Future of APS-C

[Bob Howland]

The only reasonable APS-C advantage is the price.

Which is a very large advantage. At the risk of repeating myself: "A crop camera is the best/only way of optimizing the following combination of attributes (1) lower price, (2) higher frame rate and (3) smaller pixels (i.e., lots of "pixels per feather"). I currently own a 5D3 and 7D both of which were purchased in the last 6 months. (They replaced a 5D and 40D.) The 7D is used almost exclusively outdoors in comparatively good light with longer lenses  to photograph things that move rapidly and unexpectedly. The 5D3 is used for everything else."

Notice the word "optimizing"

[AprilForever]

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.

Indeed. I use a 7D and a 300 2.8, sometimes with TC 2x.

Wanna know what FF equivalent is? Roughly the 500 f4, a heavier, slower, more expensive lens.

With TC 2x on my 300 2.8, it becomes a quite usable 600 5.6. The ff equivalent? The unwieldy, beastly, expensive 800 5.6, and that's still not there yet. And with wildlife, birds especially, a frame filling image will require you to stop down to f8-11 often. The advantages of ff are there, but they are rather mitigated by reality.

[ecka]

The only reasonable APS-C advantage is the price.

Which is a very large advantage. At the risk of repeating myself: "A crop camera is the best/only way of optimizing the following combination of attributes (1) lower price, (2) higher frame rate and (3) smaller pixels (i.e., lots of "pixels per feather"). I currently own a 5D3 and 7D both of which were purchased in the last 6 months. (They replaced a 5D and 40D.) The 7D is used almost exclusively outdoors in comparatively good light with longer lenses  to photograph things that move rapidly and unexpectedly. The 5D3 is used for everything else."

Notice the word "optimizing"

All I'm saying is that most of APS-C advantages are "synthetic" and $-related. Yes, price is a very big reason and for a non-professional enthusiast like me, having more than 1 DSLR body is not an option. I'd rather have one or two more lenses. FF can do everything as good or better than APS-C, no need to have both. If 5D3 had 46mp sensor, then you could crop 18mp image out of 46mp and it would be just as good as your 7D image and much better when you don't need to crop it. I'm sure it would be possible to get 2 more fps in crop-mode, if 5D3 had one.

[ecka]

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!

Actually, buying expensive jewelry may be a good investment. Buying expensive DSLR gear is not that efficient, but it is like investing in faster technology development. So, wasting money on these expensive toys is a good thing , even if you don't know how to use it.

[sagittariansrock]

I have noticed that in the last few years with dSLRs being cheaper and more accessible, people have quietly switched in hordes to buying entry dSLRs instead of point-and-shoots- most still use the dSLRs as such, always in the Auto mode and never upgrading from the kit.
I am not commenting on this observation, but merely using it to illustrate the fact that it may be in a few years when full frame becomes cheaper people will migrate to that. It might also be that they will migrate to mirrorless cameras. It all depends on the positioning of the commodity on the market and how it is promoted.
On the other hand, people who use the APS-C cameras for its reach or use better lenses than the kit might have a larger hurdle then merely the price of buying a full frame camera. The case of long tele-s have been discussed ad nauseam. I'd like to add that I can't hope to get the quality of the 17-55 on an EF zoom lesser than the 24-70 II, and that means a difference of $ 1100.

[neuroanatomist]

The only reasonable APS-C advantage is the price.

If we stop right there, I agree.  You also stated, "If 5D3 had 46mp sensor, then you could crop 18mp image out of 46mp and it would be just as good as your 7D image and much better when you don't need to crop it," which is tehnically correct, but practically irrelevant since the 5DIII does not have 46 MP, nor does any currently available FF dSLR.  By your logic, if the Canon 5200mm lens was the size of an 400/5.6 lens and could be mounted on a Phase One IQ180, and that Phase One could shoot 10 fps at ISO 25600, I'd have the perfect birding setup.  See how 'if' is pretty unhelpful, sometimes?   

Indeed. I use a 7D and a 300 2.8, sometimes with TC 2x.

Wanna know what FF equivalent is? Roughly the 500 f4, a heavier, slower, more expensive lens.

With TC 2x on my 300 2.8, it becomes a quite usable 600 5.6. The ff equivalent? The unwieldy, beastly, expensive 800 5.6, and that's still not there yet. And with wildlife, birds especially, a frame filling image will require you to stop down to f8-11 often. The advantages of ff are there, but they are rather mitigated by reality.

Quite useable, I agree.  But not 'the same' or even 'nearly as good'.  I'm not going to compare my 7D + 100-400mm (640mm FF equivalent) to my 1D X + 600mm f/4L IS II - that's vastly unfair given the two lenses in question.   But to take something close to your example, compare two superteles - a 7D + 200mm f/2L IS (320mm FF equivalent) with a 1DsIII + 300mm f/2.8L IS II (link).  The FF + 300 combo is noticeably sharper.  That's true even if you go back to the older original 300/2.8L IS (link).

I like my 7D - a lot.  But a FF camera delivers better IQ, period.  If it takes a longer lens to get the reach you need with a FF body, and you use that longer lens, your IQ will be noticeably better.  Maybe the 7D with the shorter lens delivers IQ that's good enough to meet your needs.  Maybe the 7D with the shorter lens is the limit of your budget.  That's reality - and it's mitigated only by your budget and ability to carry the lens(es) in question. 

Let's face it - Art Morris could just use a 7D with his 800mm f/5.6L IS, and have 1280mm, but he doesn't - there's a reason he is so thrilled that he can get a 1D X to AF at f/8 with the Kenko 1.4x on the 800/5.6 and get to 1120mm on FF - it delivers much better IQ than a 7D.

[aj1575]

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!

+1 !
I completly agree, this is the reason why I still have my EOS 350D. A newer model won't make me better, but I know my camera and it's shortcommings very well, and I can adjust to that.

[ecka]

The only reasonable APS-C advantage is the price.

If we stop right there, I agree.  You also stated, "If 5D3 had 46mp sensor, then you could crop 18mp image out of 46mp and it would be just as good as your 7D image and much better when you don't need to crop it," which is tehnically correct, but practically irrelevant since the 5DIII does not have 46 MP, nor does any currently available FF dSLR.  By your logic, if the Canon 5200mm lens was the size of an 400/5.6 lens and could be mounted on a Phase One IQ180, and that Phase One could shoot 10 fps at ISO 25600, I'd have the perfect birding setup.  See how 'if' is pretty unhelpful, sometimes?   

You can see that in my previous post I was talking about D800 vs D7000 and there are no if-s.
I switched to 7D vs 5D3+imagination, because the person I was replying to (Bob Howland) is using those two cameras. I also stated that "most of APS-C advantages are 'synthetic' and $-related". Not making 4.3μm FF sensor is a 'synthetic' 4.3μm APS-C advantage. They have the technology, but they decided not to use it, because they would make more money this way. Why? - Because most consumers prefer speed (high ISO and FPS) over resolution. 20-22mp may be enough, but they shouldn't stop there. We must wait till they figure out how to make both sides happy. Highest resolution + more powerful CPUs + pixel-binning may be the answer.

[Canon-F1]

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!

oh please not more of that sermon.   

why always someone must state the obvious?
as if we had not heard it a million times before.

this is a gear focused forum... in case you did not noticed.

[jebrady03]

FF DSLR cost effective?  Even if the price gets down to the entry level APS-C cost now ($500), then APS-C would be around $100-150.  Same with lenses.

What about weight?  Let's assume that the weight of the cameras become equal (by the FF weighing less than they do today).  The weight of the glass won't be - and that's an issue for soccer moms/dads (a large portion of the market), especially when the crop factor is introduced for those tele shots.

Yes, FF is superior when it comes to results - but for the average person (which is who buys APS-C), it's not worth it.  Also, FF will NEVER drop to $500 - so this entire discussion is completely irrelevant.  Even if manufacturing costs get down low enough to support that price point, it ain't happening.  Costs are irrelevant when it comes to price.

To me, this discussion is time/thought/effort wasted.  Just like the discussions about the 7D2 being APS-H or FF.  Canon (and the marketing department) would have to be run by 4 year olds who practice skydiving without a parachute for the 7D2 to be anything other than APS-C.  Seriously.  Only a complete IDIOT would just throw away the brand loyalty they've built.  If you have ANY questions about brand loyalty - refer to the auto industry.  They revive old car names all the time for the built in brand recognition (Camaro, Challenger, Charger, Dart, even the Fiesta is back!).  Even the Ford Taurus (which was, let's be honest, a HORRIFIC car before the 1 year layoff - or was it 2?) came back simply because everyone has HEARD of a Taurus.  It was easier to polish up a turd (Taurus reputation) than to push for recognition of a new brand ("Five Hundred").  How did it come back?  The ripped off the "five hundred" label on a car and slapped on a "Taurus" label.  Why?  Because no one knew what a five hundred was and it wasn't selling all that great (other than to rental car companies).  Literally.  It was a five hundred one day, and a Taurus the next.  And sales went up.  THAT'S brand recognition for you - and it's apparently something that SOME photographers are completely ignorant about (understandable, they're not in marketing).

[M.ST]

APS-C camera bodys are the best TC´s in the world. 

[AprilForever]

APS-C camera bodys are the best TC´s in the world. 

Exactly.

[paul13walnut5]

+1

I used to love using my old 200mm f2.8L on my xti and especially on my 7D.

320mm equivalent at f2.8 on the fastest focusing canon this side of a 1D mkIV - at the time!

And at a price not to frighten the horses.

You know, a 1DX and 300mm f2.8 probably is better, but for me, my aspirations and my budget, a 7D with my current 70-200 f2.8L non-IS is more than good enough for my stills.   

My next EOS will probably be the C100, I haven't even thought about what my next stills camera will be.  What I am using just now is more than sufficient.  I don't need the absolute best DR, and -as a hangover from film perhaps- I instinctively keep my ISO's lowish.

[AvTvM]

I will stay with my very decent 7D and very decent APS-C lenses ... until I get a very decent FF mirrorless at a very decent price ... basically something like the Sony RX-1 but with a lens mount ... @  € 2k.

I don't care if it takes 1,2 or 3 years at the most until we're there. And I don't care who maks it ... the first company to deliver what i want - body and lenses -  will get my money.

[neuroanatomist]

You can see that in my previous post I was talking about D800 vs D7000 and there are no if-s.

Sorry, I must have missed that.  Let's check:

...FF can do everything as good or better than APS-C, no need to have both. If 5D3 had 46mp sensor, then you could crop 18mp image out of 46mp and it would be just as good as your 7D image and much better when you don't need to crop it.

Nope, there's definitely an 'if' in there.   

Now, earlier, you stated:

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 again, I don't see the relevance because there is no FF dSLR that matches the pixel pitch of current APS-C dSLR offerings (18 MP from Canon and 24 MP from Nikon, the latter being much higher than the 16 MP example you're using!).

Bottom line, I with agree that APS-C really comes down to $$ - both for bodies and for lenses.  If you can afford a longer lens, you'll get better IQ with that longer lens on a FF camera.  In most cases, even without the longer lens, cropping the FF image will yield equivalent IQ, merely fewer megapixels.  The only time when one could argue that the APS-C 'reach' advantage is actually necessary is when you need a framing tighter than the longest available lens, even assuming you can afford that lens, and you need the full resolution image for printing large, etc.