"Full frame is sooooo much more expensive than APS-C"

[RedFox88]

Not really.

Fuji lenses are expensive, but they do have a higher build quality, lower production volumes and are new products. You can't compare a newly designed Fuji lens against an ancient Canon 20mm that probably borrows its optical formula from the old 20mm FD-mount lens.

But you can compare it to the Canon 35/2 IS, right? Or to the Canon 22/2 for APS-C for which I paid about $100?

The 22mm is an ef-m only lens and very few people own a M cam.

So?

Can't compare to a lens that can't go on the other cams nor has a design equal in the other mount.

BTW, the M is quite successful in Japan.

Successful in a market that is just 10% of the camera market is still owned by very few people.

 

[Ulric]

You should really find some plastic craptastic APS-C lenses to compare to. The build quality of the Canon lenses doesn't hold a candle to the construction of the Fuji lenses.

Like my wife's Nikkor 55-300. It says $303 in the comparison but it didn't cost anywhere near that when she got it.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[yardcoyote]

There surely must be other reasons to choose a camera rather than "bang for the buck". Is sensor size the best measurement of "bang" anyway?

The simple fact that there are wide variety of cameras with different sensors, body sizes and styles, lens options and control designs and layouts should make it obvious that not everyone wants the same camera for the same reasons.

If you take that as a given, why do people get so upset when someone they don't even know makes a different choice?

 

[Ulkesh]

You should really find some plastic craptastic APS-C lenses to compare to. The build quality of the Canon lenses doesn't hold a candle to the construction of the Fuji lenses.

The image quality does ;-)

I personally don't care about build quality. As long as the IQ is good, what does it matter?

It matters in that it makes the manufacturing more expensive, which is what you are complaining about. I'm not sure if this is a graspable concept for you.

My old FD lenses are a joy to operate, but the IQ is not on the level of modern glass.

 

[sportyaccordy]

There surely must be other reasons to choose a camera rather than "bang for the buck". Is sensor size the best measurement of "bang" anyway?

The simple fact that there are wide variety of cameras with different sensors, body sizes and styles, lens options and control designs and layouts should make it obvious that not everyone wants the same camera for the same reasons.

If you take that as a given, why do people get so upset when someone they don't even know makes a different choice?

Nobody is upset. Stop projecting.

My point was, if you need a lot of DoF control, larger sensors become a lot less expensive.

 

[yardcoyote]

Not projecting. Just mildly annoyed by all these threads that seem to attribute some kind of arbitrary, overarching logic to what is basically a personal descision, and one that is often not logically based.

And that is not a bad thing.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Not projecting. Just mildly annoyed by all these threads that seem to attribute some kind of arbitrary, overarching logic to what is basically a personal descision, and one that is often not logically based.

And that is not a bad thing.

Nobody is commanding anybody to do anything or telling anyone their decisions are wrong. The point of this thread was just to bust the myth that full frame is so much more expensive than smaller formats. Don't paint the discussion as something it isn't.

 

[noflashplease]

Not really.

Fuji lenses are expensive, but they do have a higher build quality, lower production volumes and are new products. You can't compare a newly designed Fuji lens against an ancient Canon 20mm that probably borrows its optical formula from the old 20mm FD-mount lens.

But you can compare it to the Canon 35/2 IS, right? Or to the Canon 22/2 for APS-C for which I paid about $100?

The 22mm EF-M lens was only cheap because the first generation EOS M was a commercial disaster in North America. You paid the equivalent of a clearance price.

The 35mm F2 IS is a more conventional example of a mild discount after a new product is merely overpriced. $600 is about right and that's exactly what Tarmon is charging for their stabilized 35mm. The original price of $800 was too much.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

The 22mm EF-M lens was only cheap because the first generation EOS M was a commercial disaster in North America. You paid the equivalent of a clearance price.

Only somewhat. Look at the 24mm, 40mm, and 50mm STM lenses ($150,$150, $125) which are about the same complexity as the 22mm.

 

[J A C S]

Not really.

Fuji lenses are expensive, but they do have a higher build quality, lower production volumes and are new products. You can't compare a newly designed Fuji lens against an ancient Canon 20mm that probably borrows its optical formula from the old 20mm FD-mount lens.

But you can compare it to the Canon 35/2 IS, right? Or to the Canon 22/2 for APS-C for which I paid about $100?

The 22mm EF-M lens was only cheap because the first generation EOS M was a commercial disaster in North America. You paid the equivalent of a clearance price.

It was $250 at launch.

The 35mm F2 IS is a more conventional example of a mild discount after a new product is merely overpriced. $600 is about right and that's exactly what Tarmon is charging for their stabilized 35mm. The original price of $800 was too much.

So I can compare those two lenses to Fuji, after all; and you should not have made that generalization?

 

[noflashplease]

The 22mm EF-M lens was only cheap because the first generation EOS M was a commercial disaster in North America. You paid the equivalent of a clearance price.

Only somewhat. Look at the 24mm, 40mm, and 50mm STM lenses ($150,$150, $125) which are about the same complexity as the 22mm.

 

[noflashplease]

Not really.

Fuji lenses are expensive, but they do have a higher build quality, lower production volumes and are new products. You can't compare a newly designed Fuji lens against an ancient Canon 20mm that probably borrows its optical formula from the old 20mm FD-mount lens.

But you can compare it to the Canon 35/2 IS, right? Or to the Canon 22/2 for APS-C for which I paid about $100?

The 22mm EF-M lens was only cheap because the first generation EOS M was a commercial disaster in North America. You paid the equivalent of a clearance price.

It was $250 at launch.

The 35mm F2 IS is a more conventional example of a mild discount after a new product is merely overpriced. $600 is about right and that's exactly what Tarmon is charging for their stabilized 35mm. The original price of $800 was too much.

So I can compare those two lenses to Fuji, after all; and you should not have made that generalization?

I'm not sure what generalization we're talking about? Fuji developed all new lens formulas and Canon's lens range is well established and still builds on manual focus era lens formulas in some cases?

Personally, I think that Fuji has emphasized build quality and features like aperture rings. Are their lenses expensive? Probably not in an absolute sense, but there again, Fuji didn't have the continuity in lens development that Canon relies on. After all, Fuiifilm dropped the old Fujica X-mount in 1985, then relied on the Nikon F-mount at the beginning of the digital era, before developing the current X-mount. I doubt that any 1970s lens formulas or tooling were carried over to the current designs. In all likelihood, Fuji had to start from scratch. That takes a big investment, and that investment is spread across relatively low volumes as compared to Canon.

 

[J A C S]

Not really.

Fuji lenses are expensive, but they do have a higher build quality, lower production volumes and are new products. You can't compare a newly designed Fuji lens against an ancient Canon 20mm that probably borrows its optical formula from the old 20mm FD-mount lens.

But you can compare it to the Canon 35/2 IS, right? Or to the Canon 22/2 for APS-C for which I paid about $100?

The 22mm EF-M lens was only cheap because the first generation EOS M was a commercial disaster in North America. You paid the equivalent of a clearance price.

It was $250 at launch.

The 35mm F2 IS is a more conventional example of a mild discount after a new product is merely overpriced. $600 is about right and that's exactly what Tarmon is charging for their stabilized 35mm. The original price of $800 was too much.

So I can compare those two lenses to Fuji, after all; and you should not have made that generalization?

I'm not sure what generalization we're talking about? Fuji developed all new lens formulas and Canon's lens range is well established and still builds on manual focus era lens formulas in some cases?

There were a few old and a few newer Canon lenses in the OP comparison, and even old ones like the 85/1.8 perform quite well. The question was about cost, not about excuses.

 

[Biological_Viewfinder]

I'm not going to make my camera less useable with primes.

You might find a value in their ability to capture light faster, but I find it overwhelmingly annoying to have to do a dance just to compose a photograph.

 

[sportyaccordy]

There were a few old and a few newer Canon lenses in the OP comparison, and even old ones like the 85/1.8 perform quite well. The question was about cost, not about excuses.

And again, Nikon's entire F/1.8 prime lineup is new, as are the bulk of their AF-S zooms, generally with completely different formulations and coatings... again at generally no cost and often no weight penalty to Fuji's equivalent glass. If one were to build a system from scratch they would be spending about the same amount of money to build a Fuji system as a Canikon FF system, especially with a decent amount of lenses.

 

[sportyaccordy]

I'm not going to make my camera less useable with primes.

You might find a value in their ability to capture light faster, but I find it overwhelmingly annoying to have to do a dance just to compose a photograph.

--
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

That's a different discussion entirely. Personally I have shot everything from landscapes to portraits to animals with a 50mm. I am pretty sure every photo in my gallery is out of a 50mm.

 

[rrccad]

The 22mm EF-M lens was only cheap because the first generation EOS M was a commercial disaster in North America. You paid the equivalent of a clearance price.

Only somewhat. Look at the 24mm, 40mm, and 50mm STM lenses ($150,$150, $125) which are about the same complexity as the 22mm.

--
Erik

Of those lenses, the 40mm is the standout, as it's sharp wide open and has almost zero distortion. The 50mm STM isn't cheap as much as an old fashioned 50mm F/1.8 that doesn't get sharp until F4. The 24mm is the only dedicated crop circle lens of the trio. Personally, I think that full frame 24mm pancake would have been worth a lot more than $150.

The EF-M 22mm was going for $249 before the EOS M firesale. I can't remember if that was the original MSRP? In any case, I'm not sure what that says about the relative cost of crop circle lenses. Actually, I don't know for sure that the 22mm doesn't cover full frame, although I think it's highly unlikely. Either way, it wasn't intended to be a $100 lens before the EOS M clearance, much in the same way the EF to EF-M adapter wasn't meant to sell for $50 but originally was priced at over $200.

what you are doing though is comparing 2012 USD MSRP against others, which is pretty fictitious and misleading. unless Canon all of a sudden is a USA company and not a importer into the USA.

 

[rrccad]

There were a few old and a few newer Canon lenses in the OP comparison, and even old ones like the 85/1.8 perform quite well. The question was about cost, not about excuses.

And again, Nikon's entire F/1.8 prime lineup is new, as are the bulk of their AF-S zooms, generally with completely different formulations and coatings... again at generally no cost and often no weight penalty to Fuji's equivalent glass. If one were to build a system from scratch they would be spending about the same amount of money to build a Fuji system as a Canikon FF system, especially with a decent amount of lenses.

but there's a difference though .. canon and nikon tailor and try to fit products into every segment. Fuji doesn't really care and is going after the niche.

it's not really a fair comparison; to point it's more mirrorless niche versus mainstream versus crop versus full frame.

Nikon and Canon each have over 8 ILC product lines or more depending on how you structure them; and have lenses to match. their product lines deal from the absolute beginner to the ultimate professionals.

Fuji has what? 3? and for the most part they are the same thing?

 

[tom1234567]

Pentax FF cost £1699 The Nikon D500 cost £1799 so the APS-C is more expensive than FF

but it has better AF more Fps and I prefer APS-c to FF and I'm sure others do too

Tom G

 

[J A C S]

Pentax FF cost £1699 The Nikon D500 cost £1799 so the APS-C is more expensive than FF

but it has better AF more Fps and I prefer APS-c to FF and I'm sure others do too

The point was about the lenses.