A rattorical question: Since the cost of a FF camera is about the same as a crop sensor camera (assuming the innards are the same) why should a company offer both? Take Canon for...

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Since the cost of a FF camera is about the same as a crop sensor camera (assuming the innards are the same) why should a company offer both? Take Canon for instance- the 6d is only $200 different than the 7d2. They could reduce redundant inventory and perhaps reduce the cost a touch. There would then be 2 lines of cameras. The Rebel line Crop sensor. and all the "more advanced" cameras would be full frame . Does this make any sense at all? Or am I full of it.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Thoughts about the slow transition of auto manufacturer model offerings....

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Cameras are made for different purposes and with different audiences in mind. The 7DII is clearly aimed at action photographers. The focus system, FPS and crop factor work for that. The 6D is aimed at a different market where low light performance is more important, like studio work, weddings and events, street photography and landscape.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

I imagine the have scores of analysts considering that and similar questions, and the result is what they have now. Not trying to be a "smart guy", Boberic. It's a thoughtful question. I'm sure they've gone over it at great length. We could always buy them out and run the place our way. As a disabled retiree, I'm in for $83.47.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

boberic wrote:

Since the cost of a FF camera is about the same as a crop sensor camera (assuming the innards are the same) why should a company offer both? Take Canon for instance- the 6d is only $200 different than the 7d2. They could reduce redundant inventory and perhaps reduce the cost a touch. There would then be 2 lines of cameras. The Rebel line Crop sensor. and all the "more advanced" cameras would be full frame . Does this make any sense at all? Or am I full of it.

Why put the Rat in rhetorical, unless you want to put the rat amongst the pigeons?

There are very clearly understood technical trade offs beyond price and cost.

Have you sorted out your DPP/other software issues yet, or are you just wasting people's time? Perhaps another "Rattorical' question...

Perhaps the answer to your final question "Am I full of it?" may have an affirmative answer.

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

boberic wrote:

Since the cost of a FF camera is about the same as a crop sensor camera (assuming the innards are the same) why should a company offer both? Take Canon for instance- the 6d is only $200 different than the 7d2. They could reduce redundant inventory and perhaps reduce the cost a touch. There would then be 2 lines of cameras. The Rebel line Crop sensor. and all the "more advanced" cameras would be full frame . Does this make any sense at all? Or am I full of it.

..

Garyminor Loc: Raleigh, NC

Peterff wrote:

Why put the Rat in rhetorical, unless you want to put the rat amongst the pigeons?

There are very clearly understood technical trade offs beyond price and cost.

Have you sorted out your DPP/other software issues yet, or are you just wasting peoples' time? Perhaps another "Rattorical' question...

Perhaps the answer to your final question "Am I full of it?" may have an affirmative answer.

I like "Rattorical" questions!

Newsbob Loc: SF Bay Area

boberic wrote:

Does this make any sense at all? Or am I full of it.

It makes no sense. You are full of it. After all, I'm sure Canon has lots of propeller heads analyzing how to be a successful company, and they see things differently than you do. And Canon is doing pretty well, don't you agree?

jcboy3

boberic wrote:

Since the cost of a FF camera is about the same as a crop sensor camera (assuming the innards are the same) why should a company offer both? Take Canon for instance- the 6d is only $200 different than the 7d2. They could reduce redundant inventory and perhaps reduce the cost a touch. There would then be 2 lines of cameras. The Rebel line Crop sensor. and all the "more advanced" cameras would be full frame . Does this make any sense at all? Or am I full of it.

While a rhetorical question is one that does not require an answer, a rat-torical question clearly requires one.

And the answer is: yes, you are full of it.

To elaborate: camera companies make cameras to sell (hopefully for profit), trying to take a measure of the buying public. Yada yada yada. Do they offer a camera you want? Buy it. Take some pictures. Have fun.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

"...To elaborate: camera companies make cameras to sell (hopefully for profit), trying to take a measure of the buying public. Yada yada yada. Do they offer a camera you want? Buy it. Take some pictures. Have fun.[/quote]

Just like any other company that markets various models to attract different buyers....

Trabor

This is intended as a response to the previous post not the OP
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

jim quist Loc: Missouri

Canon had a crop in the 1d bodies which was great for sports, and the full frame 1ds bodies which was great for studio. They had different high end ISO and fps. They combined the two camera body styles into the 1dx.

BebuLamar

boberic wrote:

Since the cost of a FF camera is about the same as a crop sensor camera (assuming the innards are the same) why should a company offer both? Take Canon for instance- the 6d is only $200 different than the 7d2. They could reduce redundant inventory and perhaps reduce the cost a touch. There would then be 2 lines of cameras. The Rebel line Crop sensor. and all the "more advanced" cameras would be full frame . Does this make any sense at all? Or am I full of it.

So which one would you buy?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Trabor wrote:

This is intended as a response to the previous post not the OP
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Then use the "Quote Reply" option, as I have done.
Cheers!

jim quist Loc: Missouri

Go with the full frame