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

[Ulkesh]

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.

It proves that if you pick the most expensive from one format and the least expensive from another, then one can be made more expensive.

However, if you try harder to compare apples to apples, you might find otherwise.

 

[Wubslin]

Misleading comparison.

 

[Lee Jay]

Canon 5D Mark III + 24-70/2.8II = $4,250

Canon 7D Mark II + 18-35/1.8 = $2,300

 

[jrtrent]

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

I missed that point in your original post, so thanks for clarifying.

and from another post:

With FF bodies being available brand new for ~$1000-1100 the body itself is generally a small piece of the cost of the system for most shooters. It really comes down to the lenses. If someone is building a system with 3-4 lenses, unless small size/weight is the absolute top priority, for IQ and photographic range of ability I am feeling like FF will strike the best balance and will be cheaper than other formats- bigger or smaller.

It really depends on one's needs, and hopefully a person has explored that prior to purchase. My own needs would be met quite well with a Pentax K50 and 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL WR zoom lens, at a price of about $480. This would give me all the capability of my current Samsung GX-1S with 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL (which I've had for about 9 years), plus offer in-body image stabilization, weather resistance, dual control wheels, a 100% viewfinder, sensor dust removal system, and slightly better high ISO performance.

For your needs, it sounds like FF represents good value; for my needs, an APS-C model would fill the bill at a much lower cost. Then again, my Samsung is still plugging away faithfully, so no need for a change at present.

 

[rxbot]

Canon 5D Mark III + 24-70/2.8II = $4,250

Canon 7D Mark II + 18-35/1.8 = $2,300

 

[Erik Magnuson]

Canon 5D Mark III + 24-70/2.8II = $4,250

Canon 7D Mark II + 18-35/1.8 = $2,300

That's a 29-56mm equivalent FOV. Need to at least add the 50mm F/1.8 and something like a 15mm f/2 to be more directly relevant. The 50mm doesnt change cost much but the 15mm F/2 cost is currently infinite.

 

[Lee Jay]

Canon 5D Mark III + 24-70/2.8II = $4,250

Canon 7D Mark II + 18-35/1.8 = $2,300

DL 24-85 f/1.8-2.8 what $1000?

The two I posted above have the same equivalent f-stop, the same ability to capture light and control DOF, similar focusing systems, similar bodies, similar environmental sealing, similar viewfinders and the same system. The DL has none of those.

The biggest difference between the two combos I posted, aside from price, is the focal length range (29-56 versus 24-70), the speed (the 7D is 10fps versus 7fps for the 5D), and the fact that the 7D has a built-in flash and the 5D does not.

 

[Lee Jay]

Canon 5D Mark III + 24-70/2.8II = $4,250

Canon 7D Mark II + 18-35/1.8 = $2,300

That's a 29-56mm equivalent FOV. Need to at least add the 50mm F/1.8 and something like a 15mm f/2 to be more directly relevant. The 50mm doesnt change cost much but the 15mm F/2 cost is currently infinite.

I bought the 50/1.8 for $85. If wider than 24mm is crucial, I generally found that I needed wider than that. For full-frame, I had the 17-40L and the Sigma 15mm fisheye (combined cost about $1,300). When I moved to crop I sold them both and purchased a Canon 8-15/4L zoom fisheye for $1,000 from Canon direct. It's wider on crop than the 15mm was on full-frame, and at the long end it's equivalent to about a 22mm rectilinear when defished. Overall, I find it much more flexible and it's only one lens rather than two.

This more than made up for the loss of the 24-29 range for me. It's rare that I need a lot of DOF control in that range so the loss of f-stop was not that important. I generally need that in the longer focal lengths.

 

[cookedraw]

I am not in the camera business, but as an engineer, here is my take:

For starters, the sensors are made in round silicon wafers. Each wafer costs a certain amount to produce, and larger sensors mean fewer sensors per wafer. Thus the cost of each sensor is proportionally higher.

After that, it is marketing strategy. The expensive sensors goes in a higher end cameras with better construction and features.

Nikon could build a full frame D7200 and it would only be a bit more expensive, but that is not how product plans work. Remember, the reason for crop sensor cameras is to have a less expensive line.

also if there is a dead pixel in manufacturing, a exponentially larger amount of healthy pixes will go to waste, adding to cost. FF digital sensors is not worth it compared to aps-c qualitywise, only for compability issues with FF-lenses, next step up is medium format.

 

[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.

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?

Bodies, sure, but we are talking lenses here. Canon & Nikon have at most like 2.5 FF lens categories. Yes, the plastic fantastic build quality is a step down from Fuji's jewelry, which accounts for some of the cost. But there is no perfect comparison. Canikon does not have anywhere near a full crop lens lineup and what few they do are significantly downspec from their FF equivalents (i.e. at least a stop slower at the minimum). In most instances using a FF lens on crop drives up the cost as well, often significantly, with a net lower system performance. I.e. a 50 1.8 on FF is way cheaper and higher IQ than a 35 1.4 on crop, or even a 35 1.8 on crop.

So this thread isn't to bash crop.... it's just to remind people that there is no free lunch. If crop IQ and DoF control is satisfactory then by all means folks should go that route. But trying to match FF with smaller sensors = a losing proposition.

 

[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.

It proves that if you pick the most expensive from one format and the least expensive from another, then one can be made more expensive.

However, if you try harder to compare apples to apples, you might find otherwise.

OK then, make a more apples to apples comparison.

 

[cookedraw]

DOF field is better on Aps-c . 200mm offers better stability than 300mm. end of story.

For the bokeh , use tele.

 

[Lee Jay]

DOF field is better on Aps-c .

Not true.

200mm offers better stability than 300mm.

200mm on crop and 300mm on full-frame have the same stability limitations.

end of story.

You are not correct.

For the bokeh , use tele.

And if you can't?

 

[doonie]

I am not in the camera business, but as an engineer, here is my take:

For starters, the sensors are made in round silicon wafers. Each wafer costs a certain amount to produce, and larger sensors mean fewer sensors per wafer. Thus the cost of each sensor is proportionally higher.

After that, it is marketing strategy. The expensive sensors goes in a higher end cameras with better construction and features.

Nikon could build a full frame D7200 and it would only be a bit more expensive, but that is not how product plans work. Remember, the reason for crop sensor cameras is to have a less expensive line.

I may be wrong, but isn't the D750 the full frame D7200 ?

 

[sportyaccordy]

Canon 5D Mark III + 24-70/2.8II = $4,250

Canon 7D Mark II + 18-35/1.8 = $2,300

--
Lee Jay

"Misleading comparison"

Can't compare third party to native brand, and the 18-35 is missing significant FOV at the wide and especially long end. Not to mention, I can't imagine why anyone would buy a 7D2 and NOT buy a high end tele lens. Better comparo would be:

5D3 + EF 24-70 F/4 + EF 70-200 F/4= $3900

7D2 + EF17-55 F/2.8 + EF 70-200 F/2.8 = $4300

 

[cookedraw]

DOF field is better on Aps-c .

Not true.

200mm offers better stability than 300mm.

200mm on crop and 300mm on full-frame have the same stability limitations.

end of story.

You are not correct.

For the bokeh , use tele.

And if you can't?

 

[Lee Jay]

Canon 5D Mark III + 24-70/2.8II = $4,250

Canon 7D Mark II + 18-35/1.8 = $2,300

"Misleading comparison"

Can't compare third party to native brand, and the 18-35 is missing significant FOV at the wide and especially long end.

And the 5D III is 7fps versus 10fps for the 7D, the 5DIII is missing dual pixel focusing and a built-in flash.

Give a little, take a little. Overall, for me, the 7D system I mentioned is better, not to mention almost $2,000 cheaper.

Not to mention, I can't imagine why anyone would buy a 7D2 and NOT buy a high end tele lens.

I have a 70-200/2.8L IS II, a 2x TC III, a Sigma 150-600C and a Celestron Edge HD 11 (2800mm f/10). I think I have tele covered sufficiently.

Better comparo would be:

5D3 + EF 24-70 F/4 + EF 70-200 F/4= $3900

7D2 + EF17-55 F/2.8 + EF 70-200 F/2.8 = $4300

Misleading comparison. The 5D3 lacks range (200 versus 320) and the 70-200 you picked for it lacks IS.

How about:

5D3 + EF 24-70 F/4 + EF 70-200 F/4L IS + 300/4L IS = $5,800

7D2 + EF17-55 F/2.8 + EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II = $4,300

 

[Lee Jay]

Ok , so if I take a photo made with a FF and crop it , it will remove the camera shake blur ?

No, it will enhance the camera shake and blur.

"200mm on crop and 300mm on full-frame have the same stability limitations."

 

[cookedraw]

Ok , so if I take a photo made with a FF and crop it , it will remove the camera shake blur ?

No, it will enhance the camera shake and blur.

"200mm on crop and 300mm on full-frame have the same stability limitations."

 

[Lee Jay]

Ok , so if I take a photo made with a FF and crop it , it will remove the camera shake blur ?

No, it will enhance the camera shake and blur.

"200mm on crop and 300mm on full-frame have the same stability limitations."

this is interesting, very confusing. If I take a photo on a ff and crop it, it will enhance camera shake blur.

Yes. And decrease DOF, for the same reason (increased enlargement ratio).

If you take a photo on 600mm on full frame , then take a photo with the same lens on aps-c, the ff will not only be cropped but also have less camera shake.

Yes, because of reduced enlargement ratio.