How long until crop sensor bodies are a thing of the past?

[jake337]

At some point in the future there may be throw away 35mm digital cameras lije these.

throwaway digital camera - Google Search


I'm guessing none of us will see that in our lifetimes though.

Did this ad not show up for you in your Google search?
http://www.ideastage.com/Disposable...2JMgYlr4mJeyo9KO9OQ9qb_wH2eLiubLFWBoCrlLw_wcB

Edit: Also Solo Plus Digital Camera 27 Exposures (Receive Prints And CD)

Maybe. Wasn't paying to close attention. Probably because I searched throw away instead of dispisable.

 

[480sparky]

I'd rather spend my time shooting with good glass than pondering the future with a crystal ball.

 

[fmw]

I would guess that, as technology improves, sensors will become even smaller. "Full frame" as you put it is tiny compared to other formats used in the film days like 120 roll film or sheet film cameras.

 

[Ysarex]

Like @john.margetts 's way of thinking, I think your questions could be appropriately turned around for a better discussion:

Do you think crop sensors would ever make full frame sensors go away?

That's actually a very interesting point of view. What if crop sensors one day are able to provide the same high ISO performance of their full frame competition? That would be very interesting indeed.

One day? Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting (Those are DR charts but a good indicator of low-light performance).

ISO 12.8K Fuji X-T2 (APS sensor).

Joe

P.S. Consider that the chart above from Bill Claff shows the Fuji X-T2 and Nikon D810 basically equal and then assume you're working landscape/cityscape hand-held. The APS sensor will give you more DOF all things equal in the same shot at the same f/stop and let's assume you want deep DOF. You'll have to stop the FF camera down more to get the same result as the APS sensor (just what you don't need in low light). Now who needs to catch up with who?

 

[KmH]

Yep.
Bigger isn't always better.

 

[Derrel]

What if crop sensors one day are able to provide the same high ISO performance of their full frame competition? That would be very interesting indeed.

Well, as technology advances, the larger sensor will STILL maintain its size advantage over a smaller sensor of the same basic technology. The 2010-era Nikon D3100 APS-C sensor camera has the same DxO Mark overall sensor performance score as the 2004 FF Canon 1Ds Mark II pro body had...so, the smaller APS-C sensor in a $499 Nikon camera DID catch up to a FF pro-level $7,999 camera after about half a decade...but, the FF sensors advanced during the same time.

A bigger sensor will hold an edge in High-ISO performance over a smaller sensor if both use the same basic sensor technology, so...true equality will not be realized, but that's not to say that today's APS-C sensors are bad performers; they are in fact BETTER than decade-old FX sensors. But, todays FX sensors still are amazingly good!

But it's not just "the sensor"; electronics and signal processing ALSO play a HUGE part in it...witness the same sensel in the Nikon D3x and the Sony Alpha...the Nikon had MUCH better electronics, and was usable up to 1,600, while the Sony was very weak at ISO 400. Same 24MP, Sony-made FX sensor...that was wayyy back in 2009.

 

[Frankinfuji]

By the same logic will full frame be replaced by medium format now that Fuji has released a mirrorless medium format body?

I agree that low-end compacts will be rare, replaced by mobile phones, but there's other factors than 'bigness' when we choose camera. High end compact users will appreciate the ability to have a wide zoom range in a small package using a one inch sensor, users of bigger sensors will appreciate the control over depth of field.

And with improved low light capabilities of smaller sensors, and artificial background blur, do we really need the bulk of a full frame body?

 

[Ysarex]

What if crop sensors one day are able to provide the same high ISO performance of their full frame competition? That would be very interesting indeed.

Well, as technology advances, the larger sensor will STILL maintain its size advantage over a smaller sensor of the same basic technology. The 2010-era Nikon D3100 APS-C sensor camera has the same DxO Mark overall sensor performance score as the 2004 FF Canon 1Ds Mark II pro body had...so, the smaller APS-C sensor in a $499 Nikon camera DID catch up to a FF pro-level $7,999 camera after about half a decade...but, the FF sensors advanced during the same time.

A bigger sensor will hold an edge in High-ISO performance over a smaller sensor if both use the same basic sensor technology, so...true equality will not be realized, but that's not to say that today's APS-C sensors are bad performers; they are in fact BETTER than decade-old FX sensors. But, todays FX sensors still are amazingly good!

But it's not just "the sensor"; electronics and signal processing ALSO play a HUGE part in it...witness the same sensel in the Nikon D3x and the Sony Alpha...the Nikon had MUCH better electronics, and was usable up to 1,600, while the Sony was very weak at ISO 400. Same 24MP, Sony-made FX sensor...that was wayyy back in 2009.

I was just having a little fun in the post above. The Fuji benefits from two new tech advances that push the edge in low-light performance and was just recently released. I otherwise agree that there is a basic rule that sensor area, all other things being equal, provides a low-light performance advantage. Between the area difference of FX and DX size sensors that basic rule is enough to make a visible difference but not so much that a couple years lag in development of other related tech can't obviate it. And it's getting pretty esoteric when we've come to the point of saying, "hey this 51K ISO FX image looks just as good as this 25K ISO DX image." What's the average cost difference for that much more/less sensor area?

Joe

P.S. One more thought: Because of the cost differential that is pinned to sensor area, the FX camera remains the more costly option and we have a natural tendency to equate cost with value -- it costs more so it must be better. The next thing you know FX is professional (must be better) and so of course non-FX must be non-professional. Silly but typical thinking. Here's a photo I just took last week walking to the grocery store:

I used my compact camera that fits in a jacket pocket and has a stinkin' little 1/1.7 sensor with a 4.6 crop factor compared to FX. The photo is very sharp and highly detailed and will easily make a satisfactory 11 x 14 inch print.

 

[loonatic45414]

My 2¢ -- In time, I think smaller sensors will surpass what full-frame sensors do today. At some point, quality will quickly surpass what we can perceive as humans. At that point, sensors will get smaller. I just hope I don't have to buy a whole 'nother set of lenses but it'll likely happen.

The current APS-C and micro 4/3 formats are excellent for video, even if they're lacking somewhat for still photography. I don't see the need to spend thousands on better video quality.

I saw someone mentioned film. Bigger is better there. With film, we've reached the limit of technology, at least that which is economically feasible. I still think film has its place.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[petrochemist]

Apart from the very beginning there have always a range of sizes used for cameras (film or digital) There's no reason at all to think that will change.

Many photographers don't consider 'full frame' to be the best sensor size. There are those who want smaller sensors, with smaller/lighter systems & those who want larger sensors. Then there are those who use camera phones with even greater crops...

 

[Derrel]

One advantage of larger sensors is multi-format capture, capturing areas smaller than the full size of the sensor. I've enjoyed the 5:4 capture ratio of the D3x, which shows through the viewfinder as a masked-out left and right side, and the 5:4 capture option sort of "crops off" the top and bottom of my "talls", and makes a more aesthetically-appealing vertical portrait frame proportion for many people photos. There's also an APS-C crop option, for getting tightly-framed and smaller images. I got used to this with the 2004-era D2x, which offered native APS-C capture and also what Nikon called High-speed Crop or HSC: a 2.0x FOV crop, smaller than APS-C, at elevated frame rates of up to 8.2 FPS versus 5 FPS.

I think there will be APS-C and 4/3 sensor cameras for the forseeable future. Some film formats have been with us for decades. Canon's EF-S series of lenses mount only on their crop-sensor bodies, so discontinuing APS-C sensor Canon cameras would be a bad move for the user base of Canon. Nikon's DX-Nikkor lenses mount on all F-mount bodies, but work best on APS-C bodies. The 4/3 mirrorless format has the long flange-to-focal-plane measurement, so its adaptable to MANY legacy 35mm and digital-era lenses, so keeping those small-sensor format cameras makes a lot of sense.

APS-C and 4.3 format (1.5x, 1.6x, and 2.0x) make a LOT of sense with some common zoom and prime lens lengths!

 

[Derrel]

I was out today using my Nikon CoolPix S570, a 12MP, shirtpocket sixed camera with its diminutive 5.0mm to 25.0mm sensor and f/2.7~6.6 lens...a VERY handy little camera. Sensor size is the what? The "1/1.7" size? Inky-dinky sensor! I took it to the home and garden show.

 

[pixmedic]

Our go to pocket camera is a fuji x-f1. It's a few years old, but still works great.
12mp, 2/3 size sensor, 6mm-25mm f1.8-4.9 lens with 4 stops OIS. (25-100mm equalivent) even shoots raw with full manual control.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[Solarflare]

Thought this would be an interesting conversation. Do you guys think crop sensor bodies will go away? Will we soon see a market comprised of only full frame bodies? Why or why not?

FT and MFT have been created at a time when such small sensors had a financial advantage over APS-C sensors.

Today thats gone. Yes of course FT sensors are still cheaper than APS-C. But APS-C is already below $100 in cost, so the influence on the final price of the camera is really small now.

The same will happen to APS-C in comparison to full frame.

Additionally what we see is that APS-C seems to have hit a barrier. APS-C sensors as a whole do not go above the border of about 20 to 28 Megapixels. Thats obviously the limit with current technology, at least if you also want to have high ISO and dynamic range performance as well.

That means that full frame will hit the same barrier somewhere around 50 Megapixels, soon. With that, full frame will have the same pixel size as APS-C.

And that might be the ultimate end of APS-C.

Because now the old argument with wildlife shooters no longer applies: the pixels of APS-C are no longer smaller and thus they dont gain additional "reach" from using APS-C.

The only remaining issue is FPS. I have no clue about how that one will play out.

As always, predictions are hard - especially about the future.

 

[beagle100]

"The only remaining issue is FPS. I have no clue about how that one will play out"

here's a clue - without a flapping mirror the FPS get easier!
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless