Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 22, 2013, 10:54 AM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I do not believe that anyone will ever offer a 'Full Frame' dSLR for $1,000. My point is that anything that benefits 'Full Frame' dSLRs, benefits 'APS-C' dSLRs at least as much. Nobody that sells dSLRs is going to abandon the 'APS-C' market in favor of the 'Full Frame' market because APS-C is where all the market activity is. 'APS-C' dSLRs outsell 'Full Frame' dSLRs, just like economy cars outsell luxury and performance cars. If you need a Semi- you get a Semi-; if you can get by with a pickup, you get a pickup. More people can get by with pickups than need Semi's.

Whatever the head of Canon thinks is going to happen, he's still going to sell 5 APS-C dSLRs to every 'Full Frame' dSLR. Do you really think he's going to walk away from his most profitable market segment?
Let's look at this a bit more closely.
1) Of course Canon and Nikon sell more aps-c - they MAKE more aps-c right now. Now, if 3 years from now Canon and Nikon only offer full-frames in what is now the 7d/d300 area - what are people who want those cameras going to do? They'll buy full frame. It doesn't matter AT ALL if some of them (like you) prefer an aps-c. They'll buy the full frame because that is all there is.

2) the car analogy - what you're missing in your analogy is this: Canon and Nikon aren't saying they're going to eliminate the "full size sedan" that is the 7d/d300 or mid size that is the d7100/60d. Nope. What they're saying is that they're going to replace those with a full frame version that costs "just a little bit more" (what we're seeing with the D600). And the market is OK with that - just like the Camry (#1 selling sedan) has seen a cost increase over the last 6 years. Your logic is based upon the faulty premise that the mid-size sedan must be APS-C because it will cost less than full frame. That's wrong - it's about price point not what technology is cheapest. They're replace aps-c sensor with full frame sensor in their upper tier cameras for "a little higher cost" to the consumer. Just like car manufacturers do.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 10:58 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

In my humble opinion,APS-C will be around for a LONG time...
Yes,full-frame has it's market,but nothing like in the APS-C numbers...
I personally have no great desire to go full frame- even if finances allow.
A high end APS-C model has it's advantages,not least being lighter/smaller,less expensive- and frankly not really far behind in levels of performance...
And do not underestimate the negative effect even a small price hike in switching to a small-ish full frame model might have...
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:02 AM   #13
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Oh - as for Sony - their IP&S division STILL had an operating loss last year. It's not as bad as TV - but the notion that any division operating at a loss "carries the company" isn't good.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/fina.../12q3_sony.pdf
Movies and sensor development are what are doing the best. Again, only Canon and Nikon currently make any profit from their DSLR / camera segment. Sony has yet to break even.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:16 AM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIMON40 View Post
And do not underestimate the negative effect even a small price hike in switching to a small-ish full frame model might have...
An interesting point. Now, we're talking about the higher end of the product line, not the lower end so the rules are different. Let's look at lenses as an indicator. What is the price of Canon's new 70-200 2.8II. Did the price go down or up? When Nikon released their VRII - did the price go down or up? Look at what Sigma did with their lenses - did they reduce the cost? Nope, they added OS to their top telophotos and INCREASED the cost.

The reality is - as long as the consumer thinks they're getting a better product than the prior generation they'll buy the new generation even if it costs more. This is the difference between this market segment and the entry level market segment - where you notice manufacturers are NOT increasing price points because
A) there is more competition
B) consumers in that segment aren't as willing to absorb price increases

This is the same argument as - "there doesn't need to be more megapixels - 8mp is all anyone ever needs" and "if you can build a 12mp sensor you can build an 8mp sensor even cheaper". Same thing here. The "aps-c is good enough" argument is the same argument.

Again, the question isn't - where do you think the market SHOULD go - it's where is it going to go. All you have to do is look at what these companies are currently doing and apply actual business practices to know they will keep price points trending upward on their top cameras.

Heck - look what happened with the 5dIII and 1dX - the price went up over the predecessors. People moaned but in the end they were willing to pay it. As long as the price increase isn't great people will pay for full frame.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:16 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

I think full frame is the future of the DSLR but it is a limited one. As Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji and others have proven you can have APS-C performance in a small body by removing the mirror. In the case of Olympus and Panasonic they've shown you can also have small lenses using the 4/3 sensor size as opposed to APS-C sensor size with minimal loss in IQ. Mirror-less crop sensor cameras have reduced size to at least half of what a full frame compliment would be and the IQ is more than adequate for even professionals, I am reading more and more of event photographers going to a micro four thirds setup with zero complaints from their customers, all day shooting on your feet the size and weight difference adds up.

Looking at a camera like the Panasonic FZ200 with a constant aperture of f2.8 across a 28-600mm equivalent focal length and a sensor that isn't very far behind the larger crop sensors, one can see the clear advantages of a crop sensor. For $500 one can get a FZ200 a full frame setup covering the same focal range at that aperture would be a minimum of 10x the price and 3x the weight. I fully expect in 5-10 years the sensor technology will have continued to evolve as it has in the past and these smaller sensor cameras will be able to match the IQ of today's FF cameras.

Full Frame is great for bragging rights
Full Frame glass is too big and too expensive for what I want to do, I just don't see that changing, the nature of a big sensor requires big glass


Also there's two things I'd like to point out that your survey misses;

Full Frame Sony Nex - this would be an ideal platform for legacy lenses.

The Sony RX100 represents a new class of full frame compact cameras that I personally find very interesting as it gives the FF performance without the bulk. I will not be surprised to see some other makers try this formula of a high end compact with a full frame sensor and matched prime lens.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:20 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

PS3 obsolete, PS4 now, officially announced yesterday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Sony would stop making TVs and PS3s before they stopped making cameras.
__________________
A smartphone is all the "camera" you really need.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:36 AM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
I am reading more and more of event photographers going to a micro four thirds setup with zero complaints from their customers, all day shooting on your feet the size and weight difference adds up. .
Now that's interesting. Are there any FULL TIME event photographers that switched from non-olympus to m4/3? I'd like to read their accounts. I'm surprised if many full time pros are willing to trade the focus performance.

There are lots of "event photographers" but normally forums like this one are dominated by people who, at most, make a little money on the side.

I'd really like to read some of those testimonials from full time pros who have gone m4/3. For example, there was a really good write up a year or so ago from a full time pro on the benefits of Oly, Canon, Nikon and Sony. That was a very good read.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:39 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Let's look at this a bit more closely.
1) Of course Canon and Nikon sell more aps-c - they MAKE more aps-c right now. Now, if 3 years from now Canon and Nikon only offer full-frames in what is now the 7d/d300 area - what are people who want those cameras going to do? They'll buy full frame. It doesn't matter AT ALL if some of them (like you) prefer an aps-c. They'll buy the full frame because that is all there is.
It's got nothing to do with a preference for APS-C, even as far as I'm concerned. It's about a preference for smaller, lighter and cheaper (and, btw, with roughly equivalent image quality.) If Canon and Nikon stopped making APS-C dSLRs, most people would buy their smaller, lighter, cheaper cameras from someone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
2) the car analogy - what you're missing in your analogy is this: Canon and Nikon aren't saying they're going to eliminate the "full size sedan" that is the 7d/d300 or mid size that is the d7100/60d. Nope. What they're saying is that they're going to replace those with a full frame version that costs "just a little bit more" (what we're seeing with the D600). And the market is OK with that - just like the Camry (#1 selling sedan) has seen a cost increase over the last 6 years. Your logic is based upon the faulty premise that the mid-size sedan must be APS-C because it will cost less than full frame. That's wrong - it's about price point not what technology is cheapest. They're replace aps-c sensor with full frame sensor in their upper tier cameras for "a little higher cost" to the consumer. Just like car manufacturers do.
But they don't (and won't ever) make enough of them to make them even comparably priced (Re: my statement that no one will ever offer a 'Full Frame' dSLR for $1,000.) (BTW, you said "Canon and Nikon, as businesses, want to keep price points up." Are you now saying that they want to make 'Full Frame' dSLRs cheaper and cheaper?)

Forty months ago, Sony introduced a 24MP 'Full Frame' dSLR for $2,000. Six months ago, Nikon introduced a 24MP 'Full Frame' dSLR for $2,000. That sounds like a pretty stable price point to me. Yet it's still 3 times what an equivalent APS-C dSLR sells for. 'Full Frame' dSLRs will always be bigger, heavier, and more expensive than 'APS-C' dSLRs (and here's what you're missing) and when and if Canikon replaces the 'APS-C' sensors in their current products, there will be other products that are smaller, lighter, and cheaper, and people will buy those instead, not because they have APS-C sensors, but because they're smaller, lighter, and cheaper.

You're saying that people will buy them because companies will be making them. I'm saying that companies will keep making what people want to buy. And the vast majority of people don't care what size the sensor is, but they like the idea of smaller, lighter and cheaper.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Feb 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM. Reason: sp
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:45 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

From a practical viewpoint, it doesn't really make sense to put all the eggs into the FF basket. The trend in the mass market has been toward smaller and easier to carry cameras. The pro and wannabe market is supporting the FF cameras now, but that is a limited segment, even considering the "Cordelia Chase Factor" . (from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. quote "I don't have to have the most expensive things because they're the most expensive, but because the cost the most.")
When C and N marketing divisions have tapped out the FF market, they will start pushing MF, conveniently forgetting that Pentax is already there. They will succeed, though because of incrementalism. Pentax jumped too early. Buyers have to get used to the higher prices gradually.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 12:06 PM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
It's got nothing to do with a preference for APS-C, even as far as I'm concerned. It's about a preference for smaller, lighter and cheaper (and, btw, with roughly equivalent image quality.)
I understand you want smaller, lighter and cheaper. But you're not the market segment we're talking about. You're not a 7d/d300 owner. That's the segment we're talking about going to full frame. You're not buying 70-200 2.8VRII lenses. We're talking about the market of people that ARE buying those things. And those people want every edge they can get. And, they'll pay for that edge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
If Canon and Nikon stopped making APS-C dSLRs, most people would buy their smaller, lighter, cheaper cameras from someone else.
That's true at the entry level. We're talking about the upper level. Right now, the people buying the 7d/D300 level of cameras don't have many choices. Neither Oly nor Pentax offers anything that remotely competes focus wise. And there is still a lot of market resistance to EVF and the translucent mirror technology Sony is using - not to mention their implementation of image processing (Nikon and Pentax seemingly having a better reputation in the market for IQ with the same sensor). At the lower levels you are absolutely correct. But at the higher end - there isn't enough competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
(BTW, you said "Canon and Nikon, as businesses, want to keep price points up." Are you now saying that they want to make 'Full Frame' dSLRs cheaper and cheaper?)
What I am saying is for a given market segment - let's say the segment the D300 and 7d is aimed at - they don't want the price point to come down. They want the price point to increase slightly. To do that, they have to offer more functionality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post

'Full Frame' dSLRs will always be bigger, heavier, and more expensive than 'APS-C' dSLRs (and here's what you're missing) and when and if Canikon replaces the 'APS-C' sensors in their current products, there will be other products that are smaller, lighter, and cheaper, and people will by those instead, not because they have APS-C sensors, but because they're smaller, lighter, and cheaper.
Nope I'm not missing your point. The entry level to mid level crowd will chase smaller/lighter and cheaper. That's why mirrorless has a bright future. But despite claims that the panasonic fz200 is 'almost as good as APS-C" and the current Pentax K5II/Nikon D5000 is "almost as good" as 5diii/d600 they're not as good. Not just because of the sensor. But, the crowd I'm talking about is not the crowd buying the entry and mid level DSLRs - it's the crowd buying the d300/7d - they want the best they can get and they will pay more for it. You're not willing to pay for it - you're not the market segment we're talking about. For your segment there will still be aps-c DSLRs. For the larger market segment there will be mirrorless. But the d300/7d and above segment is going full-frame because that's where Canon and Nikon want it to go. Not only does it keep price points up but it makes sense from R&D too - all their top tier lenses can be made in one form factor then. So, to be clear - I am not saying Canon is going to take their rebel line full frame. I am not saying Nikon is going to take their lower end full frame. I'm saying they're both going to take their upper ends full frame.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:34 AM.