[Winder]

The Future Is Full Frame: Will Canon and Nikon Ditch Crop-Sensor Cameras? | Fstoppers

[Fcsnt54]

I don't think so or not yet anyways.

[caliscouser]

I think it is a real possibility for Nikon in the next 2-3 years except for the D500, which may get a successor.


Canon will be last man standing in the shrinking soccer-mom DSLR space, but I think they will push that group towards the M range of cameras. That leaves the 7D range which may hang on.

The crop DSLR space will get very small which makes you wonder where Pentax will go.

[MarkJerling]

I feel they would alienate too many customers to kill off that segment.

[Fenwoodian]

I think it is a real possibility for Nikon in the next 2-3 years except for the D500, which may get a successor.

.
Crop-sensors are my preferred format for wildlife, sports action, and birds in flight. I've taken very nice BIF and sports/fast-action photos using a Nikon D7200. Nikon has some moderately priced, fairly light weight, auto focus telephoto lenses that really shine on their DX crop sensor bodies. Having said that, while I don't have the D500, from what I've read, it's a better DX body for wildlife/BIF/sports-action than the Nikon 3500/5600/7500 bodies. So, I guess that I agree with your prediction about Nikon dumping their DX bodies (3500, 5600, 7500) except for the D500 line.

I've owned a number of Fuji X crop sensor bodies. They are just plain fun little cameras to carry and shoot. Also Fuji 4K video is very good. Fuji X crop sensor bodies have a loyal following, and I can't see Fuji terminating their crop sensor X bodies.

I didn't even realize that Canon made crop sensor bodies. I've only used their full frame bodies, and all of my friends who shoot Canon also shoot their full frame bodies. So, from what I see, in my area, Canon crop sensor bodies are already not doing very well.

[sqrrl]

At a basic business level it would make little sense for them to get rid of the entry level apsc (think lens sales), nor would it make sense to get rid of pro level apsc (because many pro's choose apsc for reasons other than budget). I could see them cutting down to just a couple of lines though. right now both companies have a whole bunch of different apsc cameras, which doesn't make much sense.

[Jonathan Mac]

APS-C is very much here to stay as it's shown itself to be the ideal compromise, for the majority of people, between size, weight, image quality and price.

[biz-engineer]

They don't say it , they do it over a period of time, it become obvious after it has been done. Full frame sensors have gotten cheaper, thank to technology improvements and becoming more popular, full frame cameras and lenses while being expensive are still at the reach of a lot of people in developed countries. So, according to the trend, we are going to see less camera users but they'll almost all be using full frame cameras.

[Rondec]

I doubt it, at least in the short term.

I think the bigger question has to do with the cheapness of full frame sensors and the cameras around them. Currently, the cheapest full frame cameras (other than the original A7 which is ancient) are in the 1200 to 1300 range. That's still plenty expensive for most budding photographers who would rather find something in the 600 to 700 dollar range (including a lens). And APS-C cameras are great photographic machines. I am sure that Canon still sells way more T6is or whatever is their entry level APS-C camera than 6D IIs.

But if full frame cameras get into the 600 to 800 dollar range at the entry level, it will put a major squeeze on smaller sensor sizes, both APS-C and micro four thirds. Not that they can't still sell cameras, but that they are going to be limited on how high they can price them.

[rawr]

Cost always has to be a factor- particularly the cost to produce the sensor.

A silicon wafer of standard size will probably yield 2 or 3 times more APS-C sensors than it would FF ones, so APS-C will always have a big price advantage.



img source

The structure of the sensor market may also need to be considered. Sony dominates [non-phone] camera sensor production and most camera manufacturers - except Canon - depend on it. At some point Sony could go bankrupt, or be hit by a big earthquake again, or simply decide for strategic or other reasons to stop making APS-C sensors, economics be damned, all of which would kill non-Canon APS-C. But that seems unlikely, so economics will rule. APS-C will persist because it works and is cheaper.

[ThorSanchez]

(because many pro's choose apsc for reasons other than budget)

Here's why APS-C is here to stay: The difference between the 55-300 PLM and the 150-450. The APS-C lens is pretty good, $360, and is the size of a medium cup of coffee. The FF lens is better, but $1700 and much, much larger. I will take the 55-300 almost anywhere in my rather small photo backpack. The 150-450 requires it's own specialized carrying system, either a much larger bag or a sling or something.

For me to go FF I'd have to spend three times as much money as I do now, and have a much more unwieldy kit. All so 5-10% of my photos might have a magic pop and a little better dynamic range.

It's nonsense.

[normhead]

This is a click bait title.... I didn't bite.

[photoptimist]

APS-C has big advantages for camera users: smaller cameras, smaller lenses, longer reach, and faster frame-rates & video for a given sensor-technology level.

APS-C also has big advantages for camera makers: besides the sensor manufacturing cost issue noted by rawr, APS-C lets the camera makers create a clear divide between low-end/high-end. The format lets Canon, Nikon, etc. make "low-end" cameras that are unlikely to cannibalize their high-end FF sales.

Although the pros, enthusiasts, and photography forum members may think everyone is moving to FF, retail sales rankings paint a very different picture. On the US Amazon best seller list, 9 of the top 10 best selling ILCs are APS-C. There's only one full-frame camera in the top-10 and it's sitting down in 9th place. Canon sells a butt-load of Rebels!

[Rondec]

APS-C has big advantages for camera users: smaller cameras, smaller lenses, longer reach, and faster frame-rates & video for a given sensor-technology level.

APS-C also has big advantages for camera makers: besides the sensor manufacturing cost issue noted by rawr, APS-C lets the camera makers create a clear divide between low-end/high-end. The format lets Canon, Nikon, etc. make "low-end" cameras that are unlikely to cannibalize their high-end FF sales.

Although the pros, enthusiasts, and photography forum members may think everyone is moving to FF, retail sales rankings paint a very different picture. On the US Amazon best seller list, 9 of the top 10 best selling ILCs are APS-C. There's only one full-frame camera in the top-10 and it's sitting down in 9th place. Canon sells a butt-load of Rebels!

Everything you say is true. I do think as well, that Canon and Nikon and Sony would like to sell photographers the most expensive camera that they would be willing to buy. That usually means trying to get them into full frame cameras if possible.

But to the initial question, APS-C is here for a long time (no one can say forever about anything tech related).

[Maxman1947]

Untill full frame cameras become as affordable as crop cameras I dont think they will become dominate. Also smaller cameras are in demand, and full frame sensors don't lend themselves to small cameras. As sensor technology and manufacturing technmiques improve, who knows what the future will bring?