APS-C Why?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

pfinfante

pfinfante

Member
Member's gallery
I can understand back in the early 2000's when DSLR's were just making their debut, that manufacturers hadn't quite figured out how to make full-frame sensors to sell at a reasonable price, so everything that came out then like the D100, etc, were crop sensors. But since then, full-frame sensors were perfected and they could build them at price-points people were willing to pay. So why do manufacturers still make new APS-C models and why do people still buy them? Is it the crop factor allowing shorter lenses to have better reach? Is it something else?
 
Member's gallery
pfinfante said:
I can understand back in the early 2000's when DSLR's were just making their debut, that manufacturers hadn't quite figured out how to make full-frame sensors to sell at a reasonable price, so everything that came out then like the D100, etc, were crop sensors. But since then, full-frame sensors were perfected and they could build them at price-points people were willing to pay. So why do manufacturers still make new APS-C models and why do people still buy them? Is it the crop factor allowing shorter lenses to have better reach? Is it something else?
Click to expand...
I'd say that there's still a market for cameras of various sensor sizes and as long as that market exists manufacturers will continue to provide products to fill that demand. Remember the entire discussion of 'Full Frame' vs APS-C is a very 35mm centric view. There are a variety of sensor sizes on the market including micro 4/3 but also many point and shoot and medium format options.

Generally speaking though I'd say APS-C cameras continue to sell as a good price point entry into exchangeable lens cameras (including things like the Sony A6xxx line) and for sports and wildlife photographers a cost effective way to achieve a tight field of view both in terms of the cameras and lenses. For instance for someone moving into wildlife photography on a budget it's really hard to beat the value proposition of something like a D7500 or D500 paired with maybe a 200-500mm or 150-600mm lens.
 
Member's gallery
I`m certainly no expert as Iv`e only been shooting 8/9 months so this is my experience thus far...

Having researched Full frame v ASP-C cameras before purchasing my Nikon D500 I quickly came to the conclusion that as much as I would love a Full frame camera the cost to me was simply way beyond my budget so I decided that in order to get some sort of half decent Photos with a camera that was fairly good at the job and not as expensive I would have no choice than to buy an ASP-C .. Obviously there were limitations - there was also Pluses and negatives to going for ASP-C over Full frame .. As it turned out the Nikon D500 ASP-C was a great choice

Full frame meant Huge file sizes given the 45.7 MP sensor of the D850 or similar full frame camera , that would also have meant a very large upgrade on my PC/Laptop as my laptop would never have handled that amount of information so that was a definite non starter ...

ASP-C was a great compromise with smaller file size, cheaper camera, cheaper Lenses, and no PC upgrade making it a no brainer So, for me it was a nice way to dip my toe into the world of hobbyist/enthusiast photography at a price that I could afford .. also from my findings it was highly recommended in my case to opt for ASP-C to begin with until I developed some skills/technic .... For me its been a great learning curve , I can take fairly decent photos of BIF ,some scenery , family etc etc ..

The obvious next step for me will be an upgrade to Full frame either DSLR or Mirrorless -(DSLR V Mirrorless thats another debate on its own) so in a nut shell I`d say the camera manufacturers have got it spot on with the affordability of ASP-C for the beginner/hobbyist/enthusiast and a great way to entice them into the world of Full Frame - Do I really need a Full Frame camera at the moment "Hell No" ..would I like a Full Frame ""Hell YEAH"" The only thing that keeps me from the Full Frame market is "Cost" ..if it weren`t for the expense of it all I would already have bought one ...

Harry.G
 
Member's gallery
For me, owning both full-frame and cropped sensor bodies (D500 & D4) the only advantage to cropped sensor is to get more reach out of a camera lens. Although the low-light performance is better than any other crop sensor body I have used, it is still not good.

In low light conditions, I leave the D500 at home and take the D4. In very good ight, I do the opposite.

If I had to give up one, it would definitely be the D500.
 
Member's gallery
Crop sensor vs full frame is the most debated topic on virtually every camera forum ever. There must be a gazillion Youtube videos about it. People just go nuts over this topic.

I use a D500 with APS-C sized sensor for wildlife for the "increased reach" with a telephoto. Why not use a full frame with more pixels and crop? Because it's easier to acquire focus and compose with an APS-C sensor camera with the subject being larger in the viewfinder. With improvements in software, noise is less of a problem to deal with than it used to be. But, in the end, it's what the user is comfortable with.

Oh, and then there's that money issue. :)
 
Member's gallery
In addition to the 1.5x crop factor, it's also about pixel density. Say you have an FX 24mp camera and a DX 24mp camera. The FX camera sensor has about 28,000 pixels / sq mm and the DX sensor has about 65,000 pixels / sq mm. So, if I put the FX camera in DX mode to equalize the crop factor and shoot the same subject from the same distance with the same lens and settings with both cameras, I can get more detail from the DX camera. The reason is you are throwing away a lot of pixels using an FX body in DX mode. I mostly shoot a D850 45.7mp / D500 20.9mp combination and the D500 still has 7% more pixels than the D850 in DX mode. That's the reason I use my D500 for wildlife / birding and the D850 for everything else. The exception is if I can get close enough to the subject to fill the frame of my D850 while in FX mode.
 
Member's gallery
pfinfante said:
So why do manufacturers still make new APS-C models and why do people still buy them? Is it the crop factor allowing shorter lenses to have better reach? Is it something else?
Click to expand...

Costs, price and value proposition.

Costs: APS-C is cheaper to make as the sensor is the most expensive component in a modern camera by far.

Price: Since cameras are not an essential item, most people are very price sensitive when it comes to buying them. You will sell a 499$ camera to many more buyers than a 999$ one.
I think at this point Nikon D 3500 outsells the D610 at about 10:1.

Value proposition: There is also a solid minority that will go for APS-C because of the value proposition. Most APS-C bodies are better featured than a comparable priced FF sensor. For the same price of a D750 you can get a D500 with better AF, better build quality and so on. And there isn’t that much between them when it comes to sensor performance.

Unfortunately this category buys lenses, and Canon, Nikon and Sony have been ignoring them for years, providing mostly 18-something consumer zooms.

You can see the result of this in the solid base Fuji has, as they are offering high-end APS-C bodies with a great lens set.
 
Member's gallery
My D500 and my Z6 make good companions. I have the 70-200f2.8E FL lens, when it is on the Z6 it is a 70-200f2.8 but when I put it on the D500 it is the equivalent of a 105-300f2.8. I would love to have a 300f2.8 but it is out of my price range when photography is just my hobby. Having both crop and FF cameras seems to give me a lot of flexibility with the same lens collection. The only limitation is that the FF gives me better performance in low light situations.
 
Member's gallery
Let's not forget the lenses, APS-C lenses are also cheaper to make so for someone getting in the whole deal is cheaper not just the camera... And the weight, the M4/3 main marketing point is weight. Less glass in the lens equals lighter gear, easier to handle.
 
Member's gallery
ruley74 said:
Let's not forget the lenses, APS-C lenses are also cheaper to make so for someone getting in the whole deal is cheaper not just the camera... And the weight, the M4/3 main marketing point is weight. Less glass in the lens equals lighter gear, easier to handle.
Click to expand...
Yet, no matter which camera I use (DX or FX) I use full frame glass... Because that's what I own.

W
 
Member's gallery
pfinfante said:
I can understand back in the early 2000's when DSLR's were just making their debut, that manufacturers hadn't quite figured out how to make full-frame sensors to sell at a reasonable price, so everything that came out then like the D100, etc, were crop sensors. But since then, full-frame sensors were perfected and they could build them at price-points people were willing to pay. So why do manufacturers still make new APS-C models and why do people still buy them? Is it the crop factor allowing shorter lenses to have better reach? Is it something else?
Click to expand...
Because not everyone wants to spend over $1000 USD for a camera maybe? I know it's hard for those of us who are really into photography to grasp, but some people don't care about all the wiz bang features, fast frame rates and all that. They just want a light weight camera that does better than a cell phone that doesn't cost more than one. There is a reason that Nikon sold more D3xxxx bodies, year after year, from 2011-2018, than all other DSLR models combined, and it wasn't that it was a, better camera than the D600/D610/D750.
 
Member's gallery
As has been said, many people can't afford the FF glass or want to carry 15-20kg bags. My Fuji kit has 1 camera and 6 lenses, a flashgun, battery grip and odds and ends and weighs in less than my D850 with 3 f2.8 lenses and a few odds and ends.
 
Member's gallery
All this reach stuff is total rubbish . If you put a 500mm lens on your camera the image of that bird is the same size on both FX and DX you just got more trouble keeping it in the frame with DX. After that its all down to POI
 
Member's gallery
Capturingtheunseen.com said:
How do you figure they're the same size? A 500mm FX lens becomes 750mm on a DX body.
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean, but be careful in your description. A 500mm lens will always be 500mm since that is the way it is physically constructed. It's just that when speaking in terms of 35mm equivalent FOV, it produces a FOV equal to that of a 750mm lens on an FX body. And one other thing, you mention a 500mm FX lens, but a 500mm DX lens would have the same FOV on that DX body.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Pistnbroke said:
All this reach stuff is total rubbish . If you put a 500mm lens on your camera the image of that bird is the same size on both FX and DX you just got more trouble keeping it in the frame with DX. After that its all down to POI
Click to expand...
I respectful disagree here.... Yes a 500mm lens is a 500mmm lens .... However FOV is real, there is a very distinct advantage when using a DX camera on a subject that is further away. While the Subject is the same size in both. The pixel count for the subject is higher on the DX . Ie the d500 Pixel count is approximately 20.9 mega pixels... the D850 shot in DX mode is 15 Megapixels. (same size image). Now if you can get closer with the FX camera the advantage swings the other way. It's just another tool.... but it is a tool to use for subject that are further away. I'm not saying the DX camera is better than the FX (far from it). but the FOV (reach) is real and the DX camera has an advantage in both Reach and pixel count.

Having said that FX cameras have a lot more advantages than the DX... and someday I will love to explore them. but I'll continue to have the Dx as a tool.
 
Member's gallery
pfinfante said:
I can understand back in the early 2000's when DSLR's were just making their debut, that manufacturers hadn't quite figured out how to make full-frame sensors to sell at a reasonable price, so everything that came out then like the D100, etc, were crop sensors. But since then, full-frame sensors were perfected and they could build them at price-points people were willing to pay. So why do manufacturers still make new APS-C models and why do people still buy them? Is it the crop factor allowing shorter lenses to have better reach? Is it something else?
Click to expand...

crop factor, weight, size, cost, lighter lenses for the equivalent reach, destination of images...for web even DX sensor size is more than you need and for prints up to 16x20...in competent hands you’ll be hard pressed to really see a material difference in output quality. The shots might look a little different doe to different DoF and bokeh...but quality wise they are close. A lot of factors, many mentioned in this thread impact your choice.
 
Member's gallery
Pistnbroke said:
All this reach stuff is total rubbish . If you put a 500mm lens on your camera the image of that bird is the same size on both FX and DX you just got more trouble keeping it in the frame with DX. After that its all down to POI
Click to expand...

Total rubbish. Completely wrong. Any lens on a DX will fill about 150% of the frame more than the same lens on an FX in FX mode...that’s simple physics. That means that there will be more pixels on the order than on the FX...and thus better detail. Yes, the image circle is smaller on DX... it it covers the sensor completely...and dropping an FX to DX mode essentially halves the MP in the final frame so even a D850 or Z7II will put fewer sensor pixels on the bird...lowering image detail. There are other considerations of course...like noise, but the high MP FX has similar size sensor pixels as the DX which negates most or all of the noise advantage. That’s beyond the scope of your incorrect statement though.
 
Member's gallery
Harry.G said:
I`m certainly no expert as Iv`e only been shooting 8/9 months so this is my experience thus far...

Having researched Full frame v ASP-C cameras before purchasing my Nikon D500 I quickly came to the conclusion that as much as I would love a Full frame camera the cost to me was simply way beyond my budget so I decided that in order to get some sort of half decent Photos with a camera that was fairly good at the job and not as expensive I would have no choice than to buy an ASP-C .. Obviously there were limitations - there was also Pluses and negatives to going for ASP-C over Full frame .. As it turned out the Nikon D500 ASP-C was a great choice

Full frame meant Huge file sizes given the 45.7 MP sensor of the D850 or similar full frame camera , that would also have meant a very large upgrade on my PC/Laptop as my laptop would never have handled that amount of information so that was a definite non starter ...

ASP-C was a great compromise with smaller file size, cheaper camera, cheaper Lenses, and no PC upgrade making it a no brainer So, for me it was a nice way to dip my toe into the world of hobbyist/enthusiast photography at a price that I could afford .. also from my findings it was highly recommended in my case to opt for ASP-C to begin with until I developed some skills/technic .... For me its been a great learning curve , I can take fairly decent photos of BIF ,some scenery , family etc etc ..

The obvious next step for me will be an upgrade to Full frame either DSLR or Mirrorless -(DSLR V Mirrorless thats another debate on its own) so in a nut shell I`d say the camera manufacturers have got it spot on with the affordability of ASP-C for the beginner/hobbyist/enthusiast and a great way to entice them into the world of Full Frame - Do I really need a Full Frame camera at the moment "Hell No" ..would I like a Full Frame ""Hell YEAH"" The only thing that keeps me from the Full Frame market is "Cost" ..if it weren`t for the expense of it all I would already have bought one ...

Harry.G
Click to expand...
I used to have a D800 and the file sizes just grew to become unmanageable to me for sports. Raw files exceeded 45mbytes in many cases. Back then I was backing up on DVDs for customers and storing a backup on LaCie HDs, which was really chewing up memory. I eventually sold it for that reason. Believe it or not, it was just too much information for my lifestyle, as I did not shoot landscapes. With portraits, I had to constantly soften skin and undo all the facial creases, eyelines, etc which made it silly to me to have to do double the work . For a professional, it is a great camera no doubt. I currently have a Z6 for my low light sports business and a D500 for outdoor sports and the file sizes are much more manageable . I have never had a problem at all cropping D500 images in tightly when needed for soccer or baseball. I plan to get a Z50 when the holiday sales begin for my wife for travel to replace the D500. So we are all-in on the crop sensor cameras.
 
Member's gallery
pfinfante said:
I understand what you mean, but be careful in your description. A 500mm lens will always be 500mm since that is the way it is physically constructed. It's just that when speaking in terms of 35mm equivalent FOV, it produces a FOV equal to that of a 750mm lens on an FX body. And one other thing, you mention a 500mm FX lens, but a 500mm DX lens would have the same FOV on that DX body.
Click to expand...
Yes I know. But the fact remains that the lens becomes the equivalent of a 750mm, and the image becomes larger.
 
Member's gallery
I've been shooting APS-C cameras since I entered Digital, and despite "learned" articles and opinions (sort of like FOV, "equivalent" Bokeh, Circles of confusion etc, ad nauseum) have found no disadvantage at all. It was and is what I can reasonably afford, and does everything I want it to. Of course, I do enjoy You Tube sites like "MWAC Attack" and "Battle at f/stop Ridge" and "Backcountry Gallery", too! :LOL:
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Strodav said:
In addition to the 1.5x crop factor, it's also about pixel density. Say you have an FX 24mp camera and a DX 24mp camera. The FX camera sensor has about 28,000 pixels / sq mm and the DX sensor has about 65,000 pixels / sq mm. So, if I put the FX camera in DX mode to equalize the crop factor and shoot the same subject from the same distance with the same lens and settings with both cameras, I can get more detail from the DX camera. The reason is you are throwing away a lot of pixels using an FX body in DX mode. I mostly shoot a D850 45.7mp / D500 20.9mp combination and the D500 still has 7% more pixels than the D850 in DX mode. That's the reason I use my D500 for wildlife / birding and the D850 for everything else. The exception is if I can get close enough to the subject to fill the frame of my D850 while in FX mode.
Click to expand...

My D500 does produce an image with more detail. But ONLY if there is good light. In low light conditions, my D4 produces far more detail, and that is simply because the larger sensor gathers more light, and with more light comes more detail.

That is an issue not addressed in pixel density specs.

The other factor that comes into play is the D4 then allows me to shoot at a higher shutter speed in lowlight. So, instead of at 1/500 of a second, I might be at 1/1000 or 1/1200. Since my main target is birds, that becomes a huge issue if the bird leaves its perch and flies.
 
All I can offer is this; since I bought my D850 my D500 collects a lot of dust. At first I really missed the x1.5 equivalence but soon got over that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top