# A myth of growing from APS-C to Fullframe or Dealing with anachronisms



## ELK (May 22, 2012)

When I was buying my 40D in 2008, I was thinking well, I'll first get into Canon system and then will grow into fullframe.
And because I am a pure hobbyist, I actually never had neither the money nor the excuse to pay big $ for FF camera and lenses.

In the end I've stuck with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non-VC), Canon 85mm f1.8, Canon 10-22mm, Rokinon fisheye and Canon 55-250mm.

From these lenses only Canon 85mm f1.8 is designed for FF, all others are for APS-C only. 
And still these lenses are quite large compared micro43 lenses altough the sensor size difference is not that large. 
Indeed, Canon APS-C sensor diagonal is 26.7mm, while m43 is 21.6mm, so the difference is just 5.1mm!
Obviously, size optimisation wasn't a priority task for designers of the lenses I own, as again opposed to m43 system.

With the high quality mirrorless cameras like Olympus E-M5, the rumored Panasonic GH3 and more and more good lenses supporting that system, it seems to me that APS-C system is becoming an anachronism.
Really, for half the weight and close price, one can build similar or better system with m43.

I really see not much point in APS-C cameras anymore. First, they're not a good helpers for you to grow to FF. Second, there is no strong commitment to this format even by manufacturers themselves. They just have produced the most necessary line of lenses, mostly mediocre quality, which is understandably to attract
amateurs by price. In all those years no single really high quality APS-C lens, which would approach to L-glass (apart from maybe the 17-50mm f2.8 by Nikon).

Most importantly I don't see any SYSTEM in APS-C especially by Canon! If it's a system, then where is the EF-S 50-150mm f2.8, which should correspond to 70-200mm in FF?
Sigma is the only helper here ), where are the primes, like EF-S 15mm, EF-S 22mm, EF-S 35mm 1.8, EF-S 50mm 1.8 etc?

The idea of APS-C was nice - to make amateurs enter into interchangeable lenses world. Now, this role is better fullfilled by m43.
APS-C format was a good dollar-machine, but I believe not anymore. 

Will we see slow die-out of APS-C in near future? Or Canikon will be smart enough to trasnform in into more compact format, with less pain to EF-S and DX lens owners?


----------



## Random Orbits (May 23, 2012)

The APS-C format allows the development of smaller and less expensive lenses at the wide range of the focal length scale. That is why you see so many good APS-C ultrawide angle zoom options that would be unpractical or extremely expensive for FF. The ultrawide 10-22 is much less expensive than the 16-35 yet is a match for it in IQ.

For longer focal lengths, the effective aperture dominates lens size and weight. In the case of a 200mm f/2.8, you need an effective aperture of 71mm, which is much larger than the APC-S or FF sensor. It's not a coincidence that all the long EF-S zooms have small f-stops to keep the effective aperture as small as possible, thereby minimizing weight and cost. 

Canon's EF-S 60, 17-55 and 10-22 are all excellent lenses, so I'm not sure why you'd call them mediocre... unless you want L-grade build quality, but then you also want them small and light, so which way is it?

I'm actually glad that Canon does not make many EF-S specific primes, especially at the longer focal lengths. If you get the EF primes, then by default you have EF/EF-S compatibility. Isn't that what you are looking for? Where an EF-S prime would make sense would be at the ultrawide end, i.e. 8 to 16mm.

Earlier this year, I switched from APC-S to FF. I had the EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55, 35L and 70-200L. How many lenses did I have to "change" to FF? Two: I sold the 17-55 and 10-22 and got a ultrawide zoom and a 50mm prime. I netted more than 75% of my EF-S lens cost in the exchange.

The problem that I see with m43 systems is that many manufactures have different sensor sizes. I'd also give it a few more years to see if the m43 systems stick around.


----------



## ELK (May 24, 2012)

I overall agree with you. My main point is just that current situation with mirrorless cameras, especially m43 is that this system is overall much smaller and is better equipped with dedicated lenses than APS-C of both Canon and Nikon. Of course we can use any EF lens on APS-C, but the EF lenses were designed for FF and hence bulky, costy plus the crop factor considerations. Agree, the m43 needs some time to get mature, but Canon surely needs to consider making APS-C cameras and EF-S lenses smaller. And if they introduce their mirrorless with sensor size of G1X, it will certainly cannibalize APS-C sales. Will it then mean that Canon may slowly phase out the Rebel series at all? Or their mirrorless will have some artificial compromises, like Nikon 1 has? So, I'm just curious what will be the future of APS-C?


----------



## Marsu42 (May 24, 2012)

ELK said:


> So, I'm just curious what will be the future of APS-C?



I think historically it's just a workaround for not being able to produce 35mm-like sensors at a reasonable price. Of course "ff" is just a random size based on a historic precedent, but the ef mount is made for it. And Canon never gave much love to ef-s lenses & was dumb (or clever?) enough to prevent using ef-s on full frame bodies unlike Nikon with dx and fx.

But even with the situation now, aps-c has many advantages (longer reach, affordable good ultrawides) so that it'll stick around for some time to come simply because smaller sensors will keep being cheaper as larger ones. The Rebels will loose market share to mirrorless, but many people like me won't want to use an evf even if it's a good one.

Last not least, marketing-wise aps-c is the drug that sets you on your way to buying expensive lenses and ff bodies with a hilarious price tag, so one more reason for Canon to keep it around.


----------



## tomscott (May 24, 2012)

What dedicated lenses do you need?

The 17-55 and 10-22 outperform the FF counterparts on crop and apart from weather sealing are the same even the same focal lengths. 17-55mm is pretty much 24-70 and the 10-22mm is pretty much a 16-35.

A lot of FF lenses are great on crop cameras take the 100mm L macro its a 160mm marco, 70-200 is a 110-320mm 2.8, 100-400 is 160-640mm! if you want primes just go wider 35mm is around 50mm, 50mm is around 85mm. Just need to change the way you shoot slightly. In fact I think most L lenses work great on crop apart from the wide and standard zooms and canon has filled this. The 17-55mm, 15-85mm and 10-22mm are the only lenses worth having on a crop body and fill that whole niche the only thing missing is a tilt shift and a fish eye.

Like said previously The only lenses you would have to get rid of is the 17-55mm and the 10-22mm but tbh they are so good I would keep them when going FF, also keep the 40D because that is a great camera too. 

Im in exactly the same position and thats what im doing.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 24, 2012)

tomscott said:


> The 17-55 and 10-22 outperform the FF counterparts on crop and apart from weather sealing are the same even the same focal lengths.



Yes, *apart* from weather-sealing. And since there is even a better sealed aps-c body, Canon not putting any L or sealed ef-s on the market tells something about how they value aps-c. For outdoor use, I recently decided only to get sealed lenses because too many broke down. But that's just me and maybe I was unlucky.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 24, 2012)

There is also the benefit that the APS-C sensor shoots the "sweet spot" of the lens. So you can use old lenses like the 35mm f/2.0 and get a super sharp image across the frame! On a FF, it may get a bit ugly in the corners.


----------



## preppyak (May 24, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> But even with the situation now, aps-c has many advantages (longer reach, affordable good ultrawides) so that it'll stick around for some time to come simply because smaller sensors will keep being cheaper as larger ones. The Rebels will loose market share to mirrorless, but many people like me won't want to use an evf even if it's a good one


To take that a step further, the people that use APS-C at the upper levels (think 7D) are people like birders, sports guys, and nature photographers. Few if any of them would adapt to a M4/3rd camera because the EVF and AF limit them in all of those situations. Can't shoot sunrise or sunset shots of animals, because your EVF is dark and hard to see. Can't shoot birds or sports effectively because the AF is too slow.

That's not to say 4/3rds cameras won't solve some of their issues, they will, but there are some pretty major hurdles to climb to cover those use cases. And until they solve them, you won't see APS-C go away. 

Also why make EF-S specific primes when Canon can make EF ones, which work for a MUCH broader audience, and when those lenses are pretty small anyway (if the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 are too big, get a P+S). They only make EF-S lenses to solve a specific APS-C problem, like UWA (10-22), a high quality lower light zoom (17-55), and light-weight zooms (55-250).


----------



## BillyBean (May 24, 2012)

ELK said:


> When I was buying my 40D in 2008, I was thinking well, I'll first get into Canon system and then will grow into fullframe.
> And because I am a pure hobbyist, I actually never had neither the money nor the excuse to pay big $ for FF camera and lenses.



I got into Canon around the same time, again with a plan to 'evolve' to full frame. But unlike you, I bought only the best L glass I could afford, sticking it on a 450D in the interim, and also an EOS3, which you could I guess describe as full frame (135 film!). Just last week, I upgraded my 450D to a 5D3, so plan is complete !

So it can be done.

But I agree with your premise. It's not easy or cheap. 

I think Canon should take a leaf out of Nikon's book and allow EF-S lenses to fit full frame cameras, using a discrete part of the sensor - the APS-C part. With 23 MP to play with, this isn't such a bad deal, and at least it gives you an option as you shovel more cash into the Canon machine and upgrade your glass over time.


----------



## digitalride (May 24, 2012)

I like the idea of a smaller, cheaper, just as good camera system, but m43 isn't it (at least yet). Yes, in some respects it is "as good" as aps-c, but in my opinion it is WAY too expensive to get something with apsc-like performance. Where is the fast glass for m43 that is smaller and cheaper? One day there may be a $120 50mm 1.8 for m43 and other cheap quality fast lenses (they will need to be 2/3 of a stop faster to compensate for the smaller sensor vs. aps-c), but for now the early adopters are getting fleeced. Sure, small size and weight are a factor for some people, but focusing and shallow depth of field and ergonomics are more important for other people. m43 is an alternative, not a replacement for larger sensored cameras. 

In my opinion m43 and aps-c are just points on the continuum from a cheap point and shoot to medium format, and it is ridiculous to suggest that aps-c will go away because it is in the middle - if m43 is "good enough" then why can't the interchangeable lens cameras with even smaller sensors be "good enough" and make m43 obsolete? m43 is not at some magic sweet spot size - if such a thing existed I might say it is whatever size sensor you can build a decent system around and still fit it in your pocket. 

In the end as technology progresses and all the manufacturers get closer and closer to each other, sensor size is going to be the only real differentiator - a camera with 50% more sensor area is always going to be 50% better in some respects due to the laws of physics. As things are now people bicker about which camera is the best due to slightly better ISO performance or dynamic range or number of pixels - so the 50% difference in sensor area between m43 and aps-c will be very significant going forward.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 24, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> There is also the benefit that the APS-C sensor shoots the "sweet spot" of the lens. So you can use old lenses like the 35mm f/2.0 and get a super sharp image across the frame! On a FF, it may get a bit ugly in the corners.



That's true, but it's really a strange argument if you think about it. You probably could built an older ef lens cheaper as ef-s without the non-used non-"sweet spot" glass around the center. It might not make such a difference and it depends on the zoom range, but with ef lenses on aps-c you're carrying dead weight.



BillyBean said:


> I think Canon should take a leaf out of Nikon's book and allow EF-S lenses to fit full frame cameras, using a discrete part of the sensor - the APS-C part.



However, it seems Nikon users don't really use that option much, they seem to use fx glass on a fx sensor. For this and marketing reasons, I guess there's no way Canon will follow this path, though it would be handy if engineered with no additional cost.


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2012)

The relative advantages of each format (full frame, APS-C and even APS-H) have been hashed and rehashed over so many times on so many different threads that there really isn't anything more to say. Each format has its advocates and each is convinced that the advantages of their preferred format make it superior. This is nothing new to photography. When I was young, there were the same debates over view cameras, 120 medium format cameras and 35mm. Within 35mm there was the debate over rangefinder vs. SLR. 

Even then, there were folks who considered "their" format to be the only serious one and acted as though photographers who used other formats were less capable. In the meantime, truly talented photographers produced amazing work with the tools they had and didn't make excuses. Nothing has changed. 

Honestly, only a fool would look at "The Americans" and complain because some of Frank's images were grainy or less than razor sharp.

Will small mirrorless cameras replace DSLRs? There is nothing that currently meets my criteria, so I am content to lug around by 7D with a battery grip and a bag full of lenses because that's the tool I prefer. Mirrorless cameras won't catch my interest until someone comes up with an effective viewfinder that can match the quality of a reflex mirror. 

Changes in camera formats tend to be evolutionary not revolutionary. If and when any format disappears, there will be a transition period and lenses and bodies that you already own won't suddenly stop working.


----------



## akiskev (May 24, 2012)

tomscott said:


> The 17-55 and 10-22 outperform the FF counterparts on crop and apart from weather sealing are the same even the same focal lengths. 17-55mm is pretty much 24-70 and the 10-22mm is pretty much a 16-35.


I think that 17-55 on aps-c is worse than 24-105 on ff.
I don't have an opinion about 10-22 vs 16-35 or 17-40...


----------



## DCM1024 (May 24, 2012)

I agree with preppyak. We have 5d2, 7d, t2i and e-pm1 with about 8 lenses. The e-pm1 can take lovely stills but is not responsive enough to even replace the Rebel. I tried that one year with the E-P1 and lived to regret it. At this time, I consider m43 to be a compact supplement but not a replacement for even an entry level dslr.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 24, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > There is also the benefit that the APS-C sensor shoots the "sweet spot" of the lens. So you can use old lenses like the 35mm f/2.0 and get a super sharp image across the frame! On a FF, it may get a bit ugly in the corners.
> ...



I agree. Wasn't using it as an argument. I shoot crop & FF and they both have their advantages. I just like being able to use my EF lenses on my EOS-3, 5Dii & 7D with different benefits on all.

IF I shot my 35mm f/2 on my 5D, I'd probably want to crop it more often to eliminate issues- losing tons of pixies. On my 7D, it's cropped without the loss. Benefit.

I don't buy APS-C lenses cause I use more FF cameras- & I like the flexibility of bringing out 2 bodies, and interchanging lenses.


----------



## tomscott (May 24, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Honestly, only a fool would look at "The Americans" and complain because some of Frank's images were grainy or less than razor sharp.



The beauty is that a lot were, The Americans is one of my favourite works. There are lots of images that are less than sharp, blurry, grainy and it makes the series. This is where fine art photography differs its about the subject and in this case its documentation.

Fantastic series, if you haven't seen it get hold of a copy. His books set a trend in the design of photographic publications. Although they actually lost money on the print run. Beautiful shots and of corse the Americans hated it.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 24, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Yes, *apart* from weather-sealing. And since there is even a better sealed aps-c body, Canon not putting any L or sealed ef-s on the market tells something about how they value aps-c. For outdoor use, I recently decided only to get sealed lenses because too many broke down. But that's just me and maybe I was unlucky.



We'll have to see about that when Canon replaces the 17-55 and 10-22 with newer versions. The Rebel line was pitched to consumers and not pros. Even now, many more people buy a APS-C camera with kit lenses rather than opting for the higher quality 17-55, 10-22 or L lenses. None of the Canon full frame non-L lenses have sealing either, but again, those were designed in the film era for consumers. Which EF-S lenses would benefit from weather sealing? Maybe the 17-55 and 10-22 and that's probably it and that's because they already command such a high price to start with anyway.


----------



## preppyak (May 24, 2012)

DCM1024 said:


> I consider m43 to be a compact supplement but not a replacement for even an entry level dslr.


Yeah, that's sort of how I see it as well. I'd be far more likely to buy a M4/3rd camera and a zoom lens than a P+S if I needed something small and portable, because I'd want the control and expandability that interchangeable systems have....but, they aren't such a huge weight and size savings over my 60D that its worth it at the moment.

I will say, some of the NEX stuff is interesting, and Sony has been pushing really hard to improve. I'd put pretty good odds that I'll own the NEX-9 or whatever is is about 2-3 years from now, because my DSLR will be full-frame, and the NEX can be my outdoor adventure camera (to take with me in my kayak or on the trail on longer treks). They'll have a better set of lenses, and they'll likely have solved the AF issues. I could live with an EVF if that was the only major tradeoff.


----------



## westr70 (May 24, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> ELK said:
> 
> 
> > So, I'm just curious what will be the future of APS-C?
> ...



Yes, that's what happened to me. I didn't even see the spider web................


----------



## funkboy (May 24, 2012)

Come Photokina, we may have a small mirrorless Canon body with its own set of lenses AND autofocus EF lenses with an adapter. Knowing Canon, they will try as hard as they can to cram in features that will one-up μ4/3 (and Sony E).

Until then, horses for courses...


----------



## lol (May 24, 2012)

One thing I find quite amusing about the call for "smaller" mirrorless is that it goes against the arguments of those who said entry level DSLRs were too small to hold comfortably. Now some people are saying they want even smaller? And in a twist, many are buying the optional grip for the E-M5 to make it better to hold... Ok, It isn't necessarily the same people saying or doing all of these, but it does clearly indicate there's a spread in needs out there and mirrorless isn't the one camera to rule them all.


----------



## Rocky (May 24, 2012)

lol said:


> One thing I find quite amusing about the call for "smaller" mirrorless is that it goes against the arguments of those who said entry level DSLRs were too small to hold comfortably. Now some people are saying they want even smaller? And in a twist, many are buying the optional grip for the E-M5 to make it better to hold... Ok, It isn't necessarily the same people saying or doing all of these, but it does clearly indicate there's a spread in needs out there and mirrorless isn't the one camera to rule them all.


Well said! I am a person with average size hand. I found that the Rebel is too small for my hand. So I ended up with a 20D then a 40D. The Nex 7 not that smaller with the zoom lens. Granted that the body is slimmer. but the total volume is not that much smaller than a rebel with the zoom lens. The focusing speed is much slower than the rebel, lifeview with the back screen is not that useful out door and the EVF will set you back about the price of a lens. Thre eronomic is nothing to write home with either. So if I have to choose between the Rebel and the mirrorless, I will take the Rebel anytime. It will take a lot of improvenment for the mirrorless to be able to replace the APS-C DSLR. In my humble opinion, it may never happen.


----------



## briansquibb (May 24, 2012)

I have large hands and I struggle with 'small' cameras such as the 5DII and the 7D


----------



## Marsu42 (May 24, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> We'll have to see about that when Canon replaces the 17-55 and 10-22 with newer versions. Which EF-S lenses would benefit from weather sealing? Maybe the 17-55 and 10-22 and that's probably it and that's because they already command such a high price to start with anyway.



I'd like to have a sealed 15-85 and 10-22 if staying on aps-c. But I don't see a replacement in the near future, actually I don't see it at all - these lenses perform well, have up to date IS and are imho are positioned exactly where Canon wants them to be - as a stepping-stone between kit end L lenses.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (May 24, 2012)

I also started with the 40d and still love this camera. I never was fully satisfied with the wide and ultra wide zooms from the third party side. The 70-200 f4 is was perfect and I really loved the extra reach. The 85 1.2 IQ was terrific but to me it was too close as a portrait lens. What finally made me go for FF was the ts 24. I have never regretted this step. And even the 70-200 now is more "real". So, I am now an enthusiastic FF user. But I don't like the conception of a world without crop cameras because it widens the picture of slr cameras, and in the end it's an additional option.


----------



## elflord (May 24, 2012)

Some perspecitve from a full frame and m43 user...


> With the high quality mirrorless cameras like Olympus E-M5, the rumored Panasonic GH3 and more and more good lenses supporting that system, it seems to me that APS-C system is becoming an anachronism.
> Really, for half the weight and close price, one can build similar or better system with m43.



It depends -- better for what ? beginning SLR users by them because they are cheap. Micro 4/3 lenses still sell at a premium because new products are generally more expensive than older products. At the higher end, most APS-C users choose the small format for extra reach, so they are using large tele lenses. Most of these users want good autofocus (e.g. sports, BIF). Because there is a limited range of native tele lenses for m43 (olympus and panasonic each have a slow zoom that goes up to 300mm).

For a general purpose small camera though, they are quite good. 



> In all those years no single really high quality APS-C lens, which would approach to L-glass (apart from maybe the 17-50mm f2.8 by Nikon).


As was already pointed out, you only need special APS-C only lenses at the wide end. Canon have the 17-55mm, and the 10-22mm. Third party manufacturers also make comparable lenses, so there are several good choices. 


> Most importantly I don't see any SYSTEM in APS-C especially by Canon!


Pentax were APS-C only. 


> If it's a system, then where is the EF-S 50-150mm f2.8, which should correspond to 70-200mm in FF?


The corresponding APS-C lens is the 70-200mm. I don't believe many APS-C users of this lens complain about the missing 45-70mm range. 


> Sigma is the only helper here ), where are the primes, like EF-S 15mm, EF-S 22mm, EF-S 35mm 1.8, EF-S 50mm 1.8 etc?


Sigma and Nikon both make primes around the 30mm mark. It only makes sense at the wide end. 



> The idea of APS-C was nice - to make amateurs enter into interchangeable lenses world. Now, this role is better fullfilled by m43.
> APS-C format was a good dollar-machine, but I believe not anymore.



All of the APS-C systems are more mature than micro 4/3 (which is the most mature/complete of the new mirrorless systems). This means you get better glass for your dollars. It also means there are more lenses available. For example, how many f/2.8 zooms can you buy today for a mirrorless system ? m43 are just getting to it. Same with long telephotos. Most mirrorless cameras still have contrast detect AF which in its later iterations works well for some things and not as well for others. For example, they aren't better than the 7D for sports shooting just yet. 

There's no doubt that Pana and Oly have some good products but APS-C isn't dead yet.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I have large hands and I struggle with 'small' cameras such as the 5DII and the 7D



In the good ol' times, I had a exchangeable "large grip" on my legacy eos rt & 620 that was perfect. Basically, it was just a larger piece of plastic. But I guess Canon figured out that it doesn't make sense to design bodies that take different 30$ grips, if you can make them pay 3000$ to get a larger body they maybe wouldn't have needed in the first place :-o


----------



## pj1974 (May 25, 2012)

Hi All

I own both a 7D and a 350D, and don't plan on moving to FF at this stage. The balance between size, cost, functionality and having the pixel density on my telezoom end makes me enjoy using crop sensored cameras a lot. 

Having said that, sure there are some times that I would like a FF - particularly for more depth of field control.... but even that will be minimised when I hope to Canon will produce, and then I'll buy a great new Canon 50-60mm prime (eg f1.8 to f2 with true USM and superior IQ wide open).

I see that I might possibly never go to FF (so long as there are always APS-C sensored bodies and EF-S lenses around) - ie to replace my current bodies / lenses when they might 'die'.

From a size perspective, the 7D is ideal for me. I upgraded from the Canon 350D (which I've had since 2005) to the Canon 7D about 2 and a half years ago. I haven't looked back since. The 7D's superior handling, AF and image quality were welcome to me. I got used to the 7D's sound very quickly. In particular the 7D's view finder and screen have been great practical benefits, as well as the higher ISO possibilities.

The 7D is just the camera I want / need. Sure, I hope any 7DmkII will have improved IQ and perhaps a few additional features. I'm very happy with the 7D's AF and fps - though any improvement on either of these would be ok (so long as the price rise isn't too substantial just because of that). Whenever I go back to the 350D, it takes me a bit of getting used to (eg a few minutes of using) - but then I am ok with it. But the 7D feels more natural to me now. 

My lenses include a Sigma 10-20mm EX, Canon 15-85mm, Canon 100mm macro and Canon 70-300mmL. The image quality from all of these lenses is very very good - from 10mm to 300mm (in 35mm equivalent: 16mm to 480mm) is well covered. So I find these all work so well on crop sensored cameras, particularly corner to corner of the frame.

From a camera size perspective, I have used a 1D series, and find it uncomfortably heavy / big. I'm a fit - yet fairly small build guy, but having that additional weight of a 1D does take it's toll. I can use my 7D with 70-300mmL for hours walking, etc, but a bigger camera and lens combination (eg 1D with 100-400mmL) is much more tiring. 

I have small to medium size hands, but my fingers are relatively long for the size / shape of my hand. Many people talk about 'small hands' or 'large hands' - but I think it's to do with many aspects, eg length of palm, length of fingers, 'stubby vs thick' fingers, etc. The 7D has both a taller and a 'beefier' grip for all my fingers to curl around. Having said that, I managed to use a 350D for hours - there was some discomfort, but I often just ignored it. I have used a Sony Nex 7 the other day - (helping a friend of mine who needed my assistance) - and I found the whole size and system too 'fiddly'. I would rather have a good P&S for ultimate portability in that case (as I used to have a few Fuji P&S cameras before I got into DSLRs).

From a perspective of image quality, pixel peeping will at times allow people to tell whether a photo was taken with the latest / greatest FF from an entry level APS-C... however, good photographers can get awesome images from even entry level DSLRs, as they understand about light, composition, technique and post processing. I have seen many many good photos across all levels of cameras, including P&S, though it's true that cameras with larger sensors have discernable benefits - particularly in noise, sharpness-per pixel level and functionality (eg fast focus, low-light, etc). 

Some of the photos I took several years ago with my Fuji 3MP P&S still 'wow' people (who are not pixel peepers), as well as many images from my 350D. As I had those cameras for my years (about a decade) living in Europe between the late 90's to late 2008 - I'm glad to have those digital images captured and saved (forever!) However I'm now most content with the 7D, and if I ever go travelling, that is what I take as my main kit - with the 350D as my backup.

Regards... hope my post is useful food for thought! 8)

Paul


----------



## Marsu42 (May 25, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> I can use my 7D with 70-300mmL for hours walking, etc, but a bigger camera and lens combination (eg 1D with 100-400mmL) is much more tiring.



Me too with my 60d & 70-300L, it's a very good "day out" combination!



pj1974 said:


> however, good photographers can get awesome images from even entry level DSLRs, as they understand about light, composition, technique and post processing.



However, if shooting outdoors you cannot control the light. And with the 18mp sensor and tele range, I'm at iso800 or even iso1600 in no time raising noise and reducing dynamic range. And it's always very frustrating to have to throw away pictures because I just cannot raise shadows (e.g. when shooting a white bird in front of dark green trees) because of pattern noise in the background. And I know how to expose correctly and use Lightroom, that's why I'd wish for an upgraded sensor.


----------



## DB (May 25, 2012)

ELK said:


> I overall agree with you. My main point is just that current situation with mirrorless cameras, especially m43 is that this system is overall much smaller and is better equipped with dedicated lenses than APS-C of both Canon and Nikon. Of course we can use any EF lens on APS-C, but the EF lenses were designed for FF and hence bulky, costy plus the crop factor considerations. Agree, the m43 needs some time to get mature, but Canon surely needs to consider making APS-C cameras and EF-S lenses smaller. And if they introduce their mirrorless with sensor size of G1X, it will certainly cannibalize APS-C sales. Will it then mean that Canon may slowly phase out the Rebel series at all? Or their mirrorless will have some artificial compromises, like Nikon 1 has? So, I'm just curious what will be the future of APS-C?



An interesting point. Panasonic will soon announce their GH3 mirror-less camera that may tempt many Rebel users away (especially those who purchased primarily for video), particularly as it can use so many different lens types (including EF)

I started with a Rebel T2i then migrated to a 7D, but have never purchased an EF-S lens, only FF EF ones, because like many of the other views extolled here, I would like to migrate next to FF, because of the bigger sensor size and improved IQ (well, the IQ is talked about so much by those with 5D2's and above).


----------



## AprilForever (May 25, 2012)

ELK said:


> When I was buying my 40D in 2008, I was thinking well, I'll first get into Canon system and then will grow into fullframe.
> And because I am a pure hobbyist, I actually never had neither the money nor the excuse to pay big $ for FF camera and lenses.
> 
> In the end I've stuck with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non-VC), Canon 85mm f1.8, Canon 10-22mm, Rokinon fisheye and Canon 55-250mm.
> ...



I whole heartedly disagree with you. Read Thom Hogan's website about equivalency (a google search with those whree keywords will produce the desired result).


----------



## Random Orbits (May 25, 2012)

DB said:


> An interesting point. Panasonic will soon announce their GH3 mirror-less camera that may tempt many Rebel users away (especially those who purchased primarily for video), particularly as it can use so many different lens types (including EF)
> 
> I started with a Rebel T2i then migrated to a 7D, but have never purchased an EF-S lens, only FF EF ones, because like many of the other views extolled here, I would like to migrate next to FF, because of the bigger sensor size and improved IQ (well, the IQ is talked about so much by those with 5D2's and above).



If you ever decide to go FF and keep your 7D, it might make more sense to get the ultrawide for the crop sensor rather than the fullframe. Getting a 10-22 or a Sigma 8-16 is much less costly than Canon's FF 16-35 and the performance doesn't differ that much.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 25, 2012)

ELK said:


> When I was buying my 40D in 2008, I was thinking well, I'll first get into Canon system and then will grow into fullframe.
> And because I am a pure hobbyist, I actually never had neither the money nor the excuse to pay big $ for FF camera and lenses.
> 
> In the end I've stuck with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non-VC), Canon 85mm f1.8, Canon 10-22mm, Rokinon fisheye and Canon 55-250mm.
> ...


 
I've never seen Canon sell the Rebels as a system to move to FF. It stands alone. 

However, if a person has plans to move to FF in the near future, purchase lenses that are good for both. The 17-40mm L, 24-105mm L, 70-200mmL (f/4 or f/2.8), in fact, many EF lenses are out there, both high quality, or inexpensive. However, EF-S lenses will never work on a Canon FF. Buy them if you plan to stick with APS-C. There is nothing wrong with that, it will be around for a long time.


----------



## ScottyP (May 25, 2012)

Marketshare would tend to disagree with your idea of 4/3 killing Canon and Nikon any time soon. Plus, I love all the lens reviews that harsh on a FF lens (Canon or 3p) for "vignetting" only to say that "of course, this is no corncern when mounted on a crop body".


----------



## briansquibb (May 25, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Marketshare would tend to disagree with your idea of 4/3 killing Canon and Nikon any time soon. Plus, I love all the lens reviews that harsh on a FF lens (Canon or 3p) for "vignetting" only to say that "of course, this is no corncern when mounted on a crop body".



APS-C users definitely get better IQ from EF lens - try the 17-40 on both and see which body gives the best image ....


----------



## ecka (May 25, 2012)

ELK said:


> When I was buying my 40D in 2008, I was thinking well, I'll first get into Canon system and then will grow into fullframe.
> And because I am a pure hobbyist, I actually never had neither the money nor the excuse to pay big $ for FF camera and lenses.
> 
> In the end I've stuck with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non-VC), Canon 85mm f1.8, Canon 10-22mm, Rokinon fisheye and Canon 55-250mm.
> ...


To me it's like saying - "synthetic food is better". From what I've learned, if you want to grow a FF system then you should start with a FF body, and using L glass on APS-C bodies is a waste


----------



## briansquibb (May 25, 2012)

ecka said:


> To me it's like saying - "synthetic food is better". From what I've learned, if you want to grow a FF system then you should start with a FF body, and using L glass on APS-C bodies is a waste



.... does that apply to those with mixed ff and crops? .....


----------



## ecka (May 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > To me it's like saying - "synthetic food is better". From what I've learned, if you want to grow a FF system then you should start with a FF body, and using L glass on APS-C bodies is a waste
> ...



I guess it does not ... 
... I do eat fast food sometimes


----------

