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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 23, 2014, 8:59 AM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

The bottom line is this: there are currently only 3 aps-c DSLR players: Canon, Nikon and Ricoh/Pentax.

Sony, Fuji, Panny & Oly are all-in on mirrorless

So, for DSLR purposes, the market will go where Canon and Nikon take it. Pentax is still a small player. Canon's statements last year indicate they see high-end being full frame but still retaining aps-c at low end. It really doesn't matter what individuls think - there are few choices for APS-C DSLR and Canon and Nikon marketing will decide the future.

Of much more interest will be whether or not mirrorless (regardless of sensor size) begins to overtake APS-C DSLR. Fuji and Oly make great products but they don't have the marketing muscle right now to significantly grow market share. Sony does but they've been so schizophrenic with their ILCs - they haven't realized the potential their product innovation would allow for.

So, it will be interesting in the next 5 years to see if either Nikon or Canon really embraces mirrorless or just keeps treading water. Or if either Oly or Fuji get the marketing muscle to push their excellent products into the public's eye.

For existing product offerings, each user has to evaluate their own needs. Some people benefit from full frame, others don't. In my system, Canon, the vast majority of high end lenses are created with a full-frame angle of view in mind not aps-c. So, when I left aps-h (1.3 crop) there was no benefit to ME to return to aps-c. But TCAV had different needs. As does any shooter. Both APS-C and Full frame DSLRs have their bonuses and drawbacks. But, the reality is all the different form factors are at a point where the results they can produce are GOOD ENOUGH for most purposes. So, it all comes down to where manufacturers decide to go. It's probably a safe bet that the current status-quo won't remain like that. The cost benefit and size benefit mirrorless provides over a mirror design will push change.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2014, 10:39 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,734
Default

Interesting... and I quote...

"The cost benefit and size benefit mirrorless provides over a mirror design will push change."

Would this then not work in the favour of APS-C over Full-Frame- even in mirrorless form...?
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2014, 11:18 AM   #13
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIMON40 View Post
Interesting... and I quote...

"The cost benefit and size benefit mirrorless provides over a mirror design will push change."

Would this then not work in the favour of APS-C over Full-Frame- even in mirrorless form...?
Without doubt, in mirrorless you'll still have more cameras built on smaller-than-full-frame sensors. Absolutely. What the de-facto size is, probably isn't set. Might be m4/3, might be APS-C. But, absolutely, the market would be dominated by smaller-than-full-frame.

That still doesn't mean that in a mirrorless world, full frame has no advantages. It really depends the actual cameras/lenses produced.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2014, 2:30 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Currently, Sony still makes Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras, though they don't conform to others' perceptions of what a dSLR should be. And while Sony isn't a strong market force, it is forcing the evolution of the DSLR. Just because you don't like where it's going doesn't mean it doesn't make reflex cameras.

My point is that the actual practical difference between 'Full Frame' and APS-C is quantifiable, and it isn't very much: about a stop in DoF, about a stop in image noise, and about a stop in dynamic range. And while the same is true when comparing APS-C to m4/3, and so on down the line, the difference in size, weight and expense isn't nearly as extreme is it is when comparing 'Full Frame' and APS-C. So the investment in moving up to 'Full Frame' gear doesn't pay off as well as it does when moving up to APS-C from m4/3.

If you really need that little bit more shallow DoF, slightly less image noise, and/or slightly more dynamic range, you're not going to find it anywhere else. But all things considered, that's a pretty exclusive club with hefty membership fees.
__________________
  • 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.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2014, 7:10 AM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

TCAV - it's amusing that the format you use is the only logical choice - m4/3 is easily dismissed as is full frame. The fact that m4/3 offers every benefit vs aps-c that aps-c has vs full frame is dismissed by you because it's too small a difference. Clearly, anyone choosing a form factor other than the one you chose doesn't have a clue

I'm not going to speak for others, only myself. In the Canon system, just about every lens but 1 that is top quality is designed for full frame. So, if you want the best lenses you have to buy the ones sized for full frame (with 1 exception). They all work on aps-c but you can toss out your size advantage for lenses. And, of course the cost difference. And, of course, when that happens a person MIGHT prefer the field of view on the full frame since the focal lengths in lens design were chosen for full frame not aps-c. Not all the time, but MIGHT. I do. My 24-105 and 70-200 are a lot more useful on full frame than they are on aps-c. If Canon had designed all their lenses around aps-c that might be different. But their quality lenses (as opposed to consumer kit lenses) were designed for full frame field of view. This doesn't matter one bit to a consumer buying just 2 kit lenses though - since kit lenses are indeed designed for aps-c. Different strokes for different folks.

The same is true in Nikon - if you want the best lenses you are buying lenses designed/sized (and thus priced) for full frame. For certain at the entry levels where people are buying kit lenses things are different.

What your argument really comes down to is - your smart and anyone choosing a different form factor - m4/3 or full frame just doesn't know enough to be as smart as you. Every single form factor has pluses and minuses. Which is why you buy a tool that fits your needs - an aps-c DSLR. I buy a tool that fits my needs and other knowledgeable photographers do the same. Try as you might to convince yourself and others that the choice YOU made is the only reasonable one, it's simply not true.

Now, one of the things I have asserted is - choices depend on the cameras & lenses available. When I left aps-h behind I still wanted a professional grade focus system. Please tell me in the Canon lineup which cameras have their pro grade focus system?

Which goes to my actual point that what form factors survive and at what levels depend heavily on how Canon and Nikon decide to move the market. All of them are good enough for the majority of photos most people take. Whether it's my Canon full frame, your nikon aps-c or someone elses Oly m4/3. There are still benefits in each category and knowledgeable photographers could choose either tool for themselves and not be wrong.

Why is it important for you to try to convince yourself and others that your form factor is the only correct one - or at least the BEST one?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2014, 7:54 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

I was attempting to quantify the advantages 'Full Frame' has over APS-C. I think I did that. I have also conceded those advantages on multiple occasions. Is that where I said that APS-C was the only logical choice?

You seem to be able to capitalize on those advantages that 'Full Frame' systems have, and I applaud you for it.

When I picked my system, I looked for the best, most reasonably priced lenses for what I wanted to shoot, and I bought a camera I could mount those lenses to. Therefore, I freely admit that it was the only logical choice for me.

I'm not telling people what to buy. I hope I'm helping people understand what they're buying.
__________________
  • 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.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2014, 10:37 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
It really doesn't matter what individuls think - there are few choices for APS-C DSLR and Canon and Nikon marketing will decide the future.
This is one of the most depressing statements on human behavior that I have read in a long time. If true, than as consumers we have relinquished all power because we are either too stupid or too lazy to do our own research. Sadly, this is what marketing departments prey upon.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2014, 11:03 AM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
This is one of the most depressing statements on human behavior that I have read in a long time. If true, than as consumers we have relinquished all power because we are either too stupid or too lazy to do our own research. Sadly, this is what marketing departments prey upon.
John
That's pretty melodramatic. VHS survived over Beta. Blu Ray survived over HD-DVD. DVD over disc. Each technology that "lost out" was good. It wasn't because the survivors were necessarily better that they survived. It often came down to business and marketing muscle.

In the corporate world there are costs associated with great diversity. Manufacturers always will have to balance the benefits of that diversity with the costs. As consumers, we benefit from diversity as well as uniformity. For example - we benefit from being able to choose between a wealth of different products. BUT, when you have commonality then you get a lot of people concentrating on the same thing to make it better. For example, when I bought a tablet last year - there are a TON of covers designed around the ipad. Want something for an android tablet and less choices. Why? because they come in so many shapes/sizes third party manufacturers don't bother to make quality stuff that fits them. Imagine how tough it is in Sony to make 3 different mounts for lenses instead of 1.

Consumers certainly have a voice. But, if left totally up to them, Canon would never have replaced the FD lens mount with EF. Oly would still be limping along trying desperately to compete in a DSLR market instead of pioneering in the m4/3 world. Now that they have consolidated into 1 vision they no longer have to divide their $$$.

Companies often make decisions a segment of their market does not like. I'm not sure why that depresses you so much. Companies do what is in their best interests and the interests of their share holders. And, when you have a market that is dominated by only a very few those companies have greater ability to influence market direction to their benefit.

For cameras, the reality is this: majority of buyers will only have 1 or 2 lenses. Those lenses exist for mirrorless. Mirrorless technology is certainly good enough to meet the needs of the masses and it's cheaper to manufacture and maintain. So, why does DSLR still dominate? Because, Canon and Nikon still push it. If one of them swithes all-in to mirrorless the market changes. Just like it did when Canon switched from manual focus to autofocus lenses. The faithful hated it but they did it and the rest of the market had to follow. Nothing sad and depressing about it.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2014, 5:33 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
This is one of the most depressing statements on human behavior that I have read in a long time. If true, than as consumers we have relinquished all power because we are either too stupid or too lazy to do our own research. Sadly, this is what marketing departments prey upon.

John
It does sound a little like Soylent Green, doesn't it.
__________________
  • 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.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2014, 9:29 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

"That's pretty melodramatic. VHS survived over Beta. Blu Ray survived over HD-DVD. DVD over disc. Each technology that "lost out" was good. It wasn't because the survivors were necessarily better that they survived. It often came down to business and marketing muscle."
Actually, the formats that won out, did so in spite of business and marketing muscle, because those were what the public preferred, for one reason or another. Dollars trump technology and advertising gimmicks. As long as there is room in the camera world for several formats, and the public doesn't massively run away from any one, we will have lots of choices.
VTphotog 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 7:28 PM.