The Canon EOS and Photography Forums

Is it just me, or are these prices for these new DSLRs still outrageously expensive?  I started this hobby with 3 Contax bodies, and 5 Zeiss lenses.  The image quality using lower ISO film is at least on par with most digital body out there.  In order to replicate the 35mm field of view on digital, you need to spend at least $2000 on a FF body.  In order to get into the game for 35mm film, a Rebel K2 can be bought brand new for less than $100, and an Elan 7NE can be found for around $350.  Sure film is very inconvenient, but that $1500+ savings can buy a whole lot of film.

I love the results from my 40D, and I yearn for a FF equivalent.  However my salary, family commitments, and the battered economy say otherwise.

For a guy that views photography as a hobby rather than a career, I feel that digital FF bodies are still a long ways off from mass appeal, and that it's hard to get excited over a $3000 24 MP camera.

Sorry for the rant.

Wait until the 5D will be on rebate again. It will (perhaps) be less than 2K.

Ranting are what discussion groups are for!

I seem to recall that the high end pro cameras - which is pretty much what FF is - were always in the several thousand dollar range (or at least an inflation adjusted equivalent), sure you used the same film as a Canon Rebel, but you got a lot of features. And film was not always cheap:   Ken Rockwell just pointed out that Kodachrome was $6.49 a box when it first came out in 1938 and film is still about $6.00 a box!  But that $6.49 was a lot of money in 1938 when it came out!

WIth a FF camera you get a large pixel count, good high ISO performance (know any color ISO 6400 films?) fast frame rate and other "pro" features.

Why do you need  to replicate the 35 mm field of view?  Simply get a lens with the field of view you want.  I admit that this is tough at wide angles, but a factor of 1.6 is not that big of deal.

Full frame is still expensive, but prices are coming down.  Last week the cheapest 20+ MP FF camera was $8000. This week it's $3000.

If you bought an EOS 5D during the spring rebates, the price could have been as low as $1800, which isn't that much different from what it would have cost you to buy a high end film body 10 years ago (EOS-1v or Nikon F5), plus you have no film to buy.

There's absolutely no reason why someone couldn't make a $1500 full frame camera right now if they stuck with a basic sensor (12 MP) and didn't put too many frills on it. Give it another 5 years or so and I suspect we might even see a FF camera for under $1000. Remember that 10 years ago a 2MP small sensor DSLR was over $20,000. These are early days.

There's also not THAT much difference between full frame and crop sensor cameras for most photographers. Unless you regularly make prints larger than 11 x 14", I'd go as far as to say that there's very little difference in image quality, and you can get a good crop sensor camera for $500.

There will always be something more expensive of course. If FF 35mm DSLRs were under $1000, you could equally say that medium format digital is a rich man's game. Whatever you have there will always be something that's "better" and more expensive. If you own a $100,000 Porche, there's always that $300,000 Lamborghini or that $1,000,000+ Bugatti!

Good discussion.
 
I agree that it's entirely possible for a $1,500 FF DSLR to exist today.  It would probably sell quite well too.  But I think there's a difference between what we want as consumers, and what is the most profitable for camera companies.  A $1,500 50D/D300 class camera would have a higher profit margin than a lesser featured FF body.  Things like weather sealing are inexpensive from a raw materials stand point, but are only available in the higher margin bodies.
 
Once FF and APS-C body prices start to overlap, it starts to create confusion amongst less tech savvy consumers.  I think camera manufacturers are keeping FF bodies in the upper echelon of their line up in order to create differentiation between the APS-C models.
 
To many amateur photographers like myself, things like high megapixels, high frame rates, and weather sealing are not much of a priority.  But if we want a FF DSLR, all of the new offerings include them, and charge a premium.  Features that matter most to me are 35mm field of view and shallow depth of field.  I would buy a 6 mp FF camera if it were available.
 
So maybe I have a specialized need, but I feel that it will still be a while before the lines of what we need, what we can afford, and what is profitable for the camera manufacturers converge. 

I totally understand your position. I am also eager to see very cheaper FF body even though its resolution is so low such as 6mp. But it needs to wait a little bit for us. I think we might get 5D around 1000-1300 dollar at the end of next year at least. Or we can buy another FF body around 1500-1700 next year because it now is on the verge of the FF age. Remember! we cannot see any other maker to release FF body without Canon before in the middle of last year. (I don't mean Kodak, Contax). But now we all see there is no superintendent in FF market. I suggest for you to wait a little bit more.