A rattorical question (Page 3): Camera makers must be kicking themselves that they ever offered crop sensors. From what I've read, the reason was strictly financial. Sensors are very...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

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.

Camera makers must be kicking themselves that they ever offered crop sensors. From what I've read, the reason was strictly financial. Sensors are very expensive to make. If the sensor is smaller, the camera costs less to manufacture, and it can also be a bit smaller. I'd like to see all DSLRs being made with 35mm size sensors.

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/16715/why-did-camera-manufacturers-create-crop-sensor-cameras

Blasthoff Loc: Life halved NY and IN

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.

What about all those folks who primarily do long range photography utilizing cropped sensors to gain magnification from their glass? Do you just say, "sorry fellas", "your craft is being downgraded". "You will hence be relegated to using entry level equipment". I started to think Nikon may have been thinking along those lines and possibly they did. However, with the announcement of the D500 that thought has been laid to rest.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

jcboy3 wrote:

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.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :XD:

Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio

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.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Boberic, some of we who are not as excitable as are a few of our members who seem to be upset with you question might suggest that you contact Canon to discover what a Canon rep might have to offer to answer your question. Once you do this and you get a logical answer, perhaps, then, you can put out a few fires.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I think it has to do with Marketing and what they think they need in their line up to offer consumers.

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.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

boberic wrote:

The problem, as I said originally, with DPP is the... (show quote)

It is operator error for your DPP as I easily downloaded it to my windows 10 and it works just fine with no problems at all. m
Mind you I am not overly computer savvy either. I miss my chisel and stone as well as smoke signals.

rps Loc: Muskoka Ontario Canada

I smell a rat!
(The word is "rhetorical")

Nikonhermit Loc: In This Place

boberic wrote:

I for one don't find the snarky reply helpful. And by the way my DPP cant upgrade to the new RAW version on my win 10 computer- something about photo viewer. I made a suggestion and even allowed for the fact that I was off-base. What more do you want. and you couldn't help yourself, you had to point out my misspelling, an error I suppose you have never made.

I don't think it is a spelling mistake. It is difficult to mis-spell "rhetorical" as something to do with rats. I would say it is ignorance combined with overconfidence, because clearly, your Spellcheck would have pointed out the error, but you did not bother to pay attention.

PhotosBySteve

"Full of it"

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Nikonhermit wrote:

I don't think it is a spelling mistake. It is difficult to mis-spell "rhetorical" as something to do with rats. I would say it is ignorance combined with overconfidence, because clearly, your Spellcheck would have pointed out the error, but you did not bother to pay attention.

Why the personal attacks?

rps Loc: Muskoka Ontario Canada

I normally out an apoostrophe in can't

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

My understanding is that a full frame sensor is more costly to produce and to install because alignment is more critical. I also read that there is much quality disparity between sensors even within a single production run.

And I don't know if it's true, but I heard Sony sends all of its second-rate sensors to Nikon.

rps Loc: Muskoka Ontario Canada

And I see I have made a typo in "put." Poetic justice?
It's not a personal attack. It is an expression of concern for what is happening to the English language, aided and abetted by Facebook and Twitter.
If we are so uncaring and imprecise with our use of the language --- breaking and ignoring the established rules --- why then should we accept other laws, rules or standards. The most endearing quality of your current president down there is his eloquence and expertise in using the language.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Nikonhermit wrote:

I don't think it is a spelling mistake. It is difficult to mis-spell "rhetorical" as something to do with rats. I would say it is ignorance combined with overconfidence, because clearly, your Spellcheck would have pointed out the error, but you did not bother to pay attention.

I don't find is duffucilt to misspel anithing. Mi misteaks are numerouss. I donnt have the bist keyboard skils. I hereguy apploloyze f 4 all erors thet eye mak in the futore.

Nikonhermit Loc: In This Place

rps wrote:

I normally out an apoostrophe in can't

That apostrophe belongs there since "can't" is a contraction of "cannot," and the apostrophe indicates that contraction.