What's new

The Death Of Crop sensor DSLR's In The Future and move to FF DSLRS Only

I've never been a fan of the SLT thing, but I understand the market position which Sony is in. The SLT series is very attractive for certain feature-oriented users, and costs much less to produce than a mechanical mirrobox and optical finder. But I am not really convinced, and I wish that the market didn't take Sony in that direction. I'd like to see an a950.
 
I've never been a fan of the SLT thing, but I understand the market position which Sony is in. The SLT series is very attractive for certain feature-oriented users, and costs much less to produce than a mechanical mirrobox and optical finder. But I am not really convinced, and I wish that the market didn't take Sony in that direction. I'd like to see an a950.

I agree though i didn't have any hands on a mirrorless, so i can't really tell...that's only the 'old school' in me that says "SLT is no good", 'only DSLR's for me' - but who knows...you can never know until you tried...if it has in the future REAL advantages over the DSLR's it might take flight...but it can crash also and never lift really from the ground eventually.
 
I think there will be mirrors that can change their reflective state electronically and provide a high level of reflectivity in one mode and a high level of transparency in the other. Such mirrors do exist, but aren't suitable for a camera yet. I'm sure Sony is currently researching this. The EVF I think will eventually replace OVF. They're just cheaper to produce.

It is also possible to incorporate phase detection into the sensing chip. Fuji has done this already in one of their P&S cameras by using half of a select number of second green pixels as phase sensors. It may be possible to place phase sensors on a layer behind the main pixels. If this can be proven, it may do away with SLRs entirely, making mirrorless EVFs/hybrids the future.

I wouldn't be suprised if the NEX8 will have hybrid phase/contrast AF built into the main sensor.

But back to the a99 - I doubt that all 128 AF points will be phase detection.
 
Last edited:
Full frame size lenses will always be bigger and more expensive than their crop cousins. Most photographers appreciate this but explain to a person who only takes a few family photos that a ff camera with a 28-75mm lens is more expensive heavier and has less zoom than a 17-70 mm crop job and guess which most would pick
 
Oh drat !!!

The D600 sounds SO very tempting. 24 Megapixel on FF, thats more space per pixel than for my 16 Megapixel D5100, hopefully resulting in even better low light performance, dynamic range etc.

Drat.

Well, lets wait until they actually publish that gem.

And about FF and APS-C, well. Nothing can change the fact that FF lenses are a LOT more expensive, and a lot more heavy, than APS lenses.

But yeah, getting a D600 and putting a relatively cheap (450$ or some such) 50mm F/1.4 AF-S prime lens on it is super tempting. Cant wait for the tests !
 
Before one can reasonably make a claim that crop sensors are done for, it's necessary to look at two independent yet interlinked objectives/priorities/goals

First and foremost is technology. In the 46 years since I began my career in computers, RAM memory has gone from an 24” x 24” grid of iron core memory (1024 CHARACTERS in size…not K, not meg, not gigs, CHARACTERS!) to a 32 gig SDHC card about the size of a quarter!

In the film-age, photographs went from 8x10 negatives (give or take), and started shrinking from there. 35mm became the ‘standard’ partly due to the limits of film grain (eg, image quality) and ease of use (the roll in a 35mm canister was infinitely easier to use than a double-roll film such as 616, 120, etc). Sure, smaller film sizes like 110 came along, and had easy-to-use drop-in cartridges, but the IQ was never intended to be there.

In the digital photography age, sensors have gone from fractional megapixels to over 30mp in an incredibly short span of years. So who is to say that it won’t stop at, say, 100mp and then some new technology makes digital photography completely obsolete?

The second objective/priority/goal is that of marketing. Like cable TV, there are specific market segments that each company tries to serve. The cable company has sports channels, news channels, movie channels, shopping channels, and on and on.

Likewise, camera companies market products to different audiences as well. Kodak went from unknown to the photography giant it was by making photography simple, easy to use, and most of all, affordable to the masses. Simple box cameras in the 30s and 40s were the point-n-shoots of the day (in bright sunlight only, of course). Meanwhile, the “pros” were using Speedgraphic cameras, with (about) 4”x6” film in nifty individual frame holders, etc, etc. Kodak made their billions making complex photography simple for the masses. Unfortunately, Kodak management never dreamed that digital photography would advance beyond the ‘fad’, low-resolution, needed a computer to see the pictures stage.

Meanwhile, the ‘serious’ photographic equipment companies sprang up in the 30’s and 40’s (and perhaps before) with the likes of Carl Zeiss, Leica, and other European manufacturers making very high quality lenses and equipment. Canon and Nikon started in the 30s as well. They weren’t after the point-n-shoot crowd. They wanted people to take high-quality pictures, not just snapshots.

Throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc, Kodak had their niche, and the 35mm (and larger) manufacturers had their following. Then a funny thing happened…digital photography! There were some rough starts by a number of companies…I can’t even remember the camera brand my friend showed me that took 10 digital pictures and put it on a single 1.44 meg floppy disk! Cool! Crude, yes. Easy to use, surprisingly so! By the mid 80s, somewhat compact, point-n-shoot type digital cameras hit the streets. By the mid 90s, digital SLRs were available to the built upon the lessons learned in the earlier digital years.

And surprise, surprise…digital point-n-shoot started seriously eroding Kodaks’ “easy to use” market share. Todays’ point-n-shoots are seriously closing in on DSLR capabilities in nearly everything but still lack DSLR optics, IQ, dynamic range, noise, etc. But, as stated above, technology is forever advancing.

So where are things headed? What is the ‘magical combination’ that Canon, Nikon, et al are going to be coming up with?

First of all, don’t overlook the cell-phone cameras. They are getting better by the day as well. There is no doubt in my mind that cell-phone cameras WILL put Kodak completely out of business. And as Motorola, Nokia and all the other cell phone makers improve their capabilities, they will be taking market share from the point-n-shoot business of the Canons, etc.

As I see it, there are presently 5 market segments –

Cell phone cameras – Get the picture, easy to use, and always available.
Point-n-shoots – Better than a cell phone, some control, and quite sufficient for ‘the masses’.
Entry Level DSLRs – When point-n-shoot no longer delivers what you want, then it’s DSLR time. This segment and point-n-shoots are Walmarts’ bread and butter of the photography department.
Prosumer DSLRs – “movin’ on up!” Can shoot with the ‘big boys’, but still use kit glass to save on costs!
Pro DSLRs – When nothing but the best quality results will do, this is where you will be.

Where will it be 10 years from now? Just 3 segments -

Cellphones/Ipads, etc for the masses using APS-C sensors
Entry level all-in-one still/movie cameras using 35mm sensors
High-end still/movie cameras using 100mp sensors bigger than 35mm.

Company marketing strategists “target” various price points. Today, that market is approximately:

$zero-100 – Cellphones – getting cheaper EVERY day!!!
$300-500 – Point-n-shoot
$500-1000 – Entry level DSLR kits
$1000-2000 – Prosumer kits
$3000-SKY – Professional equipment

What will the pricepoints of the future be? Who knows? But it all comes down to one thing…the merged results of technology, costs, and what size “the market” for a product is.
 
This is a difficult question to answer, crop sensors are so good nowadays that I don't know if they will die out or not. It will be amazing to go full frame eventually, but as of right now my D90 provides me with all the image quality I need. I still have alot of affection for the crop sensor as I feel they fulfil most needs with smaller bodies and lenses to match.

But I don't deny you could well be right, the crop sensor may die and the FF sensor may take over which would never be a crime against humanity! ;)
 
Well, I don't know of the future of DX cameras. My gut says they will be around for at least 2 more flagship cycles. So, at least another 7 years. After that, I'm sure P&Ss will use them for quite some time. A VERY long time. While this is going on, Nikon DSLRs will all have moved to FX, with a MX camera on the horizon after the D5's life cycle ends. I've been saying for quite some time now that Nikon should DEFINITELY jump on the MX lineup ASAP. Even if it's sensor size is between FX and MX. If they did this, and released 2 models, one with a similarly resolving sensor to the D4 (14-20MP), it would be an ISO BEAST. Then, if they skyrocketed the MP in the second model, similar to the resolving power of the current MX cameras, they would have an incredible, well, everything else sensor. They could release these as the M1s and M1x respectively. Release them under $10k, and they would be set for quite some time.

Mark
 
What about the interests of the general populace? I'm sure there are many folks out there that probably have a passing interest for say, astro photography who most likely don't even consider it due to costs? What happens when the technology advances to the point that decent results are possible for more affordable prices? This might drive that market a lot harder and steer technology development in that niche?

My own interest in photography has more or less followed a similar path. I bought a Canon A-1 in 1982 while I was a basic trainee in the Army. I had grand visions of being a good photographer, but it didn't take me long to realize how expensive it was going to be to buy and develop film, so much so I just got rid of the camera...just couldn't afford it as a hobby. Then along came digital and voila...I could take pictures all day long and never have to worry about film processing costs. Then PC's became main stream and affordable, now I can edit my photos and make them even better.

One thing that still really hurts the wallet is good glass. I wonder what the future of lenses are more so than the sensors and bodies (I have a somewhat blind faith in mankind's development of technology, so I have no doubt sensors and camera bodies are just going to become better and better). Maybe I'm just ignorant, but it seems lenses haven't changed dramatically short of adding motor technologies, etc. A good lens is still damn pricey. Seems technology should find a way to make these lenses for a lot cheaper!
 
EDL said:
What about the interests of the general populace? I'm sure there are many folks out there that probably have a passing interest for say, astro photography who most likely don't even consider it due to costs? What happens when the technology advances to the point that decent results are possible for more affordable prices? This might drive that market a lot harder and steer technology development in that niche?

My own interest in photography has more or less followed a similar path. I bought a Canon A-1 in 1982 while I was a basic trainee in the Army. I had grand visions of being a good photographer, but it didn't take me long to realize how expensive it was going to be to buy and develop film, so much so I just got rid of the camera...just couldn't afford it as a hobby. Then along came digital and voila...I could take pictures all day long and never have to worry about film processing costs. Then PC's became main stream and affordable, now I can edit my photos and make them even better.

One thing that still really hurts the wallet is good glass. I wonder what the future of lenses are more so than the sensors and bodies (I have a somewhat blind faith in mankind's development of technology, so I have no doubt sensors and camera bodies are just going to become better and better). Maybe I'm just ignorant, but it seems lenses haven't changed dramatically short of adding motor technologies, etc. A good lens is still damn pricey. Seems technology should find a way to make these lenses for a lot cheaper!

Camera sensors will probably have more resolution than the lens it uses in the future if that's even possible. I'm sure they only get glass so sharp without getting into some kind of expensive synthetic stuff
 
Pentax was making a medium format platform before teh 645D, so I more think of teh 645D as a continuation. The S2 OTOH is almost like a medium format R.

I'd love to have a Leica S1, just as a collectors item. They're super cool. Never seen one on ebay, though.
 
Camera sensors will probably have more resolution than the lens it uses in the future if that's even possible. I'm sure they only get glass so sharp without getting into some kind of expensive synthetic stuff
I may have misunderstood, but from the discussions I've seen, the sheer physics involved in glass lens resolution means that resolving power is already at max. Glass can't be made to physically focus photons any tighter or smaller onto a film or sensor plane than it already does, so it doesn't help much to make that plane smaller. The only place to go from there is bigger sensors, which leads us more into medium format territory for better quality at larger print sizes.

To move beyond the limitations of glass, a whole new lensing and data gathering system will need to be employed. Possibly something like LIDAR, where lasers measure the surroundings in a fraction of a second. That technology is presently not applicable to photography in the way we think of it, but eventually it could incorporate color, light and shadow to gather infinitely more detail than the best glass lenses ever could.

The limitation would be that the lasers can only reach so far, so using it on vast landscapes and views of galaxies would probably not be possible. But for anything within about a quarter mile, it should work. Perhaps a system that uses both in concert could solve that limitation.

Of course, the cost might be simply prohibitive, with not enough reason to deploy such a system for most folks. Then again, as technology progresses and manufacturing and competition ramps up, such costs generally tend to come down over time, so it might eventually be the norm to have such systems.

Just speculating a bit on what kind of future technology might be available to take us beyond the physical limitations of glass lenses, is all.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top Bottom