# The Last Generation of the Crop Sensor Cameras



## smirkypants (Apr 26, 2012)

I'm pretty sure this crop/full frame debate is soon to go the way of the blue ray vs. hd dvd debate... it will be made irrelevant by the advancement of technology. The D800 has pretty much shown us the future. If you have a high megapixel camera, crop becomes irrelevant. The D800 switches between 1.0, 1.2 and 1.5 crops effortlessly with 36/26/16 MP files respectively. A 50MP camera gets us to almost 20MP at a 1.6 crop. 

Of course this will probably only hold true for the top of the line models, at least for a while, but I wouldn't be buying any EF-S lenses in the interim. I wouldn't be thinking of making a long-term commitment to EF-S glass if I were at all serious about my future photography plans.

So the 7D Mark II may well be the last semi-pro crop sensor camera that comes out. I know that I haven't really seen Canon investing in a lot of new high-level EF-S glass.

Just, you know... throwin' it out there.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 26, 2012)

It's probably cost prohibitive. They get significantly fewer sensors per wafer with FF dimensions.


----------



## mws (Apr 26, 2012)

I agree with smirkypants. I don't know when, but I think eventually everything will be full frame. Or maybe even some new dimension.


----------



## lol (Apr 26, 2012)

In the very long run, I think mirrorless is what will kill the crop DSLR, not full frame models. Why do we have crop sensor DSLRs? Because they are a LOT cheaper than full frame models. I don't see any sign of that changing any time soon. But if future mirrorless sales erode into entry level DSLR space from below, I think DSLRs will be forced upwards and survive in a premium niche. If you want bigger sensor DoF, full frame is still far more affordable than medium format. But this is still a long term factor and I don't think will happen for many years.


----------



## tomscott (Apr 26, 2012)

For the near future no I dont think so. Crop is not only designed for consumers it also allows for quicker product obsolescence and this is where the manufacturers make all their money. The difference in sales between a XXXD and a XD will be phenomenal. The percentage of users with crop cameras will trump compared to full frame.

Most consumers dont even understand the difference.. It takes pictures.

You have to understand that not everyone buys cameras for a career, not everyone is a pro and people like taking pictures. Although there are newer techs like mirrorless the DSLR is the camera to go with if you want better quality pics. Up to A3 even A2 crops are fine! Seen as tho barely anyone has a printer bigger than A4 it wont matter anyway.

Whether it makes sense or not, there will always be a business man behind the decisions and killing crops is not one I see them applauding. Making a cheap camera that sells like hot cakes is a dream which is why so many people have XXXDs.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 26, 2012)

i agree that crop frame SLR cameras days are numbered. Not in the next couple years or anything, but surely they won't make it out of this decade. Death from FF slr's, mirrorless things, or something else will take them out. Sure most people don't know the difference, they use their camera phones. But when then go online or walk into a camera shop they will be told about the differences. sensor prices will continue to fall, hence ff camera body prices. the lens lineup with consolidate, new ef-s lenses will stop being designed. they will likely be MADE for a good while after new designs have halted, and repairs will continue for a good while after that happens. but the day will come when they are no more. Are crop frame bodies , with lenses attached considerably smaller than FF stuff to justify their existence on size alone? Compared to mirrorless offerrings? Can someone name something electronic that hasn't gotten faster, smaller, cheaper, and better for less? that's a real question, perhaps there are examples, i just can't think of any. DSLR's are computers in highend cases.


----------



## Heidrun (Apr 26, 2012)

I realy dont think that Canon will skip the 1,6 sensor. What i realy think that Canon will do is produce a 36x36 sensor with between 50 and 75 MP in the feauture


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 26, 2012)

Are you kidding me? There is a reason we have DSLRs for $500. This is hardly the "last generation of crop sensors" :

You see what happen to bikes when cars came around? Oh...nothing.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Apr 26, 2012)

There is always a gap for APS-C (DX) sized cameras and it is likely to remain for quite some time. The reason is very simple in my opinion: 

De facto mirrorless and APS-C cameras will soon or already have the same sensor quality ... E.g. GH2/NEX 7/ SLT A77 and 600D/60D/7D ... however there is a major difference and that is the lenses. While in both system we see high quality glass the problem is that most mirrorless systems are kind of closed architecture systems due to their overall smaller size - the APS-C (DX) DSLR models can however also take full frame class lenses and are therefore the entry level to FF where higher margins for the companies are possible ... 

Just think about it nearly everyone here started with a XXXD or XXD body before moving to FF therefore it is in all companies interest (Canon, Nikon and Sony) to leave this path of upgrade intact ... which in consequence means that at least 2 to 3 APS-C bodies will always remain in each lineup and that are BEGINNER (XXXD) INTERMEDIATE (XXD) and SEMIPRO (7D *least likely to remain imo*) ...


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Apr 26, 2012)

Most of the market is looking for cheap equipment, so cameras with small sensors (& lenses with small image circle) will stay in the market.

As someone wrote in a local newsletter - he has a P&S w/ 35-1000mm (or some such) equivalent lens, he is satisfied with it, and screw the snobs who think heavy & expensive DSLRs are better.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 26, 2012)

Eventually, they will all be square.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 26, 2012)

mws said:


> I agree with smirkypants. I don't know when, but *I think eventually everything will be full frame*. Or maybe even some new dimension.


 
How large would a camera phone be with a FF sensor?? Somehow, I don't think this is the case, tiny cameras are in demand.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 26, 2012)

Crop ain't goin' nowhere for a loooooooooooooooooooooong time.

The EF-S format lets you get quality, lightweight, inexpensive gear. It's a marvelous format. It's even the _perfect_ smaller format than 135; 1.6 is Phi, the Golden Ratio. Considering that modern EF-S equipment is handily outperforming 135 film on everything but shallowness of depth of field, and that 135 film was for, like, forever, the gold standard in quality consumer-level and fast-paced professional photography, you can bet your bottom dollar that it's here to stay.

Me? I shoot nothing but full frame. I wouldn't even mind medium format or larger for some of what I do...but, on the other hand, I can get sharper 16" x 24" prints out of my gear than the Ansel Adams prints I've seen in museum galleries, so I really don't have anything to complain about.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## mws (Apr 26, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> mws said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with smirkypants. I don't know when, but *I think eventually everything will be full frame*. Or maybe even some new dimension.
> ...



Should have clarified, stand alone camera, not cell phone etc. 

Who knows, maybe in the distant future we will have some entirely new technology that we don't even comprehend today that allows cell phones (or whatever replaces them in the future) to take photos on par with modern SLRs.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 26, 2012)

I dont think they will do away with the 1.6, but I can see the wedge growing even deeper between the two... The xxd probably will remain xxd, but will really start slipping in class and feature sets or may kinda keep it's current features but become the glorified rebel. I think the 7d will be the king of the crops for canon, but IQ as it get more jam packed with pixels vs the full frames will be enough to want to jump ship to full frame... EF-s lenses sales probably outpace EF non L and L lenses combined, plus unlike nikon and 3rd party, unless they go mirrorless, they cannot use ef-s on full frame, so in camera cropping has a whole new hurdle. Canon has a great hierarchy and a clear upgrade path, see neuro as an example. I dont see them foregoing the lower end cameras as they are what get people invested in canon emotionally and financially.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 26, 2012)

Here we go again. 

Eventually *all* DSLRs will be obsolete. And, eventually, we will all be dead. 

In the meantime, these proclamations about the "death" of one particular format are beyond silly. But, just for the sake of argument, what sign is there of any decline in the APS-C format?


Is it that the price of a full frame camera is now more that twice the cost of a comparably equipped APS-C camera?

Is it that every manufacturer has now settled on two sensor formats for enthusiast and professional level cameras? (Canon dumping the 1.3 format from the DSLR lineup and other manufacturers migrating to APS-C for their top-end mirror less models, as in the Fuji X-Pro 1)


Is it that after the initial excitement has worn off, the top 20 Amazon DSLR best sellers currently list 16 APS-C cameras and only four full-frame cameras?

Is it that in a world where the vast majority of images will never be viewed at more than 72 dpi on computer screens and tablet devices, the differences between APS-C and Full Frame are detectable only at the highest ISO ranges, massive print sizes or by zooming in on an image on a computer screen?

Please, I know all the 5DIII buyers have to justify their purchases to themselves. But if you are going to make "proclamations" like this, how about offering some real world evidence of your claims? Is all this just based on some vague fear that the market cannot support two different formats and full frame shooters are afraid to be the ones who bet on Betamax? Stop worrying about it. There is plenty of evidence the market is big enough for both formats and even if full frame does die out, it will still be around for quite some time.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 26, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Here we go again.
> 
> Eventually *all* DSLRs will be obsolete. And, eventually, we will all be dead.
> 
> ...



couldn't agree more.


----------



## KeithR (Apr 26, 2012)

_What Unfocused said..._

Especially this bit:



unfocused said:


> Is it that in a world where the vast majority of images will never be viewed at more than 72 dpi on computer screens and tablet devices, the differences between APS-C and Full Frame are detectable only at the highest ISO ranges, massive print sizes or by zooming in on an image on a computer screen?


----------



## AJ (Apr 26, 2012)

yup.

Especially the bit about 5D3 buyers having to justify their expense.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 26, 2012)

actually i did bet on betamax, and it did out live and outperform vhs. Sure in the long run we'll all be dead, but i still bet i'm right. but god and my wife know i'm mostly wrong. either way, it's not like it matters to me or anyone for years to come. I thought of something that hasn't been replaced by some new cheap little thing thats also better. a properly setup vidikron "vision one". i think they were 40k back in 98' or so. no tuner, no scaler(another 20k back then for a quad jobby) no sound. nothing but pure awesomeness when tuned in. holy cow, it makes me think of the parallels to my 63+year old 4x5. hmmm.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 26, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Here we go again.
> 
> Eventually *all* DSLRs will be obsolete. And, eventually, we will all be dead.
> 
> In the meantime, these proclamations about the "death" of one particular format are beyond silly.



.

Yep. Mr. Smirky throws out a piece of red meat then smirks at the ensuing "controversy."

As unfocused suggests everything is eventually "...made irrelevant by the advancement of technology," as Mr. Smirky said.

A couple of thoughts come to mind.

First, for 90% of people now actively on this forum, by the time crop sensors are done, we will have moved on to wholly different interests -- creating communicator "apps," collecting antique birdbaths, maybe looking up trying to see what it says on that tombstone they put over our heads. Better, as my friends in the 12-step programs always say to take it "one day at a time."

Second, I will agree that Canon isn't putting much into the crop frame products line. I see their real energy and resources going into video. That, along with the move of prominent photojournalists to video, supports my belief that the heyday of still photography is ending. I really believe that 50 years from now, given the world survives intact, almost everything we now see as still photography will be video. A still picture will not hang on the wall in your house -- it will be a compelling video that looks real enough to walk into. Same with little photo frames on your desk or atop the bookcase. Perhaps even the venerable printed book will be gone.

As it says in Ecclisiastes, "To everything there is a season." All of us, including Mr. Smirky, will one day be made irrelevant by the advancement of technology.

Thanks, unfocused.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 26, 2012)

I read this as the 1.6 crop dying as the sensor for the semi pro body.

This to me this still leaves the entry level and the 60D types

A few years back a core 2 duo was expensive - now they are budget items. There is no reason to suggest that the sensors will not continue to drop in price, which means that higher spec sensors will become available at todays budget prices


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 26, 2012)

Sensor density will more than likely continue to get cheaper with time. But no matter how advanced the tech of the wafer, a 22X15 frame sensor will always be 40% of the size of a 36X24 sensor, which cuts two ways. Even if they were perfect and larger sensors weren't more likely to have defects, fewer sensors can be made for the same material cost.


----------



## ryanjennings (Apr 26, 2012)

What if crop sized sensors become better than the lenses?


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 26, 2012)

By this logic, wouldn't full frame also be ******* since medium format is 'better'?

At the end of the day, smaller sensors are cheaper to produce and crop sensors exist in a sweet spot between production cost and results, and much of that has to do with the physical geometry in relation to the lenses.

Something to keep in mind with sensors and price reductions is that there is an opportunity cost that prevents cheaper older generation sensors from being produced. Just like memory, it just isn't worth it to produce them when the production lines can be swapped over to newer ones with better margins.

I do have to comment though, the move to video is not a forgone conclusion. While many people talk about the death of still photojournalism and the rise of 'video is everything', there is already a growing backlash to this over enthusiasm. Media outlets have jumped on the bandwagon so they don't look like they are behind the curve, but customers are increasingly getting annoyed with content that can only be accessed via time consuming video. Eventually this will even out and I suspect that a large chunk of viewers will continue to prefer static content even if hipsters and technophiles obsess over 'video is everything'.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 26, 2012)

We are looking at the top of the range ie 7D up so cost is not such a major factor as image IQ and other 'pro' feature such as mp, fps, iso etc

For example there may be a case when a 120GB SSD is internal to the camera and transfered for pp by either wireless or ethernet - this would allow a massive increase in data transfer from the sensor - mabe more fps or larger mps. 

I can see no reason why mf may be possible - but as 120mp is possible on aps-h I think this may be some time away

One thing I am certain of - we should not be wedded to a specific technology - just the pursuit of better image IQ


----------



## AJ (Apr 26, 2012)

If video is the future then both EF and EF-S lenses may be risky investments.

Suppose Canon invents a whole new lens mount, to facilitate things like follow-focus, focus racking driven from the camera body, aperture control while filming, and things like that.

If so, no matter what you buy right now, you'll be hooped and you'll have to start from scratch. Just like the FD to EF switch.


----------



## dtameling (Apr 26, 2012)

ryanjennings said:


> What if crop sized sensors become better than the lenses?



They already are. The sensor used in the NEX-7, A77, D3200 is there today. Recent tests of the NEX-7 show that you need some serious glass to even come close to resolve all the sensor is capable of. At least $1000 worth of Leica or Zeiss optics.

While FF cameras certainly offer a lot, crop sensors offer their own benefits...they're far from the cut budget version of full frame many make them out to be.

Many DSLR shooters are videographers. The 1.6/1.5 crop is almost identical to Super35 and that's a good place to be at.

Many of these same shooters are also shooting with high end video cameras...many of which are adopting Super35 sized sensors as the new standard. Being able to replicate the DOF and feel between the two is very appealing. I've been told by more than one DP that the 5D is TOO shallow for some shots.

And those that are worried about the video race, don't watch what Canon (and others are doing), watch what the video lens makers are doing. As long as Zeiss is making cinema primes with an EF mount, you're safe. They're making E Mount cinema primes now...who saw that coming?

I like having the options of smaller lenses. While my L glass is sharp and amazing, my crop sensor lenses are smaller, lighter, and cheaper. With the exception of top shelf L glass, they're very good compared to most lenses.

I like crop factor. It can get a bit annoying on the wide end but turning a 400mm lens into a 600+mm lens is nice to have around for certain applications.

Megapixels can be nice in the studio but I shoot portraits with a 7D and almost always get more detail than I need, having to back things off in Lightroom so the customer can't count their own pores.


----------



## emag (Apr 26, 2012)

APS-C mirrorless that takes only EF-s lenses. It could happen. And it would sell. Canon should have put one out a year or more ago. My old 4MP G2 still gets used for time lapses, I'd love to have something of somewhat similar form factor with interchangeable lenses and 7D-ish features and IQ. 'twould extend the life of the 18MP sensor, IMHO. In fact, I think it makes more sense than what we're expecting the T4i to be. Just my $.02


----------



## unfocused (Apr 26, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> ...I do have to comment though, the move to video is not a forgone conclusion. While many people talk about the death of still photojournalism and the rise of 'video is everything', there is already a growing backlash to this over enthusiasm. Media outlets have jumped on the bandwagon so they don't look like they are behind the curve, but customers are increasingly getting annoyed with content that can only be accessed via time consuming video. Eventually this will even out and I suspect that a large chunk of viewers will continue to prefer static content even if hipsters and technophiles obsess over 'video is everything'.



Yes. For those who want to really think about this, I recommend a look at Roland Barthe's comments on film vs. stills in the classic Camera Lucida (which is cheap, readily accessible, amazingly readable and educational). Like painting and photography, video/film and photography are two distinct mediums. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, but they are far different and there is plenty of room left to explore still photography. Video hasn't killed off the novel and it won't kill off still photography either.


----------



## oosh (Apr 26, 2012)

You think film is dead? You could't be further from the truth! That said it's probably a pretty typical thought process of users apart of a rumours forum that insist on buying the latest and greatest digital equipment at all costs.

Film is not dead. Have medium format or larger scanned properly and it will out-resolve any 35mm DSLR. D800 included. Shoot large format and it will out-resolve ANY digital sensor, and will continue to do so for years to come yet.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 26, 2012)

I prefer the IQ of full-frame sensors, but it comes at a substantial price premium. I'm not rich, so the only reason I can justify the cost of full-frame bodies is because I use them for work. At the risk of getting flamed, I'd venture to say that many, many people with full-frame bodies don't have the skill set to justify having such expensive gear. If you're rich, who cares, but if you aren't, then I don't see the point in spending 4-7 times the price of a Rebel on a 5DIII or 5DIII. IMHO, the overall value you get in a camera drops substantially when going form a crop to a FF body. 

Full-frame proponents will say there is a substantial difference in IQ compared to a crop body. This is true in some situations when the images are viewed by a trained eye, but most of the general public can not distinguish the difference. 

I shot professionally with a 20D for four years before going full-frame, which was two years longer than I planned. It just so happened that by spending some extra time in the field and in post processing, I could get 80% of the IQ of a full-frame file with a crop body, so I held off on upgrading as long as I could. This wasn't necessarily a bad thing, since it forced me to refine my technique instead of relying on the camera to hide my mistakes. Anyone looking through my portfolio would have an awfully hard time distinguishing which images were taken with my 20D, 5DC, or 5DIII. 

That said, I know which images were taken with which camera because I still vividly recall the total effort required to achieve those results. From a business perspective, my current FF bodies allow streamlining my shooting process in the field and overall workflow enough to where it is now cost effective to shoot full-frame. It's a time savings thing more than anything else, in addition to allowing me to eek out that last smidgen of IQ. However, everyone's needs are different. and since I don't own Canon stock, I can't in good conscience recommend buying a FF body unless you really need it.


----------



## stilscream (Apr 26, 2012)

When crop sensors and mirrored dslrs are obsolete are probably when cameras themselves are obsolete. We'll all have bionic eyes and brains that record everything using biological based signals to control zoom and focus. 

Before that generation focusing will become obsolete, with cameras taking information and focus will be selected in post processing.


----------



## idimoe (Apr 26, 2012)

I'm sorry, last time I checked the Rebel series is one of the best selling DSLRs in the market today, period. Reason? Accessibility and price. Unless FX manufacturing costs go down substantially, crop sensors will be around for years.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

I moved to ff when I had a 50D - so yes when I got the 5D i saw an immediate improvement in the reduced noise and the improved skin tones.

The 5DII followed and I didn't see much improvement except another stop in iso performance plus the 21mp which I never really utilised

The 50D was replaced with the 7D, which I hated - I find the colours rather garish out of the camera and alongside the 5DII the low light performance was poor.

The 7D was replaced by the 1D4 which improved my images almost overnight. Hooked on the Series 1 body (I have large hands that makes the 7D feel like a toy) I then replaced the 5DII with the 1DS3 instead of the more logical move to the rumoured 5DIII.

The 1DS3 is a really fantastic camera for me. The skin tones are so much better out of the camera than from the 5DII. I love the series 1 body allowing rapid moves from landscape to portrait and back at will ( and AF point following like the 7D) - plus the controls work better for me.

Moving from the 7D and the 5D2 the AF on both is so much better - in speed, accuracy and extra points to choose from. My failure rate due to AF problems that are not mine have dropped significantly. The fps and (occasionally) the bigger buffer is a major factor for me.

The 1D4 ability to have the Manual + ec + auto iso is my default and makes the 1D4 rather like a top P&S where I can forget the technical bits and focus on the content whilst knowing that the camera will deliver.

The series 1 AF point metering is excellent - as is the ability to select up to 8 AF points for metering a real bonus.

What I am getting too (albeit slowly) is that I have two different sensor types with very simillar functionality. I dont feel a need for ff or any other specific sensor - the key is :

- IQ of the pictures (including low light, noise etc)
- practicality of the body
- functionality to do what you want
- it has the features you need for the job you are going to do with it

I think we should move away from thinking crop or ff and start thinking of IQ - because that is what sells the images not the sensor type


----------



## foobar (Apr 27, 2012)

APC-C is not obsolete, and even if it becomes obsolete some day, it won't be because everyone is moving to FF.

- An APS-C sensor will always cost a fraction of what a FF sensor costs (read Canons FF whitepaper if you want to know why that is)
- APS-C cameras can be built smaller, lighter and cheaper than their FF counterparts
- Lenses designed for APS-C can be built smaller, lighter and cheaper (especially in the non-tele focal ranges) than their FF counterparts

Even disregarding the cost of the sensor, there are enough other reasons why smaller sensor formats make sense. Just think about why mirrorless cameras have become so popular: Mainly because they offer DSLR-like quality in a much smaller form factor. To a lot of people, this is important (probably not to the majority of people on this site, though).


If there's a sensor format that's obsolete, it's APS-H. Born out of technical circumstances, used only by a single manufacturer (Canon) on a single, relatively low volume line of cameras (the 1D series) and never having a wide-angle or even just a standard zoom with crop-factor-adjusted focal lengths for it. I still don't get why people think this is the future, while on the other hand, Canon (and other manufacturers) have built complete lineups of cameras, lenses and accessories for FF and APS-C.
Of course the APS-H cameras themselves were/are brilliant, but they were for people who knew why they needed them.


----------



## pwp (Apr 27, 2012)

APS-C will be around for a good while yet. It's a cash cow for the manufacturers. It's probably best to just on with taking great images and not get too worked up about uncertain futures.

I shoot FF & APS-H. APS-H has become a real favourite for the way I shoot and have had a very productive relationship with the format all the way from the original 1D. I mostly shoot with longer lenses. So the 70-200 becomes a 91- 260 f/2.8. And the 300 f/2.8 becomes a very handy 390 f/2.8.

Given the virtual certainty APS-H will vanish after the final 1D4 is sold, I'll be hoping for a comprehensively upgraded 7DII to fill the gap as a practical working companion to the 1DX when it finally ships. 

Paul Wright


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

foobar said:


> APC-C is not obsolete, and even if it becomes obsolete, it won't be because everyone is moving to FF.
> 
> - An APS-C sensor will always cost a fraction of what a FF sensor costs (read Canons FF whitepaper if you want to know why that is)



Is that important if a aps-c is 1 dollar and a ff is 2 dollars?



foobar said:


> - APS-C cameras can be built smaller, lighter and cheaper than their FF counterparts



Not a lot smaller - and not everyone wants miniature featherweight bodies like the NEX5



foobar said:


> - Lenses designed for APS-C can be built smaller, lighter and cheaper (especially in the non-tele focal ranges) than their FF counterparts



and be expensive as Canon wont be able support economies of scale



foobar said:


> Even disregarding the cost of the sensor, there are enough other reasons why smaller sensor formats make sense. Just think about why mirrorless cameras have become so popular: Mainly because they offer DSLR-like quality in a much smaller form factor. To a lot of people, this is important (probably not to the majority of people on this site, though).



That is why they are moving to larger sensors and aps-c then?




foobar said:


> If there's a sensor format that's obsolete, it's APS-H. Born out of technical circumstances, used only by a single manufacturer (Canon) on a single, relatively low volume line of cameras (the 1D series) and never having a wide-angle or even just a standard zoom with crop-factor-adjusted focal lengths for it. I still don't get why people think this is the future, while on the other hand, Canon (and other manufacturers) have built complete lineups of cameras, lenses and accessories for FF and APS-C.
> Of course the APS-H cameras themselves were/are brilliant, but they were for people who knew why they needed them.



So you think 1.6 aps-c is obsolete because they are only used by a single manufacturer (Canon). 

What on earth is a 'standard' zoom? If you are talking about a 70-200 - then why isn't there an aps-c crop-factor-adjusted lens? If you are talking about the 18-55 then the 24-70 is very very close to 1.3 adjusted

APS-H is a lot cheaper to make than ff too - so does that means they are not obsolete then?


----------



## foobar (Apr 27, 2012)

pwp said:


> Given the virtual certainty APS-H will vanish after the final 1D4 is sold, I'll be hoping for a comprehensively upgraded 7DII to fill the gap as a practical working companion to the 1DX when it finally ships.


I really hope Canon gets it's sensor tech up to scratch with the 7D Mark II. Apart from that, I think we'll mostly see an APS-C version of what the 5D3 brought to the table (since the 5D3's body already seems to be an evolution of the original 7D).




briansquibb said:


> Is that important if a aps-c is 1 dollar and a ff is 2 dollars?


We are far, far away from those prices. And unlike other silicon chips (which get cheaper because of reduced chip size), the only time camera sensors get a major drop in manufacturing price is when wafer sizes increase, which only happens every couple of years because the factories need to be completely retooled for that.



briansquibb said:


> Not a lot smaller - and not everyone wants miniature featherweight bodies like the NEX5


Of course not _everyone_, but the mass market is moving towards smaller cameras, and that's where the money is. Different people have different needs, that's why Sony is also offering a bazillion other camera models besides the Nex series.



briansquibb said:


> and be expensive as Canon wont be able support economies of scale


Canon sells _a lot_ more APS-C cameras and lenses than it does FF bodies and lenses.



briansquibb said:


> That is why they are moving to larger sensors and aps-c then?


There is a market for larger sensors and it's profitable. It's not a mass market compared to APS-C, though. And currently, Canon is consolidating it's pro lineup from two sensor formats (APS-H and 35mm FF) to a single one (the 35mm FF format people have known and used for years).



briansquibb said:


> So you think 1.6 aps-c is obsolete because they are only used by a single manufacturer (Canon).


If you want to be nitpicking, 1.6x crop is indeed only used by a single manufacturer because all others are using a very slightly larger sensor. Well played. If you want to be even more precise, you could even say that Canon is using a whole lot of different "about APS-C sized" sensor formats, since their individual APS-C sensor models actually differ by fractions of millimeters.

Does this nitpicking help this discussion? I don't think so. For the majority of photographers, there are two common sensor formats: Cropped sensors, meaning 1,5~1,6x crop factor and FF, which means the classical 35mm format to most people.



briansquibb said:


> What on earth is a 'standard' zoom? If you are talking about a 70-200 - then why isn't there an aps-c crop-factor-adjusted lens? If you are talking about the 18-55 then the 24-70 is very very close to 1.3 adjusted


A zoom lens in the "moderate wide-angle to slight telephoto" range is commonly refered to as a "standard zoom".
And if you think that the 31mm-equivalent field of view you get at the wide end of a 24-105mm is about equal to the real 24mm you get on a FF camera (or the 15mm you get with the 15-85mm on a crop camera), well... okay. That's your opinion.



Anyway, I don't know what the bashing is all about. I don't dislike APS-H, I'm just saying that Canon hasn't shown much interest in the format over the years.
Besides, I really liked the statement at the end of your previous posting:

[quote author=briansquibb]I think we should move away from thinking crop or ff and start thinking of IQ - because that is what sells the images not the sensor type[/quote]

I'm totally with you on that. I just wanted to shed some light on the economic side of things in my posting. I can't predict what we'll have in 50 years, but for the time being, it simply looks that APS-C will continue to be the primary sensor format for DSLRs in terms of volume. In the pro sector, I believe that we'll see a few more FF models in the coming years (the 5D3 and D800 have become so advanced that there's now room for more entry-level FF models). Still, I don't think we'll see a sub-$1000 FF DSLR (used market excluded  ) in the next couple of years.

And to come back to the original topic: Even if Canon managed to release a $1500 entry-level FF camera next to a (potential) $1500 7D Mark II, the FF camera would be more or less a large sensor/body rebel while the 7D Mark II would be almost a small sensor/body 1-series in comparison.


----------



## Violettpunkt (Apr 27, 2012)

risc32 said:


> Can someone name something electronic that hasn't gotten faster, smaller, cheaper, and better for less? that's a real question, perhaps there are examples, i just can't think of any.


Graphing Calculators somewhat fit your description.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 27, 2012)

Too bad Karma is dead. I'd be giving some big time positive to Foobar. Excellent, well-reasoned and informed posts. 

Unfortunately it probably won't make a lot of difference but I still commend you for trying to set things straight.


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 27, 2012)

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?"


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 27, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> mws said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with smirkypants. I don't know when, but *I think eventually everything will be full frame*. Or maybe even some new dimension.
> ...


Umm: http://www.artefactgroup.com/wvil/
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


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 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
> 
> ...


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 (Apr 27, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Why is everyone assuming this topic is saying that aps-c is dying.
> ...




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


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> swrightgfx said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


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.


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 27, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> 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.


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. 

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.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 27, 2012)

> 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.



That would be on the order of 700MB/sec, so I think they'd have to change memory formats or add a huge buffer too.


----------



## foobar (Apr 27, 2012)

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).



unfocused said:


> Too bad Karma is dead. I'd be giving some big time positive to Foobar. Excellent, well-reasoned and informed posts.
> 
> Unfortunately it probably won't make a lot of difference but I still commend you for trying to set things straight.


Thanks!


----------



## AJ (Apr 27, 2012)

Violettpunkt said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone name something electronic that hasn't gotten faster, smaller, cheaper, and better for less? that's a real question, perhaps there are examples, i just can't think of any.
> ...


How about the latest generation of full-frame cameras? The 5D3 costs more than the 5D2.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 27, 2012)

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: 



> I'm pretty sure this crop/full frame debate is soon to go the way of the blue ray vs. hd dvd debate... it will be made irrelevant by the advancement of technology.



No disagreement there.

But then that segues to this: 



> The D800 has pretty much shown us the future. If you have a high megapixel camera, crop becomes irrelevant. The D800 switches between 1.0, 1.2 and 1.5 crops effortlessly with 36/26/16 MP files respectively. A 50MP camera gets us to almost 20MP at a 1.6 crop.



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.


----------



## tomscott (Apr 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## AJ (Apr 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 27, 2012)

AJ said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## AprilForever (Apr 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 27, 2012)

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.


----------

