APS-C is now entry level

[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.

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.

Indeed not.

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.

 

[GeoffRG]

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?

My first Nikon was the F4, today’s equivalent is the Z9, if I were buying my first Nikon now that would be what I would choose. Does that make the Z9 “entry level”? The answer is, for me yes it is entry level. Entry level is where someone comes in, whether that be the cheapest camera in the range or the most expensive.



On the other hand, if you mean beginner level, I don’t agree either. After 50+ years of using SLRs I wouldn’t be a beginner if I chose an APS C model, I would be an experienced photographer making an informed choice. Tagging a product entry, beginner, enthusiast or whatever is unhelpful. Buying a camera is only an investment if you’re a professional making a living from it. Choosing to buy a cropped format camera is a perfectly valid approach if you end up with something that meets your needs.



I came from the Nikon F5 to the D1 and D2, I always intended to switch to full frame because that was what I knew. For someone who has no history with film, any sensor size that delivers the desired results is fine, many won’t be concerned about the benefits of the larger sensor, why would they wonder whether they should have spent more money?

 

[Suntan]

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.

Unless you insist on upgrading to a camera body that your current brand doesn't offer...

 

[Bob A L]

This would be really great if I could have my 1st choice for a camera for even less money because it's called entry level. I've only been a photo enthusiast for barely over 65 years, so entry level sounds appropriate, I'm really happy with anything that lets me save money.

 

[Bob A L]

All I know is that in the last 2 years or so that I have been frequently home bound, I have looked at probably millions of photos as I spend hours per day looking at photos on the net from all over the world because that's the thing that interests me most. And in this entire period, I have yet to see a single photograph taken by a photographer with any modern camera available to the public that could not have been made with a good APS-C (entry level) camera. And I completely understand why this would be.

I have to correct myself, as I got to thinking about photos taken with Nikon P950 and P1000 cameras at 2000 or 3000 mm in FF equiv field of view as I don't know if there are lenses long enough to do this with APS-C lenses or not.

 

[Dennis]

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.

So APS-C is entry level from Nikon and Canon, but not from Sony and Fujifilm.

My answer is no. The signals are there, apsc is now a hobby level format,

Is that the same thing as entry level?

Agree or disagree?

It doesn't sound like you agree with yourself.

Owners of the R7 might disagree that their cam is entry level. Sure doesn't look like one to me.

Well, the OP had something in there about having enough lenses to treat it as a higher end system ... but I didn't think the premise deserved too much analysis.

 

[Bill Ferris]

are about price, controls, user experience, and capability. Entry level cameras are designed to be less expensive to manufacture and to purchase. They tend to have more readily-accessible auto modes, less complex controls, and even messages explaining settings that automatically appear to help guide the user.

Professional cameras are designed to offer the highest levels of performance, greater customizability, and to withstand harsh weather and rough use. As a result, they tend to be more expensive, larger and heavier than same-generation cameras designed for the novice or enthusiast.

Less than 10 years ago at the height of the DSLR era, Canon and Nikon sold professional full frame and APS-C cameras. Both also sold entry level full frame and APS-C cameras.

This was at a time when the smartphone camera had decimated the point & shoot & entry level ILC markets, and were cutting deeply into enthusiast ILC sales. Today, most photography enthusiasts stay with the smartphone platform that they came to enjoy using as novices. There is a growing segment of professional smartphone photographers.

Full frame has been identified by most digital ILC manufacturers as the hill they're prepared to make a last stand upon. There are professional use cases and genres of photography that benefit from the inste quality potential that format and its lenses offer.

Fujifilm and OM System are notable exceptions. Both cater to enthusiasts and professionals who prefer smaller format (APS-C and micro fourthirds) systems. Both companies offer full lines of lenses designed for use with those formats.

Canon offers the R7, a highly capable APS-C camera that's popular with bird & wildlife enthusiasts. Sony makes their highly competent A6xxx series of APS-C cameras.

During the industry's transition from SLR to mirrorless, Nikon - which manufactured what were arguably the best professional APS-C DSLRs - fell from a strong second place position to Canon in market share to a distant third behind Canon and Sony. Nikon has rebounded in recent years by focusing on professional and enthusiast level full frame products. They show no indication of developing a professional APS-C mirorless system.

To identify APS-C as specifically being entry level, ignores the history of digital camera design & marketing and the present day status of the format. Fujifilm is a manufacturer of professional APS-C cameras. However one chooses to categorize Canon's APS-C R7 series, photographers use those cameras to produce professional quality images.

An emerging market being served by digital ILC manufacturers, is content creators. These are folks who primarily use ILCs to produce video content...vlogs, art videos, and long format narrative films. It's a market where formats as diverse as drones, GoPros, APS-C and full frame are commonly used by professionals.

In professional broadcasting, the 2/3-inch CMOS sensor has long been the industry standard.

We live in a world and at a time when the range of digital imaging formats available enthusiasts and professionals is, frankly, staggering in it's diversity. As soon as someone issues a proclamation that any one of those formats is strictly "entry level", someone will step forward to say, "I use that format professionally."

 

[DirkPeh]

In professional broadcasting, the 2/3-inch CMOS sensor has long been the industry standard.

I hear this for the first time. So the big TV stations use mostly 2/3-inch sensors? Is there a reason they prefer it?

A friend of mine works for a German T.V. station, mostly football and a talk-show. This is his workplace during the European Football Championship. I doubt that this camera has a tiny sensor and his Talkshow camera looks similar, but I never asked him so far.

 

[Bob A L]

How else would they zoom into such crazy telephoto shots when they fill the screen with a face from across a football field and way up in the stands. If they used big sensors they would need lenses many feet long and huge diameter to let enough light in.

 

[DirkPeh]

How else would they zoom into such crazy telephoto shots when they fill the screen with a face from across a football field and way up in the stands. If they used big sensors they would need lenses many feet long and huge diameter to let enough light in.

Makes sense, now that I think of it

 

[Bill Ferris]

In professional broadcasting, the 2/3-inch CMOS sensor has long been the industry standard.

I hear this for the first time. So the big TV stations use mostly 2/3-inch sensors? Is there a reason they prefer it?

It's large enough to have 4K resolution and small enough to keep the size of the camera and lenses manageable.

Here's a link to a page from the Sony website. They're the world's leading manufacturer of broadcast TV cameras: https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems

A friend of mine works for a German T.V. station, mostly football and a talk-show. This is his workplace during the European Football Championship. I doubt that this camera has a tiny sensor and his Talkshow camera looks similar, but I never asked him so far.

Yup, those look like Ikegami cameras. (The station where I started my career in television had Ikegami cameras.) They probably have three 2/3-inch CMOS sensors or possibly single sensors. The same camera body that's in the sled and attached to a long lens (50X to 100X) is used handheld by an operator on the field and fitted with a lower magnification (~22X) zoom lens.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ

 

[DirkPeh]

But 2/3-inch is sub-sub entry level

 

[GeoffRG]

But 2/3-inch is sub-sub entry level

There’s something horribly wrong with classifying cameras by price/sensor size/features etc. The idea that an experienced photographer wouldn’t be seen with a small sensor camera is ridiculous. If I wanted a cheaper, lighter camera I would consider a Nikon D610 (with a grip) or a D500 (also with a grip). There are reasons why I wouldn’t buy the cheapest level bodies, mainly the absence of a second command dial. I have a Nikon 1J5 which, although rarely used, is useful for times when a D5 with a 300mm lens would be inappropriate.



To my mind there’s no such thing as an “entry level” camera or a beginner’s camera for that matter. The only thing that differentiates a professional camera from the rest of the range is its construction, being designed specifically to be robust. I am probably odd in that I would recommend a beginner to consider a previous top of the range camera because it doesn’t have scene modes and forces the user to learn about the relationship between shutter speed, subject movement, aperture and depth of field etc.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

I am probably odd in that I would recommend a beginner to consider a previous top of the range camera

No, this is very much what pretty much everyone has been recommending to beginners that really want to get into photography seriously

 

[DirkPeh]

But 2/3-inch is sub-sub entry level

There’s something horribly wrong with classifying cameras by price/sensor size/features etc. The idea that an experienced photographer wouldn’t be seen with a small sensor camera is ridiculous. If I wanted a cheaper, lighter camera I would consider a Nikon D610 (with a grip) or a D500 (also with a grip). There are reasons why I wouldn’t buy the cheapest level bodies, mainly the absence of a second command dial. I have a Nikon 1J5 which, although rarely used, is useful for times when a D5 with a 300mm lens would be inappropriate.

To my mind there’s no such thing as an “entry level” camera or a beginner’s camera for that matter. The only thing that differentiates a professional camera from the rest of the range is its construction, being designed specifically to be robust. I am probably odd in that I would recommend a beginner to consider a previous top of the range camera because it doesn’t have scene modes and forces the user to learn about the relationship between shutter speed, subject movement, aperture and depth of field etc.

Completely agree. I wrote a little rant/post about Daido Moriyama being one of the most important photographers post WW2 using small sensor digicams with a superzoom after using APS-C Ricohs, that was deleted by the moderator. Maybe because I proposed to recommend him a full frame to make him a professional

 

[Bob A L]

Some people just don't seem to understand that a manufacturer needs to consider the future and provide a entry point into their system. In a recent interview covered here on dpr, a Nikon executive noted that they had neglected the lower end and in the future this. was one of the things they would be addressing. We'll see.

 

[Redhenry]

Some people just don't seem to understand that a manufacturer needs to consider the future and provide an entry point into their system. In a recent interview covered here on dpr, a Nikon executive noted that they had neglected the lower end and in the future this. was one of the things they would be addressing. We'll see.

I have an idea that people who would like to move from using a smartphone to a more conventional camera would like to retain the things they had come to rely on with the phone - reliable exposure, the option of HDR and a degree of computational technology, for example, but with the facility to use interchangeable lenses and promising better image quality than the phone. Although I’m happy with my older Nikons, I would be very likely to buy an “entry level” Nikon which had those features

 

[jp pietro]

Some people just don't seem to understand that a manufacturer needs to consider the future and provide an entry point into their system. In a recent interview covered here on dpr, a Nikon executive noted that they had neglected the lower end and in the future this. was one of the things they would be addressing. We'll see.

I have an idea that people who would like to move from using a smartphone to a more conventional camera would like to retain the things they had come to rely on with the phone - reliable exposure, the option of HDR and a degree of computational technology, for example, but with the facility to use interchangeable lenses and promising better image quality than the phone. Although I’m happy with my older Nikons, I would be very likely to buy an “entry level” Nikon which had those features

what about "...an “entry level” Nikon which had those features..." AND made phone calls. best of both worlds right there, eh?

 

[Suntan]

Some people just don't seem to understand that a manufacturer needs to consider the future and provide a entry point into their system.

This is, of course, why Ferrari offers a $24K entry model. ...Right? No. Their "entry model" is still over $200K. It's an entry model (when the "average" Ferrari costs in the $400Ks) but it isn't in the price range you have in mind as entry level..

The same thinking can be shrunk down for the Nikon model line. Nikon has entry level offerings, and will continue to do so. But those won't be $600 body and kit lens combos like you are thinking about.

In a recent interview covered here on dpr, a Nikon executive noted that they had neglected the lower end and in the future this. was one of the things they would be addressing. We'll see.

Ah... You should probably revisit that exchange. The Nikon rep did not say, "Lower end." He said, "Younger generation."

 

[Dennis]

I have an idea that people who would like to move from using a smartphone to a more conventional camera would like to ...

Are there many of those people? It seemed like for years, manufacturers were chasing that elusive market, but eventually gave up on it. Decades ago, lots of people had cameras. Today, only hobbyists. I haven't heard of any friends/colleagues/acquaintances looking to buy a "real camera" in a long, long time. (I do have a colleague who asked me for advice on a tripod to use with her phone!)