camera and more water in the beans?
     
  20. mahood macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    Probably true - but they might go the 'high ISO' or some other technical route, to get the most out of the new silicon fabrication tech - or Canon's concept of a super-high res movie camera you 'pick' the right frame out of. (Cue the arguments about whether this is a good thing or not!)
    Well, obviously they make a profit on it, but I don't think you pay 'over the odds' for full frame... The costs go up more than linearly, as others in this thread have pointed out.
    Well yes, there's no technical reason the full frame 8MP sensors of a few years ago can't be put in a cheaper camera today - Moore's law suggests that for equivalent performance, price halves every 2 years - so we should all be able to get a (say) 1050D with the FF sensor from 4 years ago... but they won't make one.
    It's to keep a simple product range, at consistent price points. If you want a 4 year old FF sensor, buy a second hand camera from that period.
    Agreed. Work out what you want to do. You won't get a full frame camera brand new for under $£1000 - so if you intend to upgrade, buy accordingly. I intend to go FF one day, but I still have 2 EF-S lenses which I'll trade in when I do. I bought them because they were the best I could afford at the time, and have done me great service.

    Mark
     

Share This Page