# Future of APS-C



## koolman (Oct 9, 2012)

With the canon 6d / nikon d600 being in the $2,000 ballpark, can we expect the entire aps-c size sensors to slowly disappear as the whole idea was to make a DSLR cost effective ?


----------



## And-Rew (Oct 9, 2012)

In a word - no.

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

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

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

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


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 9, 2012)

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


----------



## bow26 (Oct 9, 2012)

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


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 9, 2012)

koolman said:


> With the canon 6d / nikon d600 being in the $2,000 ballpark, can we expect the entire aps-c size sensors to slowly disappear as the whole idea was to make a DSLR cost effective ?



Not until FF DSLRs are in the $800-1000 range. $2000 is still an lot for most people to pay for a camera. I do expect mirrorless cameras to take over the APS-C market within the next 5 to 10 years, Canon's pitiful EOS-M offering notwithstanding.

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


----------



## Canon-F1 (Oct 9, 2012)

koolman said:


> With the canon 6d / nikon d600 being in the $2,000 ballpark, can we expect the entire aps-c size sensors to slowly disappear as the whole idea was to make a DSLR cost effective ?



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

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

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

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


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 9, 2012)

Hope APS-C really dies out. I just wonder what will be the big difference between the different camera models then? Perhaps single shot only for "entry level FF" cameras? hmm i really wonder


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 9, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> Hope APS-C really dies out. I just wonder what will be the big difference between the different camera models then? Perhaps single shot only for "entry level FF" cameras? hmm i really wonder



Do you even shoot FF? APS-C in NOT the lousy equivalent to FF. Go ahead and try super tele on FF. You'll see just how lousy it really is to shoot FF compared to a good old 7D!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> Do you even shoot FF? APS-C in NOT the lousy equivalent to FF. Go ahead and try super tele on FF. You'll see just how lousy it really is to shoot FF compared to a good old 7D!



Yep...my 1D X with a 600mm f/4L IS II. Just plain lousy. Crappy. I should just chuck the 1D X in the bin.

Comparing the 7D to the 1D X with a supertele, the 1D X has a significantly higher AF hit rate than the 7D, and the 1D X images cropped to APS-C framing are _at least_ as good as the 7D uncropped, albeit with fewer MP.

Honestly, I'm wondering if I will keep the 7D (the answer is probably yes, at least for now...a backup body is nice to have, but if a 7DII comes I'll consider it, unless I've replaced it with a refurb 1DIV in the meantime).


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > Do you even shoot FF? APS-C in NOT the lousy equivalent to FF. Go ahead and try super tele on FF. You'll see just how lousy it really is to shoot FF compared to a good old 7D!
> ...


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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2012)

AprilForever said:


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



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


----------



## unfocused (Oct 9, 2012)

Here we go again. It seems like no matter how many times we shoot this zombie idea in the head, it just keeps coming back. One more try:

APS-C far outsells full frame. Full frame remains a niche market in the DSLR world, not the dominant format.

There is a substantial cost barrier to entry with even the "bargain" full frame cameras now being announced. To purchase the lowest cost full frame camera with any lens that can take advantage of the larger format requires an investment of about $2,500 minimum. That is cost prohibitive not only for casual photographers, but for many, if not most, enthusiasts as well. 

The APS-C genie is out of the bottle and it's unlikely either Canon or Nikon can put it back in. Serious APS-C enthusiasts prefer the format for a variety of reasons, probably the biggest being the extra reach the format offers for telephoto lenses. 

The success of both the 7D and the 60D demonstrates that there is a solid market for higher end APS-C cameras. Neither Canon nor Nikon can afford to leave these customers on the table.

With the current state of technology, alternatives remain inferior. That includes both in-camera cropping of a larger sensor and mirrorless EVFs. While this may change in the future, the future isn't here yet. 

The truth is, not even Canon and Nikon know where the market is headed. As responsible, well-managed companies, they are trying to position themselves to take advantage of whatever direction the market goes, but they can't predict or direct the market over any long term. 

What they do know is that the bottom has fallen out of the formerly lucrative point and shoot market, thanks to cell phone competition. They know that enthusiasts are a coveted segment because they have disposable income and are willing to spend it. So, all of the companies are trying to offer a variety of products that will appeal to those highly desired consumers who are willing to part with substantial amounts of money for their hobby. 

Too many people are confusing the decision to offer a lower cost full frame body with a guaranteed demand for the product. The truth is, camera manufacturers think there is a demand based on market research, but they won't really know that for a year or two, after they have seen and studied the actual results. In the meantime, they are certainly not going to sacrifice a proven segment of the market. Such an irresponsible gamble with shareholders' money carries risks that no conscientious executive would take.


----------



## traveller (Oct 9, 2012)

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

http://www.bythom.com/ 

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

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

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

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


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 9, 2012)

> With the canon 6d / nikon d600 being in the $2,000 ballpark, can we expect the entire aps-c size sensors to slowly disappear as the whole idea was to make a DSLR cost effective ?



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

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

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


----------



## Canon-F1 (Oct 9, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> Do you even shoot FF? APS-C in NOT the lousy equivalent to FF. Go ahead and try super tele on FF. You'll see just how lousy it really is to shoot FF compared to a good old 7D!



ROTFL....


----------



## aj1575 (Oct 9, 2012)

koolman said:


> With the canon 6d / nikon d600 being in the $2,000 ballpark, can we expect the entire aps-c size sensors to slowly disappear as the whole idea was to make a DSLR cost effective ?



APS-C is here to stay. First, the whole DSLR-consumer market is filled with APS-C, simply because it is much cheaper to produce them. Not only the camera, but also the lenses. I can't Imagine a FF camera going down to 500$ in the near future (like a EOS 1100D); and even if they would go so low, the APS-C would still have the edge in the price.
Technology is getting cheaper (the reason why we have sub 2000$ FF DSLR), but it is also improving. Which means, that in the future APS-C sensor will be as good as FF is today (FF will be even better then, but there simply is a good enough for most people).

FF will always have advantages over APS-C (bokeh, IQ, diffraction), but APS-C also has its advantages over FF (size, reach, price). One thing that has been mentioned is that MILC (mirrorless interchangable lens camera), will replace APS-C DSLR. This will be tha case, as soon as the EV will be good enough. There has been big improvements, but there is still a long way to go (80% of the job is done in 20% of the time, the remaining 20% of the job need 80% of the time). Nothing against MILC, they are nice, and there will be some prosumer MILC cameras in the future. But the time is just not read yet.


----------



## PackLight (Oct 9, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> sandymandy said:
> 
> 
> > Hope APS-C really dies out. I just wonder what will be the big difference between the different camera models then? Perhaps single shot only for "entry level FF" cameras? hmm i really wonder
> ...



After much thought and field research on this;

7D vs the 5D II on a supertele, the 5D II is lousy. AF just doesn't compete.

7D vs the 1D IV and 1D X, the 7D is lousy. What good is the 1.6 crop if you only hit your target 60-80% of the time? The contrast and AF outweigh the small benefit of the crop.

The benefit of the 7D would be at your longest reach, or so I thought. For instance, you are using the 1D IV with a 1.3 crop and 500mm, you put your 1.4x extender on your at the FF equivalent of 910mm. Only then does it seem logical for further reach to put the 7D on. I tried this last summer with some big horn sheep that were several hundred yards away, switched back and forth with the two bodies, honestly I preferred the crops out the 1D IV over the uncroped 7D.

There are those of us who hope for an improved crop sensor, with the AF system of the 1D series. It is only a dream.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 9, 2012)

koolman said:


> With the canon 6d / nikon d600 being in the $2,000 ballpark, can we expect the entire aps-c size sensors to slowly disappear as the whole idea was to make a DSLR cost effective ?



Not sure for how many people $2000 is "cost effective." More interesting is the new Sony RX-1 full-frame pocket camera - expensive, and with just a fixed lens, but given the speed with which digital cameras have simultaneously progressed and become cheaper over the last decade or so, who knows....


----------



## mortadella (Oct 9, 2012)

I shoot with an "entry-level" FF camera the 5D2, and I'm in the market to upgrade my APS-C body from a 50D to 7D. Which means I will have made 3 different APS-C body purchases over the same span that I bought 1 FF body(started with a 500D). 

The logic that many have already pointed out is fully evident in my own purchase history. This is a high volume segment for Canon and others.

I think enough has been said about the crop factor, but to elaborate on the "other" feature that some of the higher-end APS-C cameras (just one from Canon) have is improved *AF* over the entry FF bodies. I don't like using/am not that great with a flash, and for 80% of what I shoot the 5D2 with its much improved over APS-C low-light performance is more than enough camera. Which is why it made sense for me (not to mention the other options at the time were way out of my budget). For the other 20% of the time I could _really_ use better AF, and most of those situations require a little extra reach as well, so rather than buy a couple of extenders and lose my already substandard AF, I can grab decent second hand 7D, and all my needs are taken care of. Granted more space is taken up in my bag but a bigger bag is much easier on the pocket book than a 1DX.

APS-C ain't going anywhere...at least I hope not!


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 9, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Here we go again. It seems like no matter how many times we shoot this zombie idea in the head, it just keeps coming back. One more try:
> 
> APS-C far outsells full frame. Full frame remains a niche market in the DSLR world, not the dominant format.
> 
> ...



+1 Well stated


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 9, 2012)

My Aunt has been shooting with her Digital Rebel for years. She used to use film cameras. I don't think she has ever changed the lens or even knows what a sensor is, let alone the "crop factor"! She likes to be able to look through an optical view finder, zoom in/ out to compose, and snap a shot of her family. She is happy with that camera (Probably a Rebel XTi type of deal). She prints standard size photos & shares them on the web. She won't replace it till it dies.

This is your average consumer. They don't read DxO tests, micro adjust their lenses or photograph the back of their lens caps... They don't know what APS-C means. They are happy with their camera.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 9, 2012)

+1

How much is it?
Is it a brand I've heard of?
Does it feel ok in the hand?
Does it have an auto mode as I don't know much about cameras?
Does it only come in black?

I'll take one.


----------



## pharp (Oct 9, 2012)

aj1575 said:


> One thing that has been mentioned is that MILC (mirrorless interchangable lens camera), will replace APS-C DSLR. This will be tha case, as soon as the EV will be good enough. There has been big improvements, but there is still a long way to go (80% of the job is done in 20% of the time, the remaining 20% of the job need 80% of the time). Nothing against MILC, they are nice, and there will be some prosumer MILC cameras in the future. But the time is just not read yet.



The Sony SLT series are essentially MILC [EVF, no OVF] - It will be real interesting to see how well their prosumer FF A99 does. The sony NEX and micro 4/3 folks seems to like the EVFs well enough. Who knows what the future holds, but the next logical step [to me anyway] is to get rid of the mirror [wheteher for AF or OVF], shorten the back focus and make smaller FF capable lenses. How about an RX1 with EVF and interchangeable lenses? Bottom line - its here and will only get better.


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > Do you even shoot FF? APS-C in NOT the lousy equivalent to FF. Go ahead and try super tele on FF. You'll see just how lousy it really is to shoot FF compared to a good old 7D!
> ...



Yes, you have a $7,000.00 camera body and just one of your lenses costs $13,000.00. I am certain this combo works well and gets the job done. For that price it had better be at least somewhat better than a setup costing 1/12th of that price. And even at 1/12th the price, most people (not on camera forums) still find crop DSLR rigs to be too spendy when their camera phone is so good nowadays. 

Unless Canon (or anyone else) can find a million new hyper-uber-hobbyists to each spend $40,000-$50,000 or so on kit, they can't stop dealing with crop bodies and those who buy them.


----------



## RichM (Oct 9, 2012)

2n10 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go again. It seems like no matter how many times we shoot this zombie idea in the head, it just keeps coming back. One more try:
> ...



+1 added. 

While I do love my 5d2 for portrait/landscape work (and would certainly like the 5d3 more), I end up shooting with the 7d/300f4 combination for action sports/wildlife. That combination can be had for roughly $2500, and produces excellent results. To get the same effective reach with FF, the lens alone would be 5x as much. (Of course I'd trade "even up" for a 1DX/500f4). The 7d, with it's APS-C sensor, is a great camera at a reasonable price. It fills a very significant niche that a FF cannot. 

Here's hoping that the 7d2 is APS-C.


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 9, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> Do you even shoot FF? APS-C in NOT the lousy equivalent to FF. Go ahead and try super tele on FF. You'll see just how lousy it really is to shoot FF compared to a good old 7D!



I didnt say APS-C is lousy. I just prefer fullframe, even i only got an analog FF eos. But im also not using tele lenses often. Mostly im shooting around in the "portrait range"
Imho APS-C just exists cuz its cheaper to produce for now. If digital or analog medium format would be cheaper to get i would also go for it. So for me i just got APS-C cuz FF at the moment is too expensive for me. Besides the crop factor for tele lenses (if u need it) or the price, whats the advantage?


----------



## ecka (Oct 9, 2012)

The only *reasonable* APS-C advantage is the price. I'm talking about the camera body price only, not the whole system.

Not the reach - because, when both formats have the same pixel pitch (like D800 and D7000), we can just crop the FF image (or shoot in crop mode) and get exactly the same result as if we shot it using a crop sensor camera. I'm not a big super-telephoto fan, but my first 4 DSLRs were APS-C, just because I couldn't afford FF. If FF sensor production becomes much cheaper, then I don't see any reasons to keep APS-C other than for mirrorless (for "pocket photographers").

Not the size and weight - because of the previous reason, for telephoto you either get more resolution or more reach with the same lens, while APS-C gives you no choice, it is like crop mode only (24/7  ). For wide-normal angle, many zooms (like EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM) have no advantages over FF competition (like EF 24-105/4L IS USM, which is similar size, similar weight, similar price + even wider focal range, shallower DoF at f/4 than APS-C at f/2.8 + better build and weather resistance) ... EF-S 10-22USM vs 17-40L ... EF-S 15/17-85IS USM vs EF 28-135IS USM.

FPS? It is possible to shoot faster in crop mode. Nikon does that. Canon think that 7D will sell better if they don't include that feature in their FF cameras .

So, unfortunately, it's all about money.


----------



## Patrick (Oct 9, 2012)

Please bear in mind that I'm not intending to be disrespectful to any of the other posters on this thread when I say...
Full frame or crop sensor doesn't matter a damn - what's important is what you choose to photograph and the creativity and skill you apply to it. Great photographers have been making fantastic images for decades with little more than a lightproof box with a glass lens to focus the light. Many fantastic cameras and top of the range lenses are wasted on photographers with less talent than finances. What is really important is YOU 1) make the most of what you have 2) recognise when what you have is insufficient for what is required for the task you face (especially if being paid) so you can rent/borrow or buy the appropriate tool and 3) don't kid yourself that better equipment will make you a better photographer. It will make you a better equipped photographer but unless you can make creative use of it it is just expensive jewellery!


----------



## mortadella (Oct 9, 2012)

Patrick said:


> Please bear in mind that I'm not intending to be disrespectful to any of the other posters on this thread when I say...
> Full frame or crop sensor doesn't matter a damn - what's important is what you choose to photograph and the creativity and skill you apply to it. Great photographers have been making fantastic images for decades with little more than a lightproof box with a glass lens to focus the light. Many fantastic cameras and top of the range lenses are wasted on photographers with less talent than finances. What is really important is YOU 1) make the most of what you have 2) recognise when what you have is insufficient for what is required for the task you face (especially if being paid) so you can rent/borrow or buy the appropriate tool and 3) don't kid yourself that better equipment will make you a better photographer. It will make you a better equipped photographer but unless you can make creative use of it it is just expensive jewellery!



No disrespect taken, but....

This is a forum for photography and photography equipment enthusiasts so many threads are dedicated to discussing and dissecting the minutia with regards to the release of new equipment and the use of current equipment and what the indications recent rumors and releases mean to the future of how we practice our hobby/profession.

I'm sure you can understand that, right?

I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 9, 2012)

ecka said:


> The only *reasonable* APS-C advantage is the price.



Which is a very large advantage. At the risk of repeating myself: "A crop camera is the best/only way of optimizing the following combination of attributes (1) lower price, (2) higher frame rate and (3) smaller pixels (i.e., lots of "pixels per feather"). I currently own a 5D3 and 7D both of which were purchased in the last 6 months. (They replaced a 5D and 40D.) The 7D is used almost exclusively outdoors in comparatively good light with longer lenses to photograph things that move rapidly and unexpectedly. The 5D3 is used for everything else."

Notice the word "optimizing"


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 9, 2012)

RichM said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Indeed. I use a 7D and a 300 2.8, sometimes with TC 2x.

Wanna know what FF equivalent is? Roughly the 500 f4, a heavier, slower, more expensive lens. 

With TC 2x on my 300 2.8, it becomes a quite usable 600 5.6. The ff equivalent? The unwieldy, beastly, expensive 800 5.6, and that's still not there yet. And with wildlife, birds especially, a frame filling image will require you to stop down to f8-11 often. The advantages of ff are there, but they are rather mitigated by reality.


----------



## ecka (Oct 9, 2012)

Bob Howland said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > The only *reasonable* APS-C advantage is the price.
> ...



All I'm saying is that most of APS-C advantages are "synthetic" and $-related. Yes, price is a very big reason and for a non-professional enthusiast like me, having more than 1 DSLR body is not an option. I'd rather have one or two more lenses. FF can do everything as good or better than APS-C, no need to have both. If 5D3 had 46mp sensor, then you could crop 18mp image out of 46mp and it would be just as good as your 7D image and much better when you don't need to crop it. I'm sure it would be possible to get 2 more fps in crop-mode, if 5D3 had one.


----------



## ecka (Oct 9, 2012)

Patrick said:


> Please bear in mind that I'm not intending to be disrespectful to any of the other posters on this thread when I say...
> Full frame or crop sensor doesn't matter a damn - what's important is what you choose to photograph and the creativity and skill you apply to it. Great photographers have been making fantastic images for decades with little more than a lightproof box with a glass lens to focus the light. Many fantastic cameras and top of the range lenses are wasted on photographers with less talent than finances. What is really important is YOU 1) make the most of what you have 2) recognise when what you have is insufficient for what is required for the task you face (especially if being paid) so you can rent/borrow or buy the appropriate tool and 3) don't kid yourself that better equipment will make you a better photographer. It will make you a better equipped photographer but unless you can make creative use of it it is just expensive jewellery!



Actually, buying expensive jewelry may be a good investment. Buying expensive DSLR gear is not that efficient, but it is like investing in faster technology development. So, wasting money on these expensive toys is a good thing ;D, even if you don't know how to use it.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 10, 2012)

I have noticed that in the last few years with dSLRs being cheaper and more accessible, people have quietly switched in hordes to buying entry dSLRs instead of point-and-shoots- most still use the dSLRs as such, always in the Auto mode and never upgrading from the kit.
I am not commenting on this observation, but merely using it to illustrate the fact that it may be in a few years when full frame becomes cheaper people will migrate to that. It might also be that they will migrate to mirrorless cameras. It all depends on the positioning of the commodity on the market and how it is promoted. 
On the other hand, people who use the APS-C cameras for its reach or use better lenses than the kit might have a larger hurdle then merely the price of buying a full frame camera. The case of long tele-s have been discussed ad nauseam. I'd like to add that I can't hope to get the quality of the 17-55 on an EF zoom lesser than the 24-70 II, and that means a difference of $ 1100.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2012)

ecka said:


> The only *reasonable* APS-C advantage is the price.


If we stop right there, I agree. You also stated, "_*If* 5D3 had 46mp sensor, then you could crop 18mp image out of 46mp and it would be just as good as your 7D image and much better when you don't need to crop it,_" which is tehnically correct, but practically irrelevant since the 5DIII does not have 46 MP, nor does any currently available FF dSLR. By your logic, if the Canon 5200mm lens was the size of an 400/5.6 lens and could be mounted on a Phase One IQ180, and that Phase One could shoot 10 fps at ISO 25600, I'd have the perfect birding setup. See how 'if' is pretty unhelpful, sometimes? 




AprilForever said:


> Indeed. I use a 7D and a 300 2.8, sometimes with TC 2x.
> 
> Wanna know what FF equivalent is? Roughly the 500 f4, a heavier, slower, more expensive lens.
> 
> With TC 2x on my 300 2.8, it becomes a quite usable 600 5.6. The ff equivalent? The unwieldy, beastly, expensive 800 5.6, and that's still not there yet. And with wildlife, birds especially, a frame filling image will require you to stop down to f8-11 often. The advantages of ff are there, but they are rather mitigated by reality.


Quite useable, I agree. But not 'the same' or even 'nearly as good'. I'm not going to compare my 7D + 100-400mm (640mm FF equivalent) to my 1D X + 600mm f/4L IS II - that's vastly unfair given the two lenses in question. But to take something close to your example, compare two superteles - a 7D + 200mm f/2L IS (320mm FF equivalent) with a 1DsIII + 300mm f/2.8L IS II (link). The FF + 300 combo is noticeably sharper. That's true even if you go back to the older original 300/2.8L IS (link).

I like my 7D - a lot. But a FF camera delivers better IQ, period. If it takes a longer lens to get the reach you need with a FF body, and you use that longer lens, your IQ will be noticeably better. Maybe the 7D with the shorter lens delivers IQ that's good enough to meet your needs. Maybe the 7D with the shorter lens is the limit of your budget. That's reality - and it's mitigated only by your budget and ability to carry the lens(es) in question. 

Let's face it - Art Morris _could_ just use a 7D with his 800mm f/5.6L IS, and have 1280mm, but he doesn't - there's a reason he is so thrilled that he can get a 1D X to AF at f/8 with the Kenko 1.4x on the 800/5.6 and get to 1120mm on FF - it delivers much better IQ than a 7D.


----------



## aj1575 (Oct 10, 2012)

Patrick said:


> Please bear in mind that I'm not intending to be disrespectful to any of the other posters on this thread when I say...
> Full frame or crop sensor doesn't matter a damn - what's important is what you choose to photograph and the creativity and skill you apply to it. Great photographers have been making fantastic images for decades with little more than a lightproof box with a glass lens to focus the light. Many fantastic cameras and top of the range lenses are wasted on photographers with less talent than finances. What is really important is YOU 1) make the most of what you have 2) recognise when what you have is insufficient for what is required for the task you face (especially if being paid) so you can rent/borrow or buy the appropriate tool and 3) don't kid yourself that better equipment will make you a better photographer. It will make you a better equipped photographer but unless you can make creative use of it it is just expensive jewellery!


+1 !
I completly agree, this is the reason why I still have my EOS 350D. A newer model won't make me better, but I know my camera and it's shortcommings very well, and I can adjust to that.


----------



## ecka (Oct 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > The only *reasonable* APS-C advantage is the price.
> ...



You can see that in my previous post I was talking about D800 vs D7000 and there are no *if*-s. 
I switched to 7D vs 5D3+imagination, because the person I was replying to (Bob Howland) is using those two cameras. I also stated that "most of APS-C advantages are 'synthetic' and $-related". Not making 4.3μm FF sensor is a 'synthetic' 4.3μm APS-C advantage. They have the technology, but they decided not to use it, because they would make more money this way. Why? - Because most consumers prefer speed (high ISO and FPS) over resolution. 20-22mp may be enough, but they shouldn't stop there. We must wait till they figure out how to make both sides happy. Highest resolution + more powerful CPUs + pixel-binning may be the answer.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Oct 10, 2012)

Patrick said:


> Please bear in mind that I'm not intending to be disrespectful to any of the other posters on this thread when I say...
> Full frame or crop sensor doesn't matter a damn - what's important is what you choose to photograph and the creativity and skill you apply to it. Great photographers have been making fantastic images for decades with little more than a lightproof box with a glass lens to focus the light. Many fantastic cameras and top of the range lenses are wasted on photographers with less talent than finances. What is really important is YOU 1) make the most of what you have 2) recognise when what you have is insufficient for what is required for the task you face (especially if being paid) so you can rent/borrow or buy the appropriate tool and 3) don't kid yourself that better equipment will make you a better photographer. It will make you a better equipped photographer but unless you can make creative use of it it is just expensive jewellery!



oh please not more of *that* sermon. :

why always someone must state the obvious?
as if we had not heard it a million times before.

this is a gear focused forum... in case you did not noticed.


----------



## jebrady03 (Oct 10, 2012)

FF DSLR cost effective? Even if the price gets down to the entry level APS-C cost now ($500), then APS-C would be around $100-150. Same with lenses.

What about weight? Let's assume that the weight of the cameras become equal (by the FF weighing less than they do today). The weight of the glass won't be - and that's an issue for soccer moms/dads (a large portion of the market), especially when the crop factor is introduced for those tele shots.

Yes, FF is superior when it comes to results - but for the average person (which is who buys APS-C), it's not worth it. Also, FF will NEVER drop to $500 - so this entire discussion is completely irrelevant. Even if manufacturing costs get down low enough to support that price point, it ain't happening. Costs are irrelevant when it comes to price.

To me, this discussion is time/thought/effort wasted. Just like the discussions about the 7D2 being APS-H or FF. Canon (and the marketing department) would have to be run by 4 year olds who practice skydiving without a parachute for the 7D2 to be anything other than APS-C. Seriously. Only a complete IDIOT would just throw away the brand loyalty they've built. If you have ANY questions about brand loyalty - refer to the auto industry. They revive old car names all the time for the built in brand recognition (Camaro, Challenger, Charger, Dart, even the Fiesta is back!). Even the Ford Taurus (which was, let's be honest, a HORRIFIC car before the 1 year layoff - or was it 2?) came back simply because everyone has HEARD of a Taurus. It was easier to polish up a turd (Taurus reputation) than to push for recognition of a new brand ("Five Hundred"). How did it come back? The ripped off the "five hundred" label on a car and slapped on a "Taurus" label. Why? Because no one knew what a five hundred was and it wasn't selling all that great (other than to rental car companies). Literally. It was a five hundred one day, and a Taurus the next. And sales went up. THAT'S brand recognition for you - and it's apparently something that SOME photographers are completely ignorant about (understandable, they're not in marketing).


----------



## M.ST (Oct 10, 2012)

APS-C camera bodys are the best TC´s in the world.


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 10, 2012)

M.ST said:


> APS-C camera bodys are the best TC´s in the world.



Exactly.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 10, 2012)

+1

I used to love using my old 200mm f2.8L on my xti and especially on my 7D.

320mm equivalent at f2.8 on the fastest focusing canon this side of a 1D mkIV - at the time!

And at a price not to frighten the horses.

You know, a 1DX and 300mm f2.8 probably is better, but for me, my aspirations and my budget, a 7D with my current 70-200 f2.8L non-IS is more than good enough for my stills. 

My next EOS will probably be the C100, I haven't even thought about what my next stills camera will be. What I am using just now is more than sufficient. I don't need the absolute best DR, and -as a hangover from film perhaps- I instinctively keep my ISO's lowish.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2012)

I will stay with my very decent 7D and very decent APS-C lenses ... until I get a very decent FF mirrorless at a very decent price ... basically something like the Sony RX-1 but with a lens mount ... @ € 2k. 

I don't care if it takes 1,2 or 3 years at the most until we're there. And I don't care who maks it ... the first company to deliver what i want - body and lenses - will get my money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2012)

ecka said:


> You can see that in my previous post I was talking about D800 vs D7000 and there are no *if*-s.



Sorry, I must have missed that. Let's check:



ecka said:


> ...FF can do everything as good or better than APS-C, no need to have both. *If* 5D3 had 46mp sensor, then you could crop 18mp image out of 46mp and it would be just as good as your 7D image and much better when you don't need to crop it.



Nope, there's definitely an 'if' in there. 

Now, earlier, you stated:



ecka said:


> Not the reach - because, when both formats have the same pixel pitch (like D800 and D7000), we can just crop the FF image (or shoot in crop mode) and get exactly the same result as if we shot it using a crop sensor camera. I'm not a big super-telephoto fan...



...but again, I don't see the relevance because *there is no FF dSLR that matches the pixel pitch of current APS-C dSLR offerings* (18 MP from Canon and 24 MP from Nikon, the latter being _much_ higher than the 16 MP example you're using!).

Bottom line, I with agree that APS-C really comes down to $$ - both for bodies and for lenses. If you can afford a longer lens, you'll get better IQ with that longer lens on a FF camera. In most cases, even without the longer lens, cropping the FF image will yield equivalent IQ, merely fewer megapixels. The only time when one could argue that the APS-C 'reach' advantage is actually necessary is when you need a framing tighter than the longest available lens, even assuming you can afford that lens, _and_ you need the full resolution image for printing large, etc.


----------



## ecka (Oct 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > You can see that in my previous post I was talking about D800 vs D7000 and there are no *if*-s.
> ...



I'm sorry for my bad english. However:
D7000 - *16mp* APS-C
D800 - 36mp FF - *16mp* in 1.5x crop mode (if it's not the same pixel pitch, then it must be pretty close)
D600 - 24mp FF - 10.7mp in 1.5x crop mode

Yes, Canon doesn't make 46mp FF cameras, not yet. If they will, then 7D would lose the reach advantage over FF, because you'll be able to crop those 46mp to get the same angle of view at the same 18mp resolution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2012)

ecka said:


> D7000 - 16mp APS-C
> D800 - 36mp FF - 16mp in 1.5x crop mode (if it's not the same pixel pitch, then it must be pretty close)
> D600 - 24mp FF - 10.7mp in 1.5x crop mode



Forgetting something?

D3200 - *24mp* APS-C

So, what Nikon FF camera delivers a 24mp image in 1.5x crop mode, thus negating the 'reach advantage' of APS-C?


----------



## ecka (Oct 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > D7000 - 16mp APS-C
> ...



I am talking about D7000 having no advantages over D800 other than price. If Sony can make 24mp APS-C sensor, so they can make 54mp FF sensor as well.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 10, 2012)

Bob Howland said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > The only *reasonable* APS-C advantage is the price.
> ...



I recon the scenery will change drastically when better mirrorless cameras will be around - no need for an expensive, sturdy flipping mirror anymore (i.e. more fps are much cheaper to include, just add some faster electronics) and a viewfinder as big as you want it (no need for ff).

The only thing left for ff in the future will be more mp simply because of the larger sensor, but aps-c imho will see a revival after some years of ff advancing until mirrorless systems are ready. And then many people will discover that 25mp aps-c really is enough.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2012)

ecka said:


> I am talking about D7000 having no advantages over D800 other than price.



Ok, but you're the _only_ one talking about that... One theme in this thread is the 'reach advantage' of APS-C over FF, and while in the specific example you've picked, there is none, in general, there is. I could as easily say that the 8 MP 20D has no reach advantage over the 21 MP 5DII...and that's an equally meaningless statement if used to support the argument that APS-C does not have a reach advantage over FF, which is the argument you're making.



ecka said:


> If Sony can make 24mp APS-C sensor, so they can make 54mp FF sensor as well.



Maybe. But they haven't...and until they do, the statement is irrelevant, and APS-C still has an apparent reach advantage that translates to the ability to get more pixels on target when you're focal length limited.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Oct 10, 2012)

i wonder what neuroanatomists never have to work...... retired ones?

honest, every time i visit here the froum is full of new neuroanatomist postings. 
where the hell do you find the time?

end even enough time to reply, in length, to every BS here.... ?


----------



## wayno (Oct 10, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



Agree with pretty much all of that.


----------



## ecka (Oct 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I am talking about D7000 having no advantages over D800 other than price.
> ...



You see, that's the mystery.  Why I am the only one talking about that? It seems like nobody cares about making things right. If you want a better future, then things have to change.



> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > If Sony can make 24mp APS-C sensor, so they can make 54mp FF sensor as well.
> ...



Yes, they haven't ... and that's the problem


----------



## sdsr (Oct 10, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> On the other hand, people who use the APS-C cameras for its reach or use better lenses than the kit might have a larger hurdle then merely the price of buying a full frame camera. The case of long tele-s have been discussed ad nauseam. I'd like to add that I can't hope to get the quality of the 17-55 on an EF zoom lesser than the 24-70 II, and that means a difference of $ 1100.



If you want a zoom of that range at a constant f/2.8, that's true enough. But out of curiosity, a couple of weeks ago I rented a 17-55 f/2.8 for a week to try on a Rebel t3i. Maybe I got an imperfect copy, but the photos I took with it (not that they were bad) were never quite as good as the photos I've taken in that range on my 5DII with, say, the 24-105L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and Sigma 85 1.4 (photos taken with the latter three, without IS, were all sharper than photos taken with the 17-55 with IS), nor as good as photos I've taken on the Rebel with EF lenses. (I've no idea how it compares with other EF-S lenses - that's the only one I've tried.) So maybe it's not quite as bad as you fear.... (Also, while it may not be as good as the 24-70II, the much less expensive new Tamron equivalent is pretty impressive.)


----------



## Synomis192 (Oct 10, 2012)

Is there a point where an APS-C camera can have the low noise performance like a 5DmkIII? I understand the limitation of an APS-C sensor, smaller sensor=less light to work with. But do you think in the near future there will be a low-light APS-C King?

I think I'm specifically talking about Canon though, Nikon has a reputation for having good low light performers. Never had a real first hand experience with it though?


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 11, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> But do you think in the near future there will be a low-light APS-C King?



I guess it'll take Canon aps-c at least another 5 years to get to 5d3 level, but I'm certain they'll get there eventually - the limitations of aps-c are lens resolution and pixel density, I don't see why there would be physical any constraints to low light capability.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 11, 2012)

@Marsu42


> I guess it'll take Canon aps-c at least another 5 years to get to 5d3 level, but I'm certain they'll get there eventually - the limitations of aps-c are lens resolution and pixel density, I don't see why there would be physical any constraints to low light capability.



If Canon were to release a new APS-C camera with 10MP but 5D3 low light performance would anybody buy it?

7D is niche, and rebel target market get sold on silly things like numbers.

What about an APS-C camera with 6 or 8MP with 1DX low light performance?

I _personally_ don't really need anything more than 6MP if I'm being honest, and I'm sure _most_ of the APS-C market are the same...

Canon reduced the resolution of their premium compacts a while back and have reduced the resolution of their flagship model... all for IQ dividend.

Apart from the benefits in pixel size, the vast majority of EF lenses would better fit with the lower resolution sensors and have more usable aperture range too.

Folk may salivate at the D800, I don't, I wanna go 'backwards'!


----------

