Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe  (Read 17294 times)

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1391
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« on: February 16, 2009, 11:06:58 am »

I had the opportunity this weekend to shoot with a 10-22 EF-S lens on my Canon 50D.  It's a fun lens, but it seemed like a specialty lens that I would put on for special shots and then immediately switch for a more normal lens like my 24-70.  

I got to thinking about buying a 10-22.  The price is very reasonable for its quality and unique capabilities.  It is really fun, funky-wide.  Great!  But I had one problem.  I couldn't get over the suspicion that in 1 year or 3 years, APS-C finally may be phased out.  The manufacturers are swearing that isn't the case.  Perhaps they are right, but I would imagine that the advanced amateur or pro who currently buys a 50D will eventually expect full-frame in the X0D series.  The APS-C will probably be relegated to the ghetto of entry-level DSLRs.

I think that the 50D has proven that increased resolutions and better low-light performance on the smaller sensor will become increasingly more difficult to achieve if at all possible.  So, I think it is probably foolish to invest in EF-S lenses--the 10-22 being one of the better ones (I have also considered the 17-55 f/2.8 IS).  Unfortunately, for a true wide-angle lens on the cropped sensor 50D, there aren't any really wide choices.  I guess I am considering the 16-35 f/2.8 II.  I am not sure I really love all that super wide stuff--too much distortion at edges.  So, with a 16-35, I can always shoot panoramic if I really need super-wide angle.

Is the APS-C going to become a relic in the near future?  Will it be relegated to entry-level DSLRs?  Considering these issues, are EF-S lenses a good investment?
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2009, 12:00:56 pm »

No.
No.
Only you know that.
Logged

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1391
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2009, 01:29:00 pm »

Quote from: DarkPenguin
No.
No.
Only you know that.


I suspect that I touched a nerve. That wasn't my intention.  I have been very happy with the APS-C sensor on my 30D and now my 50D, but I do believe that they really can only have one or two more X0D bodies at the APS-C sensor size.  I strongly prefer the added features of the higher-level camera (versus the rebels), but due to the pixel density I can't see how they can do much more than add software and handling features.  

EF-S lenses seem like a poor investment.  There are only really two quality EF-S lenses, the 10-22 and the 17-55 f/2.8IS.  In the absence of any new high-quality EF-S lenses, I would think canon is thinking the same thing: APS-C is going to be reserved for smaller entry-level cameras as full-frame moves down market.  Is that 2 years out or 5 years out? I wouldn't guess, but it seems to be inevitable.
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

Greg D

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2009, 02:14:24 pm »

Quote from: fike
I had the opportunity this weekend to shoot with a 10-22 EF-S lens on my Canon 50D.  It's a fun lens, but it seemed like a specialty lens that I would put on for special shots and then immediately switch for a more normal lens like my 24-70.  

I got to thinking about buying a 10-22.  The price is very reasonable for its quality and unique capabilities.  It is really fun, funky-wide.  Great!  But I had one problem.  I couldn't get over the suspicion that in 1 year or 3 years, APS-C finally may be phased out.  The manufacturers are swearing that isn't the case.  Perhaps they are right, but I would imagine that the advanced amateur or pro who currently buys a 50D will eventually expect full-frame in the X0D series.  The APS-C will probably be relegated to the ghetto of entry-level DSLRs.

I think that the 50D has proven that increased resolutions and better low-light performance on the smaller sensor will become increasingly more difficult to achieve if at all possible.  So, I think it is probably foolish to invest in EF-S lenses--the 10-22 being one of the better ones (I have also considered the 17-55 f/2.8 IS).  Unfortunately, for a true wide-angle lens on the cropped sensor 50D, there aren't any really wide choices.  I guess I am considering the 16-35 f/2.8 II.  I am not sure I really love all that super wide stuff--too much distortion at edges.  So, with a 16-35, I can always shoot panoramic if I really need super-wide angle.

Is the APS-C going to become a relic in the near future?  Will it be relegated to entry-level DSLRs?  Considering these issues, are EF-S lenses a good investment?

My 2 cents worth -  Couple of things to bear in mind:  all other things being equal, cropped sensor cameras are always going to be smaller and lighter than full frame.  Also, the so-called "telephoto effect" is for some people an advantage, not a problem to be worked around.  For me, never having shot film seriously, and starting out with cropped sensors, I'm accustomed to the way the lenses work with these cameras.  Maybe I just don't know what I'm missing, but I've never felt the need for super-wide lenses.  I do own a 17-50, but rarely use it.  A 28-135 is my "walkaround" lens.  If I need "more picture", I'll do as you suggest and shoot panoramically - not for a "panoramic" effect, but just to spread the info over more (larger) pixels.  I know of course that this is not always possible, but something or other is always not possible.  In many situations, tightly framing a bird in a tree (for example) isn't possible with a light 70-300 lens on a FF camera, but would be on APS-C.  (I know you can crop if you have enough pixels, but you better start with LOTS.)  So, for these reasons, when I upgraded recently, I stuck with APS-C (and not the latest/greatest - I chose a 40d over 50d for the reason that you alluded to, i.e. pushing the limit of pixel density).  Of course, $$$$ figures into this too, but I think even if money were not an object, I would have made the same choices given what's available right now for my purposes.
Now, having said all that, do I think EF-S lenses are a good investment?  For me, no, not relatively expensive ones like the 10-22.  I like my $400  Tamron 17-50 - not so great build quality, but quite good image quality, light in weight and as wide as I'll ever need for my tastes.  But if I'm spending a lot, I want it to work with anything I might get in the future.  The "sweet spot" effect probably doesn't hurt, either, though I don't know from personal experience whether this is real or just theoretical.
BTW - whatever gear you're using, you're obviously doing a pretty good job with it.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2009, 02:18:58 pm »

Quote from: fike
EF-S lenses seem like a poor investment.

Yes and no I would say.

Yes (or better maybe, we're talking about risk, not certainty) in terms of long term and resale value

No in terms of what you can shoot with it in the coming 3-5 years on yor APS-C camera. Not every subject can be stitched

I have a Sigma 10-20 on my APS-C body (don't have anything with a larger sensor) and love what it does for me.

Also my personal guess (nothing more than that, maybe even wishfull thinking) is that serious amateur bodies will still remain available in APS-C a long time at a significant lower cost vs. the cheapest Full Frame.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2009, 02:20:38 pm by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2009, 02:29:43 pm »

Quote from: fike
I suspect that I touched a nerve.
Nope.  But the subject has been done to death.  (Maybe not here, tho.)  Consider my response just a vote as to where I think the market is going.  (Or in this case staying.)

Quote
EF-S lenses seem like a poor investment.
I don't think of lenses as an investment.  At least no more so than buying a fax machine is an investment.

As an aside do you think Canon is going to stick with a bayer array sensor?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2009, 02:30:07 pm by DarkPenguin »
Logged

ChrisS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2009, 02:35:38 pm »

Quote from: fike
I had the opportunity this weekend to shoot with a 10-22 EF-S lens on my Canon 50D.  It's a fun lens, but it seemed like a specialty lens that I would put on for special shots and then immediately switch for a more normal lens like my 24-70.  

I got to thinking about buying a 10-22.  The price is very reasonable for its quality and unique capabilities.  It is really fun, funky-wide.  Great!  But I had one problem.  I couldn't get over the suspicion that in 1 year or 3 years, APS-C finally may be phased out.  The manufacturers are swearing that isn't the case.  Perhaps they are right, but I would imagine that the advanced amateur or pro who currently buys a 50D will eventually expect full-frame in the X0D series.  The APS-C will probably be relegated to the ghetto of entry-level DSLRs.

I think that the 50D has proven that increased resolutions and better low-light performance on the smaller sensor will become increasingly more difficult to achieve if at all possible.  So, I think it is probably foolish to invest in EF-S lenses--the 10-22 being one of the better ones (I have also considered the 17-55 f/2.8 IS).  Unfortunately, for a true wide-angle lens on the cropped sensor 50D, there aren't any really wide choices.  I guess I am considering the 16-35 f/2.8 II.  I am not sure I really love all that super wide stuff--too much distortion at edges.  So, with a 16-35, I can always shoot panoramic if I really need super-wide angle.

Is the APS-C going to become a relic in the near future?  Will it be relegated to entry-level DSLRs?  Considering these issues, are EF-S lenses a good investment?

Presumably the manufacturers need to maintain the hierarchy of their products. What could they put at the top end of ranges to differentiate them from the middle if FF became as common as you suggest might happen? Still more pixels?
Logged

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1391
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2009, 03:05:01 pm »

Quote from: DarkPenguin
Nope.  But the subject has been done to death.  (Maybe not here, tho.)  Consider my response just a vote as to where I think the market is going.  (Or in this case staying.)


I don't think of lenses as an investment.  At least no more so than buying a fax machine is an investment.

As an aside do you think Canon is going to stick with a bayer array sensor?

I take a longer view on lenses as an investment, so I don't like to see them as commodities.  I have some nikkor and olympus lenses that are 30 years old.  They are neat lenses that still work--work really well as antique decorations on a shelf in my studio.

As for the sensor, certainly a substantial technology node change could be a game changer.  The Foveon seems to give us some idea of what the alternatives might be, but it falls down in sensitivity and resolution when compared to the best of the Bayer Array sensors.  

You are right to point out when there might be some  revolutionary technology change that disrupts commonly held assumptions.  time will tell.  I also think if canon continues to make mediocre EF-S lenses, that will tell us something.

Another way to view the possibility of some disruptive technology is that it would be likely to come in at the high-end allowing the standard full-frame Bayer Array to move down into the mid-range cameras.
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2009, 04:34:40 pm »

fike,

1. This prediction has been around at least since the 1Ds was announced almost seven years ago, and persists despite no sign of APS-C slipping from its overwhelming dominance of DLSR sales, including recent APS-C models at well above entry level, the 50D, D300, A700 and K20D, which together greatly outsell all larger format DSLR's combined, as far as I can tell.

2. Do you think that everyone wanting more than entry level SLR kit needs or wants significantly more than 15MP? If not, why would it matter if APS-C could not go much beyond that? (Not that I believe that APS-C is so close to its sensor resolution limit; lens resolution might be the limit that comes first.)

3. APS-C is not the same as EF-S, so it misses the point to look only at the limitations of Canon's EF-S offerings. Canon has in many ways held the level of its EF-S offerings a bit lower than other DLSR makers. The Nikon DX and Pentax DA lens systems offer a number of lenses at well above the "entry level", and I would include Nikon's latest lens, the 35/1.8 DX, in that list. (Not to mention FourThirds lenses, another system that shows no trend towards becoming "entry level only".) Actually, even Canon has more than those two EF-S lenses of "better than entry level" quality: add the 17-85 and the 60/2.8 EF-S macro lens for example.

Further, APS-C DSLR's can happily use 35mm format lenses for most telephoto focal lengths, so EF-S, DX etc. do not need to offer good lenses at all focal lengths. In particular the 17-85 EF-S and 17-70 DX reach long enough to match up nicely with 35mm format 70-200 and 70-300 telephoto zooms.

4. As someone else has said, size and weight advantages will always be a reason for some serious photographers to choose APS-C (or FourThirds) gear, even those who also use 35mm format or medium format gear for other purposes. Our common interest in hiking photography is one example!

Logged

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1391
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2009, 05:23:49 pm »

Quote from: BJL
fike,

1. This prediction has been around at least since the 1Ds was announced almost seven years ago, and persists despite no sign of APS-C slipping from its overwhelming dominance of DLSR sales, including recent APS-C models at well above entry level, the 50D, D300, A700 and K20D, which together greatly outsell all larger format DSLR's combined, as far as I can tell.

That is a very valid point!  Though it doesn't mean that it might not be nearing the end now.  


Quote
2. Do you think that everyone wanting more than entry level SLR kit needs or wants significantly more than 15MP? If not, why would it matter if APS-C could not go much beyond that? (Not that I believe that APS-C is so close to its sensor resolution limit; lens resolution might be the limit that comes first.)

You are right that the sensor is not the limiting factor, but we know that current high-quality lenses on the 15MP sensor become diffraction limited at lower f-stops than previous generations.  This is actually the crux of my issue.  The manufacturer could choose to make new lenses that are better quality, but I think it is easier to make larger sensors.  CMOS sensors are cheap and easy to make--when compared to high-quality optics.  I think that incremental improvements in image quality will need to be made at the sensor level instead of at the glass level.

Quote
3. APS-C is not the same as EF-S, so it misses the point to look only at the limitations of Canon's EF-S offerings. Canon has in many ways held the level of its EF-S offerings a bit lower than other DLSR makers. The Nikon DX and Pentax DA lens systems offer a number of lenses at well above the "entry level", and I would include Nikon's latest lens, the 35/1.8 DX, in that list. (Not to mention FourThirds lenses, another system that shows no trend towards becoming "entry level only".) Actually, even Canon has more than those two EF-S lenses of "better than entry level" quality: add the 17-85 and the 60/2.8 EF-S macro lens for example.
Not sure if I agree on the 17-85, but yes, the 60mm f/2.8 macro is quite good.  My question is whether they will continue to make high-quality EF-S lenses.  



Quote
Further, APS-C DSLR's can happily use 35mm format lenses for most telephoto focal lengths, so EF-S, DX etc. do not need to offer good lenses at all focal lengths. In particular the 17-85 EF-S and 17-70 DX reach long enough to match up nicely with 35mm format 70-200 and 70-300 telephoto zooms.

Of course you can use the standard EF or L lenses on APS-C.  that is what I have done because I think the standard 35mm format lens is a better investment.


Quote
4. As someone else has said, size and weight advantages will always be a reason for some serious photographers to choose APS-C (or FourThirds) gear, even those who also use 35mm format or medium format gear for other purposes. Our common interest in hiking photography is one example!

Yep, that is true...though I prefer the larger grip of the X0D series.  Sometimes I think I should put together a small, cheap combo for speed hiking.  I can never come up with a lens and body combo that I find satisfactory.  


I think my basic premise is that new innovation comes in at the top of the product line.  Any major new sensor technology will come in at the 1D or 5D level.  Older technology trickles down the product line towards the bottom.  In two years, I will be surprised if a full frame camera isn't below $1,500.  Between the current crummy market and the competition, I just think it will happen.  Making improvements of the lenses is very expensive.  Making improvements of a piece of silicon that probably costs them $15 or $20 to make is much easier.
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

IanSeward

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 175
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2009, 05:25:30 pm »

Quote from: fike
Is the APS-C going to become a relic in the near future?  Will it be relegated to entry-level DSLRs?  Considering these issues, are EF-S lenses a good investment?

Well this quote from Nikon suggests otherwise:
"Robert Cristina offers some context: "The main target is D40/D60/D90 owners. They make up 80% of our DSLR sales", that does not even include the D300 sales.  So Nikon are hardly going to drop 80% + of their market any time soon.  

So shoot with what you like and be glad you have a choice; lighter and smaller lenses or larger and heavier.  Also depends on whether you consider 50D or D300 entry level cameras, and what is your criteria for "entry level".   Mr Reichmann has compared favourably the Canon G10 prints with a $40,000 Phase One P45+ 39 Megapixel back on a Hasselblad H2 :-)
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1796
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2009, 09:10:28 pm »

If photography is just a fun hobby, then only you can decide whether the 10-22mm lens is a good idea.

If you make a living making pictures, and you need a wide angle lens for an APS-C camera, then there's no question. If you move on to a full frame camera next year, the 50D and the 10-22 are still perfectly usable as a backup (which a professional always needs.)

I use 1-D series cameras at work, and a 40-D for freelance/personal use. I have no problem buying EF-S lenses, even though some day I might want a 5D2. The two cameras can co-exist quite happily.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/

Daniel Browning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2009, 11:11:22 pm »

Quote from: fike
You are right that the sensor is not the limiting factor, but we know that current high-quality lenses on the 15MP sensor become diffraction limited at lower f-stops than previous generations.  This is actually the crux of my issue.

This is a common misconception. Full frame gets exactly the same amount of diffraction as small formats. It only seems less if you shoot it at a thinner depth of field. (If you want thinner DOF, then *that* is a good reason to upgrade to a larger format, not diffraction.)

For example, if you frame a shot using a 28mm focal length on the 450D, and you need such a deep depth of field that f/16 is required, then you will notice a certain amount of diffraction affecting the image.

To frame the same shot with the 5D1, it requires a 45mm focal length. If you set the f-number to f/16, the depth of field will be thinner than the 450D. You must stop down to f/25 to get the same depth of field. But at f/25, the 5D1 will affected by just as much diffraction as the 450D is at f/16. (The larger format is enlarged less for reproduction; the f-number scales with reproduction ratio.)

So diffraction really depends on aperture, not f-number. You'll notice that 45 divided by 25 is 1.8. That is the aperture of the lens on the 5D1. 28/16 is also 1.8. The aperture is the same on both cameras (1.8mm), which is why depth of field, diffraction, (and even light gathering power) is also the same on both lenses.
Logged
--Daniel

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13883
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2009, 11:33:13 pm »

Just the opposite IMHO.

Resolution is a discussion of the past, most people don't print larger than A3, and 12-15 MP is enough for that print size.

DR and noise used to be areas where DX bodies were a bit short compared to resonnable expectations from most users, but the D90, to give one outstanding example, is clearly significantly ahead of prevous generations FX bodies. So here also, the current generation of DX - and the next one will be even better - does meet the needs.

OK, you want even more DR and even more resolution... then get your self a D3x but that represents a few pourcent of the user base.

For the 95% remaining %, my view is that FX is actually going away instead of getting closer. Why would anyone want to spend 2500 US$ to buy a 16-35 or 14-24 when you can get the same kind of performance in a much cheaper and lighter package on a DX body?

Some of these folks will always want to own an FX body as a status thing,  but most people - especially with the current economic realities - and considering the amazing value delivered by DX will keep investing in the format, buying more lenses,... The longer DX stays around, the more the people who don't know anything else, who don't care about the reduced ability to get the last % of shallow DoF... the more people keep buying, the easier it will be for Canon and Nikon to keep invested into DX, releasing new lenses, etc...

Since Dx will always be cheaper than FX, no manufacturer will dare to stop investing in DX, because they would take the huge risk to open up the whole lower market to their competition.

DX is here to stay, FX is at risk in the long run.

Cheers,
Bernard

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2170
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2009, 12:43:41 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
DX is here to stay, FX is at risk in the long run.

Cheers,
Bernard

I tend to agree, but not because of sensor size. The major factor, for me, is becoming size and weight. I actually strained some neck muscles walking around a flea market all day a couple of Sundays ago, carrying a D3 and a D300, and the 3 f2.8 zooms. I didn't really notice the neck problem at the time, so much, because I was so interested in the market, but I certainly felt it the next day. I've now bought a Panasonic G1 to mess around with. The sensor is not as good as the Nikons', but for A3 or smaller, shooting during the light of day, it'll be just fine for 80% of what I do. And the camera with an image-stabilized 18-45 (equiv 38-90) weighs *notably* less than the 24-70 f2.8 lens alone. I also have a range of Leica lenses, which will fit on the G1 with an adapter. Can you say 100mm (equiv) f1.0 with focus confirm? I'm waiting for the Leica adapter now...

JC
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2009, 01:11:05 am »

Hi,

I agree with Bernard on this. I have both full frame and APS-C and see the main benefit of FF that I can print larger. Test shots made with both indicated that I could see little difference on A2-prints although the images FF were much better when viewed on screen. For APS-C we need better lenses, designed for APS-C, however.

IMHO, economy speaks fror APS-C. Full frame is more like 120-film used to be, the next step up. The development on the Micro 4/3 may be interesting. Getting rid of the mirror seems to be a great idea, even if I don't see who you can compose and focus in moon light. Both Oly and Leica are capable to build the lenses needed for 4/3.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Just the opposite IMHO.

Resolution is a discussion of the past, most people don't print larger than A3, and 12-15 MP is enough for that print size.

DR and noise used to be areas where DX bodies were a bit short compared to resonnable expectations from most users, but the D90, to give one outstanding example, is clearly significantly ahead of prevous generations FX bodies. So here also, the current generation of DX - and the next one will be even better - does meet the needs.

OK, you want even more DR and even more resolution... then get your self a D3x but that represents a few pourcent of the user base.

For the 95% remaining %, my view is that FX is actually going away instead of getting closer. Why would anyone want to spend 2500 US$ to buy a 16-35 or 14-24 when you can get the same kind of performance in a much cheaper and lighter package on a DX body?

Some of these folks will always want to own an FX body as a status thing,  but most people - especially with the current economic realities - and considering the amazing value delivered by DX will keep investing in the format, buying more lenses,... The longer DX stays around, the more the people who don't know anything else, who don't care about the reduced ability to get the last % of shallow DoF... the more people keep buying, the easier it will be for Canon and Nikon to keep invested into DX, releasing new lenses, etc...

Since Dx will always be cheaper than FX, no manufacturer will dare to stop investing in DX, because they would take the huge risk to open up the whole lower market to their competition.

DX is here to stay, FX is at risk in the long run.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13883
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2009, 02:18:40 am »

Quote from: John Camp
I tend to agree, but not because of sensor size. The major factor, for me, is becoming size and weight.

Agreed totally! That and price of course.

For me sensor size is not that relevant anymore when you have the right set of lenses since performance has reached a level that is high enough with APS-C.

Cheers,
Bernard

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1391
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2009, 08:55:23 am »

There are a lot of good points regarding economy, quality and such on the EF-S /DX line and the APS-C sensors.  I wonder if we mightn't have a bit of group-think though, possibly brought-on by the longevity of this seemingly interminable debate. Of course time will tell, but my reason for thinking that full-frame will move down market still remain.  

  • Manufacturers will not be able to let go of the megapixel war.  More pixels on APS-C is a dead-end due to lens limitations.
  • Innovating at the silicon level is the cheapest path to differentiation.
  • Innovations generally come in at the top of the product line, pushing older technology down market (FF for cameras or heated leather seats in cars).
  • Changing formats will require buyers to invest in new lenses and equipment.  Manufacturers love that.

Now that I have said that, I think I am coming around on the possibility of buying EF-S lenses.  There are some good quality options that enable work that cannot otherwise be done on a cropped sensor camera.  The 10-22 is unique in the canon line for its ability to give real wide angle on the cropped sensor.  That makes it worth the investment. I should be able to unload it in a few years if I get full frame because I do think that the low-end (or compact end) will stay on APS-C for a while longer.
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

Luis Argerich

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 155
  • Astrolandscaper
    • http://www.luisargerich.com/
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2009, 11:36:37 am »

It doesn't matter to me.
I don't consider the bodies I don't have or the things that didn't happen when I have to buy a lens.

Luigi

professorgb

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
The End is Nigh for APS-C...Maybe
« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2009, 11:42:16 am »

None of the following rant is a criticism of the OP or any of the kind folks who have responded to his post.  Rather, it is a request to revise our thinking about this issue.

Missing in all this  discussion is the question of why we need to continue purchasing new cameras.  Whether or not "the end is nigh for APS-C," you have to ask yourself how many cameras you need to buy.  Are you happy with the image your camera produces?  What would cause you to be so unhappy with your camera that you would need to replace it?

I'm going to beat a drum here, so please bear with me.  The economy is a sinkhole that is growing larger.  The average person is losing more economic ground than at any time in recent memory.  At the same time, we are ruining our environment.  Nobody knows this better than nature/environmental photographers who have documented the changes.  Every time we buy a new camera body, we create tremendous waste.  Even a 10 MP camera can produce beautiful images that can be enlarged far better than our old 35mm negatives could produce.  Why do most of us need a new camera body?

Because we're trying to keep up with the Jones family.  Because our camera manufacturers keep producing cameras that are only marginally better, but tell us that our old cameras can't do the job any more.

Come on, now.  I have an AE1 that is still working just fine.  I don't use it because of expense and environmental concerns.  But--and here's the point--it's 20 years old and still working as well as the day I bought it.

Unless you're a working professional--and many of us are--you simply don't need to keep buying new cameras.  And, even pros don't need them as often as we might think.  Sure, we put much more wear on a body than the average Joe or Jolene shooter, but we can still repair a shutter or a view screen.  I have colleagues using old 1-series Canons who still produce amazing work.

To answer the basic question here:  Buy the 10-22.  It's a fabulous lens, and you'll wonder how you got along without a true wide angle lens.  Then, use it--for years and years and years.  Don't buy a new body until the body you have is beyond repair.  Unless a repair is a substantial proportion of the cost for a new camera, repair the old one.  If you simply want a new, better-featured, better-image-quality machine, please donate your old camera to a school or other organization that can use it.

Just a rant from a depressed, middle-aged environmentalist.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2009, 11:43:39 am by professorgb »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up