Full Frame "Upgrade"

It is often said on these forums that full frame cameras are upgrades over crop cameras. As the owner of both formats, I don't really see it as an upgrade. It's different, but not better in all areas (at least not without spending over $5000).

Now that Canon and Nikon both have entry level full frame cameras on the horizon, is full frame still going to be considered an upgrade? Is a flimsy, slow, featureless Rebel with a big sensor going to be considered better than a rugged, high speed, feature packed 7D II with a crop sensor?

How will the term "upgrade" be used now?

Personally I think it's a replacement more than its an upgrade. I think the writing is on the wall and the crop sensor is effectively dead. Sure it will still have its uses for things like the 7D for birders and sports. But I think all cameras will be full frame again within two years. The 7D or whatever will become a niche camera.

Just my opinion.

I guess its an upgrade because it costs more.

I agree that it isnt in reality an upgrade in any practical terms for a lot of work.

If your interested in particular style or lens or something that exploits the larger sensor then it can work out.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #14637129
Personally I think it's a replacement more than its an upgrade. I think the writing is on the wall and the crop sensor is effectively dead. Sure it will still have its uses for things like the 7D for birders and sports. But I think all cameras will be full frame again within two years. The 7D or whatever will become a niche camera.

Just my opinion.

Todd I think we'll never get to that point. FF sensors cost so much more to produce. You get 15 or so FF sensors to 80 odd crops per wafer and any defects cost more. Plus the other layers on top take more time an effort, add onto that pentaprism viewfinder / shutter/ mirror box costs etc.

All other things being equal, a larger capture area produces a better capture because of the extra photons! However, whether that is detectable depends on how you view. In any case, all other things are rarely equal, so the extent of "up"grade is in the eye of the shooter.

Yeah... I think APS-C is here to stay and Canon/Nikon/Sony are happier for it. Cheaper to make sensors, cheaper to make lenses (EF-S/DX) for. Though profit margin might be a little bit lower per unit, the shear number of quantity easily makes up for that in folds.

It's easier to convince some Joe Shmoe or Jane SoccerMom that they can get these "quality" photos with a $800 kit camera, versus spending $1500-1600 on a nerfed FF camera, then needing to buy another EF lens to go along. That is unless they're willing to bring back the 28-135 to package as a kit lens with the new low-cost FF body. $800 + lots of diapers and other essentials, vs. $1600 + more for lenses, and leaving kids without socks and shoes.

Yeah, APS-C is here to stay. Only format nixed so far would be the APS-H.

Mark-B wrote in post #14637112
How will the term "upgrade" be used now?

Folks here on POTN are very inventive, so give it some time, and I'm sure they will find lots of different terms for "upgrade".....

Like yourself I own both formats, and find them both to be very good. The edge, in my mind goes to 35mm digital because of slightly better ISO noise, and better/smother color transitions through the frame (as best as I can describe it).

I'm happy with my 5dmk2, but I'm almost equally happy with my T2i/550D.

Also, I'm not a gear head, but last week when I went to get some photos printed, at the local print shop, the guy behind the counter asked me what camera I used to get those photos. I answered his question, and said I used the 5dmk2, and his response was "Oh, so you used a "real" camera. I was totally floored, and my response was that my wife has a Canon S100, and it takes really good pictures, and would consider it to be as real as my 5d. He probably didn't like the response, but thought the comment was rather superficial. It just goes to show you that people judge your photographs by what you use to shoot them with. Had I told him I shot those pix using the T2i, I'm sure he wouldn't have been too impressed because the gear wasn't "real" enough for him.

this is why you pick up a 1.3x and in 10 years sell it for ten times what you paid!!! LOL

But seriously, they're for different things. Soccermom wants reach = 1.6x, Hipster portrait bokeh whores want FF, I want 1.3x...

Crop sensors aren't going anywhere anytime soon...

I still stand by my comment. Advances in photo technology are plateauing and so they only have so many more options to entice new buyers. Nikon seems to have figured this out(if you believe the rumors).

Yes it is more expensive to produce FF cameras but as with anything, a mature market and Moore's law will dictate things.

As I said, crop format will still be around but it will become more and more of a niche just as 1.3 format was.

Nobody expected SSDs to be dominant in such a quick time frame, or retina displays etc... Tech moves on and on and it only makes sense that the crop format will eventually become the oddball.

Most technology takes advantage of miniaturisation and mas production to reduce costs.

Camera sensors really cant take advantage of this. I think we will see cheaper FF bodies but I cant see a time (with current tech0 where we can make a FF body cheap enough to ditch aps-c.

Were buying aps-c cameras for less than the cost to make a FF sensor on its own.

I feel like the EOS 3 I bought two months ago is an upgrade over my 5D II!!!

The AF on the 3 is wonderful. I havent tried to calibrate and use the Eye Control focusing yet, but being able to change the focus point simply by looking and not having to move a dial sounds efficient (if it works for me - read where it's great for some and not for others).

I predict thread implosion in two pages
----

It's realistically impossible for a camera, any camera, to be "better" in all areas because

A) "better" is subjective and
B) the pure physics of it all dictates some things must be "worse", like weight.

That said, I will always, always prefer FF cameras for most of my work.

I like creamy bokeh and shallow DOF, and FF wins this game when you start talking DOF as a function of identical framing, not identical positioning.

Add to this fact, you can now "afford" to stop down a FF lens (if you wish) for a sharper image (and still have a cropper's effective DOF wide open), and FF just wins for me.
The cropper counters this somewhat with shooting the "sweet" spot of lenses and not dealing with edges, but maybe I'm weird, I love edges and especially natural vignetting.


Another reason FF wins for me - FF gets all the good lenses in the "right" focal ranges. Crop lenses can be sparse, especially when it comes to good DX wide-ish angle lenses (like a sweet 35mm 1.4 equiv for crop, though I guess if you wanted to mount a big ole 24mm 1.4, you could).

Crop has its place, and eventually I'm going to add one to my 5D2 (besides the NEX-5N I have), but I still think FF is an "upgrade" if we're talking IQ.

But it's just like SSDs, the market drives things... People are wanting "more" camera for the same dollar, and since camera advnpancemnts in the DSLR market have no where else to go, companies will be forced to start offering what the customers want. A post a few back made the perfect observation - people want "real" cameras which in their minds are full frame(they think it's the next step up, right or wrong).

People who want things pay more for things.

People want FF they pay more for them.

Does everyone drive v8's? Why havnt 4 cylinder cars vanished?