Is it the full frame?

[FrankLamont]

Sony will have the full-frame A850 for around $1899 this fall. I think it made sense to go to FF in 2006, at $2100,with the 5D, which delivers about the same IQ as the Nikon D3 or Nikon D700. At under $2k, the new Sony a850 will be putting some downward price pressure on Canon and Nikon.

No, it won't. Canon and Nikon know who they are marketing to.

The a850 is targeted differently, with quite inferior specs to Canon and Nikon models.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Obviously, you do not have a FF camera, or you'd understand the analogy,and would know that the larger sensor cameras are the ones that cost more money,and are used in the more demanding imaging applications. And it has been so for over a century of photography.

?????

Sensors for over a century? Wish I'd known.

 

[TiCoyote]

Derrel, I think you took this personally, and that is a shame. There is no reason to get this upset or insulting.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, since the 1820's, people have been writing with light....Talbotype, Daguerrotype, tintype, ambrotype, cyanotype, glass plates, sheet film, nitrate based rollfilm, safety film, 3-exposure B&W into color in Russian in the 1890's and early 1900's prior to WW I, the Lumiere brothers and Autochrome prior to 1910, early color reversal film in the late 1930's, color negative film, Polaroid instant film in the 1940's, the Disc format in the mid-1980's, the APS-C format in the erly 1990's, then consumer digital, then professional digital, first with CCD imagers, then later with CMOS and LiveMOS sensors.

Bigger has always been better. Professionals have always understood the benefits of using the largest film size convenient to carry--even when that meant 11x14 inch plate film,instead of "quarter plate" 'amateur' cameras.

Same with the 1920's "miniature" camera of choice for hobbyists, the Rolleiflex using 120 rollfilm, as well as folders. Professionals used 5x7 and 4x5 cameras in the 1920's until after WWII. Amateurs started using 35mm, but professionals were using 120 rollfilm and 4x5 for more than three decades. Apparently you missed the history of photography classes..people have been doing photography since the 1820's, all over the world. And the one constant has been that "amatueurs" have small-format cameras market at them, while professionals have used professional cameras since the 1820's.

Here's the first photo, shot in 1826. So, yeah,more than a century. 183 years,to be exact. The capture medium is irrelevant, like your comment.

 

[Antithesis]

Sony will have the full-frame A850 for around $1899 this fall. I think it made sense to go to FF in 2006, at $2100,with the 5D, which delivers about the same IQ as the Nikon D3 or Nikon D700. At under $2k, the new Sony a850 will be putting some downward price pressure on Canon and Nikon.

Ok, with similar IQ do you mean ISO performance or sharpness, contrast and color? The 5D falls on its face at ISO 1250. At 1600, you get banding and hideous red shadows. The D3 is usable at 3200+, making this statement completely untrue. Plus, I'm not a pixel peeper, but I found the images of the 1D Mk3 with its smaller sensor to look very similar and often better than the 5D, ISO performance notwithstanding.

Also, how on earth would a sensor size have to do with print size? Assuming that most people print at a standard of 300dpi... how would sensor size affect it? I'm just curious how this could happen, in layman terms of course. Film and Digital are obviously completely different as I'm sure you are aware. Your totally limited by pixels, which is something that film doesn't have an issue with.

 

[Derrel]

TiCoyote,
It's hard to "read" people on the web....you're new to me, and I am new to you. I think you mistake my passion for photography for personal involvement. I love the art and the craft and the science and the hobby of photography, but I hear a LOT of advertising influence and a LOT of downright misinformation passed round as facts. I also write big,long posts, and have for years. many mistake my passion for caring, I think. I have been interested in photography since the 1970's,and have followed the field's development for a long,long time.

My comments on the sensor size differences are pretty much based on having drunk the Kool-Aid of APS-C for so long, but then finding out that, for myself, you know, there was a reason that the 24x36mm film format took off and held sway for multiple decades; from the late 1920's until 2009, the advantages of a 24x36mm capture, either FILM or DIGITAL, have been kept alive by dozens of manufacturers of lenses,and cameras.

APS-C was a temporary stop gap. The following film formats, all smaller than 24x36, are now dead. 35mm half-frame, 110, Disc, 126, 828, APS-C film normal, APS-C panoramic, APS-C wide aspect. 24x36 is still alive.

Larger film formats have survived since the mid-1920's. 120 rollfilm has been around since the mid-1920's. 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film are still around, but other sixes are now made and sold once-annually by most film makers.

There's a big trend to talk up APS-C as being capable of doing it all. But the Big Three d-slr camera makers all have FF models, mainly because the format and its common focal lengths 8-14-16-17-18-20-24-28-35-50-60-85-100-105-135-180-200-300-400-500-600 are easy to produce,and work quite well on a 24x36 capture size.

An 85mm indoors on APS-C is a nightmare. Try and use one in your living room. On 24x36, an 85mm indoors is a very,very valuable tool. The FF of the Nikon D3 siphoned off Canon's 80/20 pro sports lead down to 50-50 within 18 months,even among shooters who had to replace $35-$45,00- worth of bodies and lenses. That alone speaks to the value/desirability of FF over APS-H and APS-C.

I'm enthusiastic about FF because I think APS-C will be like 110 and 126 film and 828 and the Disc Film formats. NONE of those formats survived once the costs for better technology were made affordable enough for mass marketing. Half-frame 35mm was a lousy format,and have many chances to stick. APS-C is very similar, I think, to half-frame 35mm.

 

[Antithesis]

Oh, and the 5D has a little print button on the back... totally marketed to amateurs. While the D200 on the other hand, with its little sensor, has nearly the exact same button layout as the D2-series. Oh, and those have little sensors too. Nikon marketing is expecting a phonecall from Derrel I think.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

... is irrelevant, like your comment.

Do you like to hear yourself talk or do you want others to listen?

If you want people to listen, change your attitude and if you want people to think you are G.d don't make stupid mistakes.

Not matter how much you write about it, sensors have not been around for a hundred year.

 

[kundalini]

NO

 

[kundalini]

Could be

 

[kundalini]

I'm not sure

 

[kundalini]

Sometimes, less is more.

 

[FrankLamont]

APS-C will hold... full frame will hold, but so will APS-C, in my view.

 

[Antithesis]

edit: odd, this picture got the thread back on topic for exactly two posts.

 

[epp_b]

One thing I recently learned about full-frame sensors is that they give you a larger circle of confusion. Actually... I've known that for a long time, I just didn't quite understand it fully or realize that it made such a significant difference.

What this basically means is that you have about 3-4 additional stops of extra-thin depth of field (ie.: f/2.8 on crop-frame looks like f/8 on full-frame).

I personally find that this property adds a lot of character to photos.