Kwesi
Well-known
The answer is quite simple - PRICE
the APS-C price point for bodies and lenses are at the top end of what enthusiasts are wiling to pay. Offer them a full frame system at the same price point and they will pick that over APS-C any day. Fuji and others are constantly slashing prices to boost sales
lukitas
second hand noob
FF at 24x36 is not that enormous an advantage. One and a half times larger than APS-C.
6X6 is a much bigger jump, 4x5' is much much more, 8x10 is what I call full frame.
The difference between FF and APS-C is negligible, in that context.
Micro four thirds is a lot smaller, which makes me wary, but apparently, loads of photographers are very happy with micro four thirds. According to Youtube...
When I used to work with my Hasselblad, 6x4,5 was considered to be inferior and cheap. Now, 645 is the format of the high-end digitals : pentax, hasselblad, phase one. Last time I looked, digital backs for Sinar were smaller than 4x5, and they needed three passes to take the shot.
Yes, APS-C has become the new 35mm, APS-C is good enough to scan 35mm negs, and a 6x8 negative can still kick FF digital to the wall, bounce it three times, and then jump on it while yodelling.
As I am a poor boy, Fuji XE2, for me. Makes me feel very rich.
6X6 is a much bigger jump, 4x5' is much much more, 8x10 is what I call full frame.
The difference between FF and APS-C is negligible, in that context.
Micro four thirds is a lot smaller, which makes me wary, but apparently, loads of photographers are very happy with micro four thirds. According to Youtube...
When I used to work with my Hasselblad, 6x4,5 was considered to be inferior and cheap. Now, 645 is the format of the high-end digitals : pentax, hasselblad, phase one. Last time I looked, digital backs for Sinar were smaller than 4x5, and they needed three passes to take the shot.
Yes, APS-C has become the new 35mm, APS-C is good enough to scan 35mm negs, and a 6x8 negative can still kick FF digital to the wall, bounce it three times, and then jump on it while yodelling.
As I am a poor boy, Fuji XE2, for me. Makes me feel very rich.
kuuan
loves old lenses
I don't believe the argument that the mass of people doesn't need or can't properly utilize a FF mirrorless is the reason why there are not more of them on the market.
First because cameras are not produced for the taste of the mass only, there are also niche cameras. Specially smaller makers have to cater to niches, e.g. Ricoh with its GR. Possibly niche cameras, for not playing in a very competitive field, even often are more profitable.
Second there are many enthusiast out there and users anytime would rather buy a camera that is challenging or even beyond their capabilities than the other way around.
Price may play a role, the APS-C offerings of Sony are decisively cheaper than their FFs. But I remember that not all that long ago people were hoping for a FF camera for less than 2500, than for less than 2000, now one can buy a A7 for much less than that and the APS-C Fujis many of you like aren't all that much cheaper, or in other words, one could as well be amazed how cheap they have become.
I believe that it simply is too early for more FF mirrorless to be on the market. Mirrorless cameras are still quite new, because compactness is one of it's major advantages and FF sensors hardly even had been produced and had been very expensive then, producers opted for m4/3rds and APS-C or for even smaller sensors.
Exploring new segments, trying to make a big inroad into the camera business, Sony is the only one that offers FF mirrorless ( not counting the Leica RFs ) I reckon that eventually there will be more on the market, but it will take a while, for now I hope Sony will give us a FF smaller than the original A7.
First because cameras are not produced for the taste of the mass only, there are also niche cameras. Specially smaller makers have to cater to niches, e.g. Ricoh with its GR. Possibly niche cameras, for not playing in a very competitive field, even often are more profitable.
Second there are many enthusiast out there and users anytime would rather buy a camera that is challenging or even beyond their capabilities than the other way around.
Price may play a role, the APS-C offerings of Sony are decisively cheaper than their FFs. But I remember that not all that long ago people were hoping for a FF camera for less than 2500, than for less than 2000, now one can buy a A7 for much less than that and the APS-C Fujis many of you like aren't all that much cheaper, or in other words, one could as well be amazed how cheap they have become.
I believe that it simply is too early for more FF mirrorless to be on the market. Mirrorless cameras are still quite new, because compactness is one of it's major advantages and FF sensors hardly even had been produced and had been very expensive then, producers opted for m4/3rds and APS-C or for even smaller sensors.
Exploring new segments, trying to make a big inroad into the camera business, Sony is the only one that offers FF mirrorless ( not counting the Leica RFs ) I reckon that eventually there will be more on the market, but it will take a while, for now I hope Sony will give us a FF smaller than the original A7.
jarski
Veteran
doubt it would make sense for Fuji to start new full frame system, they should go bigger.
Canon and Nikon, they obviously are trying to delay the progress as long as they can.
am not believing camera market is disappearing anywhere because of smartphones, but its changing for sure.
Canon and Nikon, they obviously are trying to delay the progress as long as they can.
am not believing camera market is disappearing anywhere because of smartphones, but its changing for sure.
andredossantos
Well-known
This has always been "it" for me and I know it's silly. On a fixed lens camera, I don't care about the focal length as long as it's something I like. Something moderate wide to normal, anywhere in that range. Like the X100. Cool. Gimme the camera and I'll be happily on my way.
However, on a camera that has interchangeable lenses I want a 35mm and a 50mm for the bulk of the time I'm shooting. I guess it's just ingrained in my head after a couple decades of snapping photos. Again, I know it's silly and probably a sign of stubbornness and an inability to adapt. But hey I do this mostly because I love it and for no other reason so why use cameras that annoy me.
lynnb
Veteran
I'd guess that FF digital compacts appeal mostly to photographers with legacy lenses - who are mostly older generation - and are a declining share of camera buyers.
Younger generations just buy whatever gives them the results they want, and APS-C and smartphones seem to do that very well.
If you divide the market into consumers (vast majority) and enthusiasts, consumer needs are well met by iPhone and APS-C DSLRs, the latter having compelling advantages for soccer mums. Quality exceeds needs by a large margin. Canikon are established, trustworthy brands in the non-smartphone market.
Divide enthusiasts into younger and older generations: the younger generations have no legacy lenses and cameras like Fuji X-system, m4/3, GoPro and iPhone give lots of options to express and share their visual ideas. I mention sharing as that is just as important to them as IQ IMHO. I agree with comments by Thom Hogan that the established camera makers are missing the boat with the newer generations by not producing cameras that permit sharing with the same ease that the iPhone allows.
The other thing about younger enthusiasts is that they are into video at least as much as stills photography. The iPhone, GoPro, GH4 and maybe the latest OM-D are more attractive video platforms to them than FF due to portability and cost. Workflow is also important as they want to put their efforts on the web with minimal fuss and delay. Guess which device does that best.
Older enthusiast photographers are a declining but comparatively wealthy demographic and appreciate the ability to use legacy lenses at their designed focal length fov in a light weight body - preferably image stabilised as they get older!
In the shrinking non-smartphone camera market the manufacturers will be looking for greatest overall revenue - this is still with the APS-C DSLR and smaller-sensor market.. FF has higher profit margin but a much smaller market. Nikon seem to be trying to push consumers to FF by not releasing a D300 upgrade. However their FF models are not compact by any means.
I'm guessing the effort will be going into compact mirrorless APS-C rather than FF, just to stem the balance sheet hemorrhaging. (slightly off topic: latest rumours are that Olympus imaging division is continuing to make losses in latest quarter - I would hate to see them go under).
The problem for Canikon there is, do they have a lens range for APS-C that would interest enthusiasts? Fuji (and also m 4/3) has such a line up, but do Canikon?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I guess full frame does mean little to people without legacy lenses ... not on their radar at all! Good points made here ^ Lynn.
thegman
Veteran
I think the only reason to want FF is for focal lengths to be the 'expected' field of view. In compacts, that's not really an issue as you're not putting on other lenses.
Maybe some people like the depth of field characteristics of a 35mm frame, but that all seems kind of arbitrary, i.e. APS-C is not shallow enough, medium format is too shallow.
The people that want/need FF in digital I think are a tiny niche in the grand scheme of things.
Maybe some people like the depth of field characteristics of a 35mm frame, but that all seems kind of arbitrary, i.e. APS-C is not shallow enough, medium format is too shallow.
The people that want/need FF in digital I think are a tiny niche in the grand scheme of things.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Another factor that plays in here, at least for some of us, is not that we don't see a need for full-frame. Its that we can no longer tell the difference in image quality coming out of FF, APS-C, or m4/3. I can only print up to 13x19 inch prints, and up to that size I cannot see any discernible difference from these sensors. Why should I bother with large cameras and lenses when I can get equal quality with smaller gear. I'm about to sell off my full-frame gear for that reason.
aizan
Veteran
i'm still hoping that sony will put a rangefinder style evf in the rx1 or that fuji will make a full frame version of the x100.
keep the dream alive!
keep the dream alive!
seakayaker1
Well-known
Options are good!
I enjoy using the Leica FF as well as the Pentax K5IIs, APS-C. I do hope that Pentax come out with a full frame version in the future to take advantage of the FF Pentax lens that I have. Also have the GF1, micro four-thirds but that just does not get out that often anymore.
I took a look and tested the Sony A7 but did not like the feel of the camera or the electronic viewfinder.
I have been fortunate and have accumulated enough camera gear. It would be nice to sell some of it off but it would most likely only cause GAS and something else would be added.
We are all fortunate that technology is great and you can get a lot of bang for your buck today with whatever system you choose to use.
I enjoy using the Leica FF as well as the Pentax K5IIs, APS-C. I do hope that Pentax come out with a full frame version in the future to take advantage of the FF Pentax lens that I have. Also have the GF1, micro four-thirds but that just does not get out that often anymore.
I took a look and tested the Sony A7 but did not like the feel of the camera or the electronic viewfinder.
I have been fortunate and have accumulated enough camera gear. It would be nice to sell some of it off but it would most likely only cause GAS and something else would be added.
We are all fortunate that technology is great and you can get a lot of bang for your buck today with whatever system you choose to use.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Compacts, right? With only Sony made one at very high price.
I like FF in DSLRs, but I see zero reason to build FF under existing concept with AF and load of functions, which 99% of compact cameras owners never use, because they don't read manual.
Someone should try it with Minox 35 digital.
I like FF in DSLRs, but I see zero reason to build FF under existing concept with AF and load of functions, which 99% of compact cameras owners never use, because they don't read manual.
Someone should try it with Minox 35 digital.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I just had a look at the price of an A7 here in Oz ... $1800 to $2000.
I gather that camera has a similar sensor to the M240?
I gather that camera has a similar sensor to the M240?
willie_901
Veteran
Agreed. Fujifilm has the resources to go bigger. If they thought there was profit to be made, they would or will do so.
I'm not sure there's any market share to be had, so I doubt they will do it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It's handy enough, if you can live with the small format, but I'd back my 12x15 Gandolfi every time if you want a decent sized negative: over twice the area of piddling little 8x10. Besides,I've got 12x10 and 8x10 reducing holders... But that's pretty dinky next to the 20x24 inch Polaroid portrait of Frances and me hanging on the wall in our séjour...
In other words, there are always those who can (and will) outdo you in the "big image" stakes so it rapidly gets pointless to try to get purist about it.
Cheers,
R.
hausen
Well-known
It is just me, but it appears to me that the most here think the Sony A7 series is expensive? Are we now back where we were when M9 came out and numerous people said they didn't need a FF sensor but it was more that they couldn't afford one? Personally I think the A7 series is cheap. I like buying what works and I have a lot more trust in my Sony FF cameras than I do in my Leica offerings considering my MM is now in its 4th month in Germany having it's sensor replaced.
Last edited:
hausen
Well-known
In other words, there are always those who can (and will) outdo you in the "big image" stakes so it rapidly gets pointless to try to get purist about it.
Cheers,
R.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Cheers,
R.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Bingley
Veteran
I also agree. Fuji and improvements in m4/3 sensor show that mirrorless cameras are pretty capable.