There's only 1 full-frame camera on 2024's mirrorless top 10 sales list. Is full frame overhyped… or are we all just broke?

[West Coast Birder]

Interesting observation by the author of the article…

The only full frame camera in the top 10 mirrorless sales list in Japan, the relatively affordable Sony A7C II. All the others are crop cameras below $1000.

The full frame camera may cater to the professional or the advanced enthusiast but for the average person, cost and functionality, which modern crop sensor MILC camera provide in spades along with very good IQ, appears to be more than enough.

Retro models also seem to be doing well. Perhaps the FF camera had indeed jumped the shark.

Full article at:

There's only 1 full-frame camera on 2024's mirrorless top 10 sales list. Is full frame overhyped… or are we all just broke?

The list of the most sold mirrorless in Japan for 2024 includes just one full frame camera

www.digitalcameraworld.com

 

[paddler4]

I think there is a more parsimonious explanation: most people want cheaper cameras, and larger sensors are expensive.

I don't think they jumped the shark at all. Just a different market. https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-r5-mark-ii-and-canon-r6-mark-ii-continue-to-dominate-japan-sales/

 

[MakisM1]

Maybe it is a marketing thing... We all know that back in the dSLR days, the xxxDs, the xxDs and the 7Dxs outsold the 1D, 6D and 5D put together by a lot. Now, it seems we have more full-frame mirrorless models than crop models, but so what? The masses will still go for what is affordable...

 

[Joedlh]

For those of us who cut our teeth in the film world, 35mm was the preferred standard. APS-C sized film cameras were indeed deficient at that time. Optics was a big part of it, but also the demands of larger prints. When digital SLRs came out, they had APS-C-sized sensors (~24mm). Film traditionalists, like myself, had an inherent bias against APS-C. The first 35 mm digital sensors came out later. They were very expensive. My first digital camera was the Canon 20-D. My first jarring experience was the narrow field of view. My wide angle lenses weren't so wide. I had to buy a shorter focal length lens just to take shots indoors. It also did not have a great dynamic range. With the advent of 35mm sensors (inappropriately-named in my view as "full frame", given that it sounded like it had a bigger frame than medium format film cameras), many flocked to them. I was so inclined, but my budget didn't allow. So I stuck with APS-C, moving on to the 40D -- a much better camera -- and settling on the 7Dii. I resisted the herd instinct for 35mm sensors and found I was quite happy with what I was getting from my APS-C sensors, especially for wildlife, athletics, and macro. The one exception I would make would be for some landscape situations where a larger sensor does indeed have a clear advantage. I now have an R-7, which suits me fine. In fact I find myself sizing down(!) some images for distribution in the interest of faster downloads. In truth, the result from a 35 mm sensor is way bigger than one would need for photos that people will only view on the tiny screen of their smartphones.

 

[Wilt]

In reading articles about popularity of cameras in Japan, one should keep in mind that the Japanese market has exhibited popularity trends not mirrored strongly in other parts of the world...witness the popularity of the Canon M in Japan, but not so much in other markets, like US.

Top-Selling Mirrorless Cameras of 2024: Sony, Canon, and Nikon Face Off - Y.M.Cinema Magazine

The mirrorless camera market in 2024 has seen remarkable advancements and intense competition. Dominated by giants Sony, Canon, and Nikon.

ymcinema.com

At the same time, for 2024, the mirrorless camera market in 2024, "Sony’s performance-driven full-frame models held a strong lead in Japan"...so how does that map vs. the claimed popularity of smaller sensor cameras there, "only 1 full-frame camera on 2024's mirrorless top 10 sales list"?!​

Then "The Sony Alpha 7 IV, often a best-seller globally, maintains its appeal as an ideal camera for professionals needing flexibility without sacrificing quality." A full frame size sensor.​

It was just published that in Japan mirrorless camera sales, Sony is yet again the number one manufacturer, capturing 35.8% of the market. Yet in the United States, Canon claims dominance, especially in overall units sold.

 

[Joeseph]

for what I shoot, can't see me going back to a crop format unless it were to drastically reduce weight. Having a full frame mirrorless camera I see no need to replace it any time soon either. I sometimes wonder with the recorded new sales, what happens to the old ones?

 

[Nick5]

Not surprised.
Over the last several years we see less and less “ younger people” with cameras in their hands, yes iPhones, but not dedicated cameras.
If the heavier larger Full Frame bodies were not the goal for us 15-20 years ago as the only option and the iPhone available with today’s technology, would we be walking around like I do today with two big boys.
Learning the “Basics” of photography back when needed is not necessary “Needed” today, why invest in the real camera in a larger format?
Us older guys, now 61, are not the future in sales and “Photography” in the long term future.

 

[Archibald]

I would probably be shooting only crop now if it weren't for the R5, which was compact, light-weight, and had AF features that were not available in crop at the time. Crop frame works great for my bird and bug photography.

FF's big advantage is not its frame size but the lenses available for it. If you need pro quality images, then you need pro quality lenses, and those are not available for crop. For landscapes and studio work, I go to full format.

Not that many folks need that kind of performance.

 

[West Coast Birder]

I think it is also where photos end up. People like us, pixel peeping at 100%, are a vanishing minority. To put something up on Instagram or other social media, you don't need to cost and bulk of a FF camera and the associated lenses.

 

[MakisM1]

I think it is also where photos end up. People like us, pixel peeping at 100%, are a vanishing minority. To put something up on Instagram or other social media, you don't need to cost and bulk of a FF camera and the associated lenses.

The new phones are amazing! I did some pixel peeping in a photo from my iPhone 8 (yeah, it is older than I am in iPhone years... ) and I was floored by the detail!... Still, I prefer to control the parameters of the photo, so the R6II is for me!

Also, as may people have already stated in other thread, you can shoot a photo in the 1.6 format with the R5 and get as many pixels on target as the crop models. With the R6II, not so much...I've used my EFS 18-200 with the R6II and the results are adequate, but that's why I asked Santa to bring me an RF 24-240...

 

[Bergmen]

I've only owned APS-C Canon DSLR cameras (in the digital world). One of the great advantages is being able to use EF-S lenses as well as EF lenses. Several of my favorite lenses are EF-S which (as I understand it) cannot be used on camera bodies with full frame sensors.

Dan

 

[shinksma]

If you need pro quality images, then you need pro quality lenses, and those are not available for crop.

Sure they are, or at least with Canon for EF-S / EF or RF-S / RF: the lenses for the "full frame" bodies work just fine on APS-C, you just have to account for the 1.6x crop factor (thus the pejorative term "cropper").

It does seem a shame that using a FF lens on an APS-C body "wastes" some of the big lens capabilities, which means an APS-C photog is "paying for" more weight and larger quantities of good quality glass, so getting an APS-C L-equivalent lens is nice for us APS-C body owners (like the EF-S 17-55mm was considered close to, I suppose). I've heard (read about) rumors that Canon may be releasing some "higher end" RF-S lenses. I need to look into that a bit more...

 

[Archibald]

Sure they are, or at least with Canon for EF-S / EF or RF-S / RF: the lenses for the "full frame" bodies work just fine on APS-C, you just have to account for the 1.6x crop factor (thus the pejorative term "cropper").

It does seem a shame that using a FF lens on an APS-C body "wastes" some of the big lens capabilities, which means an APS-C photog is "paying for" more weight and larger quantities of good quality glass, so getting an APS-C L-equivalent lens is nice for us APS-C body owners (like the EF-S 17-55mm was considered close to, I suppose). I've heard (read about) rumors that Canon may be releasing some "higher end" RF-S lenses. I need to look into that a bit more...

Yes, of course you can use full frame lenses on crop bodies. I routinely do that with the RF 100mm macro and 100-500mm zoom lenses.

I find the kit RFS 18-150mm lens to be very good, but it is not pro quality. You can always use FF lenses in the normal range, but with compromises as you say. It would be nice to see a pro quality RFS 18-55 f/2.8 IS. The Sigma 18-50mm is not the answer to that.

The biggest gap is in fast prime lenses. For instance, you would need a crop frame 30mm f/1.1 to be the FF equivalent of a 50mm f/1.8.

There are similar issues in the micro four-thirds format.

 

[shinksma]

The biggest gap is in fast prime lenses. For instance, you would need a crop frame 30mm f/1.1 to be the FF equivalent of a 50mm f/1.8.

Yeah, that is one of the annoyances about APS-C: to get the same "bokeh" (behavior of focus plane) for the equivalently framed shot, you need faster lenses, which become quite problematic and costly. At least, that's how I understand it.

I am tempted to eventually get a FF mirrorless model to leverage all that nice glass I have in my EF FF collection, like the 24mm f/1.4 L.

But the R7 mk II will probably be the next body purchase in a few years, after we've used our R7s for a while.

 

[Mike_d]

Yeah, that is one of the annoyances about APS-C: to get the same "bokeh" (behavior of focus plane) for the equivalently framed shot, you need faster lenses, which become quite problematic and costly. At least, that's how I understand it.

I am tempted to eventually get a FF mirrorless model to leverage all that nice glass I have in my EF FF collection, like the 24mm f/1.4 L.

But the R7 mk II will probably be the next body purchase in a few years, after we've used our R7s for a while.

Those fast aps-c lenses get big too, if they even exist. Look at some of Fuji's lenses. When you really compare apples to apples there's no free lunch. That's why I use a full frame R6 and fast glass when I need it but also some slow glass to keep the size down when I don't.

 

[Lester Wareham]

Although I have full frame cameras (R6II and before that 6D) I hung on to the EF-S 10-22 which is an excellent APS-C ultra wide. I still use this with my IR converted 7D.

I agree Ed, APS-C fast primes are limited. I do have the old EF 28 1.8 which is not bad on half frame although poor in the corners on full frame.

 

[MakisM1]

Although I have full frame cameras (R6II and before that 6D) I hung on to the EF-S 10-22 which is an excellent APS-C ultra wide. I still use this with my IR converted 7D.

I agree Ed, APS-C fast primes are limited. I do have the old EF 28 1.8 which is not bad on half frame although poor in the corners on full frame.

It is well known that lenses designed for APS-C suffer from significant vignetting. Canon designed a special protrusion to prevent its APS-C lenses being mounted on full frame cameras, because there was no clearance for the mirror to swing up. 3d party manufacturers did not use this protrusion and could be mounted on a FF.

Mirrorless using an EF converter can accommodate APS-C lenses even with the protrusion and will detect the lens if it is Canon and automatically switch to the 1.6 mode (around 9 mp for my R6II). My Sigma 8-16 shows no vignetting at 16 mm so, it acts like a prime fully extended. So I get a 16 mm prime for free.... Naturally, I can use it in the 1.6 mode all the way down to 8 mm or, shoot at FF and manually crop the dark areas off.

 

[ShipleyNW]

Although I have full frame cameras (R6II and before that 6D) I hung on to the EF-S 10-22 which is an excellent APS-C ultra wide. I still use this with my IR converted 7D.

I agree Ed, APS-C fast primes are limited. I do have the old EF 28 1.8 which is not bad on half frame although poor in the corners on full frame.

The only "EF" lenses I kept were that EF-S 10-22 and an EF-S 15-85. If I don't have a bird lens on my 7D, it usually has that 15-85. I just bought an R10, and that's the only lens it's ever seen. I liked the lens better when it was short and stubby on a 90D. It's less of that with an adapter. I'm hoping we'll see a native RF version of that lens, but I'm not holding my breath.

It doesn't surprise me that an overall top seller list would be made of less-expensive gear. Those bodies are aimed the Best Buy customer. There are way more of them than people willing to spend $5-10k on a kit.

 

[Wilt]

Yeah, that is one of the annoyances about APS-C: to get the same "bokeh" (behavior of focus plane) for the equivalently framed shot, you need faster lenses, which become quite problematic and costly. At least, that's how I understand it.

You understand correctly: To get same level of blur in both nearfield and farfield. the APS-C camera needs a lens FL which is 0.66x, and use of an aperture which is 1.6x wider, compared to what you shoot with on FF camera. (The curves are deliberately not overlapping perfectly, rather than assuming f/3.3 for FF, for clarity of visual separation of the two combinations...in this graph the APS-C has greater blur by a tiny amount)


graphing tool http://howmuchblur.dekoning.nl/#compare-1.6x-60mm-f2-and-1x-100mm-f3.3-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

 

[shinksma]

You understand correctly: To get same level of blur in both nearfield and farfield. the APS-C camera needs a lens FL which is 0.66x, and use of an aperture which is 1.6x wider, compared to what you shoot with on FF camera. (The curves are deliberately not overlapping perfectly, rather than assuming f/3.3 for FF, for clarity of visual separation of the two combinations...in this graph the APS-C has greater blur by a tiny amount)


graphing tool http://howmuchblur.dekoning.nl/#compare-1.6x-60mm-f2-and-1x-100mm-f3.3-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

Thanks for this! Years ago I had gone through some of the math & geometry in my head about what made sense, but since it was a while ago...I might have remembered it incorrectly. I'm gonna bookmark that link.