The Nikon D600 and Canon 6D are they telling us something?
The hope of things to come?
I have always found it odd that camera manufacturers make full-frame cameras only for their high-end markets. There is a whole generation of digital shooters out there that have no idea what an 18 mm lens really acts like, or what the angle of view a 50 mm really gives you. They have grown up in a world of cropped (APS-C) sensors, and have cut their teeth on a 1.6 crop factor.
I remember my first DSLR, my Canon 300D, the very first Digital Rebel. I was so excited that I could pop one of my older EOS lenses on it and shoot, but something weird happened when I did. My lenses didn’t act like they were suppose to act. Up until this point I had shot only film. For that matter, most everyone had only shot using film. Up until then, when you put a 28 mm lens on a 35 mm film camera it gave you a 28 mm angle of view. Simple. Now my 28 mm lens was acting more like a 45 mm. Now, almost 10 years later photographers think wide-angle lenses acts like a ‘normal‘ lens.
Many people are confused about just what is changed when using a cropped sensor. Is my 50 mm now really a 80 mm, is my 28 mm now a 45 mm? Many are duped to to believe this is true. The clue is in the term “cropped.” The images are really just cropped. So, an image shot with a 28 mm lens on my old 300D is really a 28 mm image in every way, it is just cropped down to give you what you would see in a 45 mm lens. It is the same angle of view as a 28 mm lens, the same compression of a 28 mm lens, everything is the same except it is cropped. In effect users have been cheated. We are being told we are buying a 28 mm lens, but it is not giving us a 28 mm image. Then back peddling they tell us, “Well, ok-it is really a 45 mm lens.” But that’s not true either. The reality is if your not shooting a full frame sensor you have no clue what a 28mm lens acts like, or any other lens for that matter. The other interesting thing is, if a 28 mm lens crops to look like a 45 mm but still gives the angle of view and compression of a 28 mm and the 50 mm looks more like an 80 mm–there is no normal lens with a cropped sensor!
Then just the other day I started to think maybe–just maybe there is hope on the horizon. Recently, both Canon and Nikon have released what they are calling a “prosumer” full frame DSLRs, the 6D from Canon and the D600 from Nikon. These are both expected to retail for around $2100.00, not cheap but a far cry from the $3,500 sticker price on the Canon 5D MK III or the $3,000 tag on the Nikon D800. Could these two giants see the value in offering a full frame camera to the masses? Really, how much more is a full frame sensor than a cropped one? My guess is not much. So what’s keeping them from making a real entry level full frame camera? In a word: Profit. If Canon or Nikon were to make a truly entry-level full frame camera it would eat into their profits. Their entry-level markets and their pro level markets would both take a hit.
I would love to see photography return to reality. The kind of reality where cameras actually shot pictures in relation to the number that is printed on their lens barrels. As much as these two cameras create a level of hope in me there is still a large degree of skepticism that says greed will win out. Maybe some upstart or second string camera manufacturer will come in and shake things up and produce a $1000 full frame camera. Maybe that’s a dream, but I can dream can’t I?
When I first went to DSLR with a Canon 20D, my most used lens at the time on my film cameras was a 20-35mm. As happy as I was to have digital, I wasn’t impressed with losing my wide angles.
Actually, I think the camera manufacturers could still make a good profit a $1000 full frame. Canon have been fairly heavily promoting their EF-S lenses with the APS-C bodies and so anyone who uses them would then need to go out and buy new glass to work with the FF. I presume Nikon do something similar but am not really familiar with their offerings so I could be wrong. They may lose some profits via the body but would make it back via the new lenses most would buy.
Thanks Craig, Honestly, if Canon came out with a full frame Rebel it would sell like crazy. But what would happen to the other Rebel sales? What would happen to all the EF-S lens sales? I personally think they all would plummet. Canon won’t risk it. But why not someone like Fuji? They are just edgy enough to try it.
Here’s some thoughts from someone who “cut their teeth on a 1.6 crop factor” & has “no clue what a 28mm lens acts like.” 🙂
Nikon seem to be targeting the so-called prosumer market head on with the D600. They’ve split the D700 up and down and by not upgrading the D300 (yet or at all), they are enticing DX shooters to trade up to FX. There’s a lot of photographers like me out there who are shooting DX bodies but using mid to high end FX glass.
But, one of the practical considerations is the price of zoom lenses on FX. If Nikon were to push FX harder, they would need to introduce some more affordable zooms.
I don’t think Fuji will be the one to make an affordable FX, unless they do it with no optical viewfinder. The X-Pro1 is not all that cheap really and an FX version would probably be the same as the D600. However, I could imagine Fuji making an “affordable” medium format, which would be a game changer.
Maybe Pentax? I’m tempted to say Sony, the RX1 is an interesting beast. But nothing Sony do in the high is really affordable though.
Of course, the other factor is the growing popularity of video. Given a straight choice, a number of videographers I’ve spoken to prefer using a crop sensor. The Lumix GH3 will probably sell really well.
Fernando, Some good point. But I am going to have to take issue with the last comments about Videographers choosing a crop sensor. All the ones I know and have worked with love the full frame sensor as it gives much more bokeh with the lenses used.
I don’t shoot video, so as I said, I can only go by what the videographers I know tell me.
Fernando, I would tend to disagree about crop sensors. I started shooting video on the 7D and loved it. The interface was intuitive and my 17-55 f2.8IS was a perfect companion for run-and-gun shooting. I shot with that for about 2 years then was able to buy a 5D2 second-hand. The 5D2 is old, slow, and more difficult to operate. I needed a good IS zoom lens and got the slower 24-105 f4.0. Despite this, my 7D has sat dormant for the last 6 months.
For stills, the 5D2 has much better image quality than the 7D. Video quality difference is negligible in normal shooting conditions between the two, however the 5D2 had much better low-light performance.
The major difference that keeps me with the 5D2 is it’s full-frame sensor. Whether due to reality or conditioning, it “feels” better in the range I typically shoot video (24mm-85mm). Now, the most noticeable points of discontent with the crop sensor are usually found on the wider ends. When shooting stills with the 20D, I wanted an ultra-wide lens and got the Sigma 10mm-20mm. At 10mm, it was a 16mm equivalent. I “got” the wide-angle I wanted, but the distortion was distinct and distracting, far more than a 16mm on a full-frame. I can only imagine trying to accomplish the same view on a 2.0X crop.
I’m impressed with the video specs on the new Lumix. I think Canon has delayed having 1080/60p on their lineup. The Lumix even shoots up to 80Mbps which is a 60% higher bitrate than most Canons. However, even if I wasn’t already married to my Canon lenses, I couldn’t get over the 2.0X crop. Now the new Blackmagic Cinema camera is tempting with it’s interface, RAW video, 2.5K sensor, and price, but it’s still a 2.6X crop. Perhaps RAW 2.5K video would be enough to tip me over, we’ll see.
I honestly think it comes down to money. Matt’s right. Companies can make more profit by charging more money for full-frame cameras and ‘prosumers’ will not see the value and will create a ‘demand’ for crop cameras. That’s oversimplifying, but I don’t think it’s far off. Sports and nature photographers would probably disagree, but in my experience, DSLR videographers prefer the full-frame sensors.
Nathan – thanks. Your explanation helps me understand this more and gives me some fuel for the next time I chat with my video creating buddies!
I’d ditto what Craig says and add to that, my concerns are the thought that to justify the trade up, I’d probably need to sell my aps-c stuff, but then I can’t really get over the thought that I don’t want to.
As old and outmoded as it is, it’s still great in most situations so I’d like to retain the flexibility it gives. In that sense I’m not too sure how much Canon would actually lose, but I can certainly see how much they think they would lose.
Even now I still use my 400d in much the same way as I guess many people use a compact i:e to stick in the pocket when you don’t plan on taking any pics but are too scared to leave it in the hotel in case you miss something lol
I hate to say it, but you misunderstand what is meant when a lens is described by its focal length. The focal length is a physical property (a length) that can be measured, and it doesn’t change simply because you put the lens on a crop sensor camera. The problem really stems from using the focal length to describe the field of view in the first place (and ignoring the fact that the sensor size is equally important). There is really no reason to assume that full frame is the ‘right’ system to use – remember that it goes the other way with medium format sensors.
I think in a roundabout way you make my point. The fact that focal length is a physical property and doesn’t change by the camera it’s attached to is the basis of what I’m saying. Where as, the physical properties of the angle of view and the compression do not change, the field of view changes only because an APS-C sensor captures only a cropped portion of the scene. Thus, the lens then no longer behaves the way that it is supposed to behave.
This discussion is centered around  Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras and traditionally we think of a Single Lens Reflex as a 35mm format camera. I’m not talking about in medium format, though I would think, as you point out, lenses behave differently on a larger sensor just as they do on smaller ones. My guess would be a medium format camera with a sensor other than the size of the format that the lens was designed for what act differently. The whole discussion is really about the behavior of the lens and how there is a new breed of photographers have not really experienced the behavior of the lens as it was intended to behave. But even with this point made, I’m not trying to be literal.  This post was meant to be a commentary, my thoughts of what is happening to photography today. I have not done the survey as to how many photographers today have actually used a given lens on a full frame camera. The point of this post was just to get people thinking and maybe just maybe to get photographers who have cut their teeth on APS–C sensors to think about “upgrading” to a full frame camera.