TeamSpeed wrote in post #17005407
Wow, I guess I never realized the following:
- that most photographers world-wide only shoot one common format and don't have mixed format in their bags. All those sports illustrated and getty photographers that I talk with at the championship games that had 3 formats in their bags must be in the minority.
These days, they would be the minority.
Most of the photographers I've met (with a bias towards travel, landscape and wildlife photographers) only shoot one format - full frame. Usually, it's a combination of D800/D800e, D800/D600, 5D3/1Dx or sometimes A7r. When they shoot two formats, it's usually either full-frame and medium format, or an old APS-C body in the bag just in case the main body breaks down. The wildlife photographers like the 1D4, though - it wouldn't be uncommon to see one carrying two 1D4 bodies around. Still, a single format, though.
- that wedding photographers would never use an APS-C as their primary or general use gear, I guess that I read some of the more well-known photographer blogs incorrectly.
Since the 5D2 and D700 were released, I haven't seen a well-established, non-bargain-basement wedding photographer in Australia using an APS-C body as their primary body. Only seen them being used as primary bodies by wedding photographers in third world countries (saw quite a few 60Ds used by wedding photographers when I was last in India). Around here, I used to see a lot of 40D and D300 bodies used as backup (with a 5D2, 1Ds3 or D700 primary) but not any more. Generally, the backup is for a second lens or in case the first camera breaks down, and they want the backup to have the same angle of view as the first one. Otherwise, when they move to the backup, their 24-70 suddenly becomes a short telephoto, their 70-200 becomes too long to use in many indoor situations and they are left with no wide-angle capability.
- that now there is an entry level FF with fewer features costing only $1500, it has set a bar for no need on higher end APS-C bodies with greater features and performance. People couldn't afford $2500 FF bodies before (assuming 5D2), but they flock to $1700 (current 6D) because of the vast savings and such low cost. If there was a more expensive APS-C that had more resolution, better ISO performance than the 70D, could shoot bursts faster and longer, and had a mix of other features, there would be no market for it.
You won't get better ISO performance and resolution. The same APS-C sensor would be shared across all the APS-C lines, as has always been the case - it makes for cheaper manufacture. You'd get faster and longer bursts, dual cards, better weather sealing and better AF (if that - Canon are notoriously stingy with their AF systems).
Who would buy it? Basically, only enthusiasts who want better AF and faster frame rates to get the shot, but don't care enough about image quality and are too price-sensitive to buy the full-sized version and upgrade their lens collection to cover a full-frame sensor. Most pro shooters would go for the full-sized version - with many more pixels, the same pixel density and the same frame rate - in case they need to print big at some stage and to have more versatility within the same body. The camera pays for the price difference in no time.
- that there was inside knowledge at Canon that they have moved all APS-C development down to the low-end segment of the market, and have put all their efforts into just FF development for high end cameras.
It's the same technology - the only difference is how big they make the chip.
But why would a company release a camera that won't sell to the masses (too expensive and too complicated), won't sell to the pros (small sensor, no advantage in image quality) and will only sell to a small number of enthusiasts who won't fork out for the pro gear?
- The reason the 7D made such a splash was because the 5D Mark II was generally a disappointment. The 7D specs and changes, from the 50D, were more than evolutionary, and after the 5D2 came out with marginal more ISO improvement, same AF system that caused grief in the 5D, and really no other real improvements other than movie recording, MFA, and more resolution, the 7D looked very promising, and addressed many of the 50D shortcomings, and helped bridge the gap between the 5D2 and 50D.
I wouldn't say the 5D2 was a disappointment. It was revolutionary - probably more so than the 5D, definitely more so than the 5D3. Sure, it was an absolute pig of a camera, with poor AF, slower frame rate than the D800 and everything inconveniently hidden in menus, but, apart from the limited 1Ds3 and a few medium-format digital bodies, it was the first DSLR that could match medium-format film for image quality, and was single-handedly responsible for finally dragging a lot of photographers away from film and into digital.
- There have been a couple of other Canon models that took nearly 5 years to see a successor, the 7D isn't alone in this.
Not in the fast-moving digital era, with the singular exception of the ultra-budget, sub-Rebel xxxxD line. The 1Ds3 still hasn't seen a successor.
- FF has its place, but in the overall consumer market, meh, not so much. For those consumers and prosumers, the APS-C space still provides a profit margin much higher simply due to demand and manufacturing costs.
At the Rebel and xxD level, yes. But not so much when the APS-C body costs just as much as a full-frame body, or only a bit less, i.e. when the cost of the body far exceeds the cost difference between a APS-C and a full-frame sensor.
Even "pros", whatever that means" that sport 1DXs or 1DIVs carry APS-C bodies, including sports and wedding photographers. In today's world where there are so many photographers vying for the same space, one way to differentiate yourself is to shoot creatively, and the APS-C space gives you that flexibility, while being cost effective.
What flexibility? With equal pixel density between a full-frame and a crop sensor, there's nothing the crop camera can do that the full-frame camera can't do just as well, or even better. Crop saves you money compared to a full-frame camera with the same features. It doesn't give you any more options. You can crop a full frame image, but you can't expand a crop-sensor image to cover a full-frame area.
- I would love to see a FF like the 5D3 come out with more resolution and a crop mode built in, but also need more FPS and buffer size. I would be putting in a pre-order, the first I have ever done. I would love to have a camera so versatile as to be able to shoot FF, then also crop leaving enough resolution for poster prints, and as clean as the 5D3 is now. I relish the opportunity to admit I was wrong, it would be worth it!
The 6D simply doesn't meet my needs, and the 1DX is just north of my budget for what I shoot vs what I make.
I'd do the same for a true successor to the 1Ds3 - 42-54MP (same density as a 18-24MP APS-C sensor), 14-15 stop DR, dual cards, top-of-the-line AF, full weather sealing and 6-7fps. Double points if it's in a compact 5D-style body rather than the gripped monstrosities that define the 1D series (the film-based 1V series never had a giant inbuilt grip doubling its mass and dimensions).