[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309459782' post='9649']
Yes, of course. These are all valid sample shots to illustrate the limitations of MFT - no doubts. However, even APS-C DSLRs are the wrong choice for this. When APS-C DSLRs are already off limits why should MFT be more suitable anyway or even try to.
[/quote]
No, it (MFT) can´t. That´s why I´m not overexcited and maybe now also an unexperienced buyer will notice there is certain difference between say 24mm/f2.0 ekv.lens on MTF and FX (despite marketing claims and various posts about about the "paper-thin" DOF on MTF etc.).
Otherwise yes again, Ep3 + 24/f2.0 + 45/f1.8 is the step in the right direction and I even dare to say this will save the whole MTF concept from gradual extinction.
Just can you say why no other manufacturer is interested in producing mirorless, modern full frame body (Fuji X100-like) with interchangeable optics and say 4 nice fast primes like 24/f1.4, 50/f1.4, 85/f1.4 and 135/f2.0? Why? The thing is I get a feeling I´m certainly not the only one longing for such a system.
06-30-2011, 07:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2011, 07:25 PM by Klaus.)
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309461071' post='9650']
No, it (MFT) can´t. That´s why I´m not overexcited and maybe now also an unexperienced buyer will notice there is certain difference between say 24mm/f2.0 ekv.lens on MTF and FX (despite marketing claims and various posts about about the "paper-thin" DOF on MTF etc.).
Otherwise yes again, Ep3 + 24/f2.0 + 45/f1.8 is the step in the right direction and I even dare to say this will save the whole MTF concept from gradual extinction.
Just can you say why no other manufacturer is interested in producing mirorless, modern full frame body (Fuji X100-like) with interchangeable optics and say 4 nice fast primes like 24/f1.4, 50/f1.4, 85/f1.4 and 135/f2.0? Why? The thing is I get a feeling I´m certainly not the only one longing for such a system.
[/quote]
The FF DSLR market has a share of less than 10% ... a niche within a niche isn't really attractive for the manufacturers. It may be perceived differently but APS-C as well as MFT is the mainstream nowadays - it is simply sufficient. There will be more mirrorless systems - but FF ? I don't think so.
BTW, it is not about pricing I think. A full format sensor costs between 100-200US$. That's just noise from a global perspective.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309461878' post='9651']
The FF DSLR market has a share of less than 10% ... a niche within a niche isn't really attractive for the manufacturers. It may be perceived differently but APS-C as well as MFT is the mainstream nowadays - it is simply sufficient. There will be more mirrorless systems - but FF ? I don't think so.
[/quote]
Well, that is a reasonable thought... nothing to add here. So my last hope is there will come greatly modernized Leica M10 (i.e. inspired by Fuji X100) one day... ;-).
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309461878' post='9651']
BTW, it is not about pricing I think. A full format sensor costs between 100-200US$. That's just noise from a global perspective.
[/quote]
Are you sure about the cost of FF sensor?? If so, why the hell there is no cheaper/smaller/lighter DSLR full frame body on the market yet, something like Nikon D90 (or even unbelievable Oly OM2 from the film era) with FX sensor..? Marketing reasons only?
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309462335' post='9653']
Are you sure about the cost of FF sensor?? If so, why the hell there is no cheaper/smaller/lighter DSLR full frame body on the market yet, something like Nikon D90 (or even unbelievable Oly OM2 from the film era) with FX sensor..? Marketing reasons only?
[/quote]
They are a bit more expensive than that. Both the sensor and AA filter cost about the same, btw.
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309462335' post='9653']
Are you sure about the cost of FF sensor?? If so, why the hell there is no cheaper/smaller/lighter DSLR full frame body on the market yet, something like Nikon D90 (or even unbelievable Oly OM2 from the film era) with FX sensor..? Marketing reasons only?
[/quote]
A sort-of-college investigated the production costs recently. He concluded production costs of less than 100$ actually and less than 20$ for an APS-C sensor.
However, just take the EOS 7D vs 5D II - we are talking about 1300EUR vs 1900EUR. In terms of total investments the 600EUR difference is, frankly, just "noise". If a potential 7D buyer really wanted he could afford a 5D II. Yet the 7D seems to outsell the 5D II by quite a margin - in Japan it does so by a factor of two.
I think the users just don't want to hassle with the usual FF bugs such as high vignetting and poor wide angles and, of course, the much more heavier tele lenses (at comparable FOV).
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309463131' post='9655']
However, just take the EOS 7D vs 5D II - we are talking about 1300EUR vs 1900EUR. In terms of total investments the 600EUR difference is, frankly, just "noise". If a potential 7D buyer really wanted he could afford a 5D II. Yet the 7D seems to outsell the 5D II by quite a margin - in Japan it does so by a factor of two.
I think the users just don't want to hassle with the usual FF bugs such as high vignetting and poor wide angles and, of course, the much more heavier tele lenses (at comparable FOV).
[/quote]
While the sensor size is one major part of the difference between 5D2 and 7D, of course there are lots of other functional differences. If there was a hypothetical 5D mk2.5 at the same price as todays 5D2 but otherwise inherited the other features of the 7D (particularly AF and speed), I'd imagine a lot more of them would be sold. And I'd love it if they matched the pixel density of APS-C as I'd have essentially free un-crop zoom range compared to today. Side note: I wonder how the D300(s) and D700 compare since they're arguably feature wise closer to each other?
Looking at Leica M series, I can't but help think any half competent camera company could produce something similar (mirrorless, not rangefinder) for far less cost. Now they wouldn't just simply clone a M body, so would have to come up with a new system. Seeing how slowly mirrorless lenses are showing up, it would take a while to build up a system. A shortcut might be to reuse any existing full frame SLR lenses as a temporary measure, losing all the size potential there. So they probably end up thinking they might as well stick to DSLRs.
As a wild card, I wonder if there could be a lens-less body manufacturer? Hypothetically just put a full frame sensor in a box with the shortest mount distance you can get away with. Then let the user adapt any lens they want to their hearts content. Very niche perhaps, but it'll make a lot of full manual people happy.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
06-30-2011, 08:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2011, 09:38 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309463131' post='9655']
A sort-of-college investigated the production costs recently. He concluded production costs of less than 100$ actually and less than 20$ for an APS-C sensor.
However, just take the EOS 7D vs 5D II - we are talking about 1300EUR vs 1900EUR. In terms of total investments the 600EUR difference is, frankly, just "noise". If a potential 7D buyer really wanted he could afford a 5D II. Yet the 7D seems to outsell the 5D II by quite a margin - in Japan it does so by a factor of two.
I think the users just don't want to hassle with the usual FF bugs such as high vignetting and poor wide angles and, of course, the much more heavier tele lenses (at comparable FOV).
[/quote]
Well, all I can say is that i highly doubt his findings of cost for the sensors.
http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-technical/223-the-economics-of-digital-photo-sensors
For Canon, at least (and for the moment) APS-H sensors are the biggest sensors that can be imaged in one shot on a wafer. Full frame sensors need to be imaged in 3 exposures, tripling the number of masks and exposure processes. And that many times per wafer for all the different processing steps...
According to Canon's documentation, 8" wafers can produce 200 APS-C sensors, about 46 APS-H sensors, and only 20 FF sensors.
Other cost factors, besides the wafers: 400-600 production steps per wafer, and a few faults on APS-C wafers only result in a small percentage of rejected sensors, on FF wafers the percentage will be a lot higher.
Add to that the that AA-filters double the costs of the sensors.
And due to the higher prices for FF, the production numbers will be lower, also making them more expensive again.
According to Canon, FF sensors are 10 to 20 times as expensive to manufacture.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309463131' post='9655']
A sort-of-college investigated the production costs recently. He concluded production costs of less than 100$ actually and less than 20$ for an APS-C sensor.
However, just take the EOS 7D vs 5D II - we are talking about 1300EUR vs 1900EUR. In terms of total investments the 600EUR difference is, frankly, just "noise". If a potential 7D buyer really wanted he could afford a 5D II. Yet the 7D seems to outsell the 5D II by quite a margin - in Japan it does so by a factor of two.
I think the users just don't want to hassle with the usual FF bugs such as high vignetting and poor wide angles and, of course, the much more heavier tele lenses (at comparable FOV).
[/quote]
Really unbelievable, those sensor costs! I have no reason not to believe you of course.
Otherwise I disagree with you. The more that I know the approxim. sensor costs now ;-).
Look, I think the absolutely TOP reason for 7D outselling 5DmkII are 1)Great AF improvements 2)costs. But the costs are the top reason between the two I believe. Lets take the following example: Imagine there were two identical cameras, lets say 7D-apsc and 7D-ff. Same features and the same price of 1400EUR (=price of current 7D). The only difference would be in sensors: one body would have 18mpx APS-C and the other 18mpx full frame. So the potential buyers could choose freely if they want or don´t want "to hassle with the usual FF bugs such as high vignetting and poor wide angles and, of course, the much more heavier tele lenses". I think despite all this most of the buyers would definitely take the full frame version...
Which leads me to the conclusion that the only reason why we dont have 1300-1500EUR FF DSLR body today is marketing bubble and artificial positioning of exclusivity (based on pure oligopoly) above all.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309467482' post='9657']
Well, all I can say is that i highly doubt his findings of cost for the sensors.
http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-technical/223-the-economics-of-digital-photo-sensors
[/quote]
Well, the article is from September 1, 2006. That´s pretty old in digital era. Of course I have no idea how much the costs have been lowered since then but I assume today in 2011 it certainly isn´t as expensive to produce as it was back in 2006... (but I may be wrong, too).
|
