Larger sensor just a luxury?

[EchoingWhisper]

A 35 - 100mm f/1.4 would be thousands of dollars. Wouldn't that make it a luxury if the practicality lies with a full frame?

A 70-200mm is thousands of dollars too. If the 35-100mm 1.4 sells as much as 70-200mm, it wouldn't be much more expensive than 70-200mm anyway.

If someone can make a 35-100mm f/1.4, it is going to be 5 to 10 times more than 70-200mm f/2.8 (assume the same optical quality)

Can you support your claim? Given a similar optical design, the 35-100mm f/1.4 would be worse in resolution compared to 70-200mm, I'd admit, that's why I said the equivalent lens would have worse resolution and a larger format would only bring higher system resolution. A 35-100mm 1.4 would likely cost 1 time more than the 35-100mm 2.0 if both sells as much as each other and is similar in design. Expensive eh? But, how many 35-100mm 2.0 do they sell? How many, compared to the 70-200mm.

 

[usayit]

Smaller format lenses can be more of a practical design that larger format lenses. So any speculation on price is just that ... speculation.

Example.. the Olympus 90-250mm f/2.8 is about $6k. How much is a Canon 200-400L f/4L? How much for a Nikon 200-400L f/4? How much for a Canon 500mm f/4L?

I get the idea of comparison by fixing distance, FOV, entrance pupil, and DOF. I can't see how this translates to anything in the practical real world sense.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Smaller format lenses can be more of a practical design that larger format lenses. So any speculation on price is just that ... speculation.

Example.. the Olympus 90-250mm f/2.8 is about $6k. How much is a Canon 200-400L f/4L? How much for a Nikon 200-400L f/4? How much for a Canon 500mm f/4L?

I get the idea of comparison by fixing distance, FOV, entrance pupil, and DOF. I can't see how this translates to anything in the practical real world sense.

It wouldn't (cause' the full frame is currently the most complete/successful professional line, that's why I wouldn't buy a smaller format if I were a professional, DX cameras can be professional in every way). But I'm just trying to plant something into everyone's head that larger format don't equate to lower depth of field, if the lens (entrance pupil) is similar in size.

 

[usayit]

I understand what you are saying (I have both FF and Micro 4/3). On the other hand, I still don't see a practical real world impact in the hands of a professional shooting in let say low light concert. EV and the resulting quality image is all that matters.. willing to work with differences in the size of the entrance pupil, DOF, and sensor output.


btw... 4/3 lenses didn't sell well probably because the bodies they attach to didn't sell well. Now that micro 4/3 is doing very well in certain markets, most of us are hoping the technology behind some of the 4/3 lenses will eventually translate to the micro 4/3 system (in a more compact form). Just purchased a 45mm f/1.8 Olympus in micro 4/3 format. Wow.... good performer given the price.

 

[o hey tyler]

A 70-200mm is thousands of dollars too. If the 35-100mm 1.4 sells as much as 70-200mm, it wouldn't be much more expensive than 70-200mm anyway.

If someone can make a 35-100mm f/1.4, it is going to be 5 to 10 times more than 70-200mm f/2.8 (assume the same optical quality)

Can you support your claim? Given a similar optical design, the 35-100mm f/1.4 would be worse in resolution compared to 70-200mm, I'd admit, that's why I said the equivalent lens would have worse resolution and a larger format would only bring higher system resolution. A 35-100mm 1.4 would likely cost 1 time more than the 35-100mm 2.0 if both sells as much as each other and is similar in design. Expensive eh? But, how many 35-100mm 2.0 do they sell? How many, compared to the 70-200mm.

If you're paying 1,300USD for a 25mm f/.95 lens, plus ~700USD for a decent M43 camera... when you can get a 5Dmk1 and a 50mm f/1.4 for about $600 less and have the same effect, wouldn't that make the NEX+25mm f/.95 more of a luxury? Luxury items or features are things that we don't need, or are not cost effective, but valuable to the consumer because it's highly sought after by them.

 

[usayit]

So let me get this straight... you are comparing a new camera to an old used one. I see were you are taking this but that's not really getting your point across. The 5D Mark 1 was $3300 when it was first released.

A more fair comparison:

M43 camera (high end) $1000 USD + Olympus 45 f/1.8 ($400)


Canon 5DMark (new) $3200 USD + Canon 100mm f/2.8 ($554)

or even substitute a more expensive lens; Olympus 12mm f/2, to a cheaper Canon 24mm f/2.8 or even the f/1.4L



Again... my feeling is this is still all moot since none of this really translates to anything in real world practical.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Full sensor is about as luxurious as a grey poupon car?

 

[Kolia]

But of Course !

 

[2WheelPhoto]

But of Course !

lol....well the dude driving it didn't think it was funny when I asked! that prolly cuz he was with some gal and she wasn't impressed with him anyway.

 

[o hey tyler]

So let me get this straight... you are comparing a new camera to an old used one. I see were you are taking this but that's not really getting your point across. The 5D Mark 1 was $3300 when it was first released.

A more fair comparison:

M43 camera (high end) $1000 USD + Olympus 45 f/1.8 ($400)


Canon 5DMark (new) $3200 USD + Canon 100mm f/2.8 ($554)

or even substitute a more expensive lens; Olympus 12mm f/2, to a cheaper Canon 24mm f/2.8 or even the f/1.4L



Again... my feeling is this is still all moot since none of this really translates to anything in real world practical.

It's not about specific cameras though, it's about sensor size. If you want to get the desired effect economically it's easier to do on a FF sensor than a M43 sensor. That's all I'm saying.

 

[usayit]

I see... but its tough to make a comparison considering that even the cheapest full frame cameras are quite a bit expensive than even the most expensive M43 cameras. An addition, the fast prime micro 43 lenses are priced pretty competitively as well...

Olympus 12mm f/2 $800
Olympus 45mm f/1.8 $400
Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 $300
Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 $340
Panasonic-Leica 25 f/1.4 Summilux $540
Panasonic-Leica 45 f/2.8 macro $670
Panasonic 8mm f/3.5 $630

and that's not considering the numerous high speed non-native (non-AF) lenses that are available via adaptation, the Olympus 43 lenses that do adapt with AF, and the oddities like the voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 which is completely manual.


Its the type of comparison that one can attempt with FF DSLRs versus digital MF cameras of several years old. When it comes down to it... I really don't think it matters. Both have their adv/disadv and when your specific/personal needs are met by either than it stops being a luxury (putting aside that all cameras are pretty much a luxury to a hobbyist). Let's take zooms. Much like the 90mm-250mm f/2.8 and the 35-100mm f/2 there are no other zooms in a full frame system equivalent in the same price range. Its a tough comparison.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

top~

 

[EchoingWhisper]

It really depends on what you do. If you need resolution, the extra chunk of sensor ain't gonna cost much compared to the lens you are buying. But if you don't need much resolution, the extra chunk of sensor would not be worth it. Please don't use the word luxury anymore, it isn't relevant for this thread, and I've already admitted it.

 

[usayit]

It really depends on what you do. If you need resolution, the extra chunk of sensor ain't gonna cost much compared to the lens you are buying. But if you don't need much resolution, the extra chunk of sensor would not be worth it. Please don't use the word luxury anymore, it isn't relevant for this thread, and I've already admitted it.

So what term shall I use?

btw.. you cant assume that the extra chunk of sensor X is not going to cost much as lens Y or vice versa. There are way too many variables.... reference resources to support your statement? First of all, the real estate (and waste )of a silicon wafer between larger amd smaller sensors is not a linear relationship....

 

[EchoingWhisper]

It really depends on what you do. If you need resolution, the extra chunk of sensor ain't gonna cost much compared to the lens you are buying. But if you don't need much resolution, the extra chunk of sensor would not be worth it. Please don't use the word luxury anymore, it isn't relevant for this thread, and I've already admitted it.

So what term shall I use?

btw.. you cant assume that the extra chunk of sensor X is not going to cost much as lens Y or vice versa. There are way too many variables.... reference resources to support your statement? First of all, the real estate (and waste )of a silicon wafer between larger amd smaller sensors is not a linear relationship....

Yes, I know that.