5 ms·

As a camera industry meta-commentary, it sure seems like the Big 3 really only want to sell full-frame cameras. Sony, Canon, Nikon, they seem to have roadmaps

As a camera industry meta-commentary, it sure seems like the Big 3 really only want to sell full-frame cameras. Sony, Canon, Nikon, they seem to have roadmaps for a full range of lenses for full-frame, from wide-angle to super-telephoto. But APS-C? Meh. It’s a little confusing as to what works with what (hi, Canon, with your EF-M mount), and given that they never fully fleshed out a set of compact-but-performant sports lenses for that sensor size…it all seems perfunctory. They seem to want to only sell full-frame, as that’s where the sweet meat of the margins can still be found in camera sales. All their APS-C cameras feel like “get the value buyer in the door”, but, that seemingly hampers growing into the rest of the system, as they only have a middling set of crop sensor lenses.

Someone1234 5y ago
They want to differentiate themselves as much as possible from smartphones to survive. As smartphones have continued to get better (first via optics, then via software/computational processing) it has been the physics that has kept full frame (and medium format) relevant. Personally I was a huge fan of m4/3 for the lower weight/smaller/open format interchangeable lens system but one cannot deny the cross-over between it and smartphones is perhaps too close to survive (Olympus is already out). APS-C isn't as bad as m4/3, but why invest tons of resources/time into a format that can also get swallowed by the megafauna that is smartphones (via e.g. periscope lenses)? Instead, they can offer consumer grade/entry level FF cameras, with no lens system dilution or headaches trying to implement an inter-compatible flange focal distance (between APS-C/FF).
glitchc 5y ago
APS-C was a compromise format. It aided in making both bodies and lenses smaller and lighter, thereby enabling a cheaper product that could be marketed at the consumer level (amateur and family photogs). Pros who came from the film world almost entirely migrated to the full-frame format, noting that full-frame is actually smaller than 35 mm film, and 35 mm film was on the lower end of film size itself (compared to medium and large formats).
- brudgers 5y ago
  APS-C is compatible with super 35 format (approximately 24mm x 18mm). It appears in digital consumer cameras because APS-C size sensors make sense for film-making...because super 35 made sense for film making. It made sense for movie film because wide-screen images could be made on 35mm film using spherical lenses which are simpler and hence cheaper than anamorphic lenses. Digitally, APS-C sensors made even more sense as television (and video) moved away from 4:3 ratio. APS-C stills cameras introduced by Kodak in the days before digital became common is another story...or the same story of Kodak trying to lock in a proprietary system (that story goes back to the first Kodak cameras).
zokier 5y ago
Afaik all major full-frame lenses work with also their corresponding crop mounts. Canon EF lenses work on EF-S, Sony FE lenses work on E mount, Nikon FX lenses work on DX bodies. This explains why there is somewhat limited interest for crop lenses.
- perardi 5y ago
  Except, confusingly, you seemingly cannot mount a full-frame Canon RF lens on a Canon EF-M mirrorless camera.
  - rythie 5y ago
    Also, you can't mount EF-S lenses on a EF camera.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Size of tele lenses is also mostly determined by the size of the entrance pupil so there is little point in offering dedicated DX telephotos beyond 200mm/f5.6 or so where it still makes a difference.
- morsch 5y ago
  But you end up paying for and carrying around a lot more glass (literally) than your sensor needs, right? Fortunately there's third party manufacturers like Sigma that fleshed out the E-mount market.
reportingsjr 5y ago
Can you blame them? The lower performance camera market got absolutely obliterated by smartphones. There is almost no market left for them in that area. I recently bought a Sony A6000 to see if I would enjoy having a dedicated camera over my smartphone. Overall I like it, but I'm really shocked at well my smartphone does in comparison for 90% of photos. There are certainly some major benefits to a dedicated camera such as low light performance, depth of field, better focusing, etc. But, honestly, for 99.9% of photos people are going to take (portrait photos of friends/family and etc), a decent smartphone does a better job.
brudgers 5y ago
Sony seems pretty committed to a variety of sensor sizes. The RX series of 1" sensor cameras and the 6000 series of APS-C cameras don't seem to be going anywhere. In part because there are strong reasons to use smaller sensors for video -- particularly greater depth of field at wider apertures being useful in low light. There is a great deal of "super 35" cinema glass that commands non-consumer prices due to the quality of the optics. For stills, "full frame" lenses make more sense since they serve APS-C as well.

Someone1234 5y ago

They want to differentiate themselves as much as possible from smartphones to survive. As smartphones have continued to get better (first via optics, then via software/computational processing) it has been the physics that has kept full frame (and medium format) relevant. Personally I was a huge fan of m4/3 for the lower weight/smaller/open format interchangeable lens system but one cannot deny the cross-over between it and smartphones is perhaps too close to survive (Olympus is already out). APS-C isn't as bad as m4/3, but why invest tons of resources/time into a format that can also get swallowed by the megafauna that is smartphones (via e.g. periscope lenses)? Instead, they can offer consumer grade/entry level FF cameras, with no lens system dilution or headaches trying to implement an inter-compatible flange focal distance (between APS-C/FF).

glitchc 5y ago

APS-C was a compromise format. It aided in making both bodies and lenses smaller and lighter, thereby enabling a cheaper product that could be marketed at the consumer level (amateur and family photogs). Pros who came from the film world almost entirely migrated to the full-frame format, noting that full-frame is actually smaller than 35 mm film, and 35 mm film was on the lower end of film size itself (compared to medium and large formats).

brudgers 5y ago
APS-C is compatible with super 35 format (approximately 24mm x 18mm). It appears in digital consumer cameras because APS-C size sensors make sense for film-making...because super 35 made sense for film making. It made sense for movie film because wide-screen images could be made on 35mm film using spherical lenses which are simpler and hence cheaper than anamorphic lenses. Digitally, APS-C sensors made even more sense as television (and video) moved away from 4:3 ratio. APS-C stills cameras introduced by Kodak in the days before digital became common is another story...or the same story of Kodak trying to lock in a proprietary system (that story goes back to the first Kodak cameras).

zokier 5y ago

Afaik all major full-frame lenses work with also their corresponding crop mounts. Canon EF lenses work on EF-S, Sony FE lenses work on E mount, Nikon FX lenses work on DX bodies. This explains why there is somewhat limited interest for crop lenses.

perardi 5y ago
Except, confusingly, you seemingly cannot mount a full-frame Canon RF lens on a Canon EF-M mirrorless camera.
- rythie 5y ago
  Also, you can't mount EF-S lenses on a EF camera.
formerly_proven 5y ago
Size of tele lenses is also mostly determined by the size of the entrance pupil so there is little point in offering dedicated DX telephotos beyond 200mm/f5.6 or so where it still makes a difference.
morsch 5y ago
But you end up paying for and carrying around a lot more glass (literally) than your sensor needs, right? Fortunately there's third party manufacturers like Sigma that fleshed out the E-mount market.

reportingsjr 5y ago

Can you blame them? The lower performance camera market got absolutely obliterated by smartphones. There is almost no market left for them in that area. I recently bought a Sony A6000 to see if I would enjoy having a dedicated camera over my smartphone. Overall I like it, but I'm really shocked at well my smartphone does in comparison for 90% of photos. There are certainly some major benefits to a dedicated camera such as low light performance, depth of field, better focusing, etc. But, honestly, for 99.9% of photos people are going to take (portrait photos of friends/family and etc), a decent smartphone does a better job.

brudgers 5y ago

Sony seems pretty committed to a variety of sensor sizes. The RX series of 1" sensor cameras and the 6000 series of APS-C cameras don't seem to be going anywhere. In part because there are strong reasons to use smaller sensors for video -- particularly greater depth of field at wider apertures being useful in low light. There is a great deal of "super 35" cinema glass that commands non-consumer prices due to the quality of the optics. For stills, "full frame" lenses make more sense since they serve APS-C as well.