Are crop cameras going to disappear?

Just wanted to hear some thoughts as the 5D is available used now for around 1100-1400. I have read opinions of

the 5D having nicer image quality and nicer to use than a new 40d or 50d. Since the prices are not so far apart from

crop and full frame, do you think crop cameras will start slowing down? Or, maybe crop cameras will always be

around for wildlife work as you gain 1.6 with lenses? Do you think in 5 years, it will be mostly full frame?

Crop sensor has an advantage in wildlife photography. In crop-sensor, focal-length is multiplied by 1.6, which means 400mm lens will be 620mm, and with 1.4x converter it will be 868mm. Imagine how much one can save on the glass.

If crop-sensor bodies are going to give a comparable ISO performance and high frames per-second (I think 50D and D90 already does this to a good extent), then, IMHO, crop bodies will be the best choice for wildlife and sport photography.

Not for a long time if ever. If you work with prime lenses, you will appreciate the lenses working the way they are

supposed to work. Wides are truely wide and the 85/105 mid range lenses work for portraits the way they are

supposed to work and the way I have come to expect.

 

There is a really large quality difference my D200 crop and D700 full frame Nikons specially at higher iso.

There is still a quality difference between a D300 crop and the D700 although both are almost the same MP.

 

Unless the manufactures are willing to forsake the high price they get for full frame and the price to manufacture a full

size chip comes down and they are will to pass the savings on, there will be small sensor cameras.

 

I don`t consider them junk and if I was not ingrained from film camera lens expectations, I would be happy with small

sensors.

I doubt it - they're cheaper to make and you can use smaller lenses, both things facilitating mass sales. After all, not everyone wants to lug large lenses around, so the EF-S lenses and correspondingly smaller bodies are more attractive to the masses who don't really need full frame.... all IMHO of course.

I doubt it. I would expect them to become the norm as sensors improve to the point where full frame is overkill for most neds. Probably full frame will remain as the top level digital camera. Instead I think as sensor technolgy mproves there might be a shift to still smaller sensors suchas are now found in compact cameras. But there is some way to go to improve noise levels before that happens.

Other advantage over full-frame sensors is for macro photography: don't forget the 1.6x amplification factor

which might bring the wow factor to your picture. Most of the final macro shots we see obtained from full-frame

sensors resulted from cropping during post-processing.

First , most people don't want to buy a used camera. They want to buy a new one.

 

Second, the price difference between entry level crop sensor and a full frame new camera is very significant. Far too great to be accepted by most people that want a basic dslr

 

Third. The mainstream manufacturers need to make offers at the bottom/entry level as well as at the advanced level. If you were running Canon or Nikon, you would want to provide reasons why users should pay more for a higher specification. Full frame is an important link in that "upgrade" or "professional" chain.

 

Four. The ability to compete successfully at the bottom of the market is arguably much more important than competing at the top. I can't see Canon or Nikon prejudicing that by increasing costs and prices more than they have to at the lower end of their ranges- especially when it would also mean major risk from downtrading.

 

All speculation of course. Years in business taught me that second guessing is rarely right; that what companies do and what they should logically do are often very different, and that their motives are often different from those we assume. Still I think the assessment above is more likely to be predictive than the fact that for a number of applications and a minority of people, crop sensor has advantages that outweigh those from full frame.

<p>It really is much cheaper to manufacture smaller sensors as the fabrication plants use the same size silicon wafer, apparently about 20 FF sensors on a standard 8 inch wafer, vs. 200 APS-C sensors. Other issues relating to standard lithography stepping sizes also complicates matters and is a burden on FF area sensors rather than the smaller APS-C size. Here is a link to an interesting article on sensor manufacturing.

<a href="http://www.chipworks.com/blogs.aspx?id=4626&blogid=86">link</a></p>

 

<p>While sensor cost is not the major manufacturing expense in a camera body, there is till a differential not only in the manufacture, but also R&D to consider. Depending on improved techniques, increased yields, and acceptable profit margins, the price differential of a FF camera may decrease, but is unlikely to be competitive against APS-C, certainly on low or mid end models. Henry</p>

Short answer IMHO NEVER.

Can we be absolutely certain that Canon will develop a new 16-18 MP (or whatever) crop sensor for their 60D or 70D rather than tweaking the 16 MP full-frame sensor that they already have? I am not so sure.

Chinmaya Sn,

 

The tele advantage is now a myth, resolution is limited by diffraction now and not pixel numbers, effectively there is no difference between cropping a FF image and using a crop image to start with.

 

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00R6dP

 

In response to Tim's original question, i very much doubt it, with the successful EF-S range of lenses Canon would be mad to disenfranchise all those lens owners. It is more likely that it will just fade away within ten years as FF gets cheaper.

 

 

Take care, Scott.

I think not. Crop is here to stay. From a product differentiation standpoint at least, it makes sense to retain two formats.

Not too soon. A lot of PJs like the high end ones, especially for sports.

If it does go away it will not be for a while, I would certainly not worry about it.

No. Canon have actually said that they don't see APS-C disappearing from the consumer market.

 

"Consumer" will stay crop, "Pro" will go to full frame (if it's not there already). The two will co-exist.

At least for now the 40D can do 6.5 fps while the 5D mkII is almost 4fps, that's 40% slower rate for the full frame. So for sports shooter the crop still have an advantage for now.

How about a FF that also have 1.6 crop mode? I know the D3 has that function but the resolution of the its DX mode is only 6mpx so folks rarely use it because it's low. Imagine a 5D Mark III or 1Ds Mark IV with sensor in the range of 30-35 mpx and with 1.6 crop mode in 15-20 mpx. We will have the best of both worlds. Sorry I'm just day dreaming in class right now, please correct me.

You can put a crop mode on a full frame camera, but what's the point? You can just crop the image in photoshop. In

camera cropping saves you a bit of memory space, but that's all.With Canon you couldn't mount an EF-S lens

anyway because even if you could physically mount it (which you can't), the mirror would hit the back of the lens at

some focal length and focus positions.

Scott,

 

I think there is *still* a reach advantage, shooting telephotos with crop bodies, with the current dslr's available, and I think this advantage will continue. The link you posted is by no means conclusive.

I think Canon (and probably Nikon as well) makes much more money from the sale of APS-C camera's than they do from the FFs. Besides as many have already pointed out its easier to fabricate the sensor for a cropped body ... at least from the marketing perspective I don't see any reason why the cropped bodies would vanish.

Mendel,

 

Not really, there is no real advantage to having lots more smaller pixels now that diffraction limits can be resolved, they have been able to be resolved for a good while in 1.6 crop cameras, now the ff ones can do it easily, the only advantage the crop cameras have is fps, interesting to see what the 1DS MkIV brings. I do shoot with 1.3 crop bodies but next year will upgrade to ff and will crop if needed.

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

 

Take care, Scott.

Crop factor sensors will be around for a long time. There are scads of them being used, proprietary lenses (DX,

AF-S, 4/3), and, as stated, they keep the initial investment required for an entry level DSLR reasonable.

 

As far as resolution goes, they are unlikely to really improve much more by adding megapixels. Lenses can't

really resolve things a whole lot better than 12MP packed onto a crop factor lens. For this reason, the 50D is

not really a massive improvement in image quality over the 40D (looking at the lab tests done on dpreview.com and

imaging-resource.com). My hope is that the manufacturers start to pay attention to the image quality and leave

the megapixel race behind. I would love to see increases in dynamic range and better tonal response and

gradation in a 12MP camera. The ultimate would be a Canon X0D/Nikon DX00 that has 15 stops dynamic range

producing true 16-bit files. That is where there is room to improve the crop factor sensors.

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

(Happy owner of a D300 and formerly a Canon Digital Rebel XT guy...both amazing cameras)

If you look at the issue like a photographer then yeah, crop sensors will fall off the face of the earth and it will be as if

it never happened in the first place.

 

If you look at it from the business standpoint then never, you sell more crop sensor bodies then full frame bodies, a

lot more.

 

From the novice point of view: Huh? What's a crop frame mean? Never mind. What's the cheapest dSLR that I can

buy and start shooting in under an hour? ~~~ That would be a crop frame sensor camera.

 

2 to 1 they stay.

size is a major factor for many amateur enthusiasts who abhor the idea of carrying something large. the smaller bodies and wonderful depth of field advantages should ensure that there should be a market.

Maybe eventually.. like in 10 years or something.