Is the future of DSLRs FF only?

[briansquibb]

I was talking about the kit lenses. They are relatively cheap for what they can do. Making use of the smaller mirror is a given (Canon optical engineers are smart and use it to their advantage).  The only expensive lens is the 17-55 f2.8. but that comes quite a bit later after (5 years???) the first APS-C camera (10 D). In fact EF-S comes after the Rebel. That shows the cost cutting trend.

Just for the record

- The first Canon designed APS-C was the d30
- the 10D was an EF mount only body
- the 20D was the first EF-S mount , followed shortly by the 300D

[Rocky]

I was talking about the kit lenses. They are relatively cheap for what they can do. Making use of the smaller mirror is a given (Canon optical engineers are smart and use it to their advantage).  The only expensive lens is the 17-55 f2.8. but that comes quite a bit later after (5 years???) the first APS-C camera (10 D). In fact EF-S comes after the Rebel. That shows the cost cutting trend.

Just for the record

- The first Canon designed APS-C was the d30
- the 10D was an EF mount only body
- the 20D was the first EF-S mount , followed shortly by the 300D

Thanks,  my mistake.

[Videoshooter]

There is absolutely no reason why an "entry-level" legacy format camera and a professional quality APS-C format camera cannot co-exist in the marketplace. Each appeals to different customers and one will not significantly affect the target market of the other.

I look forward to seeing a professional quality APS-C format camera.

Could be, like the 10D, that is only supports EF lens as well

Why would you think they might do that? That seems extremely limiting, preventing the use of the Canon 17-55mm and the 10-22mm.

[ScottyP]

They will not.
1.)  Not everyone can possibly afford an $8,000.00 camera, nor a $3,500.00 camera.
2.)  Canon sells many many many many more crop units than FF units.
3.)  It would strain consumers' credulity beyond its already thin limits to have a range of all-full-frame cameras that vary in price between $500.00 and $8,000.00, so they would keep the two sensor sizes for that reason alone even if there were no other reasons.  The 2 different sensors camoflage the crazy markup.
4.)  Very few hobbyist bird watchers/high school sports fans could or would pay $13,000.00 for a lens, and the 2x Teleconverters kind of suck leave something to be desired.  So without crop-sensors, you are basically screwed for birds and any other far-away subjects unless you are ROLLING in the excess cash.


I think sensors, like CPU chips (and everything else), will continue to improve while simultaneously getting cheaper and smaller at a quick pace.  If anything I can expect to find higher-quality smaller chips in the future.  Smaller chips would both cheapen production cost AND provide the largest possible numbers of consumers with access to 400mm and 500mm and above for a price they would be willing to spend. 

While I realize that would be crimping extreme wide-angle shooters as it kissed long-shooters on the lips, consider how much more most people value telephoto over extreme wide-angle, and also also consider how much easier it is to stich photos togehter to make good wide-angle landscapes/etc., than it is to try cropping out to telephoto lengths without destroying the IQ.

[Rocky]

They will not.
1.)  Not everyone can possibly afford an $8,000.00 camera, nor a $3,500.00 camera.
2.)  Canon sells many many many many more crop units than FF units.
3.)  It would strain consumers' credulity beyond its already thin limits to have a range of all-full-frame cameras that vary in price between $500.00 and $8,000.00, so they would keep the two sensor sizes for that reason alone even if there were no other reasons.  The 2 different sensors camoflage the crazy markup.
4.)  Very few hobbyist bird watchers/high school sports fans could or would pay $13,000.00 for a lens, and the 2x Teleconverters kind of suck leave something to be desired.  So without crop-sensors, you are basically screwed for birds and any other far-away subjects unless you are ROLLING in the excess cash.


I think sensors, like CPU chips (and everything else), will continue to improve while simultaneously getting cheaper and smaller at a quick pace.  If anything I can expect to find higher-quality smaller chips in the future.  Smaller chips would both cheapen production cost AND provide the largest possible numbers of consumers with access to 400mm and 500mm and above for a price they would be willing to spend. 

While I realize that would be crimping extreme wide-angle shooters as it kissed long-shooters on the lips, consider how much more most people value telephoto over extreme wide-angle, and also also consider how much easier it is to stich photos togehter to make good wide-angle landscapes/etc., than it is to try cropping out to telephoto lengths without destroying the IQ.

Well said. Points are well made. This is my two cents:
Both extreme wide angle  and extreme lone telephoto are just a tool for discussion (argument??). Most people hardly or do not use anything  shorter than 21mm equivalent  or longer than 300mm equivalent. Therefore crop sensor is okay. We have the 10-22mm to take care of the wide end and 15-85 to cover the most commonly used focal length. Of cause some people will come back to put down the APS-C again, due to lack of extreme wide prime. We have been using DSLR with APS-C for more than 20 years. Why APS-C suddenly becomes NO GOOD and FF is the future??

[D_Rochat]

As much as I love FF over APS-C, I don't think APS-C is going away anytime soon. However, I won't be surprised if we see the APS-C scrubbed from the xD lineup especially if they are going to add a budget FF to the mix.

[nicku]

I believe the future of the DSLR will be FF.... but not yet. This will happen when we see 60-70MP on a APS-C sensor and the noise lvl will be very, very hard to control.

[archangelrichard]

Constantly hearing these guess upon a guess upon a guess blanket statements ... all of which is nothing more than that which "struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing" (Shakespeare)

In other words - hot air

Look, this is a market and you build what it supports; if people want APS-C cameras for the features / size / price there will be APS-C cameras; nothing in this story suggests that APS-C sensor prices will not go down just as APS sensors go down; (or that we won't get FF APS features with an APS-C sensor eventually)

I don;'t know why we pay so much attention to newbies who's blanket statements simply demonstrate their lack of understanding of the subject (just wait till those 128 MP APS-C sensors come out, I'll show you .......)

[briansquibb]

There is absolutely no reason why an "entry-level" legacy format camera and a professional quality APS-C format camera cannot co-exist in the marketplace. Each appeals to different customers and one will not significantly affect the target market of the other.

I look forward to seeing a professional quality APS-C format camera.

Could be, like the 10D, that is only supports EF lens as well

Why would you think they might do that? That seems extremely limiting, preventing the use of the Canon 17-55mm and the 10-22mm.

If a pro level buyer wants a APS-C body, what would they want it for? I would suggest the extra reach, in which case the 17-55 and 10-22 would probably not be wanted.

There would be a very good chance that the buyer would have a second  body that take EF lens only - so a 17-55 and 10-22 would be of limited use.

So I dont see EF only bodies at the pro level as being an issue

[ruuneos]

In the future yes, but it just needs to take it place as most used camera type and after that Canon could start taking those entry-level models out of market and re-design those to FF and that just means fully new body and dropping EF-S lenses out of market. After that L-lenses could have some price drops

[Rocky]

I cannot see any reason why EF-S mount should be excluded on an APS-C PRO body. The EF-S mount will bot hinder the usage of EF lens. It will give the PRO a "just in case" option to use EF-S lenses.

[briansquibb]

I cannot see any reason why EF-S mount should be excluded on an APS-C PRO body. The EF-S mount will bot hinder the usage of EF lens. It will give the PRO a "just in case" option to use EF-S lenses.

I would imaging that Canon would not want their pro AP-S bodies returned because of the IQ when using the ef-s 55-250.

There are no current ef-s lens up to pro standards

[Rocky]

I cannot see any reason why EF-S mount should be excluded on an APS-C PRO body. The EF-S mount will bot hinder the usage of EF lens. It will give the PRO a "just in case" option to use EF-S lenses.

I would imaging that Canon would not want their pro AP-S bodies returned because of the IQ when using the ef-s 55-250.

There are no current ef-s lens up to pro standards

If he use a 55-250 and blame the not so good image on the APS-C pro body, he is not a pro. I am thinking about the 11-22 or the 17-55 f2.8 to get them out of the jam when a extreme wide angle or wide angle  is needed.

[risc32]

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. 

[Videoshooter]

I cannot see any reason why EF-S mount should be excluded on an APS-C PRO body. The EF-S mount will bot hinder the usage of EF lens. It will give the PRO a "just in case" option to use EF-S lenses.

I would imaging that Canon would not want their pro AP-S bodies returned because of the IQ when using the ef-s 55-250.

There are no current ef-s lens up to pro standards

I imagine the amount of people who did this would be about equal to the amount of people who have returned their 5d's or 1d's because they weren't happy with the quality of the EF 75-300. I'll let you guess how many people have done that.

The Canon 17-55 IS is up to pro standards.

If a pro level buyer wants a APS-C body, what would they want it for? I would suggest the extra reach, in which case the 17-55 and 10-22 would probably not be wanted.

There would be a very good chance that the buyer would have a second  body that take EF lens only - so a 17-55 and 10-22 would be of limited use.

So I dont see EF only bodies at the pro level as being an issue

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.