Does it make sense? An $1800 Full frame DSLR from Canon

[Daniel Browning]

You're very welcome, Benjamin.

[The 50D is] a great
camera in my opinion dispite those critical comments and reviews on the
internet.

Agreed. Even after you do go full frame, it's nice to keep a second APS-C body around for telephoto and macro situations where the reach is a big advantage.

Maybe one day camera components will be interchangable the way computer components are.

RED is proposing an interchangable system in their upcoming Scarlet and EPIC digital cinema cameras.

• Brain (sensor and electronics).
• Lens mount (Nikon, Canon, RED, PL, etc.: take your pick).
• I/O module (video/audio stuff)
• Multiple battery options (between 1 and 140 batteries).
• Wireless remote
• Electronic Viewfinder
• Handles
• Recording modules (solide state, compact flash, hdd, etc.)
• LCD and tons of other accessories

The idea is to mix and match whatever features are needed for a given camera.

[ShutterbugJohan]

Daniel: Wow! You know a lot of info. Do you work for Canon? :-) Sorry about my ignorance, but what is a semiconductor mask (reticle)? Thanks!

[UK_Scotty]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]From an engineering point I would say that the 50D is a step to far, a 1.6X sensor at 15mp is going to give problems that are not worth the extra resolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I think (hope) that the next mid range body 60D??? would have to have a larger sensor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] One would hope for full frame but suspect that a 1.3x sensor would be canons preferred option if forced down that route, but I think that all of the manufactures will try desperately to keep the 1.6 and 1.5X sensors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] So a 1.3x or FF sensor at &pound;1200 (proper money) may not be too far away&hellip; <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]What is really needed now is a totally new type of sensor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]

[Keith B]

1.3 crop xxD probably won't happen. It will eliminate use of EF-S lenses.

[UK_Scotty]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]So no downside then!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The cropped lenses from any manufacturer rate along side betamax, hd-dvd, and French cars, just another con to get people to buy and then be forced to buy again!

[Colin]

I don't know....


Practically speaking, I think most DSLR buyers are not photographers truly demanding the highest image quality to the detriment of convenience. What a smaller sensor allows you to do is carry less glass for the task, make the body smaller, etc. Don't get me wrong. I have no intention of giving up a full frame, but then again if you flip things around, I'm not looking to ditch my 1.6 crop body that has an edge on pixel density (over my arcane 5D) and a higher frame rate. Nor do I have any real interest to invest in even larger medium format systems and try to replicate my EF lens collection along that venue.


Smaller sensors simply allow smaller cameras, and the glass is more cost effective from a functional standpoint. There is an advantage in that.


But, still, as much as I admire the 50D, I wouldn't trade my 5D. However, if I could swap out my 30D for a 50D, or a 1DmkII/III, I'd be way happy []

[alexniedra]

I think Canon's long term plans consist of making all cameras full-frame - the advantages of this sensor size are many.


Daniel - Awesome info here. I wish I knew more about the manufacturing process myself.


The next step for Canon is to lower the production costs of these big - and expensive - imagers.

[HiFiGuy1]

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"]So no downside then!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"] The cropped lenses from any manufacturer rate along side betamax, hd-dvd, and French cars, just another con to get people to buy and then be forced to buy again!
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Scotty,


I don't know if I can agree with you on the comparison of EF-S lenses with HD DVD and Betamax. Generally speaking, EF-S lenses are considered to be slightly (or more) inferior when compared with L lenses. In those two examples, the productswere arguable superior to their competition, but lost in the marketplace. French cars, OTOH, I can't speak for, though I'd like to find a really low mileage, clean Renault R5 one day, even if just for a test drive.

[George Slusher]

The "cropped" (EF-S) lenses are necessary to give the "cropped" bodies similar performance to full-frame bodies at wide angles. Seen many 10-22mm zooms for full-frame bodies? The 16-35mm gives the same field-of-view on a full-frame body. The EF-S lenses are also probably less expensive to make for similar performance (smaller sensor size means that it's easier to control distortion, vignetting, etc.). Compare the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ($1030 at B&amp;H) vs the 16-35mm f/2.8L ($1450). (Read Bryan's review to find out that the 17-55mm lens "matches or exceeds the optical performance of my L-series zooms in this similar focal length range," plus it has IS.)


The "cropped" bodies are not going away, so it's not like Betamax or HD-DVD. I have no data, but I would expect that the 1.6x FOV cameras from Canon outsell the full-frame cameras by at least 10-to-1, probably a lot more.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Guys, I think we need to give this up and go shoot some photos yeah?[]