is there really any reason to go full frame?

[Plato]

FX is a FAD!

Like zippers and the Internet.

I'd be thrilled to have an FX body or two or three (except that I've been building up a collection of DX lenses since abandoning film) but it simply doesn't make economical sense for someone whose photographic income is less than $100k annually.

 

[camz]

Does anyone think the APS-C sized sensor will die out?
Eventually it will be cheap enough to offer entry level Full Frame sensor. I wouldn't see any reason for companies to continue to produce two lines.

I have buddy who shoots sports and wildlife and prefers the APS-C sized sensors for the extra digital focal length. He can clearly afford a full frame but has stuck with the APS-C series ever since. I think they're always be a market for it just as long as manufacturers continue to divide them on a pricing scale. If manufacturers are smart they should continue on to market these two formats separately for margin sake that way people will always want to climb up the ladder towards their luxury products.

I have both myself and follow along the lines of shooting wildlife and my kids with the cropped sensor, portraiture and weddings with the FF.

 

[dustinpedley]

Jerry has nailed it.

You need to decide what you shoot and how you shoot it. There is a thread on here from a new user asking why he struggles to get good shots that are in focus of football games using a 5DMk2. The answer? The 5DMk2 isn't a sport/action photography camera. He has the wrong tool for the job. A 50D or a 1D especially would be the tool he needs.

What do you shoot?

stills mostly, lots of landscapes and stuff like that

 

[itznfb]

FX is a FAD!

Like zippers and the Internet.

I'd be thrilled to have an FX body or two or three (except that I've been building up a collection of DX lenses since abandoning film) but it simply doesn't make economical sense for someone whose photographic income is less than $100k annually.

Does anyone think the APS-C sized sensor will die out?
Eventually it will be cheap enough to offer entry level Full Frame sensor. I wouldn't see any reason for companies to continue to produce two lines.

I have buddy who shoots sports and wildlife and prefers the APS-C sized sensors for the extra digital focal length. He can clearly afford a full frame but has stuck with the APS-C series ever since. I think they're always be a market for it just as long as manufacturers continue to divide them on a pricing scale. If manufacturers are smart they should continue on to market these two formats separately for margin sake that way people will always want to climb up the ladder towards their luxury products.

I have both myself and follow along the lines of shooting wildlife and my kids with the cropped sensor, portraiture and weddings with the FF.

The only reason APS-C sized sensors exist is because manufacturers couldn't produce a full frame sensor affordable enough for a consumer market, and the technology wasn't available. Now they are able to produce full frame cameras relatively cheap there's no question we'll soon see entry level full frame. In my opinion there's no reason to keep DX around from a manufacturers standpoint. Wildlife shooters like myself may like the added reach from the crop sensor but wildlife shooters were out there for years and years with film and had no problems.

And Plato, I'm sorry bud but no manufacture cares how much you invested. They will abandon you at the drop of a hat.

 

[camz]

The only reason APS-C sized sensors exist is because manufacturers couldn't produce a full frame sensor affordable enough for a consumer market, and the technology wasn't available. Now they are able to produce full frame cameras relatively cheap there's no question we'll soon see entry level full frame. In my opinion there's no reason to keep DX around from a manufacturers standpoint. Wildlife shooters like myself may like the added reach from the crop sensor but wildlife shooters were out there for years and years with film and had no problems.

I don't agree to it phasing out just because manufacturers are capable of making them cheaper. Canon for instance has a whole line of lenses dedicated for just APS-C sensors and phasing cropped bodies would also phase out the EF-S lens series. I don't see why the cost in manufacturing something cheaper justifies the discontinuation of the product. I believe that companies will phase it out according to their market studies based on supply and demand. If they could make it for cheap and mark it up yet it still sells like hot cakes why not? Like I said if they're smart they would would maintain percieved greener pastures on their FF series to have consumers itch for the luxury end. The 5d Mk2 is at $2600 and the 1D is over $6000 both full frame bodies. I don't see the overhead cost in technology and materials justify the difference in MSRP so the 1D I think is a hella of a mark up which is smart on their behalf.

Edit: Op before going to bed forgot to mention.. congrats on picking Canon ;-)

 

[HeY iTs ScOTtY]

no need to go full frame unless you want to spend more money on the camrea and lenses.

 

[Garbz]

Does anyone think the APS-C sized sensor will die out?
Eventually it will be cheap enough to offer entry level Full Frame sensor. I wouldn't see any reason for companies to continue to produce two lines.

No they wont. It's not a matter of lines. It's a matter of yield. Consider how many APS sized sensors can fit on a silicon wafer. APS sensors have half of the area of a full frame sensor. Due to manufacturing defects the yields are higher too. Lets say you fit 30 Full frame sensors on the wafer and you have 3 defects (90% yield). Now the same wafer fits closer to 60 APS sensors, with still 3 defects you get (95% yield).

There is no technological limitation to making sensors much larger than Full frame. There are only costs. As full frame gets cheaper, APS gets FAR cheaper. And given how competitive the market is for entry level DSLRd, APS are definitely here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Contrary to popular myth, EF-S lenses of any speed are not really any smaller or lighter than identical speed lenses that will cover FF; look at the 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S--it's big and weighty. And there are NO size savings on telephoto or long zoom lenses. The only small-sensor lnses that save any size or weight are very slow, "kit" lenses.

The minimum amount of glass in a lens is proportional to the size of the sensor, distance to the focal plane, and light it needs to pass. Try telling 4:3rds users that smaller sensors don't give smaller lenses. It's not myth, it's physics. Just because one camera manufacturer chooses to make a large lens on a APS body does not make it a myth.
Better yet try telling a Nikon user:
Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 G DX - 755g, 85x110mm
Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G - 900g, 85x133mm

Oh btw the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is big and weighty and has IS. The EF 24-70 f/2.8 for full frame has no IS and is 400g weightier.

 

[itznfb]

There are only costs. As full frame gets cheaper, APS gets FAR cheaper.

That's my point. When you see a APS-C dSLR for $300 and a Full Frame for $325. Which is the average consumer going to buy? The marketing will definitely push the Full Frame as a more capable solution.

 

[GeneralBenson]

The minimum amount of glass in a lens is proportional to the size of the sensor, distance to the focal plane, and light it needs to pass. Try telling 4:3rds users that smaller sensors don't give smaller lenses. It's not myth, it's physics. Just because one camera manufacturer chooses to make a large lens on a APS body does not make it a myth.
Better yet try telling a Nikon user:
Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 G DX - 755g, 85x110mm
Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G - 900g, 85x133mm

Oh btw the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is big and weighty and has IS. The EF 24-70 f/2.8 for full frame has no IS and is 400g weightier.

Or the Pentax 16-50/2.8 which is 565g, 84-98.5mm. Much better than the 24-70L, which is 905g, 83.2x123.5mm, and I would put the optics of the pentax up against the L any day of the week. Also the pentax has IS due to in body stabilization. So I could either have a 5DmkII and 24-70 at 1715g, or a pentax k-7 and 16-50 at 1215g, in a significantly smaller package with stabilization. If aps-c ever does die, I'll be pissed. It' a great format that is capable of delivering profesional results in almost any situation. Will the 5d take beter photos in low light? Yes. Will it take better photos in bright light? Honestly, no i won't, I've compared them plenty of times. So if you're someone who doesn't shoot in the dark too often and values compactness highly, then aps-c is the ticket.

 

[Plato]

FX is a FAD!

Like zippers and the Internet.

I'd be thrilled to have an FX body or two or three (except that I've been building up a collection of DX lenses since abandoning film) but it simply doesn't make economical sense for someone whose photographic income is less than $100k annually.

Does anyone think the APS-C sized sensor will die out?
Eventually it will be cheap enough to offer entry level Full Frame sensor. I wouldn't see any reason for companies to continue to produce two lines.

I have buddy who shoots sports and wildlife and prefers the APS-C sized sensors for the extra digital focal length. He can clearly afford a full frame but has stuck with the APS-C series ever since. I think they're always be a market for it just as long as manufacturers continue to divide them on a pricing scale. If manufacturers are smart they should continue on to market these two formats separately for margin sake that way people will always want to climb up the ladder towards their luxury products.

I have both myself and follow along the lines of shooting wildlife and my kids with the cropped sensor, portraiture and weddings with the FF.

The only reason APS-C sized sensors exist is because manufacturers couldn't produce a full frame sensor affordable enough for a consumer market, and the technology wasn't available. Now they are able to produce full frame cameras relatively cheap there's no question we'll soon see entry level full frame. In my opinion there's no reason to keep DX around from a manufacturers standpoint. Wildlife shooters like myself may like the added reach from the crop sensor but wildlife shooters were out there for years and years with film and had no problems.

And Plato, I'm sorry bud but no manufacture cares how much you invested. They will abandon you at the drop of a hat.

And when did I suggest anything different?

 

[Village Idiot]

If I dont need craze high ISO or crazy high MP rates?

I was looking at a 50D vs a 5D MK II

A 5DmkII *is* full frame and over 24MP... so wouldn't that disclude it immediately from your possible "buy list" based on your2 listed criteria??

A word of advice. YOU need to decide what YOU want. The instant that you leave an important decision such as what are your needs or will (whatever item) fit your needs to someone else, you are guaranteeing a huge case of buyer's remorse.

Don't be lazy, find out YOUR needs are and get the item that fits YOUR needs.

Feel free to do a search... I never ask someone to spend my money for me... I know what I want and I make purchases based on my knowledge of my budget, requirements, desires and needs... NO ONE other than YOU knows this... do do your own homework.

Are the drugs they give the old people that good? 5D MKII is only 21mp.

 

[Garbz]

That's my point. When you see a APS-C dSLR for $300 and a Full Frame for $325. Which is the average consumer going to buy? The marketing will definitely push the Full Frame as a more capable solution.

That was my point. The sensor is the most expensive piece of the camera simply due to the size of the silicon wafer. If you see a FX camera for $325 then an APS-C camera won't cost anywhere near that much.

Before you say but other components, one would imagine if someone has the technology to produce a giant silicon wafer for so cheap then the technology of the rest of manufacturing would come down accordingly too.

 

[Village Idiot]

That's my point. When you see a APS-C dSLR for $300 and a Full Frame for $325. Which is the average consumer going to buy? The marketing will definitely push the Full Frame as a more capable solution.

That was my point. The sensor is the most expensive piece of the camera simply due to the size of the silicon wafer. If you see a FX camera for $325 then an APS-C camera won't cost anywhere near that much.

Before you say but other components, one would imagine if someone has the technology to produce a giant silicon wafer for so cheap then the technology of the rest of manufacturing would come down accordingly too.

The cheapest FF DLSR's are going for about $1300 used right now and that's not going to guarantee quality. Plus that's for a camera that's going to be what, 5 years old? You can get Canon 300D's for $300.

 

[itznfb]

That's my point. When you see a APS-C dSLR for $300 and a Full Frame for $325. Which is the average consumer going to buy? The marketing will definitely push the Full Frame as a more capable solution.

That was my point. The sensor is the most expensive piece of the camera simply due to the size of the silicon wafer. If you see a FX camera for $325 then an APS-C camera won't cost anywhere near that much.

Before you say but other components, one would imagine if someone has the technology to produce a giant silicon wafer for so cheap then the technology of the rest of manufacturing would come down accordingly too.

The cheapest FF DLSR's are going for about $1300 used right now and that's not going to guarantee quality. Plus that's for a camera that's going to be what, 5 years old? You can get Canon 300D's for $300.

Prices for used gear don't translate to current retail pricing at all. I have to use Nikon as an example as I'm not familiar with Canon's older digital gear but the D2h still goes for over $3,000 when the D5000 will out perform it in almost every category for about $700.

2 years ago if I posted that the a full frame prosumer general use 12mp camera with unreal ISO performance would be less than a D2h I would have been laughed off the forums. Now we have the D700 for less than $3000.