Future of sensors
- This topic has 13 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated Apr 9, 2009 at 1:32 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Where do you see the future of DSLRs for photographers concentrating on people and outdoor-related images or, for that matter, photographers in general? Will the full frame sensor become the equivalent of medium format (perhaps extremely useful within its niche) or will it take over the market for most pros and serious to semi-serious hobbyists? Does the DX format have real staying power (like I think it does)?
Thanks for your thoughts on the topic.
I think the image quality capability of DSLRs (certainly the high end, most of the mid-level, and even many of the entry-level bodies) is more than what is required by most fly fishing magazines.
Hopefully manufactorers stop the insane MP race. So whether it’s FF or “crop” theres really little need for these huge files, beyond maybe commercial print.
full frame vs crop?
I think both have their relative merits, nor do I think the manufactorers will “drop” crop. Right now I’m strating the mental gymnastics for deciding my next body. It could be my “main” body if I decide to hold out for a 1DMKiv next year, or I might opt for the FF 5DmkII, or the 50D. Either of those would serve as a second body, in order to maximise their strength.1D for people/landscapes/action
50D with super tele for wildlifeor
5D for FF landscape, short focal length stuff
1D for action/wildlifeThese days noise isn’t much an issue, I mean really. Even if you “can” shoot fairly clean images at ISO 6400 without fast glass, would you want to???? And how often would you need to???
Bells and whistles are bells and whistles. Whether its FF or crop Id like to see advancements in dynamic range thresholds vs 20MP+ files, ISO 12,000, video etc.
There’ll always be a market for crop sensors imo.
Aaron, I have a pretty good idea what gear you have already and I know that you have been helping family members research the DSLR game recently, so here a few thoughts to noodle around. The DX vs FX game gets pretty confusing when you start to do the hardcore research and comparison shopping; the lenses, the sensor, the megapixs, etc.. But remember, many professional photographers have “both” a DX and an FX body and a compliment of lenses. However, the real issue for the amateur photographer is not the camera body per se but the “lenses” you will need to “match” the bodies at an affordable yet effective range of coverage.
For example, I love my D300 and [fortunately or unfortunately] I have three “DX” lenses so I’m already at a price point where I need to keep my DX setup (i.e. camera body and lens compliment). However, with the medical macro photography and the fly art stuff I am certainly at the point where my non-DX 105mm wants to live on a full frame body. That lens is good on a the DX/D300 but it is awesome on a D700/full-frame body. Having a true 105mm instead of an effective 155mm for high-resolution macro (or even portraits) would be killer and I saw first hand how it performed on a D700 last weekend and my heart skipped a beat. But that was comparing a regular (i.e. non DX) lens on the two different bodies. IF you only have DX lenses then they will not work on the FX, but the FX bodies can be switched to DX to accommodate the DX lenses but you loose the full frame ability.
On the other hand, IF you buy only regular (i.e. non DX) lenses then you have distinct advantages of utilizing both DX and FX bodies. For example, a 70-300mm lens on an FX body is a fantastic lens and very versatile but you can also use it on a DX body and take advantage of the “crop” or “magnification” factor and that same lens becomes a good wildlife/sports lens for zooming in tight. My ultimate goal is to own both a DX and FX body but focus (no pun intended) more on regular/non-DX lens purchases but keep both bodies in the bag for different applications. Either way, the sensors are just a tool to get you the picture, the lenses are the real issue to ask yourself. Thankfully, regular lenses never go out of style, but the DX lenses can cause headache because they can only be effectively matched to a DX sensor. That is why everyone is starting to chat about the future of DX vs FX.
One comment about portrait photography and the “prime” lenses. This is where things get confusing and potentially expensive. That’s because a lot of internet chatter is about fast lenses and wide open apertures and low light, etc. We often read about 50mm/f1.4 and the like but those lenses are best in the FX format because they come alive without restriction/crop, yet many still own them and they do work on the DX sensors. If you want to truly smile, compare any 50mm on an FX vs a DX, the lens will tell you where it wants to live. That is the very reason Nikon just released the new 35mm DX lens to satisfy the DX market with a fast prime lens that is effectively 50mm.
Finally, with the CS4 software you have, the sky is the limit for post production and you can make your shots pop like a firecracker. I believe that is often overlooked as a potential solution and often people think the only option is to upgrade the body to FX or the like. There is a lot of punch in the DX cameras and many are offering about 12mp which is plenty. Also, how often do we really shoot at f1.4? You can get that creamy depth-of-field look with a kit lens by using post production techniques that are shown in most of the digital photography books.
I’ve had the Canon DsIII’s for over a year now and recently tried the Nikon D3x for a few days and I think I can say this about DSLR’s sensors – they have reached the limit of what most of the lenses can resolve and any future updates are going to get tricky if they’re just based on resolution.
More then new cameras, I would like to see some new lenses.. 😉
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Thanks for all the great comments.
At the moment, I am torn between the Nikon 17-55 2.8 (DX only) and the Nikon 24-70 2.8 (compatible with full FX and cropped DX sensor).
Aaron,
I have, or have had, both those lenses (and the 17-35mm as well). The 17-35 is of course a “classic”, but when I checked my older one against the (then) new 17-55mm, the latter was sharper, using a DX-sensor body.
The 24-70mm is just a fantastic lens.
Price aside, one thing you’ll find, and it may or may not be an issue for you, is that the 24-70 weighs about as much as a tank (no one will ever question its build quality). The 17-55 is somewhat lighter (a big truck). The 24-70 balances well on the larger bodies. Again, though, the weight might not be an issue for you.
The two more significant differences are 1) the wide end 24-70mm coverage on a DX body is only equivalent to approx. 36mm, which isn’t too wide. The 17-55mm is approx 25mm, which is a bit better. I think wide is very important for fly fishing shots.
But, that aside, most reviews suggest the 24-70 is one of Nikon’s best ever, and, as you noted, does double duty on FX sensors.
If I were starting over, and perhaps going to use both DX and FX bodies, or at least not wanting to restict myself to DX bodies, I’d fret a lot about the price and weight, and then probably spring for the 24-70. But then, I’d want to get the 14-24 too . . .
At times like that, I recall how I used to be perfectly happy with a film body and three prime lenses, a 24mm, the 55 macro, and a 105mm. I did have a couple of longer lenses, but didn’t typically carry them on the water. That body and three lenses weighed about as much as a D3-size body and that 24-70.
If low light/high ISO is not a consideration for you, and weight is a consideration, a DX body and DX lenses should be considered. The D300 (I’m sure a D400 will be along soon), and 2-3 lenses (12-24mm, a mid-range zoom, and perhaps a moderate tele zoom and/or macro) would be a much smaller outfit, cheaper, and cover most situations (with a good flash of course).
Hi
Interesting thread:)- The weight issue is something that really does need to be accounted for. I have a Nikon 300 f2.8
Funny I just finished up a rather rediculous thread on another board because I had the audacity to suggest that anyone considering one of Canons 70-200s (f2.8 vs F4) should give serious thought to the weight differentials.
Alot of people shrug off wieght considerations (whats a pound or two) until they slog a long day lugging 10,20,30 or 60 pounds. Or have to leave a $2,000 lens at home because they are over weight alllowances on planes, when a lens half the price and half the weight migth have made a big difference.
That said.
My 24-70 f2.8 is glued to my body, its my work horse when I’m not shooting wildlife. But it’s a lens I take 90% of my images with, so I can “justify” the weight. For a secondary thats going to be in the pack, on hand for those occasions where its range is needed, weight imo is a real issue not enough people pay close attention to until its too late.It is good to see so many photographers with the big bucks to spend! Really, the great thing about glass is it holds its value so much better (now) than camera bodies, which are today’s equivalent of computers that will be devalued by 50-60 percent within 18 months. It’s a sad day in Nikon world (my world) when they finally succumb to lenses exclusive to cameras in their line, but we have been programmed to readily accept evolutionary change (DSLR’s that still look like 35mm’s) over revolutionary changes (like a locking, theft proof, DSLR).
We seem to be wandering off track a bit, but in mid range zooms, I started with the Nikon 35-70/2.8, added a 17-55 when I went digital, picked up a 28-70 (aka, the Beast) that I couldn’t pass up, and now use the 24-70 almost exclusively. While I got some good shots with the 17-55, I like the image quality of the 28-70 better, and think I will like the 24-70 best of all.
That said, I think Buzz’s advice is right on.
I don’t like Nikon prime lenses at all, but that new ‘G’ 24-70 is just awesome, and would have to be the best zoom there is..
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
They are beautiful for sure – fast, sharp and bright. It is amazing how small but heavy they are. I will stick with my 28-70 because it is my least favorite focal length, and the 17-55 crosses so deeply into the 28-70’s range. Anyone looking to buy one, send me a PM, and I will put you in touch with a photographer here in Dallas that has one for sale. Shannon
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.