Future of APS-C

[koolman]

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 ?

 

[And-Rew]

In a word - no.

APS-C has benefits over FF that many people enjoy - mostly to do with size and weight of bodies built around such a sensor - and others to do with the increased focal range gained from the 1.6 crop factor with FF lenses.

Most of the wildlife/action/sports togs I know of wouldn't even consider FF unless they came by a 1DX - and even then only if they could afford the necessary lenses to give back the focal length achieved with the APS-C sensor.

My wife has never been able to adequately hold a 5D2 let alone take pictures with it. The old 30D & 40D's though were 'usable'. It is the size of her hands and ability to support such a mammoth beast as a 5D2 with large lens attached that caused the problems.

As much as FF is getting cheaper - the improvement in APS-C based cameras seems to be getting better.
Just look what Fuji is doing with its X range of cameras to fully understand the issue, let alone the competition.

 

[verysimplejason]

APS-C wouldn't die until there's a mirrorless that can beat its viewfinder + IQ combo. The weight and ergonomics can easily go tuned to DSLR sizes (e.g., Sony). Lens and sensor cost are always the main culprit why everybody won't just go FF.

 

[bow26]

I don't think that DSLR with APS-C sized sensors is at the end of its era. As already said, the crop factor is hugely beneficial for wildlife and sports photographer. That being said, some people just like using a single lens reflex camera and composing through an optical viewfinder, so I guess APS-C sized sensor in a camera with a smaller form factor fulfil this role. And with sensor technology getting better, we may see more potential in a smaller sized sensor. These are just my opinion.

 

[Bob Howland]

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 until FF DSLRs are in the $800-1000 range. $2000 is still an lot for most people to pay for a camera. I do expect mirrorless cameras to take over the APS-C market within the next 5 to 10 years, Canon's pitiful EOS-M offering notwithstanding.

Ultimately, what matters is the cost to manufacture and the cost to sell, at least in a marketplace where there are lots of buyers, which there are, and lots of sellers, which there aren't.

 

[Canon-F1]

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 ?

i can see that in a few years (4-5) 80-90% of all DSLR cameras will be fullframe.
APS-C will be used for other formfactors.

when the mirrorless system cameras are getting better and better and the FF DSLR cameras cheaper i don´t see a reason why i should buy a APS-C DSLR.

APS-C DSLR´s have no benefit over APS-C mirrorless cameras, when it comes to size or weight.
and with better EVF even the small peepholes of APS-C DSLR´s are not that impressive anymore. it always pains me when i go from my 5D MK2 to the 550D viewfinder.

i guess even the cropfactor/reach argument is not that important in a few years.
with the high MP cameras you can crop in camera or in post and still have enough pixels for big prints.

 

[sandymandy]

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

 

[AprilForever]

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!

 

[Loswr]

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).

 

[AprilForever]

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).

The 7D is a model behind... and, you get to use longer glass and higher f-stops to get the same framing and DOF. Also, the 1DX costs nearly 4times as much... shooting on ff is not a bed of roses internet geniuses make it out to be. It has both fenefits and liabilities, but in no case will APS-C be removed by FF... If it is, Sony and Pentax will eat the holes...

 

[Loswr]

... shooting on ff is not a bed of roses internet geniuses make it out to be...

Not saying that it is...but I take objection to it being called 'lousy'! If one can afford the longer lenses to ''make up' for the crop factor, FF will win. If not, APS-C makes more sense - going beyond 420mm (while keeping AF) has very high monetary consequences.

 

[unfocused]

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.

 

[traveller]

Strangely enough (or perhaps not so...), this is Thom Hogan's "topic of the month":

http://www.bythom.com/

Let's not start to throw insults around, the OP raises this issue at a good time, what with Photokina dominated by full-frame announcements. The fact of the matter is that APS-C is not going away for two reasons:

1. Full frame is still way too expensive for the lower end of the DSLR market (60D/D7000 and down)

2. There are some people that are focal length limited even with an 800mm lens; a good APS-C DSLR gives these people more pixels on target when they need them (i.e. a crop-frame camera option can co-exist in a camera bag with a full frame body).

In some ways, the question over the future of APS-C is whether these cameras will continue to be DSLRs, or go 'mirrorless' (I hate that phrase!). I'm sure that there will be a market for a capable enthusiasts APS-C DSLR for some years yet (i.e. to meet the requirements of case 2 [above]), but I also think that the lower end of the market will increasingly be occupied by 'mirrorless'.

 

[paul13walnut5]

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 ?

Oh yes, now its down to a mere $2k for an FF camera the $400 APS-C cameras are going to disappear!

The 1DX is better than my 7D. But you know what? You see if I sit down and am honest with myself, the 7D is actually good enough for me. And it's better for my needs wants than a 5D2, 6D or d600.

Not to mention that I've shot video on FF and shot video on APS-C, and far prefer APS-C for video, and it's video, not stills that keep me in beer tokens.

 

[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