Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: fike on February 16, 2009, 11:06:58 am
-
I had the opportunity this weekend to shoot with a 10-22 EF-S lens on my Canon 50D. It's a fun lens, but it seemed like a specialty lens that I would put on for special shots and then immediately switch for a more normal lens like my 24-70.
I got to thinking about buying a 10-22. The price is very reasonable for its quality and unique capabilities. It is really fun, funky-wide. Great! But I had one problem. I couldn't get over the suspicion that in 1 year or 3 years, APS-C finally may be phased out. The manufacturers are swearing that isn't the case. Perhaps they are right, but I would imagine that the advanced amateur or pro who currently buys a 50D will eventually expect full-frame in the X0D series. The APS-C will probably be relegated to the ghetto of entry-level DSLRs.
I think that the 50D has proven that increased resolutions and better low-light performance on the smaller sensor will become increasingly more difficult to achieve if at all possible. So, I think it is probably foolish to invest in EF-S lenses--the 10-22 being one of the better ones (I have also considered the 17-55 f/2.8 IS). Unfortunately, for a true wide-angle lens on the cropped sensor 50D, there aren't any really wide choices. I guess I am considering the 16-35 f/2.8 II. I am not sure I really love all that super wide stuff--too much distortion at edges. So, with a 16-35, I can always shoot panoramic if I really need super-wide angle.
Is the APS-C going to become a relic in the near future? Will it be relegated to entry-level DSLRs? Considering these issues, are EF-S lenses a good investment?
-
No.
No.
Only you know that.
-
No.
No.
Only you know that.
I suspect that I touched a nerve. That wasn't my intention. I have been very happy with the APS-C sensor on my 30D and now my 50D, but I do believe that they really can only have one or two more X0D bodies at the APS-C sensor size. I strongly prefer the added features of the higher-level camera (versus the rebels), but due to the pixel density I can't see how they can do much more than add software and handling features.
EF-S lenses seem like a poor investment. There are only really two quality EF-S lenses, the 10-22 and the 17-55 f/2.8IS. In the absence of any new high-quality EF-S lenses, I would think canon is thinking the same thing: APS-C is going to be reserved for smaller entry-level cameras as full-frame moves down market. Is that 2 years out or 5 years out? I wouldn't guess, but it seems to be inevitable.
-
I had the opportunity this weekend to shoot with a 10-22 EF-S lens on my Canon 50D. It's a fun lens, but it seemed like a specialty lens that I would put on for special shots and then immediately switch for a more normal lens like my 24-70.
I got to thinking about buying a 10-22. The price is very reasonable for its quality and unique capabilities. It is really fun, funky-wide. Great! But I had one problem. I couldn't get over the suspicion that in 1 year or 3 years, APS-C finally may be phased out. The manufacturers are swearing that isn't the case. Perhaps they are right, but I would imagine that the advanced amateur or pro who currently buys a 50D will eventually expect full-frame in the X0D series. The APS-C will probably be relegated to the ghetto of entry-level DSLRs.
I think that the 50D has proven that increased resolutions and better low-light performance on the smaller sensor will become increasingly more difficult to achieve if at all possible. So, I think it is probably foolish to invest in EF-S lenses--the 10-22 being one of the better ones (I have also considered the 17-55 f/2.8 IS). Unfortunately, for a true wide-angle lens on the cropped sensor 50D, there aren't any really wide choices. I guess I am considering the 16-35 f/2.8 II. I am not sure I really love all that super wide stuff--too much distortion at edges. So, with a 16-35, I can always shoot panoramic if I really need super-wide angle.
Is the APS-C going to become a relic in the near future? Will it be relegated to entry-level DSLRs? Considering these issues, are EF-S lenses a good investment?
My 2 cents worth - Couple of things to bear in mind: all other things being equal, cropped sensor cameras are always going to be smaller and lighter than full frame. Also, the so-called "telephoto effect" is for some people an advantage, not a problem to be worked around. For me, never having shot film seriously, and starting out with cropped sensors, I'm accustomed to the way the lenses work with these cameras. Maybe I just don't know what I'm missing, but I've never felt the need for super-wide lenses. I do own a 17-50, but rarely use it. A 28-135 is my "walkaround" lens. If I need "more picture", I'll do as you suggest and shoot panoramically - not for a "panoramic" effect, but just to spread the info over more (larger) pixels. I know of course that this is not always possible, but something or other is always not possible. In many situations, tightly framing a bird in a tree (for example) isn't possible with a light 70-300 lens on a FF camera, but would be on APS-C. (I know you can crop if you have enough pixels, but you better start with LOTS.) So, for these reasons, when I upgraded recently, I stuck with APS-C (and not the latest/greatest - I chose a 40d over 50d for the reason that you alluded to, i.e. pushing the limit of pixel density). Of course, $$$$ figures into this too, but I think even if money were not an object, I would have made the same choices given what's available right now for my purposes.
Now, having said all that, do I think EF-S lenses are a good investment? For me, no, not relatively expensive ones like the 10-22. I like my $400 Tamron 17-50 - not so great build quality, but quite good image quality, light in weight and as wide as I'll ever need for my tastes. But if I'm spending a lot, I want it to work with anything I might get in the future. The "sweet spot" effect probably doesn't hurt, either, though I don't know from personal experience whether this is real or just theoretical.
BTW - whatever gear you're using, you're obviously doing a pretty good job with it.
-
EF-S lenses seem like a poor investment.
Yes and no I would say.
Yes (or better maybe, we're talking about risk, not certainty) in terms of long term and resale value
No in terms of what you can shoot with it in the coming 3-5 years on yor APS-C camera. Not every subject can be stitched
I have a Sigma 10-20 on my APS-C body (don't have anything with a larger sensor) and love what it does for me.
Also my personal guess (nothing more than that, maybe even wishfull thinking) is that serious amateur bodies will still remain available in APS-C a long time at a significant lower cost vs. the cheapest Full Frame.
-
I suspect that I touched a nerve.
Nope. But the subject has been done to death. (Maybe not here, tho.) Consider my response just a vote as to where I think the market is going. (Or in this case staying.)
EF-S lenses seem like a poor investment.
I don't think of lenses as an investment. At least no more so than buying a fax machine is an investment.
As an aside do you think Canon is going to stick with a bayer array sensor?
-
I had the opportunity this weekend to shoot with a 10-22 EF-S lens on my Canon 50D. It's a fun lens, but it seemed like a specialty lens that I would put on for special shots and then immediately switch for a more normal lens like my 24-70.
I got to thinking about buying a 10-22. The price is very reasonable for its quality and unique capabilities. It is really fun, funky-wide. Great! But I had one problem. I couldn't get over the suspicion that in 1 year or 3 years, APS-C finally may be phased out. The manufacturers are swearing that isn't the case. Perhaps they are right, but I would imagine that the advanced amateur or pro who currently buys a 50D will eventually expect full-frame in the X0D series. The APS-C will probably be relegated to the ghetto of entry-level DSLRs.
I think that the 50D has proven that increased resolutions and better low-light performance on the smaller sensor will become increasingly more difficult to achieve if at all possible. So, I think it is probably foolish to invest in EF-S lenses--the 10-22 being one of the better ones (I have also considered the 17-55 f/2.8 IS). Unfortunately, for a true wide-angle lens on the cropped sensor 50D, there aren't any really wide choices. I guess I am considering the 16-35 f/2.8 II. I am not sure I really love all that super wide stuff--too much distortion at edges. So, with a 16-35, I can always shoot panoramic if I really need super-wide angle.
Is the APS-C going to become a relic in the near future? Will it be relegated to entry-level DSLRs? Considering these issues, are EF-S lenses a good investment?
Presumably the manufacturers need to maintain the hierarchy of their products. What could they put at the top end of ranges to differentiate them from the middle if FF became as common as you suggest might happen? Still more pixels?
-
Nope. But the subject has been done to death. (Maybe not here, tho.) Consider my response just a vote as to where I think the market is going. (Or in this case staying.)
I don't think of lenses as an investment. At least no more so than buying a fax machine is an investment.
As an aside do you think Canon is going to stick with a bayer array sensor?
I take a longer view on lenses as an investment, so I don't like to see them as commodities. I have some nikkor and olympus lenses that are 30 years old. They are neat lenses that still work--work really well as antique decorations on a shelf in my studio.
As for the sensor, certainly a substantial technology node change could be a game changer. The Foveon seems to give us some idea of what the alternatives might be, but it falls down in sensitivity and resolution when compared to the best of the Bayer Array sensors.
You are right to point out when there might be some revolutionary technology change that disrupts commonly held assumptions. time will tell. I also think if canon continues to make mediocre EF-S lenses, that will tell us something.
Another way to view the possibility of some disruptive technology is that it would be likely to come in at the high-end allowing the standard full-frame Bayer Array to move down into the mid-range cameras.
-
fike,
1. This prediction has been around at least since the 1Ds was announced almost seven years ago, and persists despite no sign of APS-C slipping from its overwhelming dominance of DLSR sales, including recent APS-C models at well above entry level, the 50D, D300, A700 and K20D, which together greatly outsell all larger format DSLR's combined, as far as I can tell.
2. Do you think that everyone wanting more than entry level SLR kit needs or wants significantly more than 15MP? If not, why would it matter if APS-C could not go much beyond that? (Not that I believe that APS-C is so close to its sensor resolution limit; lens resolution might be the limit that comes first.)
3. APS-C is not the same as EF-S, so it misses the point to look only at the limitations of Canon's EF-S offerings. Canon has in many ways held the level of its EF-S offerings a bit lower than other DLSR makers. The Nikon DX and Pentax DA lens systems offer a number of lenses at well above the "entry level", and I would include Nikon's latest lens, the 35/1.8 DX, in that list. (Not to mention FourThirds lenses, another system that shows no trend towards becoming "entry level only".) Actually, even Canon has more than those two EF-S lenses of "better than entry level" quality: add the 17-85 and the 60/2.8 EF-S macro lens for example.
Further, APS-C DSLR's can happily use 35mm format lenses for most telephoto focal lengths, so EF-S, DX etc. do not need to offer good lenses at all focal lengths. In particular the 17-85 EF-S and 17-70 DX reach long enough to match up nicely with 35mm format 70-200 and 70-300 telephoto zooms.
4. As someone else has said, size and weight advantages will always be a reason for some serious photographers to choose APS-C (or FourThirds) gear, even those who also use 35mm format or medium format gear for other purposes. Our common interest in hiking photography is one example!
-
fike,
1. This prediction has been around at least since the 1Ds was announced almost seven years ago, and persists despite no sign of APS-C slipping from its overwhelming dominance of DLSR sales, including recent APS-C models at well above entry level, the 50D, D300, A700 and K20D, which together greatly outsell all larger format DSLR's combined, as far as I can tell.
That is a very valid point! Though it doesn't mean that it might not be nearing the end now.
2. Do you think that everyone wanting more than entry level SLR kit needs or wants significantly more than 15MP? If not, why would it matter if APS-C could not go much beyond that? (Not that I believe that APS-C is so close to its sensor resolution limit; lens resolution might be the limit that comes first.)
You are right that the sensor is not the limiting factor, but we know that current high-quality lenses on the 15MP sensor become diffraction limited at lower f-stops than previous generations. This is actually the crux of my issue. The manufacturer could choose to make new lenses that are better quality, but I think it is easier to make larger sensors. CMOS sensors are cheap and easy to make--when compared to high-quality optics. I think that incremental improvements in image quality will need to be made at the sensor level instead of at the glass level.
3. APS-C is not the same as EF-S, so it misses the point to look only at the limitations of Canon's EF-S offerings. Canon has in many ways held the level of its EF-S offerings a bit lower than other DLSR makers. The Nikon DX and Pentax DA lens systems offer a number of lenses at well above the "entry level", and I would include Nikon's latest lens, the 35/1.8 DX, in that list. (Not to mention FourThirds lenses, another system that shows no trend towards becoming "entry level only".) Actually, even Canon has more than those two EF-S lenses of "better than entry level" quality: add the 17-85 and the 60/2.8 EF-S macro lens for example.
Not sure if I agree on the 17-85, but yes, the 60mm f/2.8 macro is quite good. My question is whether they will continue to make high-quality EF-S lenses.
Further, APS-C DSLR's can happily use 35mm format lenses for most telephoto focal lengths, so EF-S, DX etc. do not need to offer good lenses at all focal lengths. In particular the 17-85 EF-S and 17-70 DX reach long enough to match up nicely with 35mm format 70-200 and 70-300 telephoto zooms.
Of course you can use the standard EF or L lenses on APS-C. that is what I have done because I think the standard 35mm format lens is a better investment.
4. As someone else has said, size and weight advantages will always be a reason for some serious photographers to choose APS-C (or FourThirds) gear, even those who also use 35mm format or medium format gear for other purposes. Our common interest in hiking photography is one example!
Yep, that is true...though I prefer the larger grip of the X0D series. Sometimes I think I should put together a small, cheap combo for speed hiking. I can never come up with a lens and body combo that I find satisfactory.
I think my basic premise is that new innovation comes in at the top of the product line. Any major new sensor technology will come in at the 1D or 5D level. Older technology trickles down the product line towards the bottom. In two years, I will be surprised if a full frame camera isn't below $1,500. Between the current crummy market and the competition, I just think it will happen. Making improvements of the lenses is very expensive. Making improvements of a piece of silicon that probably costs them $15 or $20 to make is much easier.
-
Is the APS-C going to become a relic in the near future? Will it be relegated to entry-level DSLRs? Considering these issues, are EF-S lenses a good investment?
Well this quote from Nikon suggests otherwise:
"Robert Cristina offers some context: "The main target is D40/D60/D90 owners. They make up 80% of our DSLR sales", that does not even include the D300 sales. So Nikon are hardly going to drop 80% + of their market any time soon.
So shoot with what you like and be glad you have a choice; lighter and smaller lenses or larger and heavier. Also depends on whether you consider 50D or D300 entry level cameras, and what is your criteria for "entry level". Mr Reichmann has compared favourably the Canon G10 prints with a $40,000 Phase One P45+ 39 Megapixel back on a Hasselblad H2 :-)
-
If photography is just a fun hobby, then only you can decide whether the 10-22mm lens is a good idea.
If you make a living making pictures, and you need a wide angle lens for an APS-C camera, then there's no question. If you move on to a full frame camera next year, the 50D and the 10-22 are still perfectly usable as a backup (which a professional always needs.)
I use 1-D series cameras at work, and a 40-D for freelance/personal use. I have no problem buying EF-S lenses, even though some day I might want a 5D2. The two cameras can co-exist quite happily.
-
You are right that the sensor is not the limiting factor, but we know that current high-quality lenses on the 15MP sensor become diffraction limited at lower f-stops than previous generations. This is actually the crux of my issue.
This is a common misconception. Full frame gets exactly the same amount of diffraction as small formats. It only seems less if you shoot it at a thinner depth of field. (If you want thinner DOF, then *that* is a good reason to upgrade to a larger format, not diffraction.)
For example, if you frame a shot using a 28mm focal length on the 450D, and you need such a deep depth of field that f/16 is required, then you will notice a certain amount of diffraction affecting the image.
To frame the same shot with the 5D1, it requires a 45mm focal length. If you set the f-number to f/16, the depth of field will be thinner than the 450D. You must stop down to f/25 to get the same depth of field. But at f/25, the 5D1 will affected by just as much diffraction as the 450D is at f/16. (The larger format is enlarged less for reproduction; the f-number scales with reproduction ratio.)
So diffraction really depends on aperture, not f-number. You'll notice that 45 divided by 25 is 1.8. That is the aperture of the lens on the 5D1. 28/16 is also 1.8. The aperture is the same on both cameras (1.8mm), which is why depth of field, diffraction, (and even light gathering power) is also the same on both lenses.
-
Just the opposite IMHO.
Resolution is a discussion of the past, most people don't print larger than A3, and 12-15 MP is enough for that print size.
DR and noise used to be areas where DX bodies were a bit short compared to resonnable expectations from most users, but the D90, to give one outstanding example, is clearly significantly ahead of prevous generations FX bodies. So here also, the current generation of DX - and the next one will be even better - does meet the needs.
OK, you want even more DR and even more resolution... then get your self a D3x but that represents a few pourcent of the user base.
For the 95% remaining %, my view is that FX is actually going away instead of getting closer. Why would anyone want to spend 2500 US$ to buy a 16-35 or 14-24 when you can get the same kind of performance in a much cheaper and lighter package on a DX body?
Some of these folks will always want to own an FX body as a status thing, but most people - especially with the current economic realities - and considering the amazing value delivered by DX will keep investing in the format, buying more lenses,... The longer DX stays around, the more the people who don't know anything else, who don't care about the reduced ability to get the last % of shallow DoF... the more people keep buying, the easier it will be for Canon and Nikon to keep invested into DX, releasing new lenses, etc...
Since Dx will always be cheaper than FX, no manufacturer will dare to stop investing in DX, because they would take the huge risk to open up the whole lower market to their competition.
DX is here to stay, FX is at risk in the long run.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
DX is here to stay, FX is at risk in the long run.
Cheers,
Bernard
I tend to agree, but not because of sensor size. The major factor, for me, is becoming size and weight. I actually strained some neck muscles walking around a flea market all day a couple of Sundays ago, carrying a D3 and a D300, and the 3 f2.8 zooms. I didn't really notice the neck problem at the time, so much, because I was so interested in the market, but I certainly felt it the next day. I've now bought a Panasonic G1 to mess around with. The sensor is not as good as the Nikons', but for A3 or smaller, shooting during the light of day, it'll be just fine for 80% of what I do. And the camera with an image-stabilized 18-45 (equiv 38-90) weighs *notably* less than the 24-70 f2.8 lens alone. I also have a range of Leica lenses, which will fit on the G1 with an adapter. Can you say 100mm (equiv) f1.0 with focus confirm? I'm waiting for the Leica adapter now...
JC
-
Hi,
I agree with Bernard on this. I have both full frame and APS-C and see the main benefit of FF that I can print larger. Test shots made with both indicated that I could see little difference on A2-prints although the images FF were much better when viewed on screen. For APS-C we need better lenses, designed for APS-C, however.
IMHO, economy speaks fror APS-C. Full frame is more like 120-film used to be, the next step up. The development on the Micro 4/3 may be interesting. Getting rid of the mirror seems to be a great idea, even if I don't see who you can compose and focus in moon light. Both Oly and Leica are capable to build the lenses needed for 4/3.
Best regards
Erik
Just the opposite IMHO.
Resolution is a discussion of the past, most people don't print larger than A3, and 12-15 MP is enough for that print size.
DR and noise used to be areas where DX bodies were a bit short compared to resonnable expectations from most users, but the D90, to give one outstanding example, is clearly significantly ahead of prevous generations FX bodies. So here also, the current generation of DX - and the next one will be even better - does meet the needs.
OK, you want even more DR and even more resolution... then get your self a D3x but that represents a few pourcent of the user base.
For the 95% remaining %, my view is that FX is actually going away instead of getting closer. Why would anyone want to spend 2500 US$ to buy a 16-35 or 14-24 when you can get the same kind of performance in a much cheaper and lighter package on a DX body?
Some of these folks will always want to own an FX body as a status thing, but most people - especially with the current economic realities - and considering the amazing value delivered by DX will keep investing in the format, buying more lenses,... The longer DX stays around, the more the people who don't know anything else, who don't care about the reduced ability to get the last % of shallow DoF... the more people keep buying, the easier it will be for Canon and Nikon to keep invested into DX, releasing new lenses, etc...
Since Dx will always be cheaper than FX, no manufacturer will dare to stop investing in DX, because they would take the huge risk to open up the whole lower market to their competition.
DX is here to stay, FX is at risk in the long run.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I tend to agree, but not because of sensor size. The major factor, for me, is becoming size and weight.
Agreed totally! That and price of course.
For me sensor size is not that relevant anymore when you have the right set of lenses since performance has reached a level that is high enough with APS-C.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are a lot of good points regarding economy, quality and such on the EF-S /DX line and the APS-C sensors. I wonder if we mightn't have a bit of group-think though, possibly brought-on by the longevity of this seemingly interminable debate. Of course time will tell, but my reason for thinking that full-frame will move down market still remain.
- Manufacturers will not be able to let go of the megapixel war. More pixels on APS-C is a dead-end due to lens limitations.
- Innovating at the silicon level is the cheapest path to differentiation.
- Innovations generally come in at the top of the product line, pushing older technology down market (FF for cameras or heated leather seats in cars).
- Changing formats will require buyers to invest in new lenses and equipment. Manufacturers love that.
Now that I have said that, I think I am coming around on the possibility of buying EF-S lenses. There are some good quality options that enable work that cannot otherwise be done on a cropped sensor camera. The 10-22 is unique in the canon line for its ability to give real wide angle on the cropped sensor. That makes it worth the investment. I should be able to unload it in a few years if I get full frame because I do think that the low-end (or compact end) will stay on APS-C for a while longer.
-
It doesn't matter to me.
I don't consider the bodies I don't have or the things that didn't happen when I have to buy a lens.
Luigi
-
None of the following rant is a criticism of the OP or any of the kind folks who have responded to his post. Rather, it is a request to revise our thinking about this issue.
Missing in all this discussion is the question of why we need to continue purchasing new cameras. Whether or not "the end is nigh for APS-C," you have to ask yourself how many cameras you need to buy. Are you happy with the image your camera produces? What would cause you to be so unhappy with your camera that you would need to replace it?
I'm going to beat a drum here, so please bear with me. The economy is a sinkhole that is growing larger. The average person is losing more economic ground than at any time in recent memory. At the same time, we are ruining our environment. Nobody knows this better than nature/environmental photographers who have documented the changes. Every time we buy a new camera body, we create tremendous waste. Even a 10 MP camera can produce beautiful images that can be enlarged far better than our old 35mm negatives could produce. Why do most of us need a new camera body?
Because we're trying to keep up with the Jones family. Because our camera manufacturers keep producing cameras that are only marginally better, but tell us that our old cameras can't do the job any more.
Come on, now. I have an AE1 that is still working just fine. I don't use it because of expense and environmental concerns. But--and here's the point--it's 20 years old and still working as well as the day I bought it.
Unless you're a working professional--and many of us are--you simply don't need to keep buying new cameras. And, even pros don't need them as often as we might think. Sure, we put much more wear on a body than the average Joe or Jolene shooter, but we can still repair a shutter or a view screen. I have colleagues using old 1-series Canons who still produce amazing work.
To answer the basic question here: Buy the 10-22. It's a fabulous lens, and you'll wonder how you got along without a true wide angle lens. Then, use it--for years and years and years. Don't buy a new body until the body you have is beyond repair. Unless a repair is a substantial proportion of the cost for a new camera, repair the old one. If you simply want a new, better-featured, better-image-quality machine, please donate your old camera to a school or other organization that can use it.
Just a rant from a depressed, middle-aged environmentalist.
-
Go back to Massachusetts, comrade!
I'm filling the empty hole inside me with cameras. Need to spend my 401k and IRAs before they drop to $0. Might be time to buy another guitar. I think you can actually pick the rosewood tree they'll kill in brazil for your fretboard! Those guys could use the cash, too.
-
None of the following rant is a criticism of the OP or any of the kind folks who have responded to his post. Rather, it is a request to revise our thinking about this issue.
Missing in all this discussion is the question of why we need to continue purchasing new cameras. Whether or not "the end is nigh for APS-C," you have to ask yourself how many cameras you need to buy. Are you happy with the image your camera produces? What would cause you to be so unhappy with your camera that you would need to replace it?
I'm going to beat a drum here, so please bear with me. The economy is a sinkhole that is growing larger. The average person is losing more economic ground than at any time in recent memory. At the same time, we are ruining our environment. Nobody knows this better than nature/environmental photographers who have documented the changes. Every time we buy a new camera body, we create tremendous waste. Even a 10 MP camera can produce beautiful images that can be enlarged far better than our old 35mm negatives could produce. Why do most of us need a new camera body?
Because we're trying to keep up with the Jones family. Because our camera manufacturers keep producing cameras that are only marginally better, but tell us that our old cameras can't do the job any more.
Come on, now. I have an AE1 that is still working just fine. I don't use it because of expense and environmental concerns. But--and here's the point--it's 20 years old and still working as well as the day I bought it.
Unless you're a working professional--and many of us are--you simply don't need to keep buying new cameras. And, even pros don't need them as often as we might think. Sure, we put much more wear on a body than the average Joe or Jolene shooter, but we can still repair a shutter or a view screen. I have colleagues using old 1-series Canons who still produce amazing work.
To answer the basic question here: Buy the 10-22. It's a fabulous lens, and you'll wonder how you got along without a true wide angle lens. Then, use it--for years and years and years. Don't buy a new body until the body you have is beyond repair. Unless a repair is a substantial proportion of the cost for a new camera, repair the old one. If you simply want a new, better-featured, better-image-quality machine, please donate your old camera to a school or other organization that can use it.
Just a rant from a depressed, middle-aged environmentalist.
Bravo!!! I totally agree. That is why I consider my lens purchases investments....that will last a long time. If I go to buy my next body after it dies in 3, 5 or 10 years, will that 10-22 lens be worthless? In three years it may or may not be. I think in 5 years it will be obsolete. Planned obsolescence is alive and well in our modern economy. Is APS-C another example of this?
-
Even if the entire aps-c lineup was superseded by full frame there are a huge number of people with aps-c bodies around,
they'll be more than happy to buy your 10-22. If you really want it to be an investment, buy used, then you can basically sell
it on for what you paid.
-
I couldn't get over the suspicion that in 1 year or 3 years, APS-C finally may be phased out. The manufacturers are swearing that isn't the case. Perhaps they are right, but I would imagine that the advanced amateur or pro who currently buys a 50D will eventually expect full-frame in the X0D series. The APS-C will probably be relegated to the ghetto of entry-level DSLRs.
You're overlooking one central and critical piece of things: the cost of silicon imaging sensor rises exponentially with area.
Image sensors don't follow Moore's Law. All other silicon applications, such as computers, can double performance every 18 months for the same price level. Or they can halve the price every 18 months for the same performance level. The reason this is possible is that transistors are shrinking.
Image sensors don't get any cost benefit from shrinking, because they cannot shrink. The area of the sensor has to remain the same. Although commercial full frame image sensors have been getting cheaper for the last 7 years, it's happening at such a slow pace that it will be much more than 3 years before they even come close to the cost that APS-C is now.
The 5D2 has a $1,500 premium over the 50D, despite the fact that the 50D is more advanced in several ways (gapless microlenses, autofocus, etc.). This is due to the large sensor. The 5D1 had a similar price premium over earlier APS-C cameras. This price premium has shrunk very little in the past, and I see no reason for it to accelerate in the future.
I think that the 50D has proven that increased resolutions and better low-light performance on the smaller sensor will become increasingly more difficult to achieve if at all possible.
Only the flawed reviews (e.g. DPR) show the 50D has more noise than the 40D or doesn't have the expected resolution increase. This myth has been debunked a dozen times over on LL.
Is the APS-C going to become a relic in the near future?
My sources say no.
Will it be relegated to entry-level DSLRs?
Outlook not so good.
Considering these issues, are EF-S lenses a good investment?
EF-S is a good investment compared to Mortgage Backed Securities, certainly. But I suggest bonds for now, while considering international midcap.
Seriously, APS-C is not going anywhere in the next 10 years. The highest volume imaging sensor market is mobile phones, then P&S. But those are high-volume with very low margins. DSLR has higher margins, and over 90% of DSLR sales have been and will continue to be APS-C. Manufacturers will certainly continue to pour R&D into it.
Manufacturers will not be able to let go of the megapixel war. More pixels on APS-C is a dead-end due to lens limitations.
I disagree. The picture you get out of any lens will be related to the money you put in the glass. That's true for all DSLR sensor sizes. Full frame lenses have gotten so much more investment in the last 40 years that they are far ahead of APS-C lenses, so there are many inexpensive, high-quality lenses, especially when it comes to wide primes. This is beginning to change with things like Nikon's 35mm f/1.8.
Lens development will accelerate even further when the crippling optical viewfinders can be dropped for EVF, allowing APS-C to have wide primes with designs similar to FF35, thanks to unlimited flange focal distance (well, save a few mm for the filter stack, and no one wants too much cos^4 falloff anyway).
Innovating at the silicon level is the cheapest path to differentiation.
Innovating by increasing sensor size is hardly the "cheapest path", given that sensor cost goes up exponentially with the area of the sensor.
Innovations generally come in at the top of the product line, pushing older technology down market (FF for cameras or heated leather seats in cars).
I too think generally that's how it will go, despite the many exceptions.
4. As someone else has said, size and weight advantages will always be a reason for some serious photographers to choose APS-C (or FourThirds) gear, even those who also use 35mm format or medium format gear for other purposes. Our common interest in hiking photography is one example!
While size and weight of lenses tends to correspond with sensor size in today's products, there's no reason that it has to in the future. For example, lenses for medium format cameras aren't that much larger than 35mm. In fact, many of them are smaller. The reason is that the aperture is the same or smaller (longer focal length but much narrower f-number).
Someone that desires wide aperture lenses for thin DOF and light gathering power will have to carry around heavy lenses, of course, but everyone else may use narrow f-number. They will simply use slower shutter speeds or less ND filtration to get the benefit of the larger sensor without the weight of the larger lens. This is the same way that medium format is used now.
EVF and other advancements will lead to much smaller camera bodies in the future, which takes care of the non-lens part of the equation. The larger sensor will require more electronics for the same shooting speed, but reducing the frames-per-second will allow it to have a smaller ADC, image processing block, cooling requirements, etc. I think the Sigma compact APS-C is illustrative here.
The missing piece, of course, is large inexpensive sensors, which I don't think will happen for a long time. I do expect it to happen sooner for APS-C.
APS-C will continue to have the highest value and dominate sales of all DSLR formats for many years to come.
-
LOL.
Not Massachusetts--I grew up in Oregon. Just as bad, I guess.
I'm now in Colorado, the future of alternative energy.
Go back to Massachusetts, comrade!
I'm filling the empty hole inside me with cameras. Need to spend my 401k and IRAs before they drop to $0. Might be time to buy another guitar. I think you can actually pick the rosewood tree they'll kill in brazil for your fretboard! Those guys could use the cash, too.
-
You're overlooking one central and critical piece of things: the cost of silicon imaging sensor rises exponentially with area.
Image sensors don't follow Moore's Law. All other silicon applications, such as computers, can double performance every 18 months for the same price level. Or they can halve the price every 18 months for the same performance level. The reason this is possible is that transistors are shrinking.
Image sensors don't get any cost benefit from shrinking, because they cannot shrink. The area of the sensor has to remain the same. Although commercial full frame image sensors have been getting cheaper for the last 7 years, it's happening at such a slow pace that it will be much more than 3 years before they even come close to the cost that APS-C is now.
Only the flawed reviews (e.g. DPR) show the 50D has more noise than the 40D or doesn't have the expected resolution increase. This myth has been debunked a dozen times over on LL.
Seriously, APS-C is not going anywhere in the next 10 years. The highest volume imaging sensor market is mobile phones, then P&S. But those are high-volume with very low margins. DSLR has higher margins, and over 90% of DSLR sales have been and will continue to be APS-C. Manufacturers will certainly continue to pour R&D into it.
Innovating by increasing sensor size is hardly the "cheapest path", given that sensor cost goes up exponentially with the area of the sensor.
You've got a lot of really interesting stuff here. I have excerpted the stuff I found most potentially controversial--and interesting. So to the list...
Certainly larger (FF) sensors cost more than smaller (APS-C) ones. The price increase is directly proportional to to area not exponentially greater. The greatest cost on these chips, by many magnitudes, in R&D. The actual COB (Cost of Build) is probably down well below $30. I have no idea about this as far as reality. I am pulling this out of my @ss. I am basing these assumptions on what the rest of the semiconductor industry considers appropriate margins. The manufacturing and material costs of the rest of the camera almost definitely dwarf the silicon part of the cost.
Of course Moore's law doesn't apply. Sensor sites are actually pretty darn huge in comparison to current semiconductor interconnects. These sensors use much of the same equipment and manufacturing technology as semiconductor processors, but they are really a different beast alltogether.
I don't want to reopen the 50D resolution debate. I have accepted that the 50D has taken pixel densities near to the limits of accutance with high-quality lenses. I am of the opinion that further increases in resolution on APS-C are partially wasted. With future generations of higher MP APS-C senosrs, either you will need to have a very wide-open aperature where most lens's quality begins to diminish, or you will be bumping against diffraction limits.
Your response was really quite detailed and interesting. Are you employed in the photo manufacturing industry? I am only sort of kidding. I would be very surprised if manufacturers weren't trying to put some of their best minds out on the street (internet street, that is) to debunk home-grown and crackpot theories like mine. No manufacturer would want the public to lose confidence in the longevity of a standard like APS-C before its time. That would certainly undermine their positions.
-
I don't buy the environmentalism argument in my honest opinion it is absurd and I say this with respect and making clear it is only my opinion.
Luigi
-
I don't understand the nature of this argument at all.
You just finished purchasing a APS-C camera, and now you're worrying about whether (at some point in the distant future) this camera will go extinct, as justification for maybe not buying a lens that cost half as much as the camera itself?
I think all indications show that the APS-C market completely dominates the FF market, so why would manufacturers discontinue this revenue? Makes absolutely no sense, but I suppose this sort of alarmist missive gives something to discuss
Since APS-C offers more "reach" (in both telephoto and macro), I doubt it is going anywhere. Since the 10-22 is the best wide lens for the particular camera you selected, I would go ahead and get it. Basically, your quandary is like a guy swimming 3/4 the way across a lake, questioning whether he "can make it all the way" or not, and then swimming a greater distance back to his point of origin than he would have had to go to complete his original objective
Silly.
Jack
.
-
You are right that the 10-22 is the best wide angle option for APS-C. That isn't the only factor for me. I am also concerned about whether I am buying a future paperweight.
You are also absolutely right that for most people this is a pretty academic (you could call it pointless) discussion. The reason I care is that I hate buying things that will become obsolete. the 50D is my second DSLR after my 30D. I have loved both cameras for their combination of quality and economy. I have always used full-frame lenses because I feared planned obsolescence.
I don't understand the nature of this argument at all.
You just finished purchasing a APS-C camera, and now you're worrying about whether (at some point in the distant future) this camera will go extinct, as justification for maybe not buying a lens that cost half as much as the camera itself?
I think all indications show that the APS-C market completely dominates the FF market, so why would manufacturers discontinue this revenue? Makes absolutely no sense, but I suppose this sort of alarmist missive gives something to discuss
Innovate, differentiate, or die.
All it will take is for one manufacturer to one-up another by moving full-frame down into the mid-range in an effort to cannibalize the mid-range markets of the others. If a decent $1,800 full-frame camera came out this year, just after every LL member rushed out to buy one, we would see every manufacturer follow-suit just to keep up.
Canon owned early DSLR sales because they were first to the game with a credible and affordable D60 camera. The transition from APS-C could easily look a lot like that transition.
Since APS-C offers more "reach" (in both telephoto and macro), I doubt it is going anywhere. Since the 10-22 is the best wide lens for the particular camera you selected, I would go ahead and get it. Basically, your quandary is like a guy swimming 3/4 the way across a lake, questioning whether he "can make it all the way" or not, and then swimming a greater distance back to his point of origin than he would have had to go to complete his original objective
Silly.
Jack
That's a cute story, but it really isn't anything like that.
Thanks for the comments.
-
The price increase is directly proportional to to area not exponentially greater. The greatest cost on these chips, by many magnitudes, in R&D. The actual COB (Cost of Build) is probably down well below $30.
It is most definitely exponential. Any reference on semiconductor manufacturing costs for imaging sensors will explain this. And that's just for a single semiconductor mask (reticle), which only applies to sensors up to APS-C sizes.
For larger-than-APS-C, it's a whole different ball game: two or more reticles must be stitched together. Stitching accelerates the costs even faster than the already-exponential rate of increase. Canon's 1.3X format (1D-series) is a single stitch of two reticles, and full frame is two stitches of three reticles.
With a single stitch, manufacturing yields drop to less than 25% (!) of normal yields. The breakthrough of the 5D1 was that Canon found a way to increase stitching-related yields enough to get the price premium as low as $1,500.
I don't think it's due to higher R&D at all. The only R&D difference is stitching. Sensor designers such as Eric Fossum have commented that Canon's full frame pixel designs are very, very simple; not anyone near as advanced as digicam and mobile phone sensors (where much higher revenues lead to much higher R&D).
Every sensor innovation has started out in small sensors (phone and digicam) and slowly trickled down to APS-C and larger sensors. Fill factor, quantum efficiency per area, read noise per area, full well capacity per area, resolution per area, and almost any other area-based metric (except perhaps optical crosstalk) has been and remains to be far superior in smaller sensors. It's only the brute force of more area that makes larger sensors superior. In other words, it doesn't matter that small sensors are 2 times better in every way if they are 20 times smaller (that makes them 10 times worse).
R&D must consume a greater portion of the COGS, but that's only because the sales volume will be lower because of higher base COGS. Even if a luxury car had the same absolute R&D cost as an economy car, the R&D would have to be spread over lower volume (or longer time). If a luxury car cost the same to manufacture as an economy model, then volume could be the same, and R&D could be spread the same.
The manufacturing and material costs of the rest of the camera almost definitely dwarf the silicon part of the cost.
If that were true, then cameras that have the same bodies and features but different size sensors would be similar in cost. They're not even close. 5D vs 20D, 5D2 vs 50D, D3 vs D300, etc.
I don't want to reopen the 50D resolution debate. I have accepted that the 50D has taken pixel densities near to the limits of accutance with high-quality lenses. I am of the opinion that further increases in resolution on APS-C are partially wasted. With future generations of higher MP APS-C senosrs, either you will need to have a very wide-open aperature where most lens's quality begins to diminish, or you will be bumping against diffraction limits.
I'll just say that I agree to disagree with everything you said here. (If someone wants to reopen that they can post a link to a different thread.)
Your response was really quite detailed and interesting. Are you employed in the photo manufacturing industry? I am only sort of kidding.
Thanks, I am not in the industry at all. I'm a open source software engineer. Whereas a normal photographer would be content with knowing the "what" of cameras that will help their photography (e.g. knowing that 50D ISO 130 has much more shadow noise and pattern noise than ISO 100 can be helpful), folks like me have a voracious appetite for the "why" (because ISO 130 is ISO 100 pushed 1/3 stop). Thankfully, there is a ton of information on the web to satisfy an appetite, and the cameras are relatively inexpensive so that I can test and apply the information for myself.
-
You are right that the 10-22 is the best wide angle option for APS-C. That isn't the only factor for me. I am also concerned about whether I am buying a future paperweight.
No camera is an investment; they are all consumable expenses. Lenses could be considered a slight investment, but even the best ones do not appreciate over time, they depreciate over time (as technology and innovation keep increasing). Thus, in a sense, all cameras will become paperweights, depending upon what kind of time frame you're talking about. In the end, the damn thing takes good photos, it'll last you quite awhile, and you've already bought the camera, so just enjoy what you have
You are also absolutely right that for most people this is a pretty academic (you could call it pointless) discussion. The reason I care is that I hate buying things that will become obsolete. the 50D is my second DSLR after my 30D. I have loved both cameras for their combination of quality and economy. I have always used full-frame lenses because I feared planned obsolescence.
If you feel the way you do, it is odd that you have bought a 30D and now a 50D at all. Why not just get the 5D? I think it is crazy to believe these cameras will become obsolete. If anything, they will become less expensive and more commonplace, now that the technology has pretty much plateued. IMO, you're worrying over nothing. At worst, you might have to buy another wide-angle some day wayyy off in the future. Big deal.
At best, your prognositcations are wrong, and you won't have to do this.
Innovate, differentiate, or die.
Again, at this point, the ability to "differentiate" is pretty much plateued. ("Mouse nuts" I believe is the new term.)
Thus the difference is going to become LOW PRICE and VALUE over the next few years, not obsolescence.
All it will take is for one manufacturer to one-up another by moving full-frame down into the mid-range in an effort to cannibalize the mid-range markets of the others. If a decent $1,800 full-frame camera came out this year, just after every LL member rushed out to buy one, we would see every manufacturer follow-suit just to keep up.
You just have a negative outlook. The more competitors that jump to FF, the lower the prices of both crop and FF will become. So if a great FF is $1800 then a great crop will be around $900. Nothing more.
Canon owned early DSLR sales because they were first to the game with a credible and affordable D60 camera. The transition from APS-C could easily look a lot like that transition.
Again, I just think you need to adjust your glasses, buy the 10-22, and enjoy your camera. If you take care of it, have a good monitor and software, you can take great photos for a very long time. And when it comes time for a new camera, there will still be crops available (just cheaper and a little better).
That's a cute story, but it really isn't anything like that.
Thanks for the comments.
It is like that. You've made a definite commitment in getting not one, but two APS-C cameras. In order to take the best possible wide-angle shots with those cameras, you need the 10-22, it's that simple. Your only other option would be to spend more money on a lens that won't be as wide, or to just go ahead and spend more money still and bet a FF and a top prime. You're more than halfway across the lake, and you're being indecisive as to whether you should complete the swim. Your choices are (a) continue to flounder where you are and drown; ( swim all the way back to where you started and begin swimming from scratch across a new lake; © stop thinking so much and just follow through on what you started
And have fun with your new camera, with the best lenses that are designed specifically for it,
Jack
.
-
Ontopic question, isn't the Tokina 11-16 2.8 optically better than the Canon 10-22 ? Assuming the 1mm difference is no issue of course. Opinions?
Luigi
-
Ontopic question, isn't the Tokina 11-16 2.8 optically better than the Canon 10-22 ? Assuming the 1mm difference is no issue of course. Opinions?
Luigi
I didn't know about that lens. I will need to check into it. Actually, as I have experimented with a borrowed 10-22, I have found the 10mm end to be a bit too wide for my taste.
-
It looks like my perspective on the lifespan of APS-C is in the minority. Time will tell.
meh
I still prefer the full-frame lenses because I am using the sweet-spot of the lens--avoiding corners and edges where distortion and fuzziness are most noticeable. As for that 10-22, I will keep experimenting with the borrowed copy I have. $700 isn't an impulse buy for me and ultra-wide angle is not absolutely essential to me because I shoot a lot of panoramic stuff, but it can be nice to avoid having to stitch multiple rows.
Thanks for the input from everyone.
-
If the 10-22 is too wide, try the Tokina 12-24. I like the lens very much--nice build quality, quiet and accurate autofocus, good image quality throughout the focal length range. The only real problem is CA when shooting wide open (f4). Stopped down to f8, it's incredibly sharp and bright, with very little optical distortion.
And it's much cheaper than the Canon lens ($489 vs. $689.95 for the Canon at B&H).
As for that 10-22, I will keep experimenting with the borrowed copy I have. $700 isn't an impulse buy for me and ultra-wide angle is not absolutely essential to me because I shoot a lot of panoramic stuff, but it can be nice to avoid having to stitch multiple rows.
Thanks for the input from everyone.
-
While size and weight of lenses tends to correspond with sensor size in today's products, there's no reason that it has to in the future. For example, lenses for medium format cameras aren't that much larger than 35mm. In fact, many of them are smaller. The reason is that the aperture is the same or smaller (longer focal length but much narrower f-number).
What matters, I think, is the total size and weight of the whole working camera, meaning a body with a lens. Medium format SLR bodies are very deep from focal plane to lens mount, and added depth there removes some length from the lenses, but leaves a clear overall size and weight disadvantage for the complete larger format camera.
The idea of using the larger 35mm format with longer lenses of higher minimum f-stop to minimize size difference is of only limited value. It might work in the situation you describe, for those who want only the traditional larger format advantages of higher resolution, finer tonal graduations and such, in exchange for using lower shutter speeds, but it cancels out the advantages in high speed/low light performance as well as the lower DOF, and those are very common reasons for preferring 35mm format over smaller SLR formats. Even then, when shallow DOF is not a priority, a smaller format can use lenses of equally high minimum f-stop, regaining the size advantage.
-
Innovate, differentiate, or die.
Indeed, but you are looking in exactly the wrong direction for most likely innovations: the strong trend of such innovations in digital cameras and electronics in general is getting the job done about as well as or better than before with smaller, lighter gear, or doing more with the same size of gear [like telephoto reach, macro enlargement], meaning if anything a move towards smaller formats as their image quality improves. Micro Four Thirds is the most promising and distinctive recent innovation; the formats where "die" is most likely are the larger ones, like MF and LF.
Aside: the 5DMkII is currently priced at US$2,700, the same as the 5D was almost three years ago; the A900 is a bit more, the D700 a bit less. I see no evidence of 35mm format DSLR prices declining much at al, and certainly not to anywhere near the "enthusiast" level of around US$1,000 (D90, 50D), even with three-way competition in place of the former Canon "monopoly". One factor is surely the reticle size limit, effectively 26x33mm, forcing low-yield stitching for 24x36mm sensors. That 26x33mm is the dominant and maximum reticle size limit amongst all steppers introduced for some years, with only a single, old, low resolution stepper model remaining that goes any larger.
-
Thanks for the response.
The idea of using the larger 35mm format with longer lenses of higher minimum f-stop to minimize size difference is of only limited value. It might work in the situation you describe, for those who want only the traditional larger format advantages of higher resolution, finer tonal graduations and such, in exchange for using lower shutter speeds, but it cancels out the advantages in high speed/low light performance as well as the lower DOF, and those are very common reasons for preferring 35mm format over smaller SLR formats.
Agreed. It only gives the image quality advantages in ample light, which many will not value enough for the price premium of a larger format. Current sensor development trends indicate that smaller sensors trail the resolution of larger sensors by only small amounts (currently it's 21 MP -> 15 MP and 24 MP -> 12 MP, but I'm sure APS-C will make another jump soon). If that remains the case, the larger format will only be superior in noise and dynamic range, but not resolution.
I'm not a lens or camera designer, but my limited understanding leads me to guess that sensor size itself does not directly contribute a lot to the size of the camera; it's the surrounding electronics, mirrors/prism, etc. that make the size so large for larger formats.
In the future when the mirror, prism, etc. are replaced by EVF, it will open up new body size possibilities as well as reduce the minimum flange focal distance. If my guess is correct, there will be very few factors limiting the size of a larger format camera systems (e.g. FF35):
* For a given lens design, somewhat longer (focal length).
* For a given sensor size, somewhat larger (8x10 can't fit in a digicam).
* For higher resolution, somewhat larger or slower (electronics/cooling).
Despite those limitations, I think it will be possible for a slow, high resolution FF35 with narrow aperture lenses (say, 15mm maximum aperture for ultra wide to short telephoto, which is around f/5.6) to be as small as the Sigma APS-C compact is now. The cost will make it very unlikely, though.
Rangefinder lenses prove that short flange focal distance lenses can reduce total camera size greatly, even for moderately wide apertures. Pentax pancake lenses are also very short, so I think we're left with just shrinking the body.
The biggest problem is legacy lenses. With all the 35mm lenses out there, who will bother creating a whole new line of high qulaity, narrow-aperture, short, pocketable lenses? Second only to that is the fact that large sensors cost a lot of money.
I hope many other manufacturers will follow Sigma and use their own APS-C sensors in a compact, but with fast contrast-detect autofocus like the Panasonic G1 and full compatibility with their existing lens line.
That's a camera I would want in my pocket.
-
Current sensor development trends indicate that smaller sensors trail the resolution of larger sensors by only small amounts (currently it's 21 MP -> 15 MP and 24 MP -> 12 MP, but I'm sure APS-C will make another jump soon). If that remains the case, the larger format will only be superior in noise and dynamic range, but not resolution.
In the future when the mirror, prism, etc. are replaced by EVF, it will open up new body size possibilities as well as reduce the minimum flange focal distance. If my guess is correct, there will be very few factors limiting the size of a larger format camera systems (e.g. FF35):
* For a given lens design, somewhat longer (focal length).
* For a given sensor size, somewhat larger (8x10 can't fit in a digicam).
* For higher resolution, somewhat larger or slower (electronics/cooling).
The biggest problem is legacy lenses. With all the 35mm lenses out there, who will bother creating a whole new line of high qulaity, narrow-aperture, short, pocketable lenses? Second only to that is the fact that large sensors cost a lot of money.
I hope many other manufacturers will follow Sigma and use their own APS-C sensors in a compact, but with fast contrast-detect autofocus like the Panasonic G1 and full compatibility with their existing lens line.
That is about how I see it too. Looking at the Olympus mockup of a tiny micro 4/3 body, I get the idea that lenses will dominate kit size with "mirror-less systems". That and enough room for a decent EVF, unless the LCD is enough. Either of my 4/3 lenses would make that body almost invisible!
With the wide angle design complications of SLR wide angle lenses mitigated by mirror-less systems, the two main factors in lens size (and thus in kit size) are likely to be
- focal length, which is reduced by reducing pixel size, which goes with reducing format size (unless one adopts very high pixel counts and then discards a large proportion of those pixels with heavy crops for telephoto reach)
and
- front element size and effective aperture diameter, which roughly measures light gathering speed and low light performance independent of sensor size.
So photographers like me who are not speed freaks can look forward to significantly more compact systems. On the other hand, those who seek traditional larger format virtues could be well served by 35mm format with lenses of modest aperture size but good quality, like Canon's recently developed range of f/4 L lenses. I see a place for similar "FX" lenses from Nikon; better than the mainstream zooms, lighter than the f/2.8's.
-
The whole idea of hitting a limit in pixel count with the 50D's 15 megapixels is really overdone. After all, it's the only 15mp APS-C sensor we've seen so far. A single sensor from a single manufacturer isn't a very reliable sampling from which to draw conclusions about the possibilities of any and all future 15mp+ APS-C sensor designs.
The noise increase? Noise per pixel rose, noise per area not so much (misinterpreted as a noisier sensor). That's a natural effect of each area being divided between a higher number of pixels Noise really has more to do with the area of the sensor than the pixel pitch. Noise levels are most reduced by superior sensor technology, not larger pixels.
The suffering from diffraction? Well, it's going to have the same resolution as the 40D has at f16, perhaps, and the 50D and 40D and 30D might all have the same resolution at f22, and they all might be on the same ground as the rebel at f32, but the 50D's extra resolution will show through above its diffraction limit. So it's no worse than previous sensors at smaller apertures, and certainly better than them at larger apertures. Again, diffraction limiting misunderstood.
The softness at the pixel level? Maybe. But there's a question as to whether that's a result of the higher pixel density or other factors, such as an overambitious AA filter. Or whether that's an actual problem at all, some people seem to be of the opinion that the DPR tests are absolute bunk (I wouldn't be surprised, given that they run all of their RAW tests in ACR, even though it's been demonstrated that it's not, in fact, a "level playing field").
Higher pixel densities are going to place higher demands on lens optics. That much is true. But what that really means is that you'll be getting the full resolution out of your less stellar lenses, still more resolution than you'd be getting with a lower-res sensor that doesn't show off the lens flaws, and you're getting more out of your best optics that still outresolve the sensor. Eventually, if sensors outresolve even the best lenses, we can get rid of the AA filter to see the lens' full sharpness. Oversampling is not a bad thing.
The only real disadvantage is filesize. Hopefully someday, if we have high-megapixel sensors that outresolve our lenses, our cameras will have "smart" downsampling, as in they can recognize the lens and know how well it performs at a given focal length and aperture, and know to downsample accordingly to deliver the full resolution of the lens without storing the extra, unnecessary pixels. Even failing that, storage and processors continue to get better, faster, and cheaper.
High pixel density is neither deathblow nor limit for APS-C, rather, it's an advantage for telephoto shooting. Combined with the potentially smaller size and weight possibly with APS-C as compared to FF, I don't think it's going anywhere as long as we're still shooting cameras with a flat, digital image sensor recieving light from a conventional lens. And when (if) that changes, we're looking at the dissapearance of FF and 4/3 as well...