LetTheRightLensIn said:"And finally: the rumored high megapixel DSLR (at least 46MP) could be announced during Q3. Unfortunately no specs here, except that it will have 6fps, and a newly designed sensor with very good low ISO performance. No hints about the name, but it will not have the “D” in the name. It's said to be something “very new” and specifically aimed at studio photography. Prototypes already undergoing tests."
Jesse said:Do people actually care about APS-C cameras anymore?
c.d.embrey said:Small sensors are the future, FF is the past. Expect to see more Pros drop FF and get APS-C/DX and M4/3 in the future.
In 5-7 years (maybe a lot sooner) people will look at FF the same way they do MFD today. Sensor technology gets better every generation -- the next generation m4/3 sensor will be better than a present-day 5D3, count-on-it.
c.d.embrey said:Jesse said:Do people actually care about APS-C cameras anymore?
Small sensors are the future, FF is the past. Expect to see more Pros drop FF and get APS-C/DX and M4/3 in the future.
In 5-7 years (maybe a lot sooner) people will look at FF the same way they do MFD today. Sensor technology gets better every generation -- the next generation m4/3 sensor will be better than a present-day 5D3, count-on-it.
K-amps said:AmbientLight said:Renzokuken said:Hope technology = significant improvements in sensor architecture and design
been seeing a lot of that from competing brands like Sony and Nikon, wait Nikon's using Sony's sensor right? So I guess it's just Sony??
Yes, as far as I know sensor technology is from Sony. Nikon is limited to provide electronics and software in addition to Sony's sensor. That must be fairly limiting on a development side (i.e. not to be able to design/control the entire setup), but Nikon is still able to provide something good in this situation, which is quite impressive.
For the Same sensor in Sony Cams and in Nikons... the Nikons seem to extract better DR and noise for the same analog sensor... Tells me Nikon's AD and amplification algo's are perhaps superior...
In some ways, Canon is like Intel... Nikon like AMD... AMD once beat Intel to the 1Ghz mark, caught it napping, because Intel was both arrogant and lazy... but then it came back with a Bang and AMD is still playing catch up after a decade... so there is precedence in the tech industry for catching up and reversing the lead. AMD is now slashing prices to make it's products interesting.... Nikon is already feeling the pressure and competatively pricing it's products trying to get back market share...
This year Nikon sensors have been good. Lets see what Canon brings to the table with the 0.18 uM process next year...
RLPhoto said:135 F/1.8L IS USM <----- I Really wants one.
K-amps said:In some ways, Canon is like Intel... Nikon like AMD... AMD once beat Intel to the 1Ghz mark, caught it napping, because Intel was both arrogant and lazy... but then it came back with a Bang and AMD is still playing catch up after a decade...
Nikon is already feeling the pressure and competatively pricing it's products trying to get back market share...
Neuro, problem is that the 28-300 is $3k. The 18-200 and 270 can be had for $500-$600. Big difference for a dad wanting to take decent pictures on vacation. Also, I don't think I'd want to carry the L-series glass around my neck all day at Disney World. I think on technicallity Roger is incorrect, but on intent he is spot on.18-200mm is equivalent to 29-320mm on FF, and both Nikon and Canon offer 28-300mm full frame lenses. My 28-300L does very well as a 'one lens solution'.
maxxevv said:RLPhoto said:135 F/1.8L IS USM <----- I Really wants one.
135 f/1.4L IS USM
That would put it in relative aperture size and MSRP to the 200 f/2.0L IS USM .... ;D
c.d.embrey said:Jesse said:Do people actually care about APS-C cameras anymore?
Small sensors are the future, FF is the past. Expect to see more Pros drop FF and get APS-C/DX and M4/3 in the future.
In 5-7 years (maybe a lot sooner) people will look at FF the same way they do MFD today. Sensor technology gets better every generation -- the next generation m4/3 sensor will be better than a present-day 5D3, count-on-it.
Promature said:Neuro, problem is that the 28-300 is $3k. The 18-200 and 270 can be had for $500-$600. Big difference for a dad wanting to take decent pictures on vacation. Also, I don't think I'd want to carry the L-series glass around my neck all day at Disney World. I think on technicallity Roger is incorrect, but on intent he is spot on.18-200mm is equivalent to 29-320mm on FF, and both Nikon and Canon offer 28-300mm full frame lenses. My 28-300L does very well as a 'one lens solution'.
if you shoot Nikon, and you're lusting after the 24-70 F4 IS, and the $1500 price isn't too much of an issue, why don't you just buy a Nikon 24-70 for 1500ish used? the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is an amazing lens, and I would never trade mine for an F4 of anything, no matter how sharp it claims to be or how much IS it has.weekendshooter said:Promature said:Neuro, problem is that the 28-300 is $3k. The 18-200 and 270 can be had for $500-$600. Big difference for a dad wanting to take decent pictures on vacation. Also, I don't think I'd want to carry the L-series glass around my neck all day at Disney World. I think on technicallity Roger is incorrect, but on intent he is spot on.18-200mm is equivalent to 29-320mm on FF, and both Nikon and Canon offer 28-300mm full frame lenses. My 28-300L does very well as a 'one lens solution'.
Nikon's 28-300 costs around $1k, while its 18-200 is $850 (new prices), so the gap in price is closing. I predict that the performance gulf between these two lenses will also be nullified whenever the next 28-300 comes out, considering how much of both Canon and Nikon's attention is going to developing new full frame lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon developed a similar non-L lens considering the popularity of Nikon's 28-300.
I think the real discrepancy between full frame and crop is the prohibitive size and price of full-frame standard zooms. A third party 17-50 IS can be had for ~$600, and Canon's superb 17-55/2.8 IS is around $1k. The cheapest full-frame standard zoom with comparable performance is Tamron's $1300 24-70 VC, and I'm hesitant to spend that much on a third-party lens that has been shown to have build quality issues (Roger's report) and IQ inconsistencies (the-digital-picture's sample shots).
I'm considering the 24-120, but I've only been able to find mixed reviews; the consensus is that it's not as good as Canon's 24-105 while being more expensive. At $1300, it's the same price as Tamron's 24-70, which then makes me lust after Nikon's 24-70. Any such comparison makes me long for a reasonably priced standard zoom with fewer compromises than any currently available models. Ironically, I'd probably grab the upcoming 24-70/4 IS if I shot Canon considering the sharpness and light weight it promises. I had fun reading the chagrin on this forum the day it was announced while thinking that I'd love to have it here on the dark side ;D
neuroanatomist said:Will there be a set of new f/0.6 - f/0.9 prime lenses to accompany the next gen m4/3 sensors, or will the laws of physics be altered to give thin DoF with a 2x crop sensor?
Ben Taylor said:I'm pretty much lost for words after this statement...
Those who shoot full frame do so for a number of reasons. One of the biggest for me is the shallow DOF characteristics and closely following that is high ISO noise performance.
As Neuro said, the laws of physics tell me your theory is fundamentaly flawed.
Nikon's 28-300 costs around $1k, while its 18-200 is $850 (new prices), so the gap in price is closing. I predict that the performance gulf between these two lenses will also be nullified whenever the next 28-300 comes out, considering how much of both Canon and Nikon's attention is going to developing new full frame lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon developed a similar non-L lens considering the popularity of Nikon's 28-300.
EchoLocation said:if you shoot Nikon, and you're lusting after the 24-70 F4 IS, and the $1500 price isn't too much of an issue, why don't you just buy a Nikon 24-70 for 1500ish used? the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is an amazing lens, and I would never trade mine for an F4 of anything, no matter how sharp it claims to be or how much IS it has.