Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6,359
    Default
    Technically speaking, the first "mainstream" digital images were introduced during the 1984 US political conventions, where one could also fax taken photos across the globe almost instantly. IIRC, it was a Nikon with a Kodak digital back, the images were around 300K and it took about six minutes to send one photo. But it surely beat film.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member Grug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,815
    Default
    I think they could simply put out a C500ii with a S35mm crop of the sensor and call it the C300iii. That would be the most obvious option.

    Saves Canon a fortune in R&D, offers a hugely appealing S35mm camera, and uses economies of scale to make the whole thing more affordable overall.

    I don't really now how else they could craft something to sit between the C200 and the C500ii.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    792
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    There's no brainwashing or conspiracy theories. It's simple; technology has advanced enough to make a variety of products with bigger chips.
    Except full frame for video is actually a step down in most cases. I certainly don't find it to be an advantage.

    I've never shot with my S35 cameras and thought "damn, I wish I had even LESS depth of field."

    It's useful in a stills camera (even then, it's a luxury... APS-C cameras ran the world until the Canon 1Ds then 5D showed up), but for video it actually makes life much much harder (pulling focus with those razor thin DoFs is a struggle for most).
    JERBCO, LLC
    jerbco.com

    Web | Video | Aerial


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6,359
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Grug View Post
    ... I don't really now how else they could craft something to sit between the C200 and the C500ii.
    They could just copy FX-9 on codec crippling or the in-camera 6K-into-4K a la S1 and Z6 (pre-external Raw upgrade). Or they could stick with s35 (though, they probably won't if FX-6 doesn't).

    Then there's media - CFexpress or CFast 2.0.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,534
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by jbregar View Post
    Except full frame for video is actually a step down in most cases. I certainly don't find it to be an advantage.

    I've never shot with my S35 cameras and thought "damn, I wish I had even LESS depth of field."

    It's useful in a stills camera (even then, it's a luxury... APS-C cameras ran the world until the Canon 1Ds then 5D showed up), but for video it actually makes life much much harder (pulling focus with those razor thin DoFs is a struggle for most).
    Except it's not or no one would be offering it including the leaders in Germany.

    It's not about you or what you/people like, but about available technology. It changes products (in all industries).

    And the shallow DOF argument is invalid because I mentioned S35 modes could be had in the cameras like RED, Kinefinity and Blackmagic (windowed under S35) have been doing for years. And you can stop down as full-frame sensors continue to improve with low-light imaging.

    I don't care either way...it's not like it's my call and it doesn't matter to me. I've used FF cameras for like 10 years and I'm done with all of it.


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,027
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by jbregar View Post
    Except full frame for video is actually a step down in most cases. I certainly don't find it to be an advantage.

    I've never shot with my S35 cameras and thought "damn, I wish I had even LESS depth of field."

    It's useful in a stills camera (even then, it's a luxury... APS-C cameras ran the world until the Canon 1Ds then 5D showed up), but for video it actually makes life much much harder (pulling focus with those razor thin DoFs is a struggle for most).
    Except that "Full Frame" ruled in the film days for decades before that and "FF" digital has ruled for at least 15 years, again. And "medium format" digital is more readily and affordably available now, than ever. APS-C "running the world", was just a brief passing spring in the life of photography, with regards to the professional front(think sports and photojournalism). And I'm probably being generous with giving it a whole season. The only times I see still photogs with APS-C still cameras is either as a 3rd string back-up behind their second 1D, it's for video or it's some podunk outlet with no money.

    There were tons of guys still shooting film in the late 90's and early 2000's. I remember runners coming by the stills guys at NFL games grabbing the shot rolls, at least every quarter. The 1Ds came out in '02/'03, so there were plenty of people that never had to touch an APS-C camera and went straight from "FF" film to "FF" digital.
    Last edited by Run&Gun; 01-02-2020 at 10:57 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member Eric Coughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,204
    Default
    So if a full frame camera has better low light such that you can stop it down to the same depth of field as S35 without getting a noisier image, while also having the flexibility to open it up to get shallower depth of field when desired, also with a cleaner image, and due to needing longer focal lengths to achieve the same framing the lenses used have less distortion, and the camera also has an S35 mode for use with S35 lenses, then what exactly is the disadvantage of a full frame camera?


    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,027
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post

    It's not about you or what you/people like, but about available technology. It changes products (in all industries).
    A good, real world example is 4K TV's and 8K TV's. That's where the production lines are moving and what's being built. It doesn't matter that there isn't some overwhelming demand for it or even content. You can buy an 86" 4K TV for less than $2K dollars today. What did a 55" HD set cost 10 years ago? And what will a 90" 8K set cost in five years?


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,764
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Coughlin View Post
    So if a full frame camera has better low light such that you can stop it down to the same depth of field as S35 without getting a noisier image, while also having the flexibility to open it up to get shallower depth of field when desired, also with a cleaner image, and due to needing longer focal lengths to achieve the same framing the lenses used have less distortion, and the camera also has an S35 mode for use with S35 lenses, then what exactly is the disadvantage of a full frame camera?
    Find me some zooms with a decent range and stop that cover full frame. Got a 5:1 T2.8 that's under $30K? Fly-by-wire lenses like the Sonys don't count.
    Mitch Gross
    NYC


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member chris f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,331
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Gross View Post
    Find me some zooms with a decent range and stop that cover full frame. Got a 5:1 T2.8 that's under $30K? Fly-by-wire lenses like the Sonys don't count.
    In that situation wouldn’t you just switch to S35 crop mode in camera? I have to imagine that any new pro-ish FF camera is going to come with the option to choose FF or S35 mode.

    If ARRI has gone FF I have a hard time imagining any other camera manufacturer is going to plant their stake in the ground and only produce pro-level S35 cameras moving forward.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •