Friday, January 31, 2014

Are reduced-frame DSLRs dead or just very sick?

What the heck is going on with professional/high-end DSLRs in the reduced-frame space?
The top Canon, the 7D, is from 2009!
And even worse, the Nikon D300 is from 2007!

Then compare this Canon 7D ISO 6400 frame with this one from Olympus E-M5. The Olympus one is much better, sharper, less noise, better colors... despite having a smaller sensor and being much more compact and half the weight.
Holy cow. Nikon and Canon are really falling behind, outside the full-frame arena.


Grain and sharpness comparison, above, Olympus E-M5, below, Canon 7D.


Despite the Olympus being about half the size and weight:


I should add that despite the compactness, the E-M5 (and even more so the E-M1) is a professional camera, it has all the bells, it's fast (10 frames per second and quick AF) it is splash proof, etc.



Color comparison, above, Olympus E-M5, below, Canon 7D.


The Nikon D300S falls somewhere in between, a bit better color and noise than the 7D, but still not as good as the Olympus on any count. 

Another issue is that many experts agree that neither Nikon nor Canon has come out with really good lenses for the APS-C lines. The excellent lenses were made for full-frame. That says to me that they never took the reduced-frame lines seriously for whatever reason. I don't know why, because the cameras were very good indeed. 

7 comments:

Russ said...

The Nikon D7100 succeeds the D300 as the current, top of the line, reduced frame DSLR model. It was released February 2013.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Looking at the naming, and the price (almost half), I'd say it is the *default* top of the line, rather. Just because it's what you have to get when there's no D400. It's no sportscamera with extensive sealing etc.

I'm not saying it's not a good camera, I'm sure it's awesome. But it's not in the same type of camera.

Maybe it can be *used* as such, just like Apple's iMac, from being an entry level machine, is now so powerful that lots of pros use it instead of much bigger and more expensive tower model.

Russ said...

I see your point. It's makes natural sense to categorize the D300s as the professional grade camera and the D7100 as the "prosumer". And certainly there are features of the older D300s that out perform the D7100, like faster frame rate and better build quality.

However, Nikon's own website designates the D7100 as "the flagship of the DX-format-HD-SLR lineup" even though the D300s hasn't as yet been discontinued.

Maybe this just proves how lame Nikon's marketing strategy is?

Bru said...

"neither Nikon nor Canon has come out with really good lenses for the APS-C lines. ... they never took the reduced-frame lines seriously for whatever reason..."

Internal politics, internal bullying, corporate antibodies, call it what you will. Until the iPhone came out, Canon and Nikon only had one goal - sell as many full frame DSLRs as possible. Every other camera was designed to increase FF DSLR sales. Making a customer "too happy" before they bought their FF DSLR was a no-no.

Anonymous said...

you might want to add the same samples from the good old X100:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/X100/X100A7.HTM

I think it beats both the M5 and the D300s!

Chris said...


"neither Nikon nor Canon has come out with really good lenses for the APS-C lines. ... they never took the reduced-frame lines seriously for whatever reason..."

What's stopping you from using the "really good" full frame lenses on the APS-C bodies? Why would any company spend the money and resources to develop ultra-high quality lenses that would ever only work on the APS-C line of bodies when the full-frame lenses can fill that niche and have a larger potential customer base? Also many (not all) APS-C users are not that enthusiastic about photography to spend the large money on high-end glass. I have both full-frame and APS-C bodies and happily use my L series (Canon) lenses on both. The only drawback is the FOV crop and sone loss in DOF. In fact I do not buy APS-C specific lenses as a matter of course because that's not money well spent for someone who also shoots full-frame and automatically limits it's usefulnes. To me the bigger gripe is with the high end lens market in general...the latest lenses are getting so expensive normal people can't even afford them (Zeiss, Canon L series, et al). I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts though. I really do appreciate reading them.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

"What's stopping you from using the "really good" full frame lenses on the APS-C bodies?"

I did, but they are significantly bigger, heavier, and expensive than they might have been.


"Also many (not all) APS-C users are not that enthusiastic about photography to spend the large money on high-end glass."

Yes, it would seem that's the case.

It could see reduced frames was a historical footnote, until full frame became somewhat affordable.

But then I guess it is good for Micro Four Thirds, for they don't have the odd sacrifices that APSC do. Like I've said, they are the new 35mm (though better in quality) and full-frame is the new medium format (though also better in quality).
And both of them can be smaller than the old film versions. (At least when full-frame gets mirrorless, as Sony has now proved.)