[Full frame DSLR] What's the catch?

[Indus Monk]

Companies have quite a few Full Frame DSLR's. but my question is:

 

What is it, that separates the $3000 body from the $1400 body (D810 vs D610 for example or Canon 5D vs Canon 6D)? Tell me more about the feature differences as well. And How it affects the usage

[Sauron]

Generally speaking the difference will be in the camera's image processing software. The sensor itself can also change quite a bit despite having the same size. Then there can be differences in build quality and features. Your best bet is to find the purchase candidates and look for reviews.

[xQubeZx]

A lot will have to do with sensor and image processors quality is my guess but also the AF. The AF systems in the high end bodys are most likley very expensive. Then also you have to consider that the more expensive something is the less of a difference X amount of money will matter in performance. Say a 200US difference on two bodys below 1000us will make quite a bit of a difference while on the high end side that 200us maybe just gives you an extra memory card slot if even that. The bodys as a 610 and 6D are amazing already and to then creata an ever better camera there will need a lot of reaserch and money to be put in to just achive a very small difference to the little brothers, the 610 and 6D. 

 

But companies will pay for the best out of the best to save time and to never miss the shot because they can't afford that. If you make a lot of money of your camera you can't have it break down on you or similar. But I have to say your question is very valid I myself have just written what I think matters to the large price difference. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

He's not asking what the differences are between Full Frame and non-Full Frame cameras.  He's asking why the price differs between different models of Full Frame cameras.  That comes down to two reasons.

 

A. Features, such as different image processor, autofocus system, improved weather sealing, tougher body, differences in sensor even if they are all Full Frame.

B. Manufacturer setting the value of the product, some of the differences in hardware probably cost almost nothing for the manufacturer to add but will set the price point higher due to marketing and commercialization.

 

There is a third reason, some camera models are not eligible for Nikon or Canon's professional services registration.  You can register with NPS and CPS if you buy their two top tiers of cameras, but with any tier below you likely will not be able to register.  Before any one mentions, yes I know NPS registration also requires you to declare that your primary income comes from using those cameras professionally.

 

And if you're a registered member of NPS or CPS, what benefits do you get?

• sometimes early access or priority access to new products
• sometimes discounts
• priority in getting your camera gear serviced, repaired, and replaced if needed
• access to loaner gear while your gear is being serviced

Look at how Canon and Nikon have a presence at major events such as the Olympics.  You will have a hard time getting access to these kind of services if you're not a member.

http://petapixel.com/2016/08/03/canons-crazy-dslr-stockpile-rio-olympics/

http://petapixel.com/2016/08/12/peek-inside-nikons-gear-room-rio-olympics/

 

This is also a reason why there are still many professional photographers sticking with DSLRs from Nikon and Canon instead of going over to other types of cameras or brands.

[DominicNikon]

surprised @ALwin has not responded lol

[ShadowCaptain]

A lot, in terms of hardware and features

 

just compare them on snapsort and you will see

[cc143]

Cheaper FF cameras as mentioned above are more directed at professionals and have more professional features, (or at least were). I will use Canon's lineup as an example since that is the line up I'm most well versed in. 

 

The 5d3 is more robust than the 6D, it has more weather sealing, it has dual card slots that can be used for redundancy, it has a much faster and better AF system. With the exception of the AF system, these are all features directed at professionals who really use their cameras and get thew most out of them, and as such are treated as tools and can't fail. (the 5D also has a max shutter speed of 1/8000 vs 6D's 1/4000). 

 

The 6D has more consumer oriented features, such as Wifi, GPS, an articulating screen etc. These are things Pros don't generally need, and thus prefer not to have. Its also lighter. All of these are features which are very useful to amateurs, i.e. people who love photography and are willing and able to pay a higher price for a FF body, but are not necessarily dependent on their equipment to make a living in Economic terms, the 6D is then a Consumer good, while the 5D3 is a Capital Good (somewhat.) 

 

What Canon failed to realise back when the 5d3 was designed and launched is how easy it has become for people to become media creators. Casey Neistat said when he won the GQ award (I don't remember the title off the top of my head) "I press the same upload button everyone else can press everyday". Thus, the 5d3 gets a large following in the "prosumer" market, which was more the place of the 6D in the first place. I think that is why they mucked up the 5d4 in a sense. They tried to mix what the 5d3's place in the market was with what the 6D's place in the market was intended to be, which really makes me wonder what the 6d2 will look like, because if its just for consumers, it makes sense to just make it much cheaper! (Even than before.) 

[AkiraDaarkst]

44 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Cheaper FF cameras as mentioned above are more directed at professionals and have more professional features, (or at least were).

Cheaper FF cameras?  Wouldn't the more expensive cameras have the "more professional" features?

 

Canon didn't muck up the 5D mark IV.  Canon photography cameras have always been photography cameras first, video cameras second.  Canon has the EOS C line of video cameras for people who want a camera that is video first.

 

Nikon D600 series and Canon 6D series, the cheapest of both manufacturer's FF line of cameras, can be considered their entry level FF cameras.  So they will include (or not include) features that will keep the price point at what they consider the price of an entry into FF camera should be.

[cc143]

3 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Cheaper FF cameras?  Wouldn't the more expensive cameras have the "more professional" features?

 

Canon didn't muck up the 5D mark IV.  Canon photography cameras have always been photography cameras first, video cameras second.  Canon has the EOS C line of video cameras for people who want a camera that is video first.

 

Nikon D600 series and Canon 6D series, the cheapest of both manufacturer's FF line of cameras, can be considered their entry level FF cameras.  So they will include (or not include) features that will keep the price point at what they consider the price of an entry into FF camera should be.

Yeah that was a typo I meant it the other way around. 

 

Regardless of whether the 5d4 is meant for stills, it has been criticized as not living up to the competition, and that is (sort of) a fair criticism. I love the 5d4, I wish I had the money to get one for me its the perfect camera, its just not what the 5d3 was, in the market of 2012 when it launched for 2016. That criticism I believe is fair, although exaggerated. I also understand Canon is trying to segregate their product lineups, what I also know however, is that they also need to face the market competition at the end of the day, and while the 5d3 was, in 2012 the best offering at that price point, I can understand why the 5d4 isn't today, I don't know if that makes sense. 

 

I also agree about pricing. What I am suggesting, is that the 6D2's purpose in the market would be for enthusiasts, i.e. people who do not have "professional" i.e. work related expectations of their cameras to consider them an investment, while I believe that the 6D was more playing in both categories given its price point and features. 

[Hackentosher]

On 10/1/2016 at 8:12 PM, DominicNikon said:

surprised @ALwin has not responded lol

He was banned, bud. 

[DominicNikon]

24 minutes ago, Hackentosher said:

He was banned, bud. 

For what?

[ShadowCaptain]

On 06/10/2016 at 9:34 PM, Hackentosher said:

He was banned, bud. 

WHAT?

[xQubeZx]

On 2016-10-06 at 10:34 PM, Hackentosher said:

He was banned, bud. 

What? When did that happen and for what??

[Bsmith]

ontopic:
full frame DSLR's simply said contain a larger and better sensor then most asp-c bodies, this effects a multitude of things like the pixel count and ISO sensitivity. Ofcourse those sensors are harder and more expensive to make, which makes them more professional aimed and let's camera makers add more functions into the bigger body, elevating the price even more.

 

offopitc:

On 6-10-2016 at 10:34 PM, Hackentosher said:

He was banned, bud. 

WHAT?!

[Hackentosher]

6 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

WHAT?

 

5 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

What? When did that happen and for what??

 

3 hours ago, Bsmith said:

offopitc:

WHAT?!

Look at his profile. Says banned. 

[ShadowCaptain]

57 minutes ago, Hackentosher said:

 

 

Look at his profile. Says banned. 

But why? does anyone know?

[Bsmith]

36 minutes ago, ShadowCaptain said:

But why? does anyone know?

no idea tbh, but might be from the times that people saw his advice as showing off/being cocky or because of those threads that someone went crazy against an other user because he didnt agree with ALwin, although he kept out of that BS if possible.

[Hackentosher]

23 minutes ago, Bsmith said:

no idea tbh, but might be from the times that people saw his advice as showing off/being cocky or because of those threads that someone went crazy against an other user because he didnt agree with ALwin, although he kept out of that BS if possible.

I always kinda thought he was a jackass with his opinions, although I sometimes see the same in myself  It seems as though it's not a question of if someone gets banned from here, but rather when. 

[Hackentosher]

@ShadowCaptain You're next

 

[ShadowCaptain]

21 hours ago, Hackentosher said:

@ShadowCaptain You're next

 

ppft im lovely

 

you dick

[mama_fluxus]

On 10/1/2016 at 0:48 PM, AmbarChakrabarti said:

Companies have quite a few Full Frame DSLR's. but my question is:

 

What is it, that separates the $3000 body from the $1400 body (D810 vs D610 for example or Canon 5D vs Canon 6D)? Tell me more about the feature differences as well. And How it affects the usage

Think of full frame as something like a 5.5 inch smartphone. Tons of phones are that size but that doesn't make them the same. It's all in features. 

All that full frame inherently provides is a wider FOV than cropped sensors as well as better ISO performance,as each pixel is larger on the sensor. FF cameras tend to be used by pro's and are priced accordingly so they tend to represent the higher end of the camera market.

 

Look at things like sensor quality(ISO Performance), frames per second, auto focus, usability of the body, camera mount and available lenses, video options(4k/high frame rate/LOG files).

[d3sl91]

The differences greatly differ depending on which you are comparing. Depending on what was released most recently, a cheaper one may have better low-light, but worse autofocus because it's newer but it's still not a $4k camera. Then, you have some that are "somewhat" designed for different uses.

 

A D810 for example has a ton of megapixels, often times great for large prints, lots of cropping, etc. But, for many, a 610 (or 750) would be perfectly fine, and an 810 a waste of money that would be better spent on a D5 if they wanted an upgrade. 

 

Yes, Jared can be annoying - but he compares a bunch of Nikon full-frame cameras here and is pretty down to earth: 

 

 

Off topic: I will miss Alwin, always enjoyed his "hard truth" comments based on facts and experience. Seemed like he really brought alot of clarity to the Photography subforum.

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

28 minutes ago, d3sl91 said:

A D810 for example has a ton of megapixels, often times great for large prints, lots of cropping, etc. But, for many, a 610 (or 750) would be perfectly fine, and an 810 a waste of money that would be better spent on a D5 if they wanted an upgrade. 

I sort of agree and disagree with you on this, mainly the "avoid the D810 and get the D5" part of the comment.  Before Nikon widened the FF tier of cameras with 4 different models there was only two cameras when it came to FF.  The D3 (and it's various generations) and the Nikon D700.

 

D3 and D700 were Nikon's first FF cameras.  Then came the D3x, which I don't really think of as a successor to the original D3, as the first high MP camera.

 

This is how I see Nikon cameras.

D3 > D3s > D4 > D4s > D5 which is pretty clear cut.

 

D3x and then sort of to D800/E > D810 for people who want high MP and high resolution sensor.

 

I don't really see the D750 being the true successor to the D700, the D750 lacks some "pro" features the D700 had.  Now I feel like Nikon is forcing people to get the D4, D4s, D5 level of camera if people want a low MP camera with a majority of what they consider pro features such as 1/8000s shutter speed, 1/250s flash sync speed (though I would prefer that it would go up to 1/500 like the old D70), and the 10-pin connector and the PC sync port.

 

D600 > D610 as a brand new "entry or introduction into Full Frame"  type of camera.

 

[d3sl91]

8 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I sort of agree and disagree with you on this, mainly the "avoid the D810 and get the D5" part of the comment.  Before Nikon widened the FF tier of cameras with 4 different models there was only two cameras when it came to FF.  The D3 (and it's various generations) and the Nikon D700.

 

D3 and D700 were Nikon's first FF cameras.  Then came the D3x, which I don't really think of as a successor to the original D3, as the first high MP camera.

 

This is how I see Nikon cameras.

D3 > D3s > D4 > D4s > D5 which is pretty clear cut.

 

D3x and then sort of to D800/E > D810 for people who want high MP and high resolution sensor.

 

I don't really see the D750 being the true successor to the D700, the D750 lacks some "pro" features the D700 had.  Now I feel like Nikon is forcing people to get the D4, D4s, D5 level of camera if people want a low MP camera with a majority of what they consider pro features such as 1/8000s shutter speed, 1/250s flash sync speed (though I would prefer that it would go up to 1/500 like the old D70), and the 10-pin connector and the PC sync port.

 

D600 > D610 as a brand new "entry or introduction into Full Frame"  type of camera.

 

I do agree, I was not using a DSLR (or any photography) when the D700 was widely used. But as a comparison, I did just handle most of the lineup the other day and can see how "prosumer" the D750 feels compared to 810, D500, even the 610. - Not saying it's a bad camera (It's my main camera and I don't regret buying vs the 600/610). But they were definitely trying something different with the 750. 

 

 

 

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

9 hours ago, d3sl91 said:

I do agree, I was not using a DSLR (or any photography) when the D700 was widely used. But as a comparison, I did just handle most of the lineup the other day and can see how "prosumer" the D750 feels compared to 810, D500, even the 610. - Not saying it's a bad camera (It's my main camera and I don't regret buying vs the 600/610). But they were definitely trying something different with the 750.

I'm also not saying the D750 is a bad camera, but I do think Nikon should make the successor to the D750 whenever it will come out to be a true successor to the D700.  Currently the price gap between the D610 and D750 is around $300-400, but I'm not entirely certain the 'features' gap between the two models might be worth that difference.  I honestly would not mind if Nikon decided to make a, for the sake of an example, Nikon D750 mk II that has some of those 'pro' features I mentioned previously and increased the price by $100-200 if necessary.  A low MP 'pro' feature camera that's an alternative to the single digit D# line.

 

One of my favorite things about the D700 was with the use of the vertical grip and the EN-EL4a battery for the Nikon D3/D3s/D3x, the continuous shooting speed of the D700 which is normally 5fps can be increased to 8fps.  The D810 can shoot up to 7fps with the vertical grip and cropped mode but the D700 shot in full frame mode.

 

Those who have never used or had those features might not miss them, but those who have often understand how useful they can be at times.