End of APS-C/DX camera?


UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,449
36
48
Singapore
#1
Photo kinda just ended. But very very few APS-C or DX lens or camera announcement. So from now on full frame only or mirror less only?
 

rain5533

Senior Member
Apr 14, 2009
3,103
0
36
S'pore, JB
www.flickr.com
#2
UncleFai said:
Photo kinda just ended. But very very few APS-C or DX lens or camera announcement. So from now on full frame only or mirror less only?
Great I just wanna thinking to open the same thread with you..

I am support this to be keep forward.

Cause now, everyone never knew the DSLR camera yet and still newbie level and already got their D600 FX entry level and asking about kit lens some more with crop factor works like.

Recently models DX body Start from D1 ~ D300s, D7000 today.

I think nobody bother...
 

Last edited:

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#3
Well, Nikon did launch the D3200 not too long ago with a brand new 24MP DX sensor.

Canon also refreshed their line up with the new 650D.

So I guess the low end is covered. Will it be more pertinent to ask what of the high-end APS-C and DX cameras like the Canon 7D and the Nikon D300s?
 

Cursor

New Member
May 24, 2003
419
0
0
38
cursor.instantlogic.com
#4
At times. I still prefer to use my D300 over full frame. Lighter system and cheaper lenses compared to full frame.
I know Mirrorless is even lighter and cheaper. At at this point of time, not having a optical viewfinder and changing the whole system is the major turn off for me.
So I guess with more Mirrorless come with EVF and when my D300 had given up on me and nikon didn't replace D300s with a new model. I will have not much choice but jump ship.
 

Last edited:

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#5
Cursor said:
At times. I still prefer to use my D300 over full frame. Lighter system and cheaper lenses compared to full frame.
I know Mirrorless is even lighter and cheaper. At at this point of time, not having a optical viewfinder and changing the whole system is the major turn off for me.
So I guess with more Mirrorless come with EVF and when my D300 had given up on me and nikon didn't replace D300s with a new model. I will have not much choice but jump ship.
There is always the D7000 or it's successor. I thought I would lose quite a bit moving from a D300s to a D7000, but the latter performed better than I thought.
 

Daoyin

Senior Member
Nov 25, 2008
2,808
6
38
West
#6
At times. I still prefer to use my D300 over full frame. Lighter system and cheaper lenses compared to full frame.
I know Mirrorless is even lighter and cheaper. At at this point of time, not having a optical viewfinder and changing the whole system is the major turn off for me.
So I guess with more Mirrorless come with EVF and when my D300 had given up on me and nikon didn't replace D300s with a new model. I will have not much choice but jump ship.
You might want to take a peek over at the Sony section for the NEX 6.
 

Mar 1, 2012
1,585
6
0
Singapore
www.facebook.com
#7
APS-C is here to stay, at least from the manufacturing point of view. Much cheaper to produce APS-C sensor than FF sensor, so entry cameras have higher profit margin. I think.

But one thing's for sure. Mirrorless formats can only grow n grow. Just look at NEX 6.

APS-C flagships like 7D n A77 are popular among sports and wildlife photographer due to high fps n crop factor.

If there's an end to anything, its the compacts. Smartphone cameras are so good now. Perhaps only superzooms will survive the "natural selection"...
 

Jun 7, 2011
939
3
0
#8
Imho, speaking strictly on apsc and full frame, apsc dslr era will end only if manufacturers are able to produce full frame dslr with the same price of (better also if it's as lightweight as) an apsc while still keeping all the important features.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#11
I think growth for the APS-C or DX sensors may be limited, but there is still a demand for it.
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,934
85
48
#12
IMO, the reverse is true for now.

Look at the prices of the FF 'entry' cameras. Still US$2k+ and that includes the Sony RX1 which is around that price if you consider its fixed CZ lens to be around $1K.
What it means is that the realities of manufacturing FF is not at "entry level prices" as marketing would like ppl to think.
Perhaps in the near future, but certainly there is a gap in price to be filled between US$1K to US$2K, and thats where APS-C comes in.


The APS-C cameras were most likely held back for CP+ since launching them all together would steal the thunder from the FF cameras.

Size wise, APS-C is still smaller.
In fact it has just gotten smaller with the XE-1 (Fuji is the one with 'smallish' lenses; and perhaps Samsung too)
(There is NEX too, if you don't consider the potential issue of short flange distance on WA lenses)

There is a market for both APS-C and 35mm FF.
I don't see APS-C dying out anytime soon.
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,032
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#13
Photo kinda just ended. But very very few APS-C or DX lens or camera announcement. So from now on full frame only or mirror less only?
Er, no I don't think so. If that is the case then it would be a sad day - if you want a new DSLR you will have to fork out close to SGD3K for FF?
 

DM101

Senior Member
Jul 10, 2010
1,497
2
38
#14
If you asked a newbie new to this hobby to start off with FX and lens it will cost $3500++ min :bsmilie:

I think DX is still be around for long time given the MP is ever increasing, Dynamic range of sensor getting very much better as well and you can start this hobby for $1000 or less with kit lens.

I know because I walked this path....
 

Last edited:

CamInit

New Member
Nov 3, 2009
756
0
0
#15
Weird... I just has the similar thoughts last night.

From my limited understanding on the economics of cameras, the main difference in costs between APS-C vs FF cameras are due to the sensor yield. Since camera sensors are always fixed in their dimensions, unlike other chips, they do not benefit from Moore's Law. The only time when costs go down is when you can get more usable dies out of each wafer. The big boys in semiconductor manufacturing (Intel, TSMC, etc) are pushing migration from 300mm to 450mm wafers. 450mm fabs are supposed to be coming online next few years. The last migration from 200mm to 300mm occurred in 2000 with reduction in price of die by 30% to 40%. Once 450mm migration is complete, we should see a gradual drop in sensor costs for FF and MF. APS-C costs will also decrease but I supposed not as significant in overall terms as it take up a smaller percentage compared to cost of the rest of the body. This is a relatively slow process that will probably be drawn out for the next 7-8 years.

As price of FF drops to current APS-C levels, cameras from the lower end (the PnS, mirrorless, compacts, even your mobile phones, etc) are also moving up in terms of performance and/or size so where does that leave the APS-C?

Interestingly, Canon's choice of having EOS-M having same sensor size as their current crop cameras opens the possibility that Canon will eventually replace the EF-S with EF-M. Having the same sensor size smoothens this transition and all current crop DSLRs could be replaced by mirrorless versions in the long run. (Perhaps we'll get the 17-55 f/2.0 in a EF-M mount?) This is also Canon's answer to the 4/3s? It could be the end of EF-S, but not the APS-C format.

The other question is why are we seeing entry level FF ahead of 450mm migration. I'm not sure why. Perhaps somebody better informed care to enlighten? My only guess is both Canon and Nikon already foresee this happening and trying to get the first mover advantage. Being the 2 leaders in this field, they have the resources and is in their interests to capture this "new" market. Afterall, moving from crop to FF usually includes a change in lens system and the APS-C user is not really tied down to their current brand. It makes sense to create an established base of entry level FF users early than trying to compete as a late comer when the price of FFs really starts falling.

Well, all this is just pure conjecture. Intellectual masturbation, if you wanna call it. ;p
 

Last edited:

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,032
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#16
As price of FF drops to current APS-C levels, cameras from the lower end (the PnS, mirrorless, compacts, even your mobile phones, etc) are also moving up in terms of performance and/or size so where does that leave the APS-C?

Interestingly, Canon's choice of having EOS-M having same sensor size as their current crop cameras opens the possibility that Canon will eventually replace the EF-S with EF-M. Having the same sensor size smoothens this transition and all current crop DSLRs could be replaced by mirrorless versions in the long run. (Perhaps we'll get the 17-55 f/2.0 in a EF-M mount?) This is also Canon's answer to the 4/3s? It could be the end of EF-S, but not the APS-C format.
Wait until drop to APS-C price then say... Right now it is not APS-C price, not only the body counts, but also the lenses. For example, FF UWA Canon 16-35 or Nikon 16-35 all in the region of $2K, APS-C UWA such as Canon 10-22 or Nikon 10-24 in the region of sub $1K... It all adds up.

As for EOS-M having same sensor size, I personally don't think it means that the line will be replaced. For example, Sony has its NEX line for quite a while but you still see it producing A77, A57(?). Having a new mount could simply mean that the usual mount is just not conducive for a small-sized body (just look at the Pentax K-01).
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#17
If people really think that the only thing that affects cost is the sensor size (forgetting lenses, etc).... it's far too narrow in thoughts.
 

CamInit

New Member
Nov 3, 2009
756
0
0
#18
Wait until drop to APS-C price then say... Right now it is not APS-C price, not only the body counts, but also the lenses. For example, FF UWA Canon 16-35 or Nikon 16-35 all in the region of $2K, APS-C UWA such as Canon 10-22 or Nikon 10-24 in the region of sub $1K... It all adds up.

As for EOS-M having same sensor size, I personally don't think it means that the line will be replaced. For example, Sony has its NEX line for quite a while but you still see it producing A77, A57(?). Having a new mount could simply mean that the usual mount is just not conducive for a small-sized body (just look at the Pentax K-01).
EF 17-40L, EF 28-135, EF 70-300 are all "affordable". Same goes for the primes. You and I might not like the performance but they are there. I don't think we have quite reach the point yet but Canon could release new cheaper (compared to L lenses), better EF lenses if the market calls for it.

EF-M only allows the possibility of easier migration from EF-S. Doesn't mean have to happen. Canon will not be so dumb as to bet on a single scenario. Since Canon can't be dumber than I am, I'm sure there's a bunch of other good reasons why they pick the same sensor size. :D
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,645
63
48
lil red dot
#19
The important thing to note here is that many folks here are looking at the "market" according to what they see here in Singapore, where there is a strange and uncanny rush to get the newest and the best money can offer even when they had to pay installments to get it.

Many here need to realize that APS-C body are still the top sellers over FF bodies by a big margin for the big two, Canon and Nikon all over the world.

Singapore is an exception, not the norm. APS-C is here to stay.
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,032
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#20
EF 17-40L, EF 28-135, EF 70-300 are all "affordable". Same goes for the primes. You and I might not like the performance but they are there. I don't think we have quite reach the point yet but Canon could release new cheaper (compared to L lenses), better EF lenses if the market calls for it.

EF-M only allows the possibility of easier migration from EF-S. Doesn't mean have to happen. Canon will not be so dumb as to bet on a single scenario. Since Canon can't be dumber than I am, I'm sure there's a bunch of other good reasons why they pick the same sensor size. :D
I am not as rich, not affordable for me. :bsmilie:
 

Top Bottom