- Status
S
smirkypants
Guest
Please note... I didn't say that it was dead now. I said this coming was the last generation in the PRO lines. This means a single digit followed by a D (e.g. 7D). They'll continue to make all kinds of other cameras with crop sensors.
I say this because for the longest time I was waiting for the 7D2 & the 1D4 because of the extra reach offered by the crop sensor. But I've been shooting with the D800 lately (along with my 5D3) and it just made me realize that all those megapixels made a crop sensor irrelevant. You get the extra reach by just changing modes.
Sure Canon isn't ready with such a sensor yet, so there will probably be a 7D2, but after that, why have a pro camera with a crop when it will offer no advantages? More megapixels are coming fast.
So, you know, instead of just reading the headline and reacting violently, read the reasoning. And while I appreciate the Keynes quote on the long run, I wasn't talking 50 years from now... I was thinking about what will be offered around the country and whether it would be wise, if you have great plans ahead, to invest in EF-S glass...
Geez. This is a speculation site. You want we should all just open up another "I'm pissed at the 5D3 thread?"
I say this because for the longest time I was waiting for the 7D2 & the 1D4 because of the extra reach offered by the crop sensor. But I've been shooting with the D800 lately (along with my 5D3) and it just made me realize that all those megapixels made a crop sensor irrelevant. You get the extra reach by just changing modes.
Sure Canon isn't ready with such a sensor yet, so there will probably be a 7D2, but after that, why have a pro camera with a crop when it will offer no advantages? More megapixels are coming fast.
So, you know, instead of just reading the headline and reacting violently, read the reasoning. And while I appreciate the Keynes quote on the long run, I wasn't talking 50 years from now... I was thinking about what will be offered around the country and whether it would be wise, if you have great plans ahead, to invest in EF-S glass...
Geez. This is a speculation site. You want we should all just open up another "I'm pissed at the 5D3 thread?"
Upvote
0
Umm: http://www.artefactgroup.com/wvil/Mt Spokane Photography said:
That would be something, if ever it came to fruition!
Back on topic:
As others have said, crop sensors play an important role in the photographer learning curve, being cheaper but otherwise similar devices, and also make perfect business sense in a product>product life-cycle. Crops will remain for a long time.
However, I do believe they will change form, at some stage. Mirrorless cameras have steadily increased in sales and price due to clever marketing and, let's face it, size and portability. What this means for APS-C dSLRs, is that they have to be a LOT better than their EVF-only counterparts.
For the most part, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, et al. have done a monumental job of catching up to crop-frame devices. I think part of the reason for the Nikon D3200 is to trump amateurs with high-megapixel, awe-inducing figures and sway them from equally-priced mirrorless options after failing with the Nikon 1. Truth is, the D3200 still lacks a lot of the appeal of mirrorless in its size and, no offence to the Nikon designers, ugliness.
Eventually, Canon will need to do something to fight back some of the market it is set to lose. Luckily, Canon has maintained good sales, with the first generation mirrorless actually acting as a bridge to APS-C and then on to full-frame SLRs; however, this will change. How they go about this will spell the future for APS-C mirrored devices, Canon prosumer point-and-shoots, or even their amateur line more generally.. From what I can think of, they have a couple of options:
1. Decrease APS-C dSLR size and modify styling.
Pentax released the K-x in 2009 at 123x92x68mm and Canon the 500D at 126x98x65mm. These were small in dSLR terms (the smallest I am aware of with APS-C or larger), and not too different to the (much wider) Fujifilm X-Pro1 at 139.5x81.8x42.6mm. Let's be honest, dSLRs are ugly. Seriously ugly. Most crop-sensor buyers will never be professional photographers - they do it for the fun. Having a cool looking camera is part of that fun.
2. Join the dark side.
The old "if you can't beat 'em, join them" philosophy. An APS-C Canonet is already the talk of amateur camera forums the world over. If Canon invest in CMOS, throw on an EF-S mount and a hybrid EVF, and release a couple of pancakes and collapsibles, they could charge more than the rest, yet still attract the majority of market share. It would spell the death of mirrored crop-sensor devices, but at least we full-frame users would have a compact body to turn to without having to use our EF lenses in MF on something like a Sony Nex.
EDIT: WVIL at CES last year: WVIL unbelievable new camera at CES 2011
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
Why is everyone assuming this topic is saying that aps-c is dying.
This thread is about the top of the range as the OP came back and said
- I could never see a 600 on a NEX5 sized body, the ergonomics would be appalling
- the mass market is NOTHING to do with this thread, a total red herring
- aps-c lens is a red herring because the top of the range cameras will not and are not be aps-c
- the 5DIII is the first sign of the 7D market being erroded, apart from 2fps it is superior in every department
- mirrorless is just another technology that is available, but not central to the deign engineers. It has a lot of potential - but does it scale to mf?
- I believe aps-h has the potential of being the aps-c of the next generation of semi pro cameras due to is low manufacturing costs (compared to ff). It is also a size very usefull to video people and therefore could power the low end (semi pro) video market
I dont understand why people are so fixated and defensive about aps-s especially in the market place where IQ is king.
I have an original Canon APS film camera which promised the earth and delivered dirt, OK for holiday snaps but little else - it was relegated to the back of the cupboard and the older, relegated 35mm Canon 100 was brought out again. I can see history repeating itself here - the 7D has still not got past the original 5D in IQ yet is being feted as a fantastic camera, hardly got past the image IQ of the 40D either (although better in low light)
If all the 7D users were given a 5DIII for 6 months, I would suggest that hardly any would want to switch back.
This thread is about the top of the range as the OP came back and said
- I could never see a 600 on a NEX5 sized body, the ergonomics would be appalling
- the mass market is NOTHING to do with this thread, a total red herring
- aps-c lens is a red herring because the top of the range cameras will not and are not be aps-c
- the 5DIII is the first sign of the 7D market being erroded, apart from 2fps it is superior in every department
- mirrorless is just another technology that is available, but not central to the deign engineers. It has a lot of potential - but does it scale to mf?
- I believe aps-h has the potential of being the aps-c of the next generation of semi pro cameras due to is low manufacturing costs (compared to ff). It is also a size very usefull to video people and therefore could power the low end (semi pro) video market
I dont understand why people are so fixated and defensive about aps-s especially in the market place where IQ is king.
I have an original Canon APS film camera which promised the earth and delivered dirt, OK for holiday snaps but little else - it was relegated to the back of the cupboard and the older, relegated 35mm Canon 100 was brought out again. I can see history repeating itself here - the 7D has still not got past the original 5D in IQ yet is being feted as a fantastic camera, hardly got past the image IQ of the 40D either (although better in low light)
If all the 7D users were given a 5DIII for 6 months, I would suggest that hardly any would want to switch back.
Upvote
0
Top-of-the-line cameras were a subtext of the OPs original question, which regarded the possibility of crop sensor obsolescence. I don't think anyone has claimed crops to be superior to full-frame, so I am not sure what you are getting at. They are a cheaper alternative that alot of people use - here, were are debating the long-term viability and feasibility of that system, not its use in the real world in professional devices as a replacement for full-frame.briansquibb said:
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
swrightgfx said:
Smirky wrote:
"Please note... I didn't say that it was dead now. I said this coming was the last generation in the PRO lines. This means a single digit followed by a D (e.g. 7D). They'll continue to make all kinds of other cameras with crop sensors."
My point is that hanging onto a technology that has its limitations is not a good strategy for the future. Nothing to do with what is on the market today
In the way that P&S is getting larger sensors then the semi pro bodies MUST move too - else the P&S will swamp them as the 7D segment will have nothing to offer over and above the $500 P&S
Upvote
0
Sorry, fair call. Though he does go on to draw comparison between $500 point-and-shoots and the 7D, so I think it pointless not to include Rebels, etc.briansquibb said:
Upvote
0
S
smirkypants
Guest
My point was that PROS (and serious amateurs if you will), particularly those who shoot birds and sports like the 7D and the 1D4 because of the extra reach offered by the crop sensor.swrightgfx said:
Many of the "wars" on this site and others on crop vs. full frame boil down to IQ vs. reach. The fact of the matter is that high megapixel cameras make this a completely moot argument. It's as simple as that. A high megapixel 10fps camera is coming. It's not some distant future but probably just a couple of years. Nikon could make it right now if they threw in an extra processor or two into the D800.
Upvote
0
Of course it's inevitable that we'll have 40+ megapixel, 10+ FPS full-frame pro bodies in the not too distant future. But even then, it will take many, many years for the prices of those cameras to come down to the levels of current top-of-the-line APS-C cameras (which of course, by then, will have become cheaper and better as well).
Thanks!unfocused said:
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
To be fair, I decided to go back and re-read Smirky's original post. I think the key difference in viewpoints can be found in the conclusion he draws after his first statement:
No disagreement there.
But then that segues to this:
That's where I disagree.
Let's go back to the "blue ray vs. HD DVD debate." The debate has become irrelevant not because a technology that offers superior image quality has won out. It is irrelevant because a "good enough" technology (high speed video streaming) is winning out. I can't remember the last DVD I bought and I've never bought a Blue Ray disc. No need to. I simply stream the movies to my television through Netflix or On Demand. Yes, the quality isn't as good and yes, it really annoys me when it stutters and shuts down in the middle of a show, but it is "good enough" and so it wins.
That is the mistake we make on this forum. Too many times we assume that pure quality wins. But quality only wins for a tiny, tiny percentage of the market. We also make the false assumption that quality matters more in the professional market when just the opposite is true. A professional has to always balance out the investment of time and effort against the marginal profit. No professional can afford to spend as much time on an image as an unpaid amateur. So instead, pros are always producing products that are "good enough," even though to the customer they may appear to be "perfect."
So, here's the heart of the debate: Does the path to "good enough" go through higher and higher megapixel counts on large sensors? Does it go through better and better image quality on smaller sensors? Does it go through some new hybrid technology (such as the Fuji organic sensor)? Is there a single path or multiple paths?
I don't know, but I do see enough practical problems with high megapixel full-frame sensors to suggest that the path may not be as clear as Smirky opined. I won't repeat my original post on this thread, but I will reference it.
The presumption that full frame will somehow "win out" over other formats is not supported by any objective evidence. The cost differential between the two most popular formats is real and instead of shrinking, it grew in the most recent releases by both Nikon and Canon. (At this point speculation about "entry level" full frame cameras is just that: speculation.) The quality difference between the two formats is converging. Full frame continues to excel in the margins, but those margins are shrinking. Bigger may always be better, but the cost-benefit scale is tipping toward the smaller formats.
Companies make products in order to sell them and are unlikely to abandon any market that earns them a profit.
Finally, and most importantly, the way in which we all view photographs is undergoing a revolution that makes the move to digital cameras seem insignificant. It's too early in the game to know exactly how it will all play out, but it does seem as though high-megapixel, super-high quality imagery seems to be swimming upstream against the flood of tablets, phones and social media.
I've tried to look at this without drama or throwing out red meat. But, I simply disagree with the original post that somehow one high-megapixel camera demonstrates a clearly defined single path.
No disagreement there.
But then that segues to this:
That's where I disagree.
Let's go back to the "blue ray vs. HD DVD debate." The debate has become irrelevant not because a technology that offers superior image quality has won out. It is irrelevant because a "good enough" technology (high speed video streaming) is winning out. I can't remember the last DVD I bought and I've never bought a Blue Ray disc. No need to. I simply stream the movies to my television through Netflix or On Demand. Yes, the quality isn't as good and yes, it really annoys me when it stutters and shuts down in the middle of a show, but it is "good enough" and so it wins.
That is the mistake we make on this forum. Too many times we assume that pure quality wins. But quality only wins for a tiny, tiny percentage of the market. We also make the false assumption that quality matters more in the professional market when just the opposite is true. A professional has to always balance out the investment of time and effort against the marginal profit. No professional can afford to spend as much time on an image as an unpaid amateur. So instead, pros are always producing products that are "good enough," even though to the customer they may appear to be "perfect."
So, here's the heart of the debate: Does the path to "good enough" go through higher and higher megapixel counts on large sensors? Does it go through better and better image quality on smaller sensors? Does it go through some new hybrid technology (such as the Fuji organic sensor)? Is there a single path or multiple paths?
I don't know, but I do see enough practical problems with high megapixel full-frame sensors to suggest that the path may not be as clear as Smirky opined. I won't repeat my original post on this thread, but I will reference it.
The presumption that full frame will somehow "win out" over other formats is not supported by any objective evidence. The cost differential between the two most popular formats is real and instead of shrinking, it grew in the most recent releases by both Nikon and Canon. (At this point speculation about "entry level" full frame cameras is just that: speculation.) The quality difference between the two formats is converging. Full frame continues to excel in the margins, but those margins are shrinking. Bigger may always be better, but the cost-benefit scale is tipping toward the smaller formats.
Companies make products in order to sell them and are unlikely to abandon any market that earns them a profit.
Finally, and most importantly, the way in which we all view photographs is undergoing a revolution that makes the move to digital cameras seem insignificant. It's too early in the game to know exactly how it will all play out, but it does seem as though high-megapixel, super-high quality imagery seems to be swimming upstream against the flood of tablets, phones and social media.
I've tried to look at this without drama or throwing out red meat. But, I simply disagree with the original post that somehow one high-megapixel camera demonstrates a clearly defined single path.
Upvote
0
tomscott
Photographer & Graphic Designer
This idea of video replacing video is probably correct and probable.
But a photograph says more than words, a snapshot of a moment in time. Video is the opposite of this and it is not romantic nor does the viewer connect with it in the same way.
This is the beauty of photography and that art is not going to give up easily. This is also a notion that seems to get lost with the newer age photographer where their kit is more important than the image as seen with the arrival of the D800 and 5D MKIII
Its like the 19/20th century debate about photography replacing painting. It hasn't, painting is as strong as ever it has just changed and the moving image has been around for over 100 years and still it hasn't removed the need for either medium.
I dont think that photography will become 'obsolete' it will continue to be a way of documenting and still is the best way to document.
But a photograph says more than words, a snapshot of a moment in time. Video is the opposite of this and it is not romantic nor does the viewer connect with it in the same way.
This is the beauty of photography and that art is not going to give up easily. This is also a notion that seems to get lost with the newer age photographer where their kit is more important than the image as seen with the arrival of the D800 and 5D MKIII
Its like the 19/20th century debate about photography replacing painting. It hasn't, painting is as strong as ever it has just changed and the moving image has been around for over 100 years and still it hasn't removed the need for either medium.
I dont think that photography will become 'obsolete' it will continue to be a way of documenting and still is the best way to document.
Upvote
0
I think the analogy with blu-ray and HD DVD is not a good one.
In case of video technology, it made sense to make a choice between the two formats. Before, we had two versions of every movie on the shelf.
But when it comes to cameras there's no such issue. Crop and FF can co-exist. Cars and SUVs can co-exist; both will get you from A to B. Skis and snowboards can co-exist; both will get you down the snowy slopes. Large slurpees and small slurpees can co-exist; both will quench your thirst.
In case of video technology, it made sense to make a choice between the two formats. Before, we had two versions of every movie on the shelf.
But when it comes to cameras there's no such issue. Crop and FF can co-exist. Cars and SUVs can co-exist; both will get you from A to B. Skis and snowboards can co-exist; both will get you down the snowy slopes. Large slurpees and small slurpees can co-exist; both will quench your thirst.
Upvote
0
N
Neeneko
Guest
AJ said:
I am not sure I agree.
Granted this is a tangent since the OP is talking about APS-H, which may very well end up wiped out. However, I think the Blu-ray/DVD analogy holds pretty well. There is nothing that DVD can do that Blu-ray can't also do, plus it has its own advantages. One is essentially a superset of the other, with the only real advantage of DVD being cost.
In this case, APS-C, APS-H, FF, MF, at the same pixel density there is no significant advantage to the proceeding one since the later ones can emulate anything below them. The advantage of the smaller sensors is they are cheaper to produce, so if you take away the manufacturing advantage there is no co-existence since there are no other significant trade offs.
Upvote
0
Another bash the 7D thread! Really, this has been argued to excess... pity smiting is gone, because we could really hot each other over this thread! 
The APS-C isn't going anywhere... And it has plenty to offer over the point and shoot; that logic is called false analogy.
The APS-C isn't going anywhere... And it has plenty to offer over the point and shoot; that logic is called false analogy.
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
AprilForever said:Another bash the 7D thread! Really, this has been argued to excess... pity smiting is gone, because we could really hot each other over this thread!
The APS-C isn't going anywhere... And it has plenty to offer over the point and shoot; that logic is called false analogy.
This is NOT a bash the 7D thread.
This is not a thread that is saying that APS-C is going away.
When P&S have APS-C sensors (as some already have) then their IQ will be as good as the current entry level DSLR. So to keep the entry level DSLR attractive then the entry level APS-C DSLR will have to have better specifications - which means it will start to get very close to the 7D segment
This thread is about building an upgrade to the 7D in the future to ensure that entry level sports segment, currently occupied by the 7D, will have a sucessor. What is being suggested in this thread is that Canon already has a proven technology in the APS-H which will fill that role without Canon having to spend a lot of money on R&D and therefore get the new model to the market place in the near future.
We have already said that we think that the 7D will have a minor revision in the future (7DII) maybe by the forthcoming major firmware and/or tweeks to the sensor.
I would suggest that we are looking for a target price about $2000 which keeps its relative position with the 5D range. Using a ff sensor is expensive which would make the new body to hit the target price.
I would suggest that 10fps and 22mp would be a starting point. If it is APS-H then the current 1D4 AF could be dropped in as well. APS-H is already proven at well past 40mp (actually 120mp) so there is plenty of headroom for development.
In addition the sensor would need to support video which the APS-H is good at in order for Canon to use parts in several places.
Upvote
0
I think crop is here to stay, whether it's in a body with a mirror or not remains to be seen. Another poster in another thread pointed out that - If mirrorless is to succeed the digital viewfinder has to step itself up quite a bit to have a clear advantage over the optical viewfinder via the mirror.
APC size is for many reasons not going away, if we do see a natural migration to SLR like mirrorless bodies, APC sensors will probably be used in them. And I really doubt that they are not working on ways to get the tech up to FF par. But, I read somewhere else (don't quote me on where), that current mirrorless tech also has an issue with aperture, I think its restricted to f4. If mirrorless can bridge that gap, chances of it trumping mirrored are raised...
who knows though, sometimes the better tech wins out, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes both can win though. On a certain level, its like the vinyl vs cassette tape vs CD vs mp3. Its a great example actually. CD audio quality is far greater than vinyl, and of course cassette is a dead format. But what do most prefer? An mp3 or itunes track. mp3 compression destroys a lot of audio quality, but its quick and easy and you don't have to worry about scratching it. And then there's vinyl, a format that still lives. People like that crackle of putting the needle to the record. On a certain level, DSLR camera's have that physical and audible click click of the shutter box doing its thing. Theres something pleasing about that sound, reassuring. In one of the video's comparing the mk3 to the d800 they tested the quite function on the mk3 and were almost disturbed by how quiet it was. It didn't feel like you actually took the shot they said. I guess I would fall into this camp of folks that like that sound.
APC size is for many reasons not going away, if we do see a natural migration to SLR like mirrorless bodies, APC sensors will probably be used in them. And I really doubt that they are not working on ways to get the tech up to FF par. But, I read somewhere else (don't quote me on where), that current mirrorless tech also has an issue with aperture, I think its restricted to f4. If mirrorless can bridge that gap, chances of it trumping mirrored are raised...
who knows though, sometimes the better tech wins out, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes both can win though. On a certain level, its like the vinyl vs cassette tape vs CD vs mp3. Its a great example actually. CD audio quality is far greater than vinyl, and of course cassette is a dead format. But what do most prefer? An mp3 or itunes track. mp3 compression destroys a lot of audio quality, but its quick and easy and you don't have to worry about scratching it. And then there's vinyl, a format that still lives. People like that crackle of putting the needle to the record. On a certain level, DSLR camera's have that physical and audible click click of the shutter box doing its thing. Theres something pleasing about that sound, reassuring. In one of the video's comparing the mk3 to the d800 they tested the quite function on the mk3 and were almost disturbed by how quiet it was. It didn't feel like you actually took the shot they said. I guess I would fall into this camp of folks that like that sound.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
