Future of full frame cameras

[jeff_gregory1]

<p>I'm just wondering what the future of full frame cameras will be in the Canon series. Would I be crazy in thinking that we will have a full frame sensor in the 50D price range anytime soon? I'm just a hobbyist and I can't justify spend the 5D price tag... yet. I guess if it's not in the foreseeable future I'll just bite the bullet :\ If I do end up getting a cropped camera I'm assuming it would be wise to invest in EF lenses and not the EF-S lenses right for when/if we get full frame later on? Full frame sensors are set like 35mm film cameras correct? Thanks for your answers, and I'm sorry if these question were asked before, but I couldn't find them.</p>

[sattler123]

<p>Yes, that's crazy. We are still many years away from a FF camera in the 50D price range. Why don;t you look for a used 5D classic - it is still an excellent camera and beats any 1.6 crop camera in IQ any day.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>This is a question that people have been asking for a while now - when will the cost differential between using cropped and full frame sensors diminish to the point that companies like Canon might move toward a single format?</p>

<p>I don't think anyone knows. My hunch is that there could well be a time when we see a market division that is more along the lines of full-frame DSLRs and crop sensor non-DSLR bodies, but when (or if!) that will happen? Who knows.</p>

<p>The real question now might be, why do you need a full frame camera now? In the most important ways, the current breed of cropped sensor cameras already produce image quality exceeding that of 35mm film. Unless your needs are quite specialized you are not all that likely to see significant advantages from full frame just "because it is supposed to be better."</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>(I shoot full frame.)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I think of my 5D MkII as delivering medium-format results and the my 7D as delivering 35mm-like results. I use the 7D for wildlife, birds and action and the 5D2 for everything else. When you throw an FF image up on a 47" or 52" HDTV screen at 1080, you think to yourself, "I want all of that I can get."</p>

<p>I think that the price question will come down to sales volumes. If a FF "8D" came out, could Canon sell enough to sell it at a 7D price and then two-years later at a xxD price? I think so, but we're talking a few years out. Also, a lot will depend on how Canon markets it. They've really focused on the 5D2's stunning video capabilities and not really pushed the advantages for still photographers. The average Rebel user has little understanding of the advantages of FF. Hence, the demand for FF is not really very strong, outside of pros and serious hobbiests.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I think of my 5D MkII as delivering medium-format results and the my 7D as delivering 35mm-like results. I use the 7D for wildlife, birds and action and the 5D2 for everything else. When you throw an FF image up on a 47" or 52" HDTV screen at 1080, you think to yourself, "I want all of that I can get."</p>

<p>I think that the price question will come down to sales volumes. If a FF "8D" came out, could Canon sell enough to sell it at a 7D price and then two-years later at a xxD price? I think so, but we're talking a few years out. Also, a lot will depend on how Canon markets it. They've really focused on the 5D2's stunning video capabilities and not really pushed the advantages for still photographers. The average Rebel user has little understanding of the advantages of FF. Hence, the demand for FF is not really very strong, outside of pros and serious hobbiests.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>David,</p>

<p>A 52" 1080 screen is 2,000,000 pixels. It can't display a fraction of the info in a P&S file let alone a 7D or 5D MkII image. But big sensor video with its DOF control is a new experience and does look good on big screens.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Camera manufactures can sell the full frame for more, it has nothing to do with what it costs; cost and worth are not the same.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I believe that cost is part of the price differential, but only in part. Setting up to manufacture a Rebel that will sell 5 million units and a 50D that will sell 1 million units versus a 5D MkII that might sell 250 thousand units, results in three very different all inclusive cost profile, having little to do with materials and sensor size. Consumers are moving toward smaller cameras, rather than large cameras, so I think it's unlikely that Canon will campaign to convince consumers they need to replace their Rebels with FF cameras. That'll keep FF costs higher and will also be part of the price differential.</p>

<p>OTOH, comparing Canon's per-unit, fully loaded cost (includes tooling, direct costs and indirect costs over a production run) of a 7D vs. a 5D MkII, I suspect you'll find that the cost differential is maybe $100 or $200, while the price differential is much higher. That's the ole law of supply and demand coming into play.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>No its not crazy, you can get one now. The original 5D and original 1DS are both full frame cameras and are both in the 50D price range. As for a new camera in that price range, I don't see it happenin. Canon knows lots of people are willing to pay $2500+ for a FF camera so why would they reduce the sales of a big dollar camera by lowballing themselves. I would imagine the only way this would happen is if one of the other companies (not Canon or Nikon) broke the ice and made a budget full frame and then Canon and Nikon did it to compete with them. On one hand I like the idea of a budget FF b/c I want one now, but on the other, I know I will get one eventually and I like knowing that if anyone else wants what I have or wants to get the quality I have then they have to pay for it, and that not every soccer mom will have the same powerful full frame sensor I have.</p>

[brian_blattner]

<p>I have been wondering the same thing over the past couple of weeks, so I am glad that you started this thread. My personal feelings are that as long as there are buyers willing to pay the cost for full frame sensors, why would Canon reduce the price. I could see Canon dropping the price if another manufacturer begins to sell full frame sensor cameras at a cost considerably less than what Canon currently offers.</p>

<p>I have previously owned the XTI Rebel, 30D, 5D, and now the T1i Rebel. The 5D is a remarkable camera, but is beginning to show its age (in my opinion). With the latest round of Rebel cameras (T1i and T2i), and the amazing number of advanced features offered, I can see why the OP posted this question. Even in Bob Atkin's review of the Rebel T2i on Photo.net, he admits being tempted to purchase a Rebel for the first time, due to the number of advanced features, and the cost of the camera.</p>

<p>When I read through the couple of Photography forums that I like browse through each day, it is apparant that most users are either striving for full frame sensor cameras, or it is on their wish list. In many cases, individuals are looking for advice on which lens to purchase, and more times than not, they will add that they plan on going full frame in the future. So I believe that the forums will help keep the sales of full frame sensor cameras up for a while, because there are so many new DSLR photographers that have joined this hobby in the last few years. I for one will admit that the purchase of my 5D was a direct result of what I read in the forums, opposed to a direct need for the features and advantage of full frame.</p>

<p>Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>One has a new generation of users who have no ties to the 24x36mm format; or Big Detroit V8 engines.</p>

<p>Thus if a smaller APS or V6 works; they are happy. </p>

 

[ejchem101]

<p>First ask yourself what you want a FF camera for. For me, I would really only want the FF for landscapes and to exploit all of the potential my 17-40 F4L has. Other than that, I find that even my lowly old 20D does well.</p>

<p>The fact is... I do have a FF camera, much like the free one found here<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/free-digital-camera.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/free-digital-camera.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/free-digital-camera.htm"></a>(except the canon version)<br>

GL and Have fun!</p>

[ryan_k]

<blockquote>

<p>"Camera manufactures can sell the full frame for more, it has nothing to do with what <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00WeM0?unified_p=1" target="_blank">it costs</a>; cost and worth are not the same."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Agreed. Canon's 1200mm L costs 120,000 dollars, but it isn't worth much to me.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Scott said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"David, A 52" 1080 screen is 2,000,000 pixels. It can't display a fraction of the info in a P&S file let alone a 7D or 5D MkII image. But big sensor video with its DOF control is a new experience and does look good on big screens."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's the best explaination that I've found of what I see, comparing G7, G9, 5D MkII and 7D images on my 47" HDTV:<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm</a><br>

I easily see an improvement in images as I go from crop frame, to larger crop frame to FF, even on a 2MP-limited monitor.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<blockquote>

<p>I can't justify spend the 5D price tag... yet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you want it I would get it. The difference is not that much. Avoiding EFs lens when building your collection with a crop body, you <em>will</em> get frustrated. And when you do snap and by full-frame, where's the economy?</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Ponder why if costs do not matter; why does Canon make a profit and most all photographers make nothing;</p>

<p>they do not make enough to pay for their camera and lens; let alone buy bread. </p>

<p>In the wacky world of photo.net cost do not matter</p>

[ridinhome]

<p>The question of if / when Canon decided to come out with a full fram xxD body is likely to be way more complicated than anyone on this forum could comment on. While some of the points made so far are spot on (cost v/s worth, the marginal benefit to the bulk of consumers etc.) there's probably an element of manufacturing efficiencies here. Full frame sensors are comparatively in efficient to manufacture since it wastes a lot more silicon per sheet than 1.6x sensors (or whatever other size). I wouldn't be surprised at all if to minimize inefficiencies Canon mixed production of full fram and crop sensors (i.e. cut full frames as well as crops out of the same sheet). If this is what they are doing, then they have a whole bunch of crop sensors to sell, and can happily do so to a market who don't want / need full frame sensors.<br>

There's also the aspect of competition - correct me if I'm wrong here but aren't Canon the only manufacturer who sell a full frame at the advanced amateur / semi-pro price-point? So why cut your prices unless you absolutely have to?<br>

If the history of film-cameras is anything to go by, Canon are possibly the most savvy of the major camera manufacturers in their ability to identify, attack and own the mass markets. I'm sure if they thought they had a viable business case to develop a full frame xxD they would've already - after all quality full frame technology is at least 5 years old by now.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>You could always go buy a film camera. They are in fact full frame, and they are very cheap. Everyone wants to use the wide end of their wide angle for its intended use, but have we all forgotten that film cameras allow us to do this and they cost about the same as a new music CD.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Kayam,</p>

<p>Nikon D700, imo, a far more accomplished photo orientated camera than the 5D MkII, but its video sucks compared to the Canon.</p>

[oofoto]

<p>If you think you can't afford full frame then I would search out one of the many used 5D MKI's on the market. There really is nothing wrong with it and mine still shoots as good as it did 3 years ago and is now worth approx half what I paid for it new. So 200GBP a year to own it so far.<br>

If you've never owned an SLR of any sorts then you'll probably be happy with a cropped sensor DSLR as you won't know any differerence.<br>

For me the change in focal length and the non ownership of EF-S meant my 10D had to make way for a 5D.<br>

I'm waiting for either the 5D III or the 3D - whichever one gives me the new AF system. But really I have no need to change the 5D.</p>

[ridinhome]

<p>Scott - I stand corrected. But if that's the case then that's arguably even better evidence that selling a full-frame xxD (or whichever is the Nikon equivalent) probably doesn't make business sense - if it did Nikon would have undercut Canon (or vice versa). Yes, I know this seems contrary to the point I was making above- I used to be a lawyer so I can't help arguing ;-)<br>

And to the point other people have made about buying a 5DMk1 - I wholeheartedly endorse that. For an amateur (as I am) who doesn't need more than 12MP, it's a pretty darn good camera at a pretty decent price. The only downside of it (unless you need video) is low light capabilities - 3200 ISO needs a lot of cleaning up, noise-wise.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Kayam,</p>

<p>Just filling in some blanks, not arguing :-). Sony has thrown a spanner in the works of the Canon/Nikon cartel.</p>

<p>The best value secondhand FF digital out there is the 1Ds. Less than $1,000, less than the 5D! And with the latest RAW processing usable well above equivalent film and crop cameras. Buyers seem to assume they were all abused, most were not and at $8,000 new there is the main reason!</p>

[eddes]

<p>The cost of Full frame cameras will remains higher for many years to come.</p>

<p>The drop in prices one sees in electronics is mainly due to putting stuff on smaller and smaller chips. (or more stuff on the same chip eliminating chips). In manufacturing, the cost of 1 die is about the same as before. But if that 1 die gives 4 times more chips the cost per chip goes down.<br>

In the case of cameras the underlying format defines the size of the chip. The die being the same a chip with twice the area is going to cost at least 2 as much.<br>

Actually because the bigger chip has more edge loss on the die and a higher the probability that the chip will have a defect this causes actual cost to be roughly 4x more on a FF than a APS-C. The sensor is an important part of the cost of the camera.</p>

<p>The processor side of cameras will improve greatly. But the sensor, though improvement are expected will not happen nearly as fast. FF and APS-C are going to be around for probably 10 years.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I had that same mindset ( No EF-S ) and I just ended up frustrated. When I went full frame I sold it for exactly what I paid for it. Get the lens that best fits the camera for your needs now. </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I believe that a lot of the cost differential between full frame and APS-C cameras is the sensor cost. there are two things that will impact it - firstly full frame volume is lower which means production and design costs are recovered againset a smaller volume of chips. Secondly I recall reading that the silicon wafer size required for full frame is much more expensive as it is over two times the size and the failure rate to make them is therefore much higher.</p>