The future of APS-C and u4/3 sensors

[mikoh4792]

Are these here to stay for at least the next decade or two? Or should we expect full frame to take over even into the entry level bodies?

I ask because I wonder if it's worth it now to invest in "pro" lenses for my aps-c dslr.

 

[DavidVote]

I would expect and hope so to be honest. The cost of even the cheapest full frame camera is just simply out of my reach. Maybe when full frame sensors comes to entry level bodies, there'll be something bigger than full frame then.

 

[mikoh4792]

I would expect and hope so to be honest. The cost of even the cheapest full frame camera is just simply out of my reach. Maybe when full frame sensors comes to entry level bodies, there'll be something bigger than full frame then.

Medium format for the price of the d610! haha

 

[Microbois]

While full frame seems to be the new trend for everyone, considering entry-level cameras such as the D610 being more affordable (or so), I would say that DX bodies and lenses will still be around for a very long time. DX format is way more adapted to sports and wildlife photography, so there's a solid need there that won't go away anytime soon. Also, technology being what it is, there will also be a lot of pressure to have smaller cameras that don't compromise IQ too much, and Micro 4/3 can be a nice answer to that need, not to mention that all camera makers are heavily invested in a format or another.

I think before choosing any camera, you should first assess what will be your needs, and see which format (FF, APS-C, M4/3) will be better for you regardless of its future. Once you have that nailed down, just live with your decision. I picked a Nikon D610 because I shoot sports among other things, love the shallow DoF that I used to have on 35mm film, and I still have a few compatible lenses. I also don't mind the bulk and the weight of a big camera so it's pretty much to each is own...

Good luck!

 

[Gary A.]

I have a FF system, a µ4/3 system and a APS-C system. As a former pro photog camera size isn't a concern which dictates how and what I shoot. It is all about the final image. I will take what I need to attain that final image ... a "it is ... what it is" mentality about cameras. I have found that the difference between µ4/3 and FF (up to about an 11x14) isn't all that significant. So why haul around a tank when I can do the job with a pistol? In the past year or two I've discovered APS-C mirrorless. For me APS-C mirrorless is a great compromise between FF and µ4/3. The small body size of µ4/3 with IQ insignificantly no different than FF (for what I shoot, how I shoot and up to ... what... 3'x4' ... 6'x8' ?). Sony makes small, mirrorless, FF cameras, but with a limited lens lineup. My 1Ds and EM1 are collecting dust, 99.9% of what I shoot I use my X-T1 and X100S.

I think mirrorless and smaller size is the future. APS-C lenses are smaller than FF lenses, µ4/3 lenses are smaller than APS-C ... but the small sensor of µ4/3 does get in the way of IQ when shooting at elevated ISO's and large size prints.

I think the future for consumer digital cameras is the compromise of mirrorless with APS-C.

 

[DavidVote]

I have a FF system, a µ4/3 system and a APS-C system. As a former pro photog camera size isn't a concern which dictates how and what I shoot. It is all about the final image. I will take what I need to attain that final image ... a "it is ... what it is" mentality about cameras. I have found that the difference between µ4/3 and FF (up to about an 11x14) isn't all that significant. So why haul around a tank when I can do the job with a pistol? In the past year or two I've discovered APS-C mirrorless. For me APS-C mirrorless is a great compromise between FF and µ4/3. The small body size of µ4/3 with IQ insignificantly no different than FF (for what I shoot, how I shoot and up to ... what... 3'x4' ... 6'x8' ?). Sony makes small, mirrorless, FF cameras, but with a limited lens lineup.

I think mirrorless and smaller size is the future. APS-C lenses are smaller than FF lenses, µ4/3 lenses are smaller than APS-C ... but the small sensor of µ4/3 does get in the way of IQ when shooting at elevated ISO's and large size prints.

I think the future for consumer digital cameras is the compromise of mirrorless and APS-C.

While I agree with you that APS-C is a good compromise between FF and M4/3, there are shots or generally stuff that you could achieve on full frames that you would have a hard time doing on APS-C. . For example, I have a soft spot for wide landscape-y portraits with a shallow DOF. 24-50mm seems to be the best focal range for this type of portraits. You can do 35-50mm (24-35mm lens respectively) on APS-C sensors, which is okay, but the DOF won't be as shallow as on a full frame.

 

[KmH]

More crop sensor cameras are bought than full frame sensor cameras, by a wide margin.
Nikon and Canon likely sell several thousand crop sensor cameras for each FF camera they sell.

So APS-C and 4/3 aren't going away anytime in the foreseeable future.

One fact is inescapable based on current image sensor making technology.

About 4x more APS-C size image sensors can be made on a disc of silicon than FF image sensors, making the cost to produce an APS-C image sensor 4x less than making a FF image sensor.

A DSLR image sensor is the most expensive part in a DSLR.

By the same token 4/3 size image sensor are even smaller than APS-C sensors and cost per image sensor significantly less to make than APS-C.

 

[Gary A.]

I have a FF system, a µ4/3 system and a APS-C system. As a former pro photog camera size isn't a concern which dictates how and what I shoot. It is all about the final image. I will take what I need to attain that final image ... a "it is ... what it is" mentality about cameras. I have found that the difference between µ4/3 and FF (up to about an 11x14) isn't all that significant. So why haul around a tank when I can do the job with a pistol? In the past year or two I've discovered APS-C mirrorless. For me APS-C mirrorless is a great compromise between FF and µ4/3. The small body size of µ4/3 with IQ insignificantly no different than FF (for what I shoot, how I shoot and up to ... what... 3'x4' ... 6'x8' ?). Sony makes small, mirrorless, FF cameras, but with a limited lens lineup.

I think mirrorless and smaller size is the future. APS-C lenses are smaller than FF lenses, µ4/3 lenses are smaller than APS-C ... but the small sensor of µ4/3 does get in the way of IQ when shooting at elevated ISO's and large size prints.

I think the future for consumer digital cameras is the compromise of mirrorless and APS-C.

While I agree with you that APS-C is a good compromise between FF and M4/3, there are shots or generally stuff that you could achieve on full frames that you would have a hard time doing on APS-C. . For example, I have a soft spot for wide landscape-y portraits with a shallow DOF. 24-50mm seems to be the best focal range for this type of portraits. You can do 35-50mm (24-35mm lens respectively) on APS-C sensors, which is okay, but the DOF won't be as shallow as on a full frame.

If you're talking apples to apples, then DOF is largely dependant upon aperture. Most viewers will not see a difference between an equivalent f/2.8 FF image and a f/2.8 APS-C image. There are a lot of elements involved in DOF and equivalency between sensor sizes, but opening up one stop for the APS-C sensor will go a long way to minimize DOF differences into insignificance. Don't look at charts ... look at field experience.

Look here for differences and equivalences between FF and APS-C:

Equivalence

Gary

 

[Solarflare]

DECADES ?????

lol

Why would we be able to forsee such a long timespan ?!?

A decade ago digital was hardly affordable ...

A decade from now everyone might use for example Lytro style light field cameras. Personally I think thats highly unlikely - but its possible.

A decade from now Canon and Nikon might have failed. How could we possibly know for sure ? Pentax was still around a decade ago ... nowadays its Ricohs name for their DSLRs.

Imagine someone bought Zeiss glas a decade ago. What would it be now ? Well if it was for Leica M, he would have had luck, those are still current. If it was for Nikon F or Canon EF, again luck. Pentax ? Not so much, Pentax still has no full frame offer.

A decade ago, neither the Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f2 nor the Zeiss Otus was around. Now they are THE lenses.

Also, as a general rule - if your lens needs adapters to work with your current camera, you lose a LOT of comfort features, such as autofocus, automatic aperture, optical stabilization, etc.

I have no clue what there will be in a decade... even less multiple ones. Its quite obvious there will be changes, but one cannot know which ones.

 

[Solarflare]

Oh, and if thats any help:

Right now, Fuji and Sony are gaining, Olympus and especially Panasonic are losing market share: The mirrorless winners and loosers on Flickr (Fuji doing great and Panasonic doing bad). | Mirrorless Rumors

Doesnt say much about long time developments, obviously.

 

[goodguy]

I have been investing quit a lot of time to see what is pro, con and the future of MFT, Crop sensor and FF
Obviously each has its niche and I don't see any going away anytime soon.

MFT has 2 main companies that make it, Oly and Pany and they offer very small cameras that can change lenses.
Oly's cameras are directed more at the hobbyist market and they offer great value for the money.
Pany is winking at the hobbyist and pro, their MFT like the GH4 has really shaken the market but mostly the video market, it has a big advantage as a video camera while as a picture camera its ok but has no real advantage over other cameras while APS-C and obviously FF offer better low light performance and shallower DOF.

APS-C is a format that was weakening a bit till Fuji came out with their X Pro 1 and X-T1, its offering a lot of camera in a small package, it aint cheap but not too expensive either, for those who are willing to sacrifice some low light performance then they can move from FF to it and I know of some who did that.
Many camera makers use APS-C as an entry level sensor camera to introduce new clients to their products like Canon's Rebel cameras, Nikon's D3xxx and D5xxx and Sony's a5100, a6000 which offer a lot of camera for very little price.
The crop factor of this format gives sport and wildlife shooters 1.5 (Nikon, Pentax and Sony) and 1.6 (Canon) extra reach from their lenses, thats a huge benefit compared to FF sensor camera.

FF sensor camera is without a doubt the king of the hill, it brings to the table few advantage when the main 2 are excellent low light performance, yes better then any APS-C or obviously MFT and a shallower DOF.
They are big, bulky and heavy and their lenses are big and heavy, even the Sony A7 which has much smaller and lighter body will have to carry big heavy zoom lenses (if Sony will make them) so the advantage of the smaller body is loosing a lot here.

I think each sensor has its place in the market, all formats are capable of making very good pictures but each has pro's and con's

If you see yourself one day moving to FF and can afford it then just jump streight into it just be sure you are ok to lug around a bigger and heavier system, when it will come the time to process the RAW flies you will see the advantages they have especially if the shooting condition had lower light.

 

[DandL]

Are these here to stay for at least the next decade or two? Or should we expect full frame to take over even into the entry level bodies?

I ask because I wonder if it's worth it now to invest in "pro" lenses for my aps-c dslr.

What is your definition of "pro" lenses?

 

[jake337]

They will probably be gone by the time disposable FF digital cameras are available.

Even if that does happen who knows If they will disappear.

Let's just enjoy creating images.

 

[Ysarex]

Booger! And I just upgraded from a FF to an APS-C.

Joe

 

[greybeard]

As long as there is such a big price difference in an entry level APS-C like a D-3300 vs D610, APS-C will be staying around. What companies do you think will be big in imaging 10 years from now?