APS-C is now entry level

[Suntan]

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.

First, if you're happy with what you've got, why do I see you in every one of these threads that complains about Nikon not releasing new/better apsc cameras?

Second, I have no care which brand anyone chooses to be loyal to. I just find it silly how people can complain, for years, about the camera that they feel is owed to them by one company or another, just because they have an 8 year old model that they want to upgrade, but they still want to be able to use a pair of kit lenses that came with it.

 

[George 68]

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

You could have a Z5 or Z6 or Z7 and a 24-50 in there.

Or a Sony A7c and 28-60.

Etc.

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.

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.

Aside from my motorcycle touring, hiking and mountaineering, I have a Z8

Ok, so we're in agreement that a Z8 wouldn't fit in your bag.

The other cameras+lenses would.

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.

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

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.

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.

As I say, I have a Z8 for when I need full frame

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.

I have a Z8 because I want one not because I need one. The Z8 doesn’t do anything fundamentally that the Z50 doesn’t for my still photos use case. It fits better in my hand and has better faster AF and a lot more pixels. So you could argue that it takes far more skill to take a good photograph with a Z50 than a Z8.

My original point was that we don’t need to say things like APSC cameras are for newbies or beginners, they are for photographers who want them for whatever reason: small, light, cheap, who cares.

 

[mmartel]

As I say, I have a Z8 for when I need full frame

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.

I have a Z8 because I want one not because I need one. The Z8 doesn’t do anything fundamentally that the Z50 doesn’t for my still photos use case. It fits better in my hand and has better faster AF and a lot more pixels. So you could argue that it takes far more skill to take a good photograph with a Z50 than a Z8.

Agreed.

My original point was that we don’t need to say things like APSC cameras are for newbies or beginners, they are for photographers who want them for whatever reason: small, light, cheap, who cares.

Also agreed.

My point here - and I think you're getting it even though it's pretty obvious you're out of touch with just how small cameras like the A7c + 28-60 actually are - is that APS-C isn't the smaller/lighter/cheaper system (outside of tele use cases) that it used to be.

Thus camera users who aren't seeking smaller/lighter for tele use cases have lesser reason to choose APS-C over FF, as they have in the past.

I'm still not sure why you're avoiding acknowledging this point which I've been making over, and over, and over again.

But, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. So let me use a couple images to demonstrate:



[ATTACH alt=" The Z5 is just 7mm wider and 7mm taller than the Z50, or about 1/4" in freedom units. The A7c is 3mm less wide and 23mm shorter than the Z50 - nearly a full 1" smaller."]3505538[/ATTACH]
The Z5 is just 7mm wider and 7mm taller than the Z50, or about 1/4" in freedom units. The A7c is 3mm less wide and 23mm shorter than the Z50 - nearly a full 1" smaller.






870g vs. 532g vs. 676g total weight

 

[Howard V]

It would seem that with the possible exception of Sony and Fujifilm, the other manufactures are currently concentrating their efforts on developing full frame bodies and lenses on a market that continues to shrink.

This makes sense. The large companies can afford getting diminishing returns on their investment, but not all of them are that large.

There's still a market for apsc cameras, but in the case of Canon and Nikon at least, the lens offer seems to be limited.

Also, price wise, if an apsc kit can be had for $700 and a full frame equivalent starts at around $1200(or less, if you get an older A7) , does it make sense to invest in apsc in 2024?

My answer is no. The signals are there, apsc is now a hobby level format, M43 is a niche and 1 inch compacts are dead.

There's nothing wrong about getting a Z30 or a M10, as long as you are happy using them with the compact kit lenses or a prime. Even if more lenses are coming for these systems, the buyers will always wonder if they should have gone with FF instead, because the price gap isn't really that great anymore and most of the fun and attention goes to full frame for a number of years now.

Agree or disagree?

I think APS-C has always been entry level.

The Nikon D1 was hardly entry level, it was the top of the range digital camera in its time, as was the D2, both had DX sensors (APS C). No! APS C has not always been entry level.

What I'm observing is Canon, Nikon, and Sony APS-C seem increasingly pointless outside of use for tele work. The price and size/weight gap to full frame has dropped tremendously, especially for used gear. I can't see why I'd buy a Z50 when I can get an excellent condition used Z5 or Z6 for about the same price. Likewise, an A7iii or A7Rii or A7c if you like seem more appealing to me than an A6400. The price and size gaps here are not huge.

Ok, if you're mainly into tele and you want to maximize reach, different story. But we're into the realm of niche and not mainstream general photography.

D300 was a pro level camera when it came out. I know a now-retired pro who made a living with it for years.

 

[MimiVivi]

It would seem that with the possible exception of Sony and Fujifilm, the other manufactures are currently concentrating their efforts on developing full frame bodies and lenses on a market that continues to shrink.

[ . . . .]

Agree or disagree?

I don't disagree but who cares?

You've expressed your theoretical thoughts, so here's mine: DPReviewers spend way too much time trying to interpret camera manufacturer product marketing tea-leaves.

I don't care what Sony or Fujifilm or anyone else wants me to buy, or why.

I care what >I< want to buy! I look at what's for sale, I look at what I can afford, I look at what it can do for my photography and how it will support my imaging interests, and then I get what works for me. Noticing a trend, here? Me, me, me. Not them, them, them.

Look, I'm trying to say that my photographic interests are not an altruistic camera manufacturer support charity. And respectfully, I think you're nuts if you turn yours into one.

Can't they just take care of themselves without all of us constantly trying to discern what they want us to do? Isn't that bass-ackwards? Shouldn't these companies be constantly probing what we want from them? Supposedly they employ thousands and thousands and thousands of professionals who work 40+ hours every week to take care of that business. Engineers, marketers, executives, all of whom have had education, experience, and access to inside or proprietary information I (and you) don't.

So their business just isn't my problem, not your problem, not any-of-our problem. My one problem is looking at what's available, fitting it to my purpose, and then getting-out-of-the-store so that I can actually use it. Shopping cameras < Using cameras. And most current photographic equipment is, regardless of brand or format, basically interchangeable for 95% of photographic interests, so it doesn't even matter. I know you all hate that perspective, but honestly when's the last time you made a wall-size gallery print? When's the last time you photographed an olympic athlete? When's the last time you delivered 1000 images and a book to a bride and groom? Everyone argues around the marginal capabilities of advanced system cameras like life-itself-depends-on-it . . . and hardly anyone actually makes hay with those capabilities. I mean there are like five people on DPReview who ever shoot video! Which . . . hilarious right? All of these new cameras are mostly about video!

Did I just take a dump on everyone's photography there? No I did not. Shooting a boring camera with boring capabilities does not make your images boring. Many of the most interesting and original and satisfying imaging ideas people have . . . just don't require much of a camera. Some do, which is cool . . . but lots don't. That's just the way the photographic cookie crumbles. (Sorry Sony and Fujifilm and alls-y-all.)

And you know what? Even if we wanted to care, even if we thought these manufacturers were running the camera biz into the ground and needed our interpretive analysis, needed to hear our "vaunted" opinion, it wouldn't matter. They don't listen to Thom Hogan ("buzz buzz"), they aren't gonna listen to you. Howl "iceberg, iceberg!" all you want, none of us can turn any of these ships. We can't. It doesn't matter who you are, doesn't matter even if you have a "big audience." In 2024 the media din is too big, too loud, too sensationalistic, too transient for any voice to matter, especially on a topic like this. You can't save Sony-Fujifilm-whoever. They have to figure it out themselves.

So I care about what I want to buy and use when I need to buy and use something, for my reasons, which are entirely based on the images I want to make. Would Sony or Fujifilm prefer I use a different (newer? higher margin?) tool to do it? I don't care. And humbly, I think you're wasting your time if you do.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

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.

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.

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.

Well, I’ve always assumed that there are enough enthusiasts with deeper pockets than mine to keep camera manufacturing thriving.

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.

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.

Hey, speak for yourself.

There's no We, just a bunch of personal pronouns, that may be or not in agreement in some aspects not all aspects.

Low cost is going out of the window fast ( as the all thing is going), if you think manufacturers are responding as such...well you are lucky... i'm not .

Yes i like FF but it's my least used format, almost exclusively used in what if i shoot this with FF type of scenario, a step up it's the APS-C, i prefer it over FF because of the crop factor and so far the other format that can mess with my compacts.

with APS-C i have more range than FF and more quality than with my compacts while providing me with the same(ish) preferred range, you may not agree and that's ok my back not always agree with this either, and as I don't have M4/3s ( should i get one? should i not? I don't know either )

Top of the chain, compacts.

Preferred by my back, versatility, usability, comfort, every day carry if i want to.

 

[Bob A L]

I believe you have me mixed up with someone else. I don't recall ever fussing about Nikon not bringing out new models. I do comment frequently to folks who keep fretting about when Nikon will bring out whatever pet peeve they think they need and complaining that Nikon does not bring out enough new cameras. I frequently state that I am perfectly happy with my cameras and don't much care about many of the features they have much less worry about when Nikon will bring out more. I actually use my old dslr's about as much as my mirrrorless. They can do everything I need.

 

[Bob A L]

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.

You don't seem to think that the entry level purchaser will ever buy another camera or lens so the only money the manufacturer will ever make is the small profit off the entry level camera, but there is another side to the picture. The manufacturer will never make a single penny off me and many others if all they offer is multi thousand dollar FF top of the line cameras. They just need to decide what they want to gamble on,

 

[greenmanphoto]

Sony and Fuji are the two companies that seem to take APS-C seriously right now. Nikon is rumored to be coming out with a Z50II soon, but will have to wait to see if it’s a true D500 replacement. The D500 was a pro-style crop sensor body in its day. The choice of many wildlife photographers when paired with the 200-500mm F5.6.

Ryan,

From all I've seen so far, it's NOT going to be a D500 replacement. The Z50, on paper, at least, is surprisingly close to a D500 replacement, but still not QUITE there, IMHO. I didn't think it was even close until recently when I looked at the specs for one. Again, it's...close. But it's not there, and I don't expect the Z50 II will be there, either.

If Nikon WERE to introduce a TRUE D500 replacement, I would be one of the first to get one, should my finances allow it. I have a D500 and a D850, and they pair very well together. I also have a Z9, and I'd LOVE to have a "Z90/900" to go with it, like the D500 went with the D5, and the D300 went with the D3.

And there's STILL not an APS-C camera as capable as the D500, mirrorless or DSLR! From ANY manufacturer!

Sam

 

[MJ_Photo38]

The Nikon D1 was hardly entry level, it was the top of the range digital camera in its time, as was the D2, both had DX sensors (APS C). No! APS C has not always been entry level.

APS-C became entry level the moment full frame sensors appeared.

Sure, there were higher end APS-C cameras, but teh differentiation was put on the feature set and not in the sensor performance (e.g. the Nikon D3000, D5000 and D7000 series, which starting from the 3rd iteration of each line all had the same sensor at dramatically different price points).

The only moment that APS-C wasn't entry level, was when there was nothing else, and most importantly only expensive options, pretty much. And that stopped in the 2000s (2001 for Canon, as they released the APS-H EOS-1D, 2005 for Nikon as they released their first entry level APS-C camera, the D50. The D100 and D70 that preceeded it were all priced accordingly to a more mid-range / high end kind of pricepoint )

-
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

 

[MJ_Photo38]

It's the same size as a Z5 or A7iii. It's heavier and bigger than an A7c or Canon R8.

I think the reasons for choosing Fuji are the film sims and/or controls and/or lenses. The size/weight advantages relative to FF options have been eroded, much like the size/weight advantages of all APS-C systems relative to FF.

A lot of people still seem to be living with a mental model where smaller, lighter, cheaper FF choices don't exist when they certainly do. One may still prefer an APS-C option like Fuji for specific reasons (e.g. handling, lens options, JPEGs/film sims, etc) but unless we're talking about tele reach I don't think claiming smaller/lighter is anything like what it used to be back in the DSLR days.

Taking the weight of the camera alone in the equation doesn't make much sense to me.

Full frame lenses are in average larger and heavier than APS-C / MFT equivalents, for the same focal length.

My X-T2 isn't much smaller than my Z6. Yet when I'm using the X_T2 I can carry multiple smaller and lighter lenses. On my Z6, they are always larger and heavier, no matter the lens, even the smallest ones (like my Z40 f/2).

I'm not saying that you can't have compact FF systems, simply that crop sensor systems will always be smaller and lighter in average compared to full frame ones. If not on the body alone, then definitely taking the whole system (camera + lenses)

 

[cutterpup]

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.

And over the years hanging around this board I have seen too many times when the new blood asks about expanding their lens selection, the advice is "You don't have much invested in your current system, switch to XXYYZZ instead'

How can a brand gain "loyalty" from a new user this way? Along with the lower entry price point, a brand needs to spend the bandwidth to encourage and educate new users.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

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.

And over the years hanging around this board I have seen too many times when the new blood asks about expanding their lens selection, the advice is "You don't have much invested in your current system, switch to XXYYZZ instead'

How can a brand gain "loyalty" from a new user this way? Along with the lower entry price point, a brand needs to spend the bandwidth to encourage and educate new users.

"not a lot invested" is still better than "absolutely nothing".

People upgrading either camera or lens but not both are plenty. We live in an era where no cameras are bad, unless you have specific appplications that will require a special feature, there is very little chance that you would need a brand switch as a beginner.

 

[Suntan]

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.

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.

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.

Well, I’ve always assumed that there are enough enthusiasts with deeper pockets than mine to keep camera manufacturing thriving.

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.

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.

Hey, speak for yourself.

There's no We, just a bunch of personal pronouns, that may be or not in agreement in some aspects not all aspects.

Low cost is going out of the window fast ( as the all thing is going), if you think manufacturers are responding as such...well you are lucky... i'm not .

Yes i like FF but it's my least used format, almost exclusively used in what if i shoot this with FF type of scenario, a step up it's the APS-C, i prefer it over FF because of the crop factor and so far the other format that can mess with my compacts.

with APS-C i have more range than FF and more quality than with my compacts while providing me with the same(ish) preferred range, you may not agree and that's ok

It's not me agreeing or disagreeing. It's me looking at the market, and what the OEMs (with the exception of Fuji) are doing.

Anyway, it's not a big deal for people to post even more, "These guys are crazy for not bringing out a $1,500 apsc version of that $4,000+ body. Why don't they see what they're missing!" threads. So have at it. Plenty of rocks still to kick.

my back not always agree with this either, and as I don't have M4/3s ( should i get one? should i not? I don't know either )

Top of the chain, compacts.

Preferred by my back, versatility, usability, comfort, every day carry if i want to.

 

[Howard V]

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.

You don't seem to think that the entry level purchaser will ever buy another camera or lens so the only money the manufacturer will ever make is the small profit off the entry level camera, but there is another side to the picture. The manufacturer will never make a single penny off me and many others if all they offer is multi thousand dollar FF top of the line cameras. They just need to decide what they want to gamble on,

Looks like they already have. And apparently the money for it is flowing in.

 

[Suntan]

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.

You don't seem to think that the entry level purchaser will ever buy another camera or lens so the only money the manufacturer will ever make is the small profit off the entry level camera, but there is another side to the picture. The manufacturer will never make a single penny off me and many others if all they offer is multi thousand dollar FF top of the line cameras. They just need to decide what they want to gamble on,

Opportunity cost. Look it up.

Making a penny off you is a foolish effort if the same resources could be applied to manufacturing high end gear making $600 off a high end body sale, and another $600 to $800 off each associated high end lens sale.

Making pennies off low end sales had viability when the industry was selling 3x as many cameras 10 years ago. Now that the low end of the market has moved to cell phones, and mostly what is left are people like you, content with your old gear and/or really only interested in buying used years later, it doesn't make sense to try and compete in that space for a growing number of the manufacturers.

 

[Ryan Schwartz]

My original point was that we don’t need to say things like APSC cameras are for newbies or beginners, they are for photographers who want them for whatever reason: small, light, cheap, who cares.

100 percent. To say APS-C is entry level or for beginners is complete elitism.

 

[GeoffRG]

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.

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.

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.

Well, I’ve always assumed that there are enough enthusiasts with deeper pockets than mine to keep camera manufacturing thriving.

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.

Almost certainly not, time has passed and those children have grown up, without children to photograph the parents are out enjoying themselves and capturing their own antics on phones. We, users of dedicated cameras, are in the dwindling minority. We also have, in many cases, more disposable income. That can translate two ways, either we buy new midrange cameras or used top of the range, some buy new top of the range. As dedicated cameras users age sales numbers fall. Nikon, Canon etc. need to either attract new, young, users or they will fade away. Moving pictures are where it’s at, apparently, which is why Nikon bought RED.

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.

 

[Suntan]

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.

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.

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.

Well, I’ve always assumed that there are enough enthusiasts with deeper pockets than mine to keep camera manufacturing thriving.

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.

Almost certainly not, time has passed and those children have grown up, without children to photograph the parents are out enjoying themselves and capturing their own antics on phones. We, users of dedicated cameras, are in the dwindling minority.

Uh... I think we agree?

We also have, in many cases, more disposable income. That can translate two ways, either we buy new midrange cameras or used top of the range, some buy new top of the range. As dedicated cameras users age sales numbers fall. Nikon, Canon etc. need to either attract new, young, users or they will fade away. Moving pictures are where it’s at, apparently, which is why Nikon bought RED.

Nikon didn't buy RED in order to offer $800 apsc cameras with kit lenses.

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.

 

[NaifNaif]

Agree or disagree?

I agree that the attention of camera makers is concentrated on full-frame. My attention, not. And I believe that many of the older DX/APS-C DSLRs are still in use, making these, perhaps, the bigger photographic-gear user-base (although not the bigger buyer-base, after all, there is “nothing” to buy).

I “do not know” what an entry-level system is. I know what a lower-end system is: a system that, potentially, is less expensive, smaller and lighter and, at extremes, with less image quality. This difference is important to me, the lower-end system should not need to be less developed, have fewer features or buttons.

Surely, I could imagine APS-C as an “entry-level” system, if e.g. a consumerish built, but decently performing, lower-priced, FF-capable 35mm prime, would, almost be “offered” as a kit, with a Z50. Later, would come the “advertising”: "Do you like your system? Now imagine it with a bigger sensor and IBIS: it’s a Z5, you do not even need to buy a lens, your present 35mm lens will be perfect for street and family photography". I suppose it is not being done.

Really, I believe, APS-C works better as an accessory (not an entry) for FF. There are always days when even the most hardened FF user will need more reach or desire less weight, and FF lenses are compatible with APS-C, not inversely. But, the lake of IBIS in the Z50 will not be welcome for this purpose, nor the lake of direct access buttons (well, the AF-selection button was removed, even from the Z6 and Z7! But returned on the Z9 and 8, didn’t it?). I really believe that a Z60/Z70 could be the most consensual companion for a Z8 (but other would want a Z90).

I do not know if the shrinked-market really makes it impossible for the camera makers to improve APS-C and FF systems side by side. I would, from the user’s interest point of view, try to contour this difficulty with longer iteration cycles and as much parts sharing as possible. Also, I do not understand why a lower-end FF camera can cost almost the same as an APS-C camera and have simultaneously a big margin of profit that the APS-C camera would not have.

Personally, nothing of this matters to me anymore. As other have said, DX was (after film, of course), my entry and will be my exit system (most surely). So, I do not buy anymore (besides, perhaps, one or another used lens). But a well-made D7800 would be an enormous temptation. (Using the same sensor and on-sensor stabilization of a Z70, these two could become a simultaneous launch hit). As would be a few smaller F-mount cameras, even with still smaller sensors and even mirrorless… the F-mount is still the biggest problem, for me, (even if I still like an OVF).

Someone has asked here somewhere, where could camera-makers earn money with APS-C users, well, if there are as many DX users still active as I believe that never got the lenses we wanted, APS-C lenses is a good place to earn some money. I could give you a big list, but I will name only my top two lenses (for which I keep looking for the best existing alternatives and cannot convince me to buy any). First, imagine a Tamron 18-400, without the 18-55 range, but with better optics (also a tad brighter, f/4-5.6) and the performance of the full frame Nikkor AF-P 70-300: meet the (Tamron) 55-400mm f/4-5.6 lens, consumerish built and light, but with a proper focus motor and well performing VR. Second, with the same consumerish and light built-philosophy, but enthusiast performance: a 55-200mm constant f/2.8 lens. And I’ll give you a bonus third lens: a 14-40mm constant f/4 lens, (if someone else would like to make a competing 13-35mm f/4; I would have great difficulty to choose). All F-mount DX lenses. And everybody speaks about the usefulness of the 18-140mm, when the right lens would be a 16-135 f/3.5-4.5 lens (yes, I have the 16-80, but sometimes it is too short). Well, I could go on and on. DX is dead, but not DX users… yet!