APS-C is now entry level

[Dick Dastardly]

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?

 

[mmartel]

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.

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.

 

[Ron Poelman]

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.

That applies to bulk store newbies or experienced Forum squabblers.
If Sony is a "possible exception" then that's because they've done it right and have not had to make the forced decisions Others are making because of their ridiculously late arrival to mirrorless and their inane lens policies. All you are saying is, several players simply can't compete across the whole "shrinking market".

 

[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

 

[Craig Gillette]

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.

Sony and Fuji went to mirrorless, ff or aps-c ,well before the others generally speaking.

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.

Some might suggest their lens approaches aren't what's working for Sony or Fuji. It's not unusual to see advice given to choose a "what's best for...?" kit by finding the right lens for the job, then get the right body to go with it. If so, not having a broad lens availability might drive custioners away.

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?

Aps-c, and ff, has improved dramatically over the years. "Saving" money by sticking to older or lower performing gear may be unwise. Price is certainly a barrier for some buyers, but it might be least important characteristic in choosing gear fit to a given interest.

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.

If you don't need what might often come with heavier and/or more expensive gear, ff is wasting money and you end up carrying more, too.

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.

Not every application or user needs that limited edge the more/most expensive ff lenses or bodies can provide over a somewhat limited range of applications. with increasingly flexible and competent processing programs out there, the advantage that used to be only expensive ff might well be handled by comparatively less expensive ff and proper software choices.

Agree or disagree?

 

[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?

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.

 

[Redhenry]

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.

 

[tclune]

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.

ISTM that you're "into the realm of niche" when you use anything other than a cell phone as a non-professional. Look at Nikon's focus with mirrorless cameras and lenses and it's heavily skewed to birds and wildlife photography. That's where the hobbyist market is for real cameras. And that makes me wonder about why they don't make a Z500 or the like with tele lenses to match -- all those hobbyists with adequate disposable income are geezers like me and weight is a huge issue. The sweet spot between weight and IQ seems to me to be DX. But Nikon hasn't made a serious run at the DX market in years. No one would ever accuse Nikon of being marketing geniuses, but this oversight is just a mystery to me.

 

[Maoby]

This is why I bought a Fujifilm X-T5, the best of both worlds! :-D

I don't have $10,000 to put into the FF ML

 

[Maoby]

For mainstream general photography, it is the smartphones!!

 

[Maoby]

I totally agree with you.

 

[Ryan Schwartz]

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

 

[yardcoyote]

You say "niche" like it's a bad thing. Fuji, at least, offers something genuinely different from the mainstream-- camera bodies with traditional controls and a full range of lenses with aperture rings to match. I can't imagine giving up my small Fuji kit when it is such a delight to handle and use, and produces such pretty jpegs Likewise, my Olympus E-M10ii and its lenses do something no FF kit can ever do- be incredibly light and small to the point of tiny.

Yes, I don't plan on any further major development in either system, though there is that "one more" lens for each I might be tempted by if the right used copy comes along. But niche shooting can be great fun, and if I didn't already own either kit I would definitely be looking to buy them. The thought of being burdened with a FF camera and lenses full time makes me queasy. Don't get me wrong-- I love my Zf and the two lenses I have for it, and will probably buy at least two more eventually, but sometimes it's really nice to leave it behind and carry something less formidable in a smaller scale.

 

[Maoby]

I find my D810 slightly heavier and bulkier, for similar results.

Nikon D810 (2014) Macro / Fujifilm X-T5 (2022) Macro

Ma 300ème comparaison / My 300th comparison

www.flickr.com

Nikon D810 (2014) / Fujifilm X-T5 (2022) Macro

--

Self DSLR & ML Cameras

1991-2022 ...

www.flickr.com

https://www.instagram.com/maoby_digital_camera/

 

[StrugglingforLight]

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.

The current rumors make it seem like just a refresh of the Z50. Updated design, processor, screen (fully articulating), and USB-C.

 

[yardcoyote]

It all depends on how you curate your collection. My "big" Fuji camera is the smaller, lighter X-T2 and my garden lens is the ancient but small and optically excellent 60mm f/2.4 "near macro". The 50mm f/2 also has excellent close focus. I was never able to talk myself into the Fuji 80mm macro for a variety of reasons.

I do have a real macro lens (the Oly 60mm) for my MFT kit: this combo fits into my small street bags and gives me a chance at bugs wherever I may find them. It will be fun to photograph the two together when I manage to swing the 105mm MC for the Zf.

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote

 

[mmartel]

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.

 

[dmanthree]

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.

That applies to bulk store newbies or experienced Forum squabblers.
If Sony is a "possible exception" then that's because they've done it right and have not had to make the forced decisions Others are making because of their ridiculously late arrival to mirrorless and their inane lens policies. All you are saying is, several players simply can't compete across the whole "shrinking market".

Sony offered, God forbid, some good APS-C specific glass to support their cameras. Canon, a brand I shot for years, simply isn't serious about the format. Pick the glass first, the body second, as always.

 

[C Sean]

With my experience with M43, I learned and I'm sure other photographers learned this as well with their chosen formats is what glass you actually need. Once you gotten to this stage after trail and error it becomes more manageable to carry your lenses in the field.

James Popsy did a survey in one of his videos and photographers are cutting down on lenses and cameras to make their camera system more manageable.

Now yet pretend the M43 system is officially dead and all of a sudden my M43 cameras stopped working or I sold them all. Nothing stopping me getting a Nikon Z50 with it dual zooms for a light system. I could even use my 35mm 1.8 as my fifty for the format and may give me the incentive to get the 28mm 2.8 prime making it almost 40mm focal length when compared to 35mm format.

Personally I think Nikon Z ASPC is good enough for most photographers basic needs. It may not be in depth of M43 or Fuji but it's good enough for general photography.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/184579125@N06/albums

 

[Ysarex]

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.

Nonsense. You make it sound like if there were no cost difference then everyone would chose a FF camera. There's more to it than just cost.

Photography became my sole source of income beginning in the late 1970s. It remained my only source of income then until I retired. Back in the film days I shot everything from 8x10 sheet down to 35mm. When I was using a 35mm camera I didn't wish I had a 4x5 with me instead.

When I retired in the digital age I was using Canon 5d FF gear. I didn't stop taking photos, quite the contrary I started taking photos just for me. And the Canon FF gear started to get neglected as I preferred to use a small compact I carried with me everywhere. Eventually the FF gear took up a nearly permanent place in the closet. After about three years of neglect I decided the FF gear had to go and I wondered if I would be more likely to use a smaller, lighter camera. So I upgraded the Canon FF gear for a Fuji X-E2 and some choice lenses.

I was right and I did use the APS-C camera quite a bit more, but I still used my compact. In fact I upgraded the compact to a 1" sensor Canon G7 which I still take with me everywhere I go. It's on the desk next to me right now beside my wallet and when I leave the house it leaves with me.

I've also upgraded the Fuji and now have two bodies, an X-T2 and X-T4. Those I wanted. But I also have FF cameras again which I didn't want or purchase -- gifts. I have a Nikon Z7 and a Leica SL, so five cameras in total. My G7 compact get's twice as much use as the other four combined -- simple it's always there when I see something I want to photograph. I go out now deliberately to take photos and when I do I'll take either one of the Fujis or one of the FF cameras. I did that three times this week and each time took the X-T4.

I choose to use the Fujis 80% of the time over the FF cameras because of size and weight and the fact that the FF cameras do not offer better IQ over the Fujis that counters the downside of their increased size and weight. In other words what exactly are you getting when you get more than more than enough? The Fujis are already more than enough.

But all said my main camera has to be the 1" sensor Canon G7xmkii. Below is a photo I like that I took with the G7 while walking with my wife in the National Cemetery here in St. Louis. I wouldn't have that photo taken with my Fujis or Nikon or Leica because those cameras would never have been with me. The scene is backlit and high DR and not a problem for the G7 -- it's a great little camera.

Ok, so cost is one factor, but hardly the only factor and not a factor for me when I chose to use smaller than FF cameras as I do most of the time.

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?