Is the future of DSLRs FF only?

[briansquibb]

But what about APS-C owners (who outnumber FF by millions) who want to upgrade to a body with pro-level features, and already have a collection of EF-S lenses? Canon would likely make far more money off these upgraders than they would off pro's buying a 2nd body specifically for use with telephoto lenses.

So how many Rebel owners are going to pay $6k?

And how many of those are going to put their 18-55 kit lens on it?

I suspect it will be 5DIII owners wanting a sports body with the extra reach

[ScottyP]

Put me down for crop frame cameras being a future oddity from digital's beginning. Sure sensors will get better, and some will get smaller but i would think that larger will always be better in many ways, except price. And that's why they were made, so people could actually afford a dslr. And the high end ef-s lenses desings are pushing forward! that's sillly. Besides it's not like crop frame cameras are exactly small little pocket models, that's what mirrorless and cell phone are for. I've got an old 1/2 frame 35mm film camera perhaps from the 60's, i can't recall. One day the 1.6 crop dslr will sit next to it on my shelf.

Without 2 sensor sizes and 2 different mounts, camera manufacturers would need to come up with some new (and yet equally convincing) way to sell 2 or 3 distinct tiers of lenses, then, or else they will have to lower the prices for acceptable IQ telephoto lenses.  Every consumer, even the casual ones with small budgets, expect to be able to shoot telephoto.  Period. 

EF-S Lenses:  The fact that EF-S won't physically fit onto the FF bodies helps keep the lines separate, and preserves the perception/illusion that the a gi-normous price difference is fully justified.  They would have to make decent affordable super-telephoto EF lenses that were not "L" lenses or else the competition would murder them.  And they would have to be 1.5 or 1.6x longer than their competitor is selling, but for the same price.  Once they do that, though, I am not sure that a red paint ring and a metal exterior alone would be enough to keep the two separate in the minds of consumers if the prices are so wildly divergent.  I think without EF-S lenses, Canon would feel more pressure to lower the prices on its L lenses as a result of the loss of product differentation.

Crop bodies:  If one company (Canon or Nikon, or whomever) unilaterally chopped the end off of every lens in its lineup by eliminating the 1.6 (or 1.5x) telephoto boost of a crop body, it would be handing its competitors its own head on a plate, ceeding all its mainstream consumer/entry-level prosumer sales to the other guy.  No new customer would buy into a line with inferior telephoto offerings at the entry-level price point as compared to what its direct competor is offering.  Merry Christmas Nikon!  Not only are lower-end buyers much more numerous than the elite few, but an appealing entry-level system of lenses and bodies is the only way to get new customers to buy into the Canon line.  If there was no staircase to climb up for a beginer, but rather a sheer cliff that takes $5,000.00 to 10,000 just to get started, then your customer base would basically stop replenishing itself, and the brand would whither and die as its existing customers all age and die off. 

Just my 2 cents...

[briansquibb]

Without 2 sensor sizes and 2 different mounts

FF and APS-C

EF-S Lenses:  The fact that EF-S won't physically fit onto the FF bodies helps keep the lines separate, and preserves the perception/illusion that the a gi-normous price difference is fully justified.

APS-C cameras without EF-S mounts. EF-S mounts came 5 years after APS-C and have only been around for 8 years. EF lens have been around for about 30 years

They would have to make decent affordable super-telephoto EF lenses that were not "L" lenses or else the competition would murder them. 

There are no decent APS-C telephotos now

[ScottyP]

Without 2 sensor sizes and 2 different mounts

FF and APS-C  (I was talking about if they eliminate EF-S)

EF-S Lenses:  The fact that EF-S won't physically fit onto the FF bodies helps keep the lines separate, and preserves the perception/illusion that the a gi-normous price difference is fully justified.

APS-C cameras without EF-S mounts. EF-S mounts came 5 years after APS-C and have only been around for 8 years. EF lens have been around for about 30 years 

They would have to make decent affordable super-telephoto EF lenses that were not "L" lenses or else the competition would murder them. 

There are no decent APS-C telephotos now  (No, but my point was if they suddenly stopped making the crop body, they would have to make up the length in better, longer glass for cheap prices.  Sorry-I may have blurred my minor point about EF-S glass into my main point, which is about the value of crop body cameras.)

[briansquibb]

Without 2 sensor sizes and 2 different mounts

FF and APS-C  (I was talking about if they eliminate EF-S)

EF-S Lenses:  The fact that EF-S won't physically fit onto the FF bodies helps keep the lines separate, and preserves the perception/illusion that the a gi-normous price difference is fully justified.

APS-C cameras without EF-S mounts. EF-S mounts came 5 years after APS-C and have only been around for 8 years. EF lens have been around for about 30 years 

They would have to make decent affordable super-telephoto EF lenses that were not "L" lenses or else the competition would murder them. 

There are no decent APS-C telephotos now  (No, but my point was if they suddenly stopped making the crop body, they would have to make up the length in better, longer glass for cheap prices.  Sorry-I may have blurred my minor point about EF-S glass into my main point, which is about the value of crop body cameras.)

APS-C and EF-S should not be linked

There is still always the APS-H, 1.3 crop which in the 1D4 gives more reach than any 1.6 crop

[ScottyP]

APS-C and EF-S should not be linked

There is still always the APS-H, 1.3 crop which in the 1D4 gives more reach than any 1.6 crop
[/quote]

Yes, EF-S and crop bodies are probably better as 2 distinct topics.

That said, since 1.3 is less than 1.6, I assume you are saying that higher IQ from the ASP-H could allow you to crop images a great deal more dramatically in post, which would sort of equal having more reach?

Also, it seems almost everyone on this site has written APS-H off as dead, though.  Is so, that would be too bad, though, IMHO.

[wickidwombat]

Also, it seems almost everyone on this site has written APS-H off as dead, though.  Is so, that would be too bad, though, IMHO.

not almost everyone, a few vocal people have written it off as dead...

[Curmudgeon]

The folks who are arguing that the APS-C DSLR will always be around because there will always be uses for different size sensors are missing the point, I think. Of course there will always be optimal applications for different sizes of sensors. What doesn't follow logically is that the DSLR is an optimal format for incorporating smaller size sensors. In terms of image quality, Sony's mirrorless NEX 7 already competes favorably with any APS-C DSLR on the market. The same could be said for several new Panasonic and Olympus models--cameras which, on average, cost less and are much more comfortable to tote (if not to handle)--than an APS-C DSLR. Allowing for a few more generations of EVF development, and the last significant advantage of the APS-C DSLR will be nullified. Indeed, as another correspondent has pointed out, the small optical viewfinder in an APS-C DSLR is not that difficult a benchmark to beat.

The DSLR is an inherently heavy, bulky format. Two characteristics justify its existence given the current state of technology: (1) that big, bright, fast optical viewfinder and (2) its compatibility with the big, heavy, expensive but light-grabbing lenses that pro-level photography often requires. It's those lenses capable of generating a large, bright image that justify the bulk and expense of the modern DSLR. As infared asks, why throw that kind of optical firepower at a half-size sensor? And that's why I'm still betting that in ten years full frame will be close to a universal standard for DSLRs and a replacement for all but the most specialized MF systems. Smaller sensors will find a more natural home in other types of camera bodies. I think it's already happening. And I think Canon thinks so too. Look at where all the company's lens development resources are being directed. It ain't in EF-S, folks.

[briansquibb]

The folks who are arguing that the APS-C DSLR will always be around because there will always be uses for different size sensors are missing the point, I think. Of course there will always be optimal applications for different sizes of sensors. What doesn't follow logically is that the DSLR is an optimal format for incorporating smaller size sensors. In terms of image quality, Sony's mirrorless NEX 7 already competes favorably with any APS-C DSLR on the market. The same could be said for several new Panasonic and Olympus models--cameras which, on average, cost less and are much more comfortable to tote (if not to handle)--than an APS-C DSLR. Allowing for a few more generations of EVF development, and the last significant advantage of the APS-C DSLR will be nullified. Indeed, as another correspondent has pointed out, the small optical viewfinder in an APS-C DSLR is not that difficult a benchmark to beat.

The DSLR is an inherently heavy, bulky format. Two characteristics justify its existence given the current state of technology: (1) that big, bright, fast optical viewfinder and (2) its compatibility with the big, heavy, expensive but light-grabbing lenses that pro-level photography often requires. It's those lenses capable of generating a large, bright image that justify the bulk and expense of the modern DSLR. As infared asks, why throw that kind of optical firepower at a half-size sensor? And that's why I'm still betting that in ten years full frame will be close to a universal standard for DSLRs and a replacement for all but the most specialized MF systems. Smaller sensors will find a more natural home in other types of camera bodies. I think it's already happening. And I think Canon thinks so too. Look at where all the company's lens development resources are being directed. It ain't in EF-S, folks.

I agree - APS-C will be around for some time to come

It is the APS-C DSLR which has limited shelf life

[Ew]

The move of ASP-C to mirrorless (first in parallel, later as a replacement for Rebel body) seems possible.
Provided, of course that we see good compatibility with the existing lens line up.
DSLR would remain as a FF only adventure.

[J]

I think there will always be a market for high performance 7D-type cameras, if only for the reach.

That said, I think it is very likely that Rebel DSLRs will be eaten by EF-M models, possibly in as soon as 5 years. It is no secret really--there is currently a price collision between lower end DSLR/mirrorless/premium compacts. I think it would be quite amusing to have the Rebel brand be relaunched as high end mirrorless; the EOS M is basically a stripped-down T4i as it is.

Longer term, the mirrorless form factor is more appealing to casual photographers and vacationers in the first place, and happens to be cheaper to produce once the R&D is done--there are far fewer parts without the mirrorbox or dedicated AF/metering sensors.

[bdunbar79]

APS-C and EF-S should not be linked

There is still always the APS-H, 1.3 crop which in the 1D4 gives more reach than any 1.6 crop

Yes, EF-S and crop bodies are probably better as 2 distinct topics.

That said, since 1.3 is less than 1.6, I assume you are saying that higher IQ from the ASP-H could allow you to crop images a great deal more dramatically in post, which would sort of equal having more reach?

Also, it seems almost everyone on this site has written APS-H off as dead, though.  Is so, that would be too bad, though, IMHO.
[/quote]

ScottyP,

Yes, the 1D Mark IV, despite having a crop factor of 1.3 vs. 1.6, actually has more practical reach than the 7D for instance.  It also has to do with how many megapickels are crammed in.  Mmmmmm, that reminds me of pickels.  Grilled cheese and a pickel on the side...............