Reading mode: Light Dark

APS-C is now entry level

Go to last post
With APSC ILC cameras at 350euros, 400 euros or 500 euros with kit lens, it WAS the entry level.

Nowadays there is no entry level in ILC. The phone is the entry level.

Second hand or 10 years old tech (as you took A7 as an example) can not be taken into account because "obsolete" even facing newest entry level phones actually. The AF of my 200 phone with AI, heif, eye detect etc is light years from my A7. If I use the tripod, yes the combination of A7 with a nice lens will win... But....
 
That may be fine as long as they can find enough folks that are comfortable with dropping that much money on a hobby. But if one is into wildlife, birds, and the like and wants long reach and light weight asp-c or M43 are the winners. Like many others, I never thought I would get there, but I can't handle a FF camera with a 500-600mm FF zoom lens any more. It is completely out of the picture. So my choices would be pay $3,000-$5,000 for a FF 45mp body and use asp-c lenses in crop mode at around 19mp, or just buy a really nice apsc body for $1,000 or less and go out and enjoying my hobby with the same lenses.
 
Redhenry said:
Suntan said:
Redhenry said:
There are those of us who have never advanced beyond “entry level”. I’ve only ever wanted a camera which will allow me to take satisfactory pictures of places and things which please me. I can see why some people might want weatherproofing or armour plating, or a button for lots of functions but there must be lots of people like me who, while they are competent photographers, don’t feel the need to have the latest technology or most expensive cameras and lenses.
Click to expand...
Frankly, that group of people has been almost entirely won by the cell phone makers. The venn diagram of photographers that aren't serious/just want to take pictures of the stuff around them AND will entertain the idea of carrying a camera too big to fit into any pockets is a sliver on the side of an otherwise round circle.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I’ve no argument with that. I tried getting rid of all my camera gear at the end of 2021 and relying on my iPhone but I missed having a range or longer focal lengths and having the choice of shutter speed and aperture combinations. This is why I’ve settled on a couple of Nikon D40s and 3 lenses - I only ever view pictures on my iPad or a modest laptop so don’t need anything more modern. I’ve had pictures published all over the world, I’m interested now in landscape and travel, just for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so how is Nikon supposed to make profit off of the customer that is content using an 18 year old SLR? Kinda reinforces the point.
 
I don't see any problem with that. I use Nikon ILC cameras and they take the same lenses for FF and APS-C, so same IQ. Is it supposed to be a stigma that no one wants to be caught using entry level equipment? That's not something that bothers me. I would also buy a Chevrolet over a Cadillac also (if I for some silly reason wanted a general motors vehicle). I don't pay extra for status symbols.

Being retired with decreasing physical abilities, I spend lots of time looking at photos on the internet and even at galleries and have never yet seen a photo that supposedly came out of the highest priced FF cameras of any brand that could not have been taken with an APS-C camera.
 
Bob A L said:
That may be fine as long as they can find enough folks that are comfortable with dropping that much money on a hobby.
Click to expand...
As Nikon's invester calls for the last few quarters show, they have been. And it has been a strategy that has turned their profitability around.
Bob A L said:
But if one is into wildlife, birds, and the like and wants long reach and light weight asp-c or M43 are the winners. Like many others, I never thought I would get there, but I can't handle a FF camera with a 500-600mm FF zoom lens any more. It is completely out of the picture. So my choices would be pay $3,000-$5,000 for a FF 45mp body and use asp-c lenses in crop mode at around 19mp, or just buy a really nice apsc body for $1,000 or less and go out and enjoying my hobby with the same lenses.
Click to expand...
Yeah. And as many people continue to say, a guy in that situation can continue to kick rocks and grumble that Nikon still hasn't released an amazing apsc camera, at cost, to meet their price target. Or that guy can go buy a Fuji or Sony small frame camera today.
 
Last edited:
Suntan said:
Yeah, so how is Nikon supposed to make profit off of the customer that is content using an 18 year old SLR? Kinda reinforces the point.
Click to expand...
Don’t care! Never bought a new car, never bought a new house, hardly ever bought a new camera. Most of my clothes were bought new, though.
 
Redhenry said:
Suntan said:
Yeah, so how is Nikon supposed to make profit off of the customer that is content using an 18 year old SLR? Kinda reinforces the point.
Click to expand...
Don’t care! Never bought a new car, never bought a new house, hardly ever bought a new camera. Most of my clothes were bought new, though.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's my point. The OP was lamenting that Nikon is not offering new, compelling, low cost, zero margin apsc cameras.

If a measurable percentage of that target market is only interested in those cameras years later, and on the used market, then that benefits Nikon almost none-at-all.

It's pretty understandable that they don't put focus on that segment of the market.
 
felix from the suburbs said:
In my case, I suspect it's both, Have enough APS-C cameras to keep me going until I get the call to the big darkroom in the great beyond. In the meantime I am happy enough with my APS-C stuff and would rather spend my money on other things. I figure I am not alone in this.
Click to expand...
So yet another apsc user that claims they aren't interested in buying a new camera... ...Why exactly would Nikon be motivated to offer new products in this market segment?
 
How about bring new blood into the brand and getting them to buy some lenses and develop a bond with the brand. The first time buyer is much more likely to go for a $400 body than a several thousand dollar body.
 
Some of the “entry level” designation is just a term for lesser gear than my own, whatever level that might be. I don’t see entry level and APS-C as interchangeable though.

Many entry level cameras are APS-C.

Not all APS-C cameras are entry level.
 
Suntan said:
Redhenry said:
Suntan said:
Yeah, so how is Nikon supposed to make profit off of the customer that is content using an 18 year old SLR? Kinda reinforces the point.
Click to expand...
Don’t care! Never bought a new car, never bought a new house, hardly ever bought a new camera. Most of my clothes were bought new, though.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's my point. The OP was lamenting that Nikon is not offering new, compelling, low cost, zero margin apsc cameras.

If a measurable percentage of that target market is only interested in those cameras years later, and on the used market, then that benefits Nikon almost none-at-all.

It's pretty understandable that they don't put focus on that segment of the market.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve always assumed that there are enough enthusiasts with deeper pockets than mine to keep camera manufacturing thriving. If truth be told, I am mainly keeping my photo skills ticking over with my vintage camera gear, but if some enterprising company were to produce a device which offered the computational aspects of a recent iPhone combined with the handling and facilities of a proper camera, I would be interested.
 
**** Dastardly said:
It would seem that with the possible exception of Sony and Fujifilm, ...but in the case of Canon and Nikon at least, the lens offer seems to be limited.
Click to expand...
So APS-C is entry level from Nikon and Canon, but not from Sony and Fujifilm.
**** Dastardly said:
My answer is no. The signals are there, apsc is now a hobby level format,
Click to expand...
Is that the same thing as entry level?
**** Dastardly said:
Agree or disagree?
Click to expand...
It doesn't sound like you agree with yourself.
 
Personally I am a small sensor fan. If I could not have APS-C, I would be using M43. And I like my Nikon APS-C camras. I could have bought Fuji and I did try Sony (that won't happen again) but I prefer my Nikon Zfc for mirrorless and my D5500, and D3300 for dslr's. But everybody should feel fine about buying whatever brand they enjoy most.
 
Dennis said:
**** Dastardly said:
It would seem that with the possible exception of Sony and Fujifilm, ...but in the case of Canon and Nikon at least, the lens offer seems to be limited.
Click to expand...
So APS-C is entry level from Nikon and Canon, but not from Sony and Fujifilm.
Dennis said:
My answer is no. The signals are there, apsc is now a hobby level format,
Click to expand...
Is that the same thing as entry level?
Dennis said:
Agree or disagree?
Click to expand...
It doesn't sound like you agree with yourself.
Click to expand...
Owners of the R7 might disagree that their cam is entry level. Sure doesn't look like one to me.
 
But it's interesting that the most and finest automatic features are the selling points of the highest dollar FF equipment. They are the cameras that have the most and best automatic features that would be a benefit the beginning hobbyists. They have auto focus, auto exposure, auto bracketing, auto subject detection, auto subject tracking, auto subject detection to take a photo on their own, before the shot photos taken and saved, 30 fps so they won't mis time the shot, image stacking and combining to improve sharpness, and maybe more.
 
Suntan said:
felix from the suburbs said:
In my case, I suspect it's both, Have enough APS-C cameras to keep me going until I get the call to the big darkroom in the great beyond. In the meantime I am happy enough with my APS-C stuff and would rather spend my money on other things. I figure I am not alone in this.
Click to expand...
So yet another apsc user that claims they aren't interested in buying a new camera... ...Why exactly would Nikon be motivated to offer new products in this market segment?
Click to expand...
This is why everyone except Canon (which has an explicit share goal) is ignoring entry level, more or less.

There's no reason for most people to buy it and for OEMs to invest much in it, when there's (a) no reason existing base to trade up to it; (b) entry level buyers can easily be satisfied with the amazing deals on great lightly used gear with superior capabilities; (c) absolutely astonishingly capable new gear is available at prices that's barely above what many people pay for their phones now.

Entry level cameras made more sense in the pre-phones-are-good-enough days because demand was so much higher, and getting people into your brand was critical so they would upgrade and stay with your brand. That's gone.

Also gone are the days when very good cameras were extremely expensive. Now shockingly superb mid-range camera gear is available to experienced or new users at prices - whether we're talking new or used gear - more affordable than ever (taking into account inflation).
 
mmartel said:
George 68 said:
mmartel said:
George 68 said:
Why do we need to decide on which demographic uses which format?

I’m currently on my way to the Pyrenees on a motorcycle to ride from one end to the other on a mixture of high altitude road and off road tracks. In my tank bag, I have my Z50 with tiddly small 16-50.

It weighs about 500g, takes up very little space, has the D500 sensor and, frankly, if you can’t take a good picture with it, you can’t take a good picture.

There’s no way I could bring my FF camera on the trip.

Note the professional padding
Note the professional padding
Click to expand...
You could have a Z5 or Z6 or Z7 and a 24-50 in there.

Or a Sony A7c and 28-60.

Etc.
Click to expand...
No, you couldn’t.

But let’s say I bought a bigger tank bag so I could. Why would I want to? Bigger, heavier, 24-50 rather than 24-70 equivalent, comparable resolution.
Click to expand...
I don't know what bag you have but from the looks of it I am 99% certain the Sony combo would fit. And I'm at least 80% sure the Z5 combo would fit also.

Are you actually familiar with the size of these cameras and lenses?

https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-c...32f2e-feb6b053_5b7900ed-88b3edf5_41cf1bfd-t95

Now, why would you want one of those? Because perhaps aside from your motorcycle touring having a full frame camera might be more useful.
Click to expand...
Aside from my motorcycle touring, hiking and mountaineering, I have a Z8
mmartel said:
And with the Sony you could crop a bit on the long end and still have the same or higher megapixels, along with the higher megapixel and better DR images through the rest of the range. With the Nikon Z5 you'd have fewer megapixels from about 55-70 than the Z50 but DR would be no worse, and you'd have higher megapixels and better DR through the rest of the range.

Yes, these alternatives would be about 150-250g heavier.
Click to expand...
i use my Z50 with an 18-140 for hiking etc and the combined weight is 750g. A z5 and 24-200 is far more than 150-200g heavier
mmartel said:
Anyway, I'm not trying to sell you on swapping out what you have and are happy with. All I'm saying is that if somebody were looking at this objectively and buying a camera that would fit in your bag, a full frame system very nearly comparable focal range can fit in the same bag as your tiny APS-C combo and at only slightly greater cost. That wasn't always the case.
Click to expand...
As I say, I have a Z8 for when I need full frame
 
George 68 said:
mmartel said:
George 68 said:
mmartel said:
George 68 said:
Why do we need to decide on which demographic uses which format?

I’m currently on my way to the Pyrenees on a motorcycle to ride from one end to the other on a mixture of high altitude road and off road tracks. In my tank bag, I have my Z50 with tiddly small 16-50.

It weighs about 500g, takes up very little space, has the D500 sensor and, frankly, if you can’t take a good picture with it, you can’t take a good picture.

There’s no way I could bring my FF camera on the trip.

Note the professional padding
Note the professional padding
Click to expand...
You could have a Z5 or Z6 or Z7 and a 24-50 in there.

Or a Sony A7c and 28-60.

Etc.
Click to expand...
No, you couldn’t.

But let’s say I bought a bigger tank bag so I could. Why would I want to? Bigger, heavier, 24-50 rather than 24-70 equivalent, comparable resolution.
Click to expand...
I don't know what bag you have but from the looks of it I am 99% certain the Sony combo would fit. And I'm at least 80% sure the Z5 combo would fit also.

Are you actually familiar with the size of these cameras and lenses?

https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-c...32f2e-feb6b053_5b7900ed-88b3edf5_41cf1bfd-t95

Now, why would you want one of those? Because perhaps aside from your motorcycle touring having a full frame camera might be more useful.
Click to expand...
Aside from my motorcycle touring, hiking and mountaineering, I have a Z8
Click to expand...
Ok, so we're in agreement that a Z8 wouldn't fit in your bag.

The other cameras+lenses would.
George 68 said:
George 68 said:
And with the Sony you could crop a bit on the long end and still have the same or higher megapixels, along with the higher megapixel and better DR images through the rest of the range. With the Nikon Z5 you'd have fewer megapixels from about 55-70 than the Z50 but DR would be no worse, and you'd have higher megapixels and better DR through the rest of the range.

Yes, these alternatives would be about 150-250g heavier.
Click to expand...
i use my Z50 with an 18-140 for hiking etc and the combined weight is 750g. A z5 and 24-200 is far more than 150-200g heavier
Click to expand...
Agreed.

For telephoto range, smaller sensor bodies are more easily justified in weight savings basis. My point is that for non telephoto use cases, the size/weight/price difference between FF and its alternatives makes FF the more compelling choice now.

But it's precisely the tele use cases where smaller formats still hold onto more advantage - outside of Canon, they're just not making longer zooms and tel lenses slow enough for full frame to be that light compared to the options for smaller format systems.

This is why I'm still a m43 user. I've chosen the system because zooms such as the 14-140 for m43, much like the Nikon 18-140 for DX, are really well suited when hiking.
George 68 said:
George 68 said:
Anyway, I'm not trying to sell you on swapping out what you have and are happy with. All I'm saying is that if somebody were looking at this objectively and buying a camera that would fit in your bag, a full frame system very nearly comparable focal range can fit in the same bag as your tiny APS-C combo and at only slightly greater cost. That wasn't always the case.
Click to expand...
As I say, I have a Z8 for when I need full frame
Click to expand...
That's a truly awesome camera. It also explains why you're fine having a Z50 when a Z50 is fine. But it's also not fine enough for your other use cases... otherwise you wouldn't have a Z8.
 
Last edited:
Redhenry said:
Suntan said:
Redhenry said:
Suntan said:
Yeah, so how is Nikon supposed to make profit off of the customer that is content using an 18 year old SLR? Kinda reinforces the point.
Click to expand...
Don’t care! Never bought a new car, never bought a new house, hardly ever bought a new camera. Most of my clothes were bought new, though.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's my point. The OP was lamenting that Nikon is not offering new, compelling, low cost, zero margin apsc cameras.

If a measurable percentage of that target market is only interested in those cameras years later, and on the used market, then that benefits Nikon almost none-at-all.

It's pretty understandable that they don't put focus on that segment of the market.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve always assumed that there are enough enthusiasts with deeper pockets than mine to keep camera manufacturing thriving.
Click to expand...
There are. But we are not interested in low cost, entry level, apsc bodies. So manufacturers like Nikon are responding as such.

You guys looking for hand-me-downs years later need to adjust. The large quantity of low cost bodies were bought (then eventually sold on ebay) by the soccer moms and dads. Those people are now fine with just using their phone.
Redhenry said:
If truth be told, I am mainly keeping my photo skills ticking over with my vintage camera gear, but if some enterprising company were to produce a device which offered the computational aspects of a recent iPhone combined with the handling and facilities of a proper camera, I would be interested.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Fujifilm X-M5/Sony ZV-E10 II vs Sigma FP for hiking and traveling?
Replies
15
Views
769
Martin_99
M
H
Z50ii vs Z5ii
Replies
7
Views
576
Ruedon
R
P
  • Locked
Should Panasonic produce Rangefinder Style APS-C cameras and AI designed APS-C lenses for L-mount?
Replies
7
Views
272
Photongraphy
P
Dick Dastardly
Canon M3- bad, but good?
Replies
15
Views
2K
HaroldC3
HaroldC3
R
Is the Z50 II currently the best deal for general photography?
Replies
19
Views
20
UsherFellig
U

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top