Future of APS-C

[Canon-F1]

Do you even shoot FF? APS-C in NOT the lousy equivalent to FF. Go ahead and try super tele on FF. You'll see just how lousy it really is to shoot FF compared to a good old 7D!

ROTFL....

[aj1575]

With the canon 6d / nikon d600 being in the $2,000 ballpark, can we expect the entire aps-c size sensors to slowly disappear as the whole idea was to make a DSLR cost effective ?

APS-C is here to stay. First, the whole DSLR-consumer market is filled with APS-C, simply because it is much cheaper to produce them. Not only the camera, but also the lenses. I can't Imagine a FF camera going down to 500$ in the near future (like a EOS 1100D); and even if they would go so low, the APS-C would still have the edge in the price.
Technology is getting cheaper (the reason why we have sub 2000$ FF DSLR), but it is also improving. Which means, that in the future APS-C sensor will be as good as FF is today (FF will be even better then, but there simply is a good enough for most people).

FF will always have advantages over APS-C (bokeh, IQ, diffraction), but APS-C also has its advantages over FF (size, reach, price). One thing that has been mentioned is that MILC (mirrorless interchangable lens camera), will replace APS-C DSLR. This will be tha case, as soon as the EV will be good enough. There has been big improvements, but there is still a long way to go (80% of the job is done in 20% of the time, the remaining 20% of the job need 80% of the time). Nothing against MILC, they are nice, and there will be some prosumer MILC cameras in the future. But the time is just not read yet.

[PackLight]

Hope APS-C really dies out. I just wonder what will be the big difference between the different camera models then? Perhaps single shot only for "entry level FF" cameras? hmm i really wonder

Do you even shoot FF? APS-C in NOT the lousy equivalent to FF. Go ahead and try super tele on FF. You'll see just how lousy it really is to shoot FF compared to a good old 7D!

After much thought and field research on this;

7D vs the 5D II on a supertele, the 5D II is lousy. AF just doesn't compete.

7D vs the 1D IV and 1D X, the 7D is lousy. What good is the 1.6 crop if you only hit your target 60-80% of the time? The contrast and AF outweigh the small benefit of the crop.

The benefit of the 7D would be at your longest reach, or so I thought. For instance, you are using the 1D IV with a 1.3 crop and 500mm, you put your 1.4x extender on your at the FF equivalent of 910mm. Only then does it seem logical for further reach to put the 7D on. I tried this last summer with some big horn sheep that were several hundred yards away, switched back and forth with the two bodies, honestly I preferred the crops out the 1D IV over the uncroped 7D.

There are those of us who hope for an improved crop sensor, with the AF system of the 1D series. It is only a dream.

[sdsr]

With the canon 6d / nikon d600 being in the $2,000 ballpark, can we expect the entire aps-c size sensors to slowly disappear as the whole idea was to make a DSLR cost effective ?

Not sure for how many people $2000 is "cost effective."  More interesting is the new Sony RX-1 full-frame pocket camera - expensive, and with just a fixed lens, but given the speed with which digital cameras have simultaneously progressed and become cheaper over the last decade or so, who knows....

[mortadella]

I shoot with an "entry-level" FF camera the 5D2, and I'm in the market to upgrade my APS-C body from a 50D to 7D.  Which means I will have made 3 different APS-C body purchases over the same span that I bought 1 FF body(started with a 500D).

The logic that many have already pointed out is fully evident in my own purchase history.  This is a high volume segment for Canon and others.

I think enough has been said about the crop factor, but to elaborate on the "other" feature that some of the higher-end APS-C cameras (just one from Canon) have is improved AF over the entry FF bodies.  I don't like using/am not that great with a flash, and for 80% of what I shoot the 5D2 with its much improved over APS-C low-light performance is more than enough camera.  Which is why it made sense for me (not to mention the other options at the time were way out of my budget).  For the other 20% of the time I could really use better AF, and most of those situations require a little extra reach as well, so rather than buy a couple of extenders and lose my already substandard AF, I can grab decent second hand 7D, and all my needs are taken care of.  Granted more space is taken up in my bag but a bigger bag is much easier on the pocket book than a 1DX.

APS-C ain't going anywhere...at least I hope not! 

[2n10]

Here we go again. It seems like no matter how many times we shoot this zombie idea in the head, it just keeps coming back. One more try:

APS-C far outsells full frame. Full frame remains a niche market in the DSLR world, not the dominant format.

There is a substantial cost barrier to entry with even the "bargain" full frame cameras now being announced. To purchase the lowest cost full frame camera with any lens that can take advantage of the larger format requires an investment of about $2,500 minimum. That is cost prohibitive not only for casual photographers, but for many, if not most, enthusiasts as well.

The APS-C genie is out of the bottle and it's unlikely either Canon or Nikon can put it back in. Serious APS-C enthusiasts prefer the format for a variety of reasons, probably the biggest being the extra reach the format offers for telephoto lenses.

The success of both the 7D and the 60D demonstrates that there is a solid market for higher end APS-C cameras. Neither Canon nor Nikon can afford to leave these customers on the table.

With the current state of technology, alternatives remain inferior. That includes both in-camera cropping of a larger sensor and mirrorless EVFs. While this may change in the future, the future isn't here yet.

The truth is, not even Canon and Nikon know where the market is headed. As responsible, well-managed companies, they are trying to position themselves to take advantage of whatever direction the market goes, but they can't predict or direct the market over any long term.

What they do know is that the bottom has fallen out of the formerly lucrative point and shoot market, thanks to cell phone competition. They know that enthusiasts are a coveted segment because they have disposable income and are willing to spend it. So, all of the companies are trying to offer a variety of products that will appeal to those highly desired consumers who are willing to part with substantial amounts of money for their hobby.

Too many people are confusing the decision to offer a lower cost full frame body with a guaranteed demand  for the product. The truth is, camera manufacturers think there is a demand based on market research, but they won't really know that for a year or two, after they have seen and studied the actual results. In the meantime, they are certainly not going to sacrifice a proven segment of the market. Such an irresponsible gamble with shareholders' money carries risks that no conscientious executive would take.

+1 Well stated

[pdirestajr]

My Aunt has been shooting with her Digital Rebel for years. She used to use film cameras. I don't think she has ever changed the lens or even knows what a sensor is, let alone the "crop factor"! She likes to be able to look through an optical view finder, zoom in/ out to compose, and snap a shot of her family. She is happy with that camera (Probably a Rebel XTi type of deal). She prints standard size photos & shares them on the web. She won't replace it till it dies.

This is your average consumer. They don't read DxO tests, micro adjust their lenses or photograph the back of their lens caps... They don't know what APS-C means. They are happy with their camera.

[paul13walnut5]

+1

How much is it?
Is it a brand I've heard of?
Does it feel ok in the hand?
Does it have an auto mode as I don't know much about cameras?
Does it only come in black?

I'll take one.

[pharp]

One thing that has been mentioned is that MILC (mirrorless interchangable lens camera), will replace APS-C DSLR. This will be tha case, as soon as the EV will be good enough. There has been big improvements, but there is still a long way to go (80% of the job is done in 20% of the time, the remaining 20% of the job need 80% of the time). Nothing against MILC, they are nice, and there will be some prosumer MILC cameras in the future. But the time is just not read yet.

The Sony SLT series are essentially MILC [EVF, no OVF] - It will be real interesting to see how well their prosumer FF A99 does.  The sony NEX and micro 4/3 folks seems to like the EVFs well enough. Who knows what the future holds, but the next logical step [to me anyway] is to get rid of the mirror [wheteher for AF or OVF], shorten the back focus and make smaller FF capable lenses. How about an RX1 with EVF and interchangeable lenses?  Bottom line - its here and will only get better.

[ScottyP]

Do you even shoot FF? APS-C in NOT the lousy equivalent to FF. Go ahead and try super tele on FF. You'll see just how lousy it really is to shoot FF compared to a good old 7D!

Yep...my 1D X with a 600mm f/4L IS II.  Just plain lousy.  Crappy.  I should just chuck the 1D X in the bin.

Comparing the 7D to the 1D X with a supertele, the 1D X has a significantly higher AF hit rate than the 7D, and the 1D X images cropped to APS-C framing are at least as good as the 7D uncropped, albeit with fewer MP.

Honestly, I'm wondering if I will keep the 7D (the answer is probably yes, at least for now...a backup body is nice to have, but if a 7DII comes I'll consider it, unless I've replaced it with a refurb 1DIV in the meantime).

Yes, you have a $7,000.00 camera body and just one of your lenses costs $13,000.00.  I am certain this combo works well and gets the job done.  For that price it had better be at least somewhat better than a setup costing 1/12th of that price.  And even at 1/12th the price, most people (not on camera forums) still find crop DSLR rigs to be too spendy when their camera phone is so good nowadays. 

Unless Canon (or anyone else) can find a million new hyper-uber-hobbyists to each spend $40,000-$50,000 or so on kit, they can't stop dealing with crop bodies and those who buy them. 

[RichM]

Here we go again. It seems like no matter how many times we shoot this zombie idea in the head, it just keeps coming back. One more try:

APS-C far outsells full frame. Full frame remains a niche market in the DSLR world, not the dominant format.

There is a substantial cost barrier to entry with even the "bargain" full frame cameras now being announced. To purchase the lowest cost full frame camera with any lens that can take advantage of the larger format requires an investment of about $2,500 minimum. That is cost prohibitive not only for casual photographers, but for many, if not most, enthusiasts as well.

The APS-C genie is out of the bottle and it's unlikely either Canon or Nikon can put it back in. Serious APS-C enthusiasts prefer the format for a variety of reasons, probably the biggest being the extra reach the format offers for telephoto lenses.

The success of both the 7D and the 60D demonstrates that there is a solid market for higher end APS-C cameras. Neither Canon nor Nikon can afford to leave these customers on the table.

With the current state of technology, alternatives remain inferior. That includes both in-camera cropping of a larger sensor and mirrorless EVFs. While this may change in the future, the future isn't here yet.

The truth is, not even Canon and Nikon know where the market is headed. As responsible, well-managed companies, they are trying to position themselves to take advantage of whatever direction the market goes, but they can't predict or direct the market over any long term.

What they do know is that the bottom has fallen out of the formerly lucrative point and shoot market, thanks to cell phone competition. They know that enthusiasts are a coveted segment because they have disposable income and are willing to spend it. So, all of the companies are trying to offer a variety of products that will appeal to those highly desired consumers who are willing to part with substantial amounts of money for their hobby.

Too many people are confusing the decision to offer a lower cost full frame body with a guaranteed demand  for the product. The truth is, camera manufacturers think there is a demand based on market research, but they won't really know that for a year or two, after they have seen and studied the actual results. In the meantime, they are certainly not going to sacrifice a proven segment of the market. Such an irresponsible gamble with shareholders' money carries risks that no conscientious executive would take.

+1 Well stated

+1 added. 

While I do love my 5d2 for portrait/landscape work (and would certainly like the 5d3 more), I end up shooting with the 7d/300f4 combination for action sports/wildlife.  That combination can be had for roughly $2500, and produces excellent results.  To get the same effective reach with FF, the lens alone would be 5x as much.  (Of course I'd trade "even up" for a 1DX/500f4).  The 7d, with it's APS-C sensor, is a great camera at a reasonable price.  It fills a very significant niche that a FF cannot. 

Here's hoping that the 7d2 is APS-C.

[sandymandy]

Do you even shoot FF? APS-C in NOT the lousy equivalent to FF. Go ahead and try super tele on FF. You'll see just how lousy it really is to shoot FF compared to a good old 7D!

I didnt say APS-C is lousy. I just prefer fullframe, even i only got an analog FF eos. But im also not using tele lenses often. Mostly im shooting around in the "portrait range"
Imho APS-C just exists cuz its cheaper to produce for now. If digital or analog medium format would be cheaper to get i would also go for it. So for me i just got APS-C cuz FF at the moment is too expensive for me. Besides the crop factor for tele lenses (if u need it) or the price, whats the advantage?

[ecka]

The only reasonable APS-C advantage is the price. I'm talking about the camera body price only, not the whole system.

Not the reach - because, when both formats have the same pixel pitch (like D800 and D7000), we can just crop the FF image (or shoot in crop mode) and get exactly the same result as if we shot it using a crop sensor camera. I'm not a big super-telephoto fan, but my first 4 DSLRs were APS-C, just because I couldn't afford FF. If FF sensor production becomes much cheaper, then I don't see any reasons to keep APS-C other than for mirrorless (for "pocket photographers").

Not the size and weight - because of the previous reason, for telephoto you either get more resolution or more reach with the same lens, while APS-C gives you no choice, it is like crop mode only (24/7 ). For wide-normal angle, many zooms (like EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM) have no advantages over FF competition (like EF 24-105/4L IS USM, which is similar size, similar weight, similar price + even wider focal range, shallower DoF at f/4 than APS-C at f/2.8 + better build and weather resistance) ... EF-S 10-22USM vs 17-40L ... EF-S 15/17-85IS USM vs EF 28-135IS USM.

FPS? It is possible to shoot faster in crop mode. Nikon does that. Canon think that 7D will sell better if they don't include that feature in their FF cameras .

So, unfortunately, it's all about money.

[Patrick]

Please bear in mind that I'm not intending to be disrespectful to any of the other posters on this thread when I say...
Full frame or crop sensor doesn't matter a damn - what's important is what you choose to photograph and the creativity and skill you apply to it. Great photographers have been making fantastic images for decades with little more than a lightproof box with a glass lens to focus the light. Many fantastic cameras and top of the range lenses are wasted on photographers with less talent than finances. What is really important is YOU 1) make the most of what you have 2) recognise when what you have is insufficient for what is required for the task you face (especially if being paid) so you can rent/borrow or buy the appropriate tool and 3) don't kid yourself that better equipment will make you a better photographer. It will make you a better equipped photographer but unless you can make creative use of it it is just expensive jewellery!
 

[mortadella]

Please bear in mind that I'm not intending to be disrespectful to any of the other posters on this thread when I say...
Full frame or crop sensor doesn't matter a damn - what's important is what you choose to photograph and the creativity and skill you apply to it. Great photographers have been making fantastic images for decades with little more than a lightproof box with a glass lens to focus the light. Many fantastic cameras and top of the range lenses are wasted on photographers with less talent than finances. What is really important is YOU 1) make the most of what you have 2) recognise when what you have is insufficient for what is required for the task you face (especially if being paid) so you can rent/borrow or buy the appropriate tool and 3) don't kid yourself that better equipment will make you a better photographer. It will make you a better equipped photographer but unless you can make creative use of it it is just expensive jewellery!

No disrespect taken, but....

This is a forum for photography and photography equipment enthusiasts so many threads are dedicated to discussing and dissecting the minutia with regards to the release of new equipment and the use of current equipment and what the indications recent rumors and releases mean to the future of how we practice our hobby/profession.

I'm sure you can understand that, right?

I'll just leave it at that.