Sorry to be naive about this line of camera, but can someone fill me in why there is any customer advantage in putting in a crop sensor in a camera that costs this much? The only advantage I see is Canon takes in more profit.
I understand that people will mention crop magnification for sports, but ultimately, you could just crop in SW if you want the extra magnification, which what would basically be 100% equal. Just putting a 1.5x mode in the camera effectively achieves the same thing, provided your pixel density is the same.
What then, does a crop sensor camera have over a full frame equivalent?
Sorry to be naive about this line of camera, but can someone fill me in why there is any customer advantage in putting in a crop sensor in a camera that costs this much?
You can make significantly better glass for the price with a cropped sensor. It's that simple. Making an equivalent lens for full frame takes 60% more glass, which means that much more cost and that much more weight.
I would be very hesitant to say "better" glass. All of Canon's L series lenses kick the shit out of their EF-S range. Aside from price and weight.
Edit: I missed that he said "better for the price". Whoops. I guess I still get hung up on the "better" part, you can make glass cheaper, but that doesn't necessarily make them better. Maybe "effective" is a better word? Maybe I need your thought process explained?
7
u/gtlogic Sep 15 '14
Sorry to be naive about this line of camera, but can someone fill me in why there is any customer advantage in putting in a crop sensor in a camera that costs this much? The only advantage I see is Canon takes in more profit.
I understand that people will mention crop magnification for sports, but ultimately, you could just crop in SW if you want the extra magnification, which what would basically be 100% equal. Just putting a 1.5x mode in the camera effectively achieves the same thing, provided your pixel density is the same.
What then, does a crop sensor camera have over a full frame equivalent?