Halfmoon
Senior Member
An Entry Level FF might not be that cheap still... even if FF sensor.... I was thinking like 9D...... then, they can command a premium over APS-C body???
will canon stop producing new apsc dslr soon?
- Thread starter niccon2
- Start date
An Entry Level FF might not be that cheap still... even if FF sensor.... I was thinking like 9D...... then, they can command a premium over APS-C body???
Nashaz
New Member
APSC will not die anytime in the near future. Bigger sensor=bigger glass. The very reason why m43 is still around. At least 50% of the apsc market own some form of superzoom, (18-135/18-200), small form factor telezoom (55-250) or SFF fast zoom (tamron 17-50). Yes, they are relatively big compared to the body. But still manageable. An equivalent range on FF for the 18-200 is the 28-300L (considering the same speed of the glass) The size and weight alone makes it impractical for most users. Same goes for the telezooms and fast zooms. Thats quite a sizable market and quite a large bulk of their profits come from there too.
This is not just limited to canon. Applies to all types of apsc makers. You may mention leica or voigtlander makes small but good FF lenses. But then again theres a price for such compacted technology that no other lens makers have been able to emulate as of yet. Then again, either makes have no autofocusing capabilities which are a "must have" for superzoom/entry level users.
Im quite skeptical about the "entry level" FF as it will cannibalize the 5D2 line. It has not been EOL-ed. Unless its designed with reducing production costs in mind. Price wise it might probably be placed in the 2+K segment. Performance wise will also probably be identical to the 5D2.
Here is what i suspect they will change to reduce the cost and make it seem like an "upgrade" to the 5D2:
Plastic body - like how the 60 came to be
No weather sealing
Digic 5 "upgrade" - cheaper to produce then digic 4 and even cheaper when price to performance ratio is factored in.
Autofocus should still be 9point system but might be all cross type. Thought i suspect the exact system from the 5d2 will be used as that is as cheap as it gets by todays standards.
"New" lcd screen - The current one one the 5d3 is probably cheaper to produce then the ones on the 5D2 anyway.
New Metering - might be the one in the 7D system
"New" Sensor possibly using their now matured and definitely cheaper to produce gapless microlens technology. Lower megapixel count will help reduce wafer costs since production time for each wafer decreases increasing total output per unit time. (Also lower MP count generally gives better noise performance due to the reduction of the interference between each pixel sensor). But will be designed to match current 5D noise performance in order not to cannibalize the 5D3
Overall design might still be quite close in order to reuse their 5D2 parts inventory - knobs/dials/shutter mechanism ect.
This is purely my speculation if there is indeed a entry level FF in the works from an engineering standpoint.
This is not just limited to canon. Applies to all types of apsc makers. You may mention leica or voigtlander makes small but good FF lenses. But then again theres a price for such compacted technology that no other lens makers have been able to emulate as of yet. Then again, either makes have no autofocusing capabilities which are a "must have" for superzoom/entry level users.
Im quite skeptical about the "entry level" FF as it will cannibalize the 5D2 line. It has not been EOL-ed. Unless its designed with reducing production costs in mind. Price wise it might probably be placed in the 2+K segment. Performance wise will also probably be identical to the 5D2.
Here is what i suspect they will change to reduce the cost and make it seem like an "upgrade" to the 5D2:
Plastic body - like how the 60 came to be
No weather sealing
Digic 5 "upgrade" - cheaper to produce then digic 4 and even cheaper when price to performance ratio is factored in.
Autofocus should still be 9point system but might be all cross type. Thought i suspect the exact system from the 5d2 will be used as that is as cheap as it gets by todays standards.
"New" lcd screen - The current one one the 5d3 is probably cheaper to produce then the ones on the 5D2 anyway.
New Metering - might be the one in the 7D system
"New" Sensor possibly using their now matured and definitely cheaper to produce gapless microlens technology. Lower megapixel count will help reduce wafer costs since production time for each wafer decreases increasing total output per unit time. (Also lower MP count generally gives better noise performance due to the reduction of the interference between each pixel sensor). But will be designed to match current 5D noise performance in order not to cannibalize the 5D3
Overall design might still be quite close in order to reuse their 5D2 parts inventory - knobs/dials/shutter mechanism ect.
This is purely my speculation if there is indeed a entry level FF in the works from an engineering standpoint.
Last edited:
Nashaz
New Member
@halfmoon:
Basically let me just summarize why FF will never be revived like the film days. Everything has a price to performance ratio peak.
m43 is generally costly due its miniaturization. With respect to performance, it can be considered as "poor" to its cost - (don't misunderstand as me stating that they perform poorly. They are very good systems in retrospect.)
FF is very costly and large by nature. Quality is unrivaled. However, the optimum price to quality ratio is not achieved.
Apsc gives the best ratio of both performance to cost and hence caters to the bulk of the market segment as opposed to the other 2 systems which are more geared towards the extremes. Therefore it will never be replaced by any other system unless the peak shifts to the m43 system (which is more likely then shifting to the FF spectrum)
Basically let me just summarize why FF will never be revived like the film days. Everything has a price to performance ratio peak.
m43 is generally costly due its miniaturization. With respect to performance, it can be considered as "poor" to its cost - (don't misunderstand as me stating that they perform poorly. They are very good systems in retrospect.)
FF is very costly and large by nature. Quality is unrivaled. However, the optimum price to quality ratio is not achieved.
Apsc gives the best ratio of both performance to cost and hence caters to the bulk of the market segment as opposed to the other 2 systems which are more geared towards the extremes. Therefore it will never be replaced by any other system unless the peak shifts to the m43 system (which is more likely then shifting to the FF spectrum)
Even IF Canon really comes out with a cheaper FF camera... its not going to be as cheap as an entry level crop camera... maybe on the lower end of $2K+... and then we would have to look at that camera's spec... Canon will surely not kill off their higher end 5D series camera by giving the new entry level FF camera too good a spec... therefore if the new camera has a less advance spec... not everyone would just buy it for its FF alone. :think:
Canon revolutionized the DSLR market with a sub $1600 300D and captured the DSLR market.
I can see them doing the what TS posted too.
The question is with what sensor and at what 'cheap' cost?
If its the older 24mp sensor from the 5DII, which means no need for investments for a new sensor, I think its too good and will cannibalize sales from 5DIII.
A 12" wafer costs ~$50K from what I recall speaking to friends who work in fabs.
So divide the 12" to the 36x24 per sensor and you get a very rough indication of how much a FF sensor costs.
That excludes FF level yields and sensor level fabrications and tests (usually not that high and obviously worst than APS-C)
+1.
Birding; Macro; other uses that need more DOF for the same FOV may not need/want FF.
On my APS-C system, strobing with small flashes is niffy.
On my medium format, I have to stop down much more to get the same or enough DOF and it puts a strain on small flashes (often at 1/1 or 1/2)
Not to mention the size/weight of current FF systems.
APS-C imo, is still pretty relevant.
I can see them doing the what TS posted too.
The question is with what sensor and at what 'cheap' cost?
If its the older 24mp sensor from the 5DII, which means no need for investments for a new sensor, I think its too good and will cannibalize sales from 5DIII.
A 12" wafer costs ~$50K from what I recall speaking to friends who work in fabs.
So divide the 12" to the 36x24 per sensor and you get a very rough indication of how much a FF sensor costs.
That excludes FF level yields and sensor level fabrications and tests (usually not that high and obviously worst than APS-C)
+1.
Birding; Macro; other uses that need more DOF for the same FOV may not need/want FF.
On my APS-C system, strobing with small flashes is niffy.
On my medium format, I have to stop down much more to get the same or enough DOF and it puts a strain on small flashes (often at 1/1 or 1/2)
Not to mention the size/weight of current FF systems.
APS-C imo, is still pretty relevant.
NewbieInCS
Senior Member
Firstly, I always thought full frame sensors are much more difficult to produce because the sensor is much bigger, so a large piece of wafer can only be cut into much much lesser piece. Plus because we are living in a less than ideal world with defects and contamination, yield for ff is much lower than smaller sensor. That is the cost increase, isn't it?
And your second point...that is exactly my point. The 5d ii with practically NOTHING MODERN, is already 2k+. How much will a profit-making company price your described camera? 1k? 2k? Obviously no. Minimum 3k. Maybe it is because I am too poor, but I definitely don't consider 2-3k camera to be entry level that can replace aps-c. The target market is simply different. Plus there is one big issue, using the 7d af system on a ff will mean all the af points being clustered right in the middle. Again, assuming that it does work, the 7D is close to 2k. Slap in a much bigger sensor and a much bigger prism vf without changing anything else, how can it still be selling at 2k?
niccon2
Senior Member
yup, i am one of them. thats why a little concern. but after some thought, what if canon can come out a over 46mp ff with electronic viewfinder then switching between ff & crop will be easy and the composing scence can be blown up to 100% in viewfinder under crop mode.
niccon2
Senior Member
as i have mentioned in my earlier post (4 & 9), a dslr under SGD2k (priced between 600D & 60D). existing 5d mk2 sensor can be "recycled" but pair up with a more powerful processor like digic 5 (some function may be unabled) thus providing half to one stop improvement in iso noise performance. if canon is generous enough, may be they can throw in 7d af system else leaving it with its current af system. it is my personal opinion but it may or may not make business sense in overall context of canon marketing strategy.
niccon2
Senior Member
my company has dealing with this sector thus we know something about its technology & yield. just simply look at the memory chip for example, the actual manufacturing cost for 1gb of ram can be had for well under usd10.
the motive is simple, to capture the market with a bold move since there is a demand (mirrorless cam actually took off quite well for example). generally camera company do not make much from dslr camera sales under competitive market.
Turbonetics
Senior Member
APS-C has its own market share of users.
FF for entry level,what is the specs in the first place?
i guess it won't make us go "wow" kind of specs.
FF for entry level,what is the specs in the first place?
i guess it won't make us go "wow" kind of specs.
niccon2
Senior Member
interesting, can you help to pm me the link?
NewbieInCS
Senior Member
I have no idea how much a piece of silicon wafer cost nor what is the price of processing, BUT I always thought memory chips are in tens of nm size, which is quite different from camera sensor? Mind sharing with us how much more it cost to produce a ff sensor over aps-c sensor? Or perhaps, I should say, how little is the extra cost of producing ff sensor?
That is preciously our point. HOW do you price a camera that is even better than the 600D, 60D, or even the 7D, within the price range of the 600D and 60D? Yup, sure you can recycle everything. Surely, you can use back all the old technology, but we have to be honest, the whole aps-c line from xxxxd to xxd were already stripped down, built to price point. There is hardly any way to cheapen the camera further, without removing bare necessities. In that case, how could it be possible to just slap in a larger sensor and sell at a lower price than the 60D?
Mirrorless took off not because of price. The price is not so different from their dslr counterpart. Mirrorless took off because it is smaller but yet produce similar IQ. More importantly, it became a fashion acc, like how dslr was before mirrorless.
avsquare
Senior Member
but the price point is certainly not "entry level"
I think TS would be referring to a FF camera but priced at 2k or less.
IDK, if it's FF but below 2k.. the specs might look like:
18MP CMOS Sensor
9AF Points, 95% Viewfinder
Native ISO: 100-6400, expandable to H:12800
Shutter Speed: 1/4000s to 30s, max 3FPS
niccon2
Senior Member
but the price point is certainly not "entry level"
I think TS would be referring to a FF camera but priced at 2k or less.
IDK, if it's FF but below 2k.. the specs might look like:
18MP CMOS Sensor
9AF Points, 95% Viewfinder
Native ISO: 100-6400, expandable to H:12800
Shutter Speed: 1/4000s to 30s, max 3FPS
+body quality of 600D, no weather seal, on SD card, buffer of 7 raw, no video
& so on
avsquare
Senior Member
+body quality of 600D, no weather seal, on SD card, buffer of 7 raw, no video
yup, in fact, what I quoted is the specs of 600D, just that it is on FF :bsmilie:
