Full Frame Rebel Equiv

Im just curious...

Why doesn't Nikon or Canon make a Cheap Full Frame body? If i understand it right, the 60D/7D/T2i are essentially the same 1.6 sensor packed into different little black boxes. You can see the price differences between all three.

Is the 5D line the "Rebel" of the Full frame category? If not, why not make a "Rebel" like series of a full frame camera? I understand that FF is still expensive to manufacture but they could always remove a few bells and whistles that the 5Dmk2 has. looking at the feature differences between the 7d > 60D > T2i, why can't they use that same kind of model?

Bleufire wrote in post #11746234
Why doesn't Nikon or Canon make a Cheap Full Frame body?

They already do. At US $2,500, the 5D Mk. II is among the least expensive so-called "full frame" cameras you'll find on the market.

This factor has been explained over and over again, but here we go -- the larger the imaging chip, the higher the cost. Production of the so-called "full frame" chips is less efficient than smaller chips, because fewer large imagers can come from a silicon die.

Most digital cameras based on the form factors of 1990's film 35mm interchangeable-lens single-lens reflex cameras have had imaging chips smaller than a 35mm frame of film, going back to the Nikon cameras that were converted into digital cameras by Kodak.

That small form factor for imaging chips has been perfected by Canon, which has driven down the price of the cameras that use the imagers. It's the reduced cost of mass-produced smaller chips that has helped cut the cost of DSLR's, which have seen their price drop from US $20,000 in the early 1990's to the current US $700.

And, for practical photography, there's little advantage or magic in what are called "full frame" cameras. A photographer's ability and experience are far more important than the size of the camera's imaging chip.

DC Fan wrote in post #11746301
They already do. At US $2,500, the 5D Mk. II is among the least expensive so-called "full frame" cameras you'll find on the market.

This factor has been explained over and over again, but here we go -- the larger the imaging chip, the higher the cost. Production of the so-called "full frame" chips is less efficient than smaller chips, because fewer large imagers can come from a silicon die.

Most digital cameras based on the form factors of 1990's film 35mm interchangeable-lens single-lens reflex cameras have had imaging chips smaller than a 35mm frame of film, going back to the Nikon cameras that were converted into digital cameras by Kodak.

That small form factor for imaging chips has been perfected by Canon, which has driven down the price of the cameras that use the imagers. It's the reduced cost of mass-produced smaller chips that has helped cut the cost of DSLR's, which have seen their price drop from US $20,000 in the early 1990's to the current US $700.

And, for practical photography, there's little advantage or magic in what are called "full frame" cameras. A photographer's ability and experience are far more important than the size of the camera's imaging chip.

I tried looking up with the "Search" feature but when i type in "Cheap Full Frame" and i end up with 5Dc results but never any explanation. Sorry if I came off sounding lazy, i really do sit on POTN all the time! I read a ton of stuff on here.

But anyhow... I understand why the cost rises when it comes down to cutting a chip for a crop camera vs a full frame will return more cameras being made. But my question lies in "why not remove some of the bells and whistles that the 5D line has to more simple features?" such as MA and Video. Does the body have to be partially weather sealed or does it need to have a magnesium body or feature all 21 MP?

I understand 100% that FF does not make anyone a better photographer, i am just curious to wether or not the low end of the Full Frame totem pole is really a 5D. Just curious.

those things are software. Think of car trim levels - if you want the sunroof, you usually have to get the package that includes the larger wheels and fancier radio too

If you're getting the larger sensor, it's more cost effective for Canon to include some enhanced features to make it a better value and to better justify the higher manufacturing costs. Someday, when it becomes cheaper-yet for the sensors to be produced, i'm sure they'll have FF sensors in normal bodies too - but then they'll almost make 1.6x crop cameras obsolete if the bottom-of-the-line cameras have this....

Bleufire wrote in post #11746414
But anyhow... I understand why the cost rises when it comes down to cutting a chip for a crop camera vs a full frame will return more cameras being made. But my question lies in "why not remove some of the bells and whistles that the 5D line has to more simple features?" such as MA and Video. Does the body have to be partially weather sealed or does it need to have a magnesium body or feature all 21 MP?

Probably because the price of the sensor (and the electronics that go along side it) make up the majority of the bulk - if you stripped out all of the bells and whistles, the price wouldn't drop significantly enough for it to be economical.

why make a ff "rebel".. whats it going to be able to do that a current rebel cant?

just curious about the topic of discussion, theres probably less than 2% of entry level DSLR users that even know what FF is, ofcourse that figure is made up, but i cant make 1 bit of sense in a company producing a low profit margin camera for such a small target market

I can't see why people get a rebel when the 5dc is just a bit more expensive and full frame. Then again, I have both a crop and fullframe and they really do differ alot. The 50d is my sports and action camera with lightning fast AF and alot more reach with the crop factor. The 5d utilizes my 17-40 something incredibly and is tremandeously awesome in low light situations where I need to use high ISO.

TheBurningCrown wrote in post #11746443
Probably because the price of the sensor (and the electronics that go along side it) make up the majority of the bulk - if you stripped out all of the bells and whistles, the price wouldn't drop significantly enough for it to be economical.

My guess as well.

Sensor cost.

Edit:
Besides... you'd get all the people whinnying that they can't get sharp images as they did with their point and shoots...

What is the real price difference between a Rebel and the next highest camera in the line, $400?

So if a 5D Mark II cost $2600, would you be jumping all over a camera with the same sensor but the features and body of a Rebel that cost $2200?

There will be a FF body for $400 maybe about the next 20 years!
Technology are inovating very fast, you'll rarely keep up with them.

KY707 wrote in post #11747492
There will be a FF body for $400 maybe about the next 20 years!
Technology are inovating very fast, you'll rarely keep up with them.

Only if sensor manufacturing becomes significantly cheaper.
On that note though - we drop older technologies that would become cheap, and stay with only the newest -> maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I don't think FF will ever drop that low.

Bleufire wrote in post #11746414
But anyhow... I understand why the cost rises when it comes down to cutting a chip for a crop camera vs a full frame will return more cameras being made. But my question lies in "why not remove some of the bells and whistles that the 5D line has to more simple features?" such as MA and Video. Does the body have to be partially weather sealed or does it need to have a magnesium body or feature all 21 MP?

Honestly, I think Canon did that already. Look at the 7D with its fancy AF system and crop sensor. Since the crop sensor camera with (arguably) more other "features" costs $1000 less, you can figure out fairly easily that full frame sensors aren't cheap. For further proof of that, price out some medium-format digital cameras, like the Leica S series or the Hasselblads. The cost increase is exponential with increasing sensor size.

MA is just a custom setting that builds in a fudge factor for the AF system. Super cheap to add. Same with video--there are no major mods made to the inner workings of the camera, so it's not an expensive feature.

It seems in the future ( maybe the next 100 years) all of us will shoot only with one body and one lens. From landscape to birding. But for now, 5D is the cheapest FF solution, it still serve well too in the present.

Bleufire wrote in post #11746234
Why doesn't Nikon or Canon make a Cheap Full Frame body? If i understand it right, the 60D/7D/T2i are essentially the same 1.6 sensor packed into different little black boxes. You can see the price differences between all three.

About the only thing you could do to make a cheaper version of the 5D Mark II is putting it in a plastic body and using a penta-mirror viewfinder. That wouldn't make that much of a price-difference, though.

Bleufire wrote in post #11746414
But my question lies in "why not remove some of the bells and whistles that the 5D line has to more simple features?" such as MA and Video. Does the body have to be partially weather sealed or does it need to have a magnesium body or feature all 21 MP?

Video and MA are pure software-features. The only thing you're saving by leaving them out is the $0.99 for the microphone.
Sensor costs are primarily determined by chip size. A 36x24mm sensor is very expensive, no matter how many megapickles you stuff into it.

The only way FF sensors get cheaper is by minimizing defects during manufacturing and larger wafer sizes.
You may want to read Canon's Full Frame CMOS White Paper, especially Section IV.