Should serious photographers forget APS-C cameras?

[DonSchap]

APS-C as a cheaper start ... but, step up and away, completely

This subject occasionally comes up and I am curious about how the membership feels about abandoning APS-C as a "serious contender" when you move up through the earlier models of the SONY line.

Other manufacturers are still making a run with APS-C (witness the new Pentax K-7)

Remember, the α700 was the pre-cursor and developmental body to the α900. Now, that we apparently have a second and affordable Full Frame body (α850) in the line-up, does that ring in the end of the high-end APS-C camera?

Personally, I have always felt the Full Frame should be the final result of all this development ... eliminating the the APS-C class as the "working camera" and restoring the balance for further lens builds and development to a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

Anyone care to weigh in?

[Elisha]

Sony introduced a bunch of DT lenses so they will probably bring out more crop cameras however i would love a decently priced FF just to do my 28-135mm justice.
but i wish the a850 had a pop-up flash though!

[DonSchap]

Do you believe the "DT" lenses are more to support the newly introduced "+30"-DSLRs than to appeal to the FF-croppers?

[dr4gon]

No, I think APS-C has plenty of uses for Sports and Wildlife photographers who could use the extra reach and faster framerates.

[DonSchap]

You can get the same apparent "reach" out of the cropped α900/α850 shot, at nearly the same resolution, so that argument tends to lose a little steam.

Obviously, SONY is not upping the fps, this go around. That may come in the form of the α900 replacement (α950?).

Can you imagine a 10 fps SONY Full Frame? Screamin'! To hell with stabilization, eh?

[dr4gon]

Ok fair enough, for a A900, A850, or D3x yes, or even a 5dII at the current resolutions.

Another reason (not mine) is the reduction in weight, size, and cost of glass.

[Peekayoh]

Should serious photographers forget APS-C cameras?

Don, that begs the question, What's a serious Photographer"

But definitely not, if you grew up with APS-C and bought into DT lenses then you will probably stick with it and there no harm in that. The resolution of the A700 is plenty good enough for most people. Having said that, there are consumers with money who will go FF simply because it's perceived as "better" than APS-C.

If you cut your teeth on film and have the FF legacy lenses then FF is by and large what we aspire to. The reasons why we want to get back to FF are probably too subtle if your experience is limited to APS-C.

The Manufacturers have no intention of dropping APS-C, they need to sell cameras and lenses and want to sell a consumer as many as possible over the years starting with P&S and finishing at pro level; that's their aspiration although it won't happen in most cases. Canikon have priced the FF cameras to keep them firmly at the top of the heap; there was good reason for this when sensor tech and munufacturing were at a relatively early stage. This is no longer entirely the case with the current mature process although size still costs, but Canikon puts an eye watering price on their top products.

That's why the a850 (if the price prediction is true) will really stir things up. Maybe it puts the release of the 2/3 series cameras in a different light if Sony really intends to make FF more affordable.

No, I think APS-C has plenty of uses for Sports and Wildlife photographers who could use the extra reach and faster framerates.

dr4gon, you have to stop with this misconception, there is no extra reach. Whether it's APS-C or FF the reach is the same, only the FOV changes.

....... Another reason (not mine) is the reduction in weight, size, and cost of glass.

You have a valid point about the lower weight of DT lenses and even more with the 4/3rds system. I would, however, always argue that you should use an FF lens on your APS-C; do this and you are using the sharpest middle part of the lens and you are future proofing yourself for a move to FF. Of course it comes at a price and if you never intend to go to FF, probably not worth it.

[DonSchap]

Excellent ... this discussion is precisely the idea I was going for. Thank you for your participation ... pray, there is more.

[SONYNUT]

a850/a900 options
full frame
L:24M 6048 × 4032 pixels
M:13M 4400 × 2936 pixels
S:6.1M 3024 × 2016 pixels
full wide screen
L:21M 6048 × 3408 pixels
M:11M 4400 × 2472 pixels
S:5.2M 3024 × 1704 pixels
apc-s
L:11M 3984 × 2656 pixels
M:5.6M 2896 × 1928 pixels
S:2.6M 1984 × 1320 pixels

[dr4gon]

I am speaking more in general terms for all FF cameras, not just the Sony's 24.6MP CMOS.

BUT DOES IT REALLY?

Some photographers say that this extra reach amounts to a crop of the full frame—equivalent to simply blowing up the center portion of the full-frame image.

But this is a film analogy that doesn’t hold true in the digital world. The APS-C camera concentrates all its pixels in that smaller frame, whereas if you crop the image from a full-frame camera, you lose pixels.

For example, if you put a 200mm lens on a 12.1MP full-frame Nikon D3, then cropped the picture to a field of view equivalent to what you’d get using a 300mm lens, your image would wind up just 5MP in size. But if you put the same lens on a 12.3MP APS-C sized Nikon D300, you’d get a 300mm-equivalent image—with the full 12.3 megapixels.

With today’s high-resolution full-framers, that compromise isn’t as striking, but it doesn’t disappear. Put a 200mm lens on a 24.6MP full-frame Sony Alpha 900, then crop, and you’d get a 10.5MP image—respectable, but still less than you’d get with a 12.2MP APS-C Sony Alpha 700.

So the telephoto advantage of smaller-format DSLRs is very real. Sports and wildlife shooters in particular can benefit from a smaller-sensor DSLR, either by getting long reach with relatively compact lenses, or by getting huge reach with big “legacy” glass—full-frame lenses originally developed for film SLRs.

This is from Pop photo a couple months back that I remember reading. I think they made a mistake saying the a900's is 10.2 instead of 12.3MP when cropped.

I'm actually questioning whether my next camera will be full frame or APS-C, it depends on my budget. Clearly a full frame will require more expensive glass, like having to cover the wide angle area. I think if you can fill the frame (get close enough) of a FF 35mm sensor, then, yes, it's worth it. If you can only fill half of it, (C sized), then you don't need to get a full frame camera.

Don't get me wrong there are a ton of benefits for a FF camera, but for the average user, it's probably not necessary, which goes back to the original question, what is a serious photographer, and what do they need?