gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
fraibert wrote:
I think Canon should've been ready from near the start of RF APS-C lineup with a lens similar to the recently released RF version of the Sigma 18-55/2.8 C exactly to satisfy this informal market.
For hobbyist photographers who just want to get improved family and vacation photos, it's embarrassing if their new APS-C R camera is outperformed by a cell phone camera. Even the APS-C cameras are pretty expensive to this part of the purchasing market, and modern cell phone cameras now have all sorts of low light and zoom capabilities.
Without at least one fast zoom of acceptable quality (and the Sigma, from what I've head about it, falls into that category), there's a good chance that a family and vacation photographer might find that their friends or family are getting better photos in low light (a scenario you'd expect with family/vacation) with the "lesser" cell phone, especially since only the R7 has IBIS.
Sure, the casual hobbyist could also pick up a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 as well, but then they lose the zoom aspect--so the cell phone camera again will appear superior and the user potentially embarrassed.
...Show more →
A few things:
By “casual hobbyist,” I’ll assume you mean someone who wants a relatively inexpensive camera and lenses for family events, travel, and the like — and not to a person who is more “serious” (for lack of a better term) about photography. The hobbyist may go many days, weeks, or even months between significant use of their gear. They typically don’t print — except maybe an occasional letter size thing on the general purpose printer, and once they get their camera and lens(es) they don’t think a whole lot about getting more stuff.
A whole lot of these folks (quite a few of which I know) are very happy with their inexpensive camera body (which could well be APS-C) and the one or possibly two lenses they got with it. The lenses are most likely to be a kit zoom (such as the ubiquitous 16-55 models), one of the “all-in-one” zooms with a larger focal length range, or possibly an inexpensive longer zoom.
Few of them are shooting primes any more, and most aren’t all that fussy about gear.
As to the phone comparison, it is a bit complicated. It is true that for the output that most such folks produce (images shared online or n emails) a decent smartphone camera is often the best tool. Image quality is more than good enough for their typical uses, they already own the phone so there is no added expense, it is always with them, it is super easy to share the results with friends and family, images automatically end up on their computer or tablet. On top of that, these phones do some pretty remarkable things. For example, many can produce fine images in nighttime conditions. I’ve done handheld night pianos with people in the frame! (I know how to do that with my Big Boy Gear, but it is much more complicated.) These cameras typically relieve the casual user from worrying about complicated exposure choices.
For many people, they are perfect.
Are APS-C cameras “outperformed by a cell phone camera?” We could argue that in some of the ways described above they are. But in terms of pure image quality? No. The camera file stands up bette than the smart phone file. However, if the user doesn’t push images beyond what a smart phone can do, is there an advantage in the AP-C (or MFT or FF) camera?
The problem is that the bulk of the APS-C market for companies whose main products use a larger format (either FF or miniMF) is people looking for inexpensive “good enough” but not great cameras. This is pretty obvious if you look at the product line-ups from companies that also make larger sensor systems — the APS-C systems cover the least expensive end of the line-up, and there aren’t really any at the high end.
Some may not be happy about this, especially those who continue to use APS-C for (what I’ll refer to here as) “serious” photography. But the trend is clear. That market is being sliced away — at the upper end by increasingly capable and less expensive full frame models and at the low end by smartphones.
The odds that Canon, Sony, and Nikon are going to produce a full line-up of high performance APS-C cameras with full line-ups of dedicated lenses are pretty close to zero at this point.
However, if you want smaller gear with broader line-ups of lenses and camera models you can find this, just not from those companies. It might be time to take a good, close look at the excellent Fujifilm APS-C systems or at the various MFT systems.
|
She switched to something better afterwards, though.