Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 56
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    HEAVY? TRANPARENT ALUMINUM IS GETTING CLOSER

    http://www.physorg.com/news167925273.html
    http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=7223




    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    The math on that, Steve (and I sure hope you are in superior shape to manage this much glass), reveals that the front element would have to be, at least, 360mm in diameter. That's about 14.2 inches across. Just image what a glass lens disk would weigh at that dimension ...
    Last edited by SONYNUT; 10-22-2009 at 10:20 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by jekostas View Post
    Except... making everything FF compatible would needlessly increase the cost for the vast majority of users. Think what you like, Don, but FF is not the natural progression for dSLR users. FF is the natural progression for users that can definitely benefit from FF (FOV, better moire control).

    Bigger image circle = more glass = more cost in manufacturing = harder to develop = more costs in R+D = higher initial lens cost.
    exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Okay, let's say you can get a better result in the knowledge that APS-C sensors are eventually going to become ... extinct. How does that work for you?

    Having cheap, smaller aperture glass sort fails in that regard. If the photographic universe (PU) standardizes on "normal"-sized glass elements for the Full Frame, it eliminates a lot of confusion and any limitation whatsoever. Everything works everywhere. ... oh, how novel. Personally, I am liking that idea ... marrying up the real past and eliminating this weird, awkward (APS-C & H) phase of el cheap lenses we are currently trending in.

    The next series of Full Frame sensors should pretty well cement this idea. Attachment 50035
    as usual...you make no sense.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Okay, let's say you can get a better result in the knowledge that APS-C sensors are eventually going to become ... extinct. How does that work for you?
    Not gonna happen. Not now, not for the foreseeable future. As technology improves, the actual difference in output from sensor sizes will shrink, minimizing the advantage FF has in areas like dynamic range, high ISO usage, etc. Don't get me wrong - the physical size of the sensor will always allow some advantages (which have been listed ad nauseum), but you'd have to be crazy if you don't think significantly lower cost of body and glass aren't big advantages for cropped-format sensors.

    Hell, the actual output from APS-C and 4/3s size sensors already surpass even the best 35mm film in terms of both dynamic range and light sensitivity, which is more than enough for 95%+ of users.

    I know you've got a big thing for stated focal lengths having the equivalent FOV as their 35mm equivalent but... well, a lot of people don't care. All they care about is looking through the viewfinder and framing a shot.
    E-510
    E-1
    Zuiko 14-54 F2.8-3.5 MkI
    Zuiko 70-300 F4.0-5.6
    Konica Hexanon 52mm F1.8
    Cullmann 2503
    Benro KS-0

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554
    I will let the Medium Format crowd know ... whew, that was close. Obviously, the crawl to a 60MP sensor is a pursuit you guys already are shying away from.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 10-23-2009 at 10:37 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    I will let the Medium Format crowd know ... whew, that was close. Obviously, the crawl to a 60MP sensor is a pursuit you guys already are shying away from.
    This has nothing at all to do with your assertion that the APS-C format is going to go extinct. Pretty well the same thing as saying that 20 years ago, the medium format film size would drive 110, 35mm and polaroids in to extinction. Hell, even APS gained a pretty good foothold in the consumer market, even if it was universally rejected by pros.

    Or are you expecting to make your rigged up focus and CA tests into 10x20 foot billboards, Don?
    E-510
    E-1
    Zuiko 14-54 F2.8-3.5 MkI
    Zuiko 70-300 F4.0-5.6
    Konica Hexanon 52mm F1.8
    Cullmann 2503
    Benro KS-0

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Don, I seem to remember you talking up your A700 APS-C as the best thing since sliced bread. Now you've got an A850, all of a sudden the thing is nearly extinct.

    Now, I'll admit to being a bit of a Dinosaur and yes, you know I'd like a FF camera because I'm used to the FOV and DOF plus I've got a lot of old Minolta glass, but there's a whole generation out there who wouldn't know a 35mm camera if it jumped up and snapped them on the bum. They could not care less that the FOV and DOF is different on APS-C, it's absolutely meaningless for them. In much the same way that the P&S outsells the APS-C, APS-C will outsell FF and the only way that changes is if Sony et al price FF the same as APS-C and that's not going to happen. BTW, I think I'm getting used to the different perspective of the A700.

    60MP????

    I'm on the record as saying a 12/15MP FF camera would do for me, although I know it won't appear. I mean to say, I have a 2.3MP (1920 x1200) monitor so I can't view a 12MP picture and I have an A4 printer so I can't print a 12MP picture; other than cropping a lot more, tell me why I need all those MPs.
    Last edited by Peekayoh; 10-23-2009 at 12:43 PM. Reason: typo

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Cool The way ... it should have been ... BACK TO THE FULL FRAME

    Peter, I have always contested that the 35mm-film consortium would want a duplicate methodology in the digital world, where their expensive older glass could make a smooth transition (not cropped) to the new cameras.

    Yep ... as long as APS-C was the only viable alternative for my older glass ... I was stuck, like all the others.

    Now that FF is making its way down to the "masses", the story has indeed changed as the paradigm between them does, financially. Who, in their right mind, would want to keep fighting with a 1.5 or 1.6 x crop of their best and most expensive glass? How bizarre is that? Name:  I have to ask.gif
Views: 38
Size:  2.6 KB

    You need only step back to the year 2000 to see that it would have been a much more preferred route to go straight to Full Frame digital sensors, rather than have to chop the darn thing down to something that was ... "affordable." Well, that aspect is disappearing. SONY is forcing "affordable" into a whole new threshold.

    Again, APS-C probably will make it out of the decade ... but, it is on the merry road to extinction, as the Full Frame costs continue to soften and become ... (cough) (cough) affordable.

    My contention is, that no matter how good a smaller sensor is ... people still want ALL of their pricey lens, not just 2/3rds of it. The wide crowd can attest to this aspect, even more, as they were the real losers when APS-C arrived on the seen, having to replace their $1000 PRIMEs with an additional $500mm UWA to get a darker duplicate shot.

    Yeah ... Full Frame ... back to reality! See ya there! Name:  wave bye.gif
Views: 40
Size:  8.0 KB

    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    Don, I seem to remember you talking up your A700 APS-C as the best thing since sliced bread. Now you've got an A850, all of a sudden the thing is nearly extinct.
    As far as the α700 is concerned ... I still have mine and am quite happy with what it CAN do. If they never released the Full Frame, it would STILL be my primary camera. But ... as I had always hoped, the Full Frame came into existence, after a couple year hiatus and reached my price-point. Comparatively and functionally, the α700 and α850 are darn near identical in overall operation. I could hand my α850 to any α700 user and other than reaching up for the built-in flash, you would hardly notice the difference ... except in what you see in the viewfinder ... yeah, EVERYTHING you used to see in the Maxxum 9000 and 7000. Talk about being right back home! Yeah baby, let's rock! A true 35mm-frame ... w/o the struggle of film processing.

    Are they apples and oranges? Nah, more like a "normal" sized apple compared to a "smaller" apple.

    People had and have been warned against buying APS-C lenses ... as Full Frame bodies were coming, eventually. I have to ask, if you were not ever going to worry about going BACK TO THE FULL FRAME, why warn them?

    I would have to say "eventually" has arrived. It may just be time to start wrapping up the APS-C adventure.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 10-23-2009 at 03:02 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,173
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Now that FF is making its way down to the "masses", the story has indeed changed as the paradigm between them does, financially. Who, in their right mind, would want to keep fighting with a 1.5 or 1.6 x crop of their best and most expensive glass? How bizarre is that?
    Since the masses don't have lots of older glass, this is mostly a moot point. And no one is "fighting" with crop, it's a non-issue. For those without any experience with FF cameras it is a meaningless distinction.
    My contention is, that no matter how good a smaller sensor is ... people still want ALL of their pricey lens, not just 2/3rds of it.
    And the .5% of the public that cares about this will buy FF cameras. The other 99.5% don't even know that the difference exists. They're not clamoring for something that doesn't affect them.

    Are they apples and oranges? Nah, more like a "normal" sized apple compared to a "smaller" apple.
    Most people don't give a rat's ass about the bigger frame, the older glass, the size of your apple. They want good pictures. They want easy size to carry around. They want reasonable cost. To them, the 35mm standards mean absolutely nothing. They're not going to buy lots of lenses so compatibility doesn't mean a lot. They're never going to use the technology to the limits, so most of what you wrote is wasted on them.

    What they want is "good enough" and APS-C provides that in spades.

    -dave-
    (about to purchase a crop DSLR with crop lenses, and will do so without worrying about obsolesce)

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Thumbs up Buy on, brave photographer

    Dave ... best of luck on your personal APS-C Adventure. Name:  welocme to the forum.gif
Views: 34
Size:  6.4 KB

    BTW: I apologize for not being able to profess a more convincing argument. Time will tell ...
    Last edited by DonSchap; 10-23-2009 at 03:02 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Peter, I have always contested that the 35mm-film consortium would want a duplicate methodology in the digital world, where their expensive older glass could make a smooth transition (not cropped) to the new cameras.
    Don, probably 90%+ of that legacy glass doesn't have the resolving power to be used professionally on even current FF bodies, so this argument is absolute garbage.
    E-510
    E-1
    Zuiko 14-54 F2.8-3.5 MkI
    Zuiko 70-300 F4.0-5.6
    Konica Hexanon 52mm F1.8
    Cullmann 2503
    Benro KS-0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •