Telephotos of specific speeds cannot be shrunk like wide angle lenses
and normal primes just because a sensor is smaller.
A 300mm f2.8 needs a lens at least 110mm across and it needs multiple
elements because aspherics are not used on large elements yet.
Whether the sensor is 4/3rds or FF, the lens is going to be that big.
> Telephotos of specific speeds cannot be shrunk like wide angle lenses
> and normal primes just because a sensor is smaller.
> A 300mm f2.8 needs a lens at least 110mm across and it needs multiple
> elements because aspherics are not used on large elements yet.
> Whether the sensor is 4/3rds or FF, the lens is going to be that big.
Can't be shrunk!?! Oh yes they can and have been. Both the Minolta Vectis / RD 3000 and the Minolta and Pentax 110's had telephoto lenses and they were smaller for the same magnification. Whilst the overall size needs to be larger than short focal length / prime lenses (to fulfil the sensor size X the magnification / f ratio) they do NOT need to be as large as on a full frame 35mm lens.
>> A 300mm f2.8 needs a lens at least 110mm across and it needs multiple
>> elements because aspherics are not used on large elements yet.
>> Whether the sensor is 4/3rds or FF, the lens is going to be that big.
That is a law of physics, mathematically it has to be 300/2.8=107.14mm but to do optical corrections. 110mm is right. A 300mm f:2.8 will be big, no matter what people think.
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=40554613 >>
>
> Can't be shrunk!?! Oh yes they can and have been. Both the Minolta Vectis
> / RD 3000 and the Minolta and Pentax 110's had telephoto lenses and they
> were smaller for the same magnification. Whilst the overall size needs to
> be larger than short focal length / prime lenses (to fulfil the sensor size
> X the magnification / f ratio) they do NOT need to be as large as on a full
> frame 35mm lens.
>
Yes but the Vectis would still need a huge 300mm f:2.8, to be a 300mm f:2.8. If you wanted the equivalent in image magnification, then a 300/2.8 on FF (24x36mm) can be obtained with a 200mm f:2.8 (200/2.8=71.4mm) or rounded to a 72mm diameter. So it would be smaller and lighter. But to have a similar DOF and Bokeh a 200mm f:2 is closer.
A 300/2.8 and a 200/2.0 are more or less the same size and weight. Canon examples:
200/2.8
Filter Size 72mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight 3.3" x 5.4", 1.7 lbs. / 83.2 x 136.2mm, 765g
200/2.0
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight 5.0 in. x 8.2 in./ 128mm x 208mm (maximum lens length); 5.6 lbs./2,520g
300/2.8
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight 5.0" x 9.9", 5.6 lbs. / 128.0 x 252.0mm, 2550g (lens only)
So going from the 300/2.8 FF, to a 200/2.8 you'll get a lens that weighs in at 65% less.
Pentax 110 is moot, as they didn't have a lens that long. Their biggest lens was the 70 mm f/2.8.
>> A 300mm f2.8 needs a lens at least 110mm across and it needs multiple
>> elements because aspherics are not used on large elements yet.
>> Whether the sensor is 4/3rds or FF, the lens is going to be that
>> big.
> Can't be shrunk!?! Oh yes they can and have been. Both the Minolta
> Vectis / RD 3000 and the Minolta and Pentax 110's had telephoto lenses
> and they were smaller for the same magnification. Whilst the overall
> size needs to be larger than short focal length / prime lenses (to
> fulfil the sensor size X the magnification / f ratio) they do NOT
> need to be as large as on a full frame 35mm lens.
> it is only f6.3 and even at this size needs the tripod to support the
> lens rather than the camera.
Equivalency has nothing repeat, nothing to do with the physics of lenses.
A 300mm lens in order to have an f-ratio of f2.8 NEEDS a front element or "clear aperture" of at least 110mm.
>>> A 300mm f2.8 needs a lens at least 110mm across and it needs multiple
>>> elements because aspherics are not used on large elements yet.
>>> Whether the sensor is 4/3rds or FF, the lens is going to be that
>>> big.
>> Can't be shrunk!?! Oh yes they can and have been. Both the Minolta
>> Vectis / RD 3000 and the Minolta and Pentax 110's had telephoto lenses
>> and they were smaller for the same magnification. Whilst the overall
>> size needs to be larger than short focal length / prime lenses (to
>> fulfil the sensor size X the magnification / f ratio) they do NOT
>> need to be as large as on a full frame 35mm lens.
>> it is only f6.3 and even at this size needs the tripod to support the
>> lens rather than the camera.
> Equivalency has nothing repeat, nothing to do with the physics of lenses.
> A 300mm lens in order to have an f-ratio of f2.8 NEEDS a front element or
> "clear aperture" of at least 110mm.
Yes yes, if it is literally the same focal length then it will be the same size, however the point is that to get the same MAGNIFICATION on a smaller format you only need a smaller lens. Look at all those D lenses that will only fill an APS-C sensor. They are lighter and smaller, but if you use them in full frame then the area outside the sensor area has aberrations at best or nothing at all.
> Yes yes, if it is literally the same focal length then it will be the same > size, however the point is that to get the same MAGNIFICATION on a smaller > format you only need a smaller lens. Look at all those D lenses that will > only fill an APS-C sensor. They are lighter and smaller, but if you use > them in full frame then the area outside the sensor area has aberrations > at best or nothing at all.
Which of course ignores the fact that you can simply crop a FF camera image (same *actual* focal length lens) to achieve results similar to the smaller sensor image. So a 100mm lens on a FF camera with 2:1 crop, is exactly the same as a 100mm lens on a 4/3 camera. Except the FF camera gives you the choice of 100mm field of view, 200mm field of view, or anything in between, with similar levels of performance to the 200mm equiv. only 4/3 camera.
The argument by proponents of smaller sensor camera's that their lenses are smaller is simply "smoke and mirrors" or we'd all be using phone camera's with "telephoto" lenses :-)
On Feb 13, 6:14 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > Equivalency has nothing repeat, nothing to do with the physics of lenses.
> And everything to do with how we use lenses.
> BugBear
Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
36mp FF, more or less. So a Panasonic G3 and a 200mm lens would match
the resolution (sensor differences aside) of a Nikon D800 with a 300mm
lens for a specific object. A 200mm f2.8 lens is considerably smaller
than a 300mm f2.8 lens with the same speed. But it's NOT a 300mm lens
and there are the usual arguments about f2.8 not being worth as much
on a small sensor as a large, so noise control isn't comparable.
In fact, a 200mm lens at f2.0 is almost as heavy as a 300mm f2.8 lens,
it's just shorter. Even then, you won't be able to match the FF
quality with a m4/3rds camera, not with only 1 stop of lens speed
advantage.
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:xcKdnVz4loVTxKfSnZ2dnUVZ7tKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Yes yes, if it is literally the same focal length then it will be the >> same size, however the point is that to get the same MAGNIFICATION on a >> smaller format you only need a smaller lens. Look at all those D lenses >> that will only fill an APS-C sensor. They are lighter and smaller, but >> if you use them in full frame then the area outside the sensor area has >> aberrations at best or nothing at all.
> Which of course ignores the fact that you can simply crop a FF camera > image (same *actual* focal length lens) to achieve results similar to the > smaller sensor image. So a 100mm lens on a FF camera with 2:1 crop, is > exactly the same as a 100mm lens on a 4/3 camera. Except the FF camera > gives you the choice of 100mm field of view, 200mm field of view, or > anything in between, with similar levels of performance to the 200mm > equiv. only 4/3 camera.
> The argument by proponents of smaller sensor camera's that their lenses > are smaller is simply "smoke and mirrors" or we'd all be using phone > camera's with "telephoto" lenses :-)
> Trevor.
That depends - 35mm cameras were limited by the grain size and sensitivity of the films loaded in them. Indeed when David Bailley started using 35mm SLR's professionally ~fifty years ago, he was criticised because the images would be too grainy to print at full page size.
With digital sensors the same resolution can be extract from a smaller image (within the laws of physics obviously), so the camera can be smaller and still capture the subject at the same magnification / field of view.
Obviously less light will enter a smaller lens so for low light work you might still want a bigger lens and bigger sensor, however with cameras now boasting thousands of ASA (against a typically few hundred for film) this will seldom be an issue.
> > Equivalency has nothing repeat, nothing to do with the physics of > > lenses.
> And everything to do with how we use lenses.
> BugBear
Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
36mp FF, more or less. So a Panasonic G3 and a 200mm lens would match
the resolution (sensor differences aside) of a Nikon D800 with a 300mm
lens for a specific object. A 200mm f2.8 lens is considerably smaller
than a 300mm f2.8 lens with the same speed. But it's NOT a 300mm lens
and there are the usual arguments about f2.8 not being worth as much
on a small sensor as a large, so noise control isn't comparable.
In fact, a 200mm lens at f2.0 is almost as heavy as a 300mm f2.8 lens,
it's just shorter. Even then, you won't be able to match the FF
quality with a m4/3rds camera, not with only 1 stop of lens speed
advantage.
If it has the same number of pixels it will. You might have to compensate for the lower light gathering by increasing the exposure time!
> > > Equivalency has nothing repeat, nothing to do with the physics of > > > lenses.
> > And everything to do with how we use lenses.
> > BugBear
> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
> 36mp FF, more or less. So a Panasonic G3 and a 200mm lens would match
> the resolution (sensor differences aside) of a Nikon D800 with a 300mm
> lens for a specific object. A 200mm f2.8 lens is considerably smaller
> than a 300mm f2.8 lens with the same speed. But it's NOT a 300mm lens
> and there are the usual arguments about f2.8 not being worth as much
> on a small sensor as a large, so noise control isn't comparable.
> In fact, a 200mm lens at f2.0 is almost as heavy as a 300mm f2.8 lens,
> it's just shorter. Even then, you won't be able to match the FF
> quality with a m4/3rds camera, not with only 1 stop of lens speed
> advantage.
> If it has the same number of pixels it will. You might have to compensate > for the lower light gathering by increasing the exposure time!
So, will a 300mm f/8 do it for you? Must use a tripod and forget about shooting birds in flight or kids running around.
In article <AuqdnT7Agb59mKDSnZ2dnUVZ8kadn...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
<nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
> 36mp FF, more or less.
4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm on
full frame.
> In article <AuqdnT7Agb59mKDSnZ2dnUVZ8kadn...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
> <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
>> 36mp FF, more or less.
> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm on
> full frame.
Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the number of pixels.
What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full frame sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the area is a rip off.
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:160220121825503191%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>> In article <AuqdnT7Agb59mKDSnZ2dnUVZ8kadn...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
>> <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
>>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
>>> 36mp FF, more or less.
>> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm on
>> full frame.
> Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the number > of pixels.
> What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full frame > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the area is > a rip off.
Not sure what you mean by "D" rated. In the Nikon line, for example,
the D700 isn't even twice the price of the D300s, and that's where the
jump from APS-C to full-frame takes place (they're reasonably similar
otherwise).
<d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
> >>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
> >>> 36mp FF, more or less.
> >> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm on
> >> full frame.
> > Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the number > > of pixels.
> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller > > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full frame > > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the area is > > a rip off.
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
> In article <ylfkhaypxxmm....@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> >>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
>> >>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
>> >>> 36mp FF, more or less.
>> >> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm on
>> >> full frame.
>> > Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the number >> > of pixels.
>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller >> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full frame >> > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the area is >> > a rip off.
>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
Thanks.
And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
>> In article <ylfkhaypxxmm....@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
>> <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> >>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
>>> >>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
>>> >>> 36mp FF, more or less.
>>> >> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm >>> >> on
>>> >> full frame.
>>> > Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the >>> > number
>>> > of pixels.
>>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a >>> > smaller
>>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full frame
>>> > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the >>> > area is
>>> > a rip off.
>>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
>> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).
> Thanks.
> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
> 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.
> -- > David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
Canon 330 1700
Nikon 430 1840
Sony 290 1850
so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS size.
>> Which of course ignores the fact that you can simply crop a FF camera
>> image (same *actual* focal length lens) to achieve results similar to the
>> smaller sensor image. So a 100mm lens on a FF camera with 2:1 crop, is
>> exactly the same as a 100mm lens on a 4/3 camera. Except the FF camera
>> gives you the choice of 100mm field of view, 200mm field of view, or
>> anything in between, with similar levels of performance to the 200mm
>> equiv. only 4/3 camera.
>> The argument by proponents of smaller sensor camera's that their lenses
>> are smaller is simply "smoke and mirrors" or we'd all be using phone
>> camera's with "telephoto" lenses :-)
> That depends - 35mm cameras were limited by the grain size and sensitivity
> of the films loaded in them. Indeed when David Bailley started using 35mm
> SLR's professionally ~fifty years ago, he was criticised because the
> images would be too grainy to print at full page size.
The same goes for comparing a FF film SLR and a half frame film SLR. Lets at
least stick with like for like OK?
> With digital sensors the same resolution can be extract from a smaller
> image (within the laws of physics obviously), so the camera can be smaller
> and still capture the subject at the same magnification / field of view.
For same sensor technology you can have twice the resolution for same noise,
using a sensor twice the size. So yes you can make a camera and sensor
smaller (your choice) but a 100mm lens is still a 100mm lens, whether you
crop before or after the photo is taken.
> Obviously less light will enter a smaller lens
Not obvious at all unless the aperture is smaller as well as the focal
length.
>so for low light work you might still want a bigger lens and bigger sensor,
>however with cameras now boasting thousands of ASA (against a typically few
>hundred for film) this will seldom be an issue.
Right, IF you want a smaller camera, with smaller sensor, the choice is
there. Many people are happy with phone camera's these days. (I'm not)
However there is no magic pudding, fixed cropping in the camera is no
different from cropping afterwards from a strictly quality point of view.
And a 100mm lens is still a 100mm lens. That was my point.
In article <D7-dnVEH-IcQZaPSnZ2dnUVZ8lGdn...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
<nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller
> >>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full frame
> >>> > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the > >>> > area is
> >>> > a rip off.
> >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
> >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa > works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).
wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.
> > And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
> > D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
> > about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
> > difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
> > 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.
> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
> Canon 330 1700
> Nikon 430 1840
> Sony 290 1850
> so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS > size.
bogus comparison.
the cheapest slrs are cheap not just because of a smaller sensor
(that's obviously part of it), but because they lack many other
features in the higher end full frame bodies.
for example, the cheapest full frame nikon has a 51 point autofocus and
internal focus motor, while the cheapest crop sensor nikon has an 11
point autofocus and no internal motor. there are many other differences
between those two, *all* of which contribute to the price difference.
> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
> 2x
Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer to keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit margins!
>> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
>> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
>> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
>> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
>> 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.
>> -- >> David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
> Canon 330 1700
> Nikon 430 1840
> Sony 290 1850
> so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS > size.
But the market for a FF camera with the lowest levels of focussing speed, continuous shooting speed, metal used for chasis, lack of weather sealing, and every other feature the FF camera's have that the very cheapest APS SLR's don't have, would be very limited indeed. At least David is comparing camera's that are fairly similar. You might as well compare the cost of a FF DSLR with a P&S in your example! :-)
However even twice the camera price is rather more than the actual sensor price difference by 4 to 5 times at least!!
In rec.photo.digital Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <d...@dd-b.net> wrote in message > news:ylfklio1rs3p.fsf@dd-b.net...
>> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
>> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
>> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
>> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
>> 2x
> Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer to > keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit > margins!
Doesn't the price of any camera depend on two quantities, firstly the
development and setting up production line costs, which are fixed,
secondly the marginal cost of producing one more camera off the line?
In which case the price will vary a lot depending on how many they can
sell. This is epecially the case for sensors, quite apart from yeild
differences once the production line is running.
> In article <D7-dnVEH-IcQZaPSnZ2dnUVZ8lGdn...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
> <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a >> >>> > smaller
>> >>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ££££ for one with a full >> >>> > frame
>> >>> > sensor (as opposed to £££) - ten times as much for approx twice the
>> >>> > area is
>> >>> > a rip off.
>> >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
>> >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
>> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
>> works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).
> wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
> dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
> some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.
>> > And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
>> > D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
>> > about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
>> > difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
>> > 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.
>> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
>> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
>> Canon 330 1700
>> Nikon 430 1840
>> Sony 290 1850
>> so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS
>> size.
> bogus comparison.
> the cheapest slrs are cheap not just because of a smaller sensor
> (that's obviously part of it), but because they lack many other
> features in the higher end full frame bodies.
> for example, the cheapest full frame nikon has a 51 point autofocus and
> internal focus motor, while the cheapest crop sensor nikon has an 11
> point autofocus and no internal motor. there are many other differences
> between those two, *all* of which contribute to the price difference.
Well compare the cost of full frame film SLR's then - they were just £££ as well.
Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <d...@dd-b.net> wrote in message > news:ylfklio1rs3p.fsf@dd-b.net...
>> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
>> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
>> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
>> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
>> 2x
> Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer > to keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit > margins!
OTOH with my 12Mp phone camera as an example, the writing is on the wall for Kodak and the low end point and shoot camera market is faltering... Most smart phones pack 5-8Mp and will take quite good snaps. Time for this technology to bring down the price of FF SLR's
In article <uf2dnQgTTrxE-dzSnZ2dnUVZ7qGdn...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
<nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
> >> >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
> >> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
> >> works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).
> > wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
> > dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
> > some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.
> You get [serious] vignetting* or even just black.
