Is the future of DSLRs FF only?

[Marsu42]

(that's why Canon dumped the outdated aps-h)

- you are guessing they have dumped APS-H
- you are adding a guess on to a guess that they have(?) dumped it for financial reasons

I thought you might read this :-> ... well, this is Canon *rumors* after all, isn't it :-) ? About dumping it, we'll see, but given the ef-s compatibility problem I don't see it reappearing as the next 7d though I'd personally like to have a 1d4 or another 1.3x crop camera.

And for the reason - sure it's a guess, but a somewhat educated one because trusty Wikipedia cites an older Canon press release "The APS-H size was selected since it is the largest that can be imaged with a single mask to help control production costs and manage yields" ... with this constraint gone, why would they continue to put an intermediary step between consumer aps-c/ef-s and ff sensors with the fitting new tele lenses (500L/600L/200-400L/...)?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

On another rumor site was a link to a blog that talked about the future of DSLRs being FF only:

http://falklumo.blogspot.it/2012/06/true-reasons-full-frame.html

His analysis seems to be ignoring the facts.  The cost of the sensor.  Wafers used to make camera sensors are not cheap run of the mill wafers, and the yield from a given wafer generated 10-20 times the number of APS-C chips.  This means the cost of a FF sensor is at least 10X the cost of a APS -C sensor.  And, since the cost of parts used is subject to a percentage markup, that further increases the price of a FF sensor.
Just how much the cost to manufacture a FF sensor has dropped over the last few years is unknown, but they are not cheap.  Switching from 8 in to 12 in wafers certainly helped along with single pass capable lithography equipment.  But, you can always get 10-20  APS-C sensors for the cost of one FF sensor.
When 18 inch wafers hit the market in about 2018, that will further lower the price, but the ratio of APS-C to FF from a wafer will likely still be over 10:1
 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/12/us-tsmc-renesas-idUSBRE85B06J20120612

[marekjoz]

No it is, so yes it isn't.

[briansquibb]

(that's why Canon dumped the outdated aps-h)

- you are guessing they have dumped APS-H
- you are adding a guess on to a guess that they have(?) dumped it for financial reasons

I thought you might read this :-> ... well, this is Canon *rumors* after all, isn't it :-) ? About dumping it, we'll see, but given the ef-s compatibility problem I don't see it reappearing as the next 7d though I'd personally like to have a 1d4 or another 1.3x crop camera.

And for the reason - sure it's a guess, but a somewhat educated one because trusty Wikipedia cites an older Canon press release "The APS-H size was selected since it is the largest that can be imaged with a single mask to help control production costs and manage yields" ... with this constraint gone, why would they continue to put an intermediary step between consumer aps-c/ef-s and ff sensors with the fitting new tele lenses (500L/600L/200-400L/...)?

EF-S lens were introduced after APS-C for purely budgetary reasons for the consumer(10D did not support EF-S).

With the nifty fifty and the shorty forty Canon have demonstrated they can produce decent cheap EF lens - so perhaps APS-C will stay and EF-S will disappear , meaning Canon will only have to support EF lens. EF-S might stay on the cheap mirrorless bodies though

[Pixel_crab]

As far as I'm concerned, the APS-H is not dead yet. The EOS 1D-C uses a 18 Mp APS-H sensor.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/12/Canon-EOS-1D-C-4K-capable-DSLR

The camera, has almost the same specifications as the EOS 1D-X. For sure its price does not help it to shine like its fellow, but it is still an APS-H sensor..

[weekendshooter]

As far as I'm concerned, the APS-H is not dead yet. The EOS 1D-C uses a 18 Mp APS-H sensor.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/12/Canon-EOS-1D-C-4K-capable-DSLR

The camera, has almost the same specifications as the EOS 1D-X. For sure its price does not help it to shine like its fellow, but it is still an APS-H sensor..

The EOS 1D-C uses the same sensor as the 1D-X (18mp FF). The video circuitry does a 1.3x crop rather than any sort of interpolation to get a 4k image from that sensor.

[wickidwombat]

(that's why Canon dumped the outdated aps-h)

- you are guessing they have dumped APS-H
- you are adding a guess on to a guess that they have(?) dumped it for financial reasons

I thought you might read this :-> ... well, this is Canon *rumors* after all, isn't it :-) ? About dumping it, we'll see, but given the ef-s compatibility problem I don't see it reappearing as the next 7d though I'd personally like to have a 1d4 or another 1.3x crop camera.

And for the reason - sure it's a guess, but a somewhat educated one because trusty Wikipedia cites an older Canon press release "The APS-H size was selected since it is the largest that can be imaged with a single mask to help control production costs and manage yields" ... with this constraint gone, why would they continue to put an intermediary step between consumer aps-c/ef-s and ff sensors with the fitting new tele lenses (500L/600L/200-400L/...)?

you are right

they should just bin the crap 1.6 crop sensors all together and just use APS-H for crop

and get rid of those silly ef-s lenses too

[zim]

No.

Because

Hell hath no fury like an EF-S lens scorned

Yes it does....... an FD lens scorned 

[wickidwombat]

No.

Because

Hell hath no fury like an EF-S lens scorned

Yes it does....... an FD lens scorned 

but Fd lenses cna be raised from the dead now thatnks to edmika! i love my 600 cant wait to get an old school fiddy

[Rocky]

His analysis seems to be ignoring the facts.  The cost of the sensor.  Wafers used to make camera sensors are not cheap run of the mill wafers, and the yield from a given wafer generated 10-20 times the number of APS-C chips.  This means the cost of a FF sensor is at least 10X the cost of a APS -C sensor.  And, since the cost of parts used is subject to a percentage markup, that further increases the price of a FF sensor.
Just how much the cost to manufacture a FF sensor has dropped over the last few years is unknown, but they are not cheap.  Switching from 8 in to 12 in wafers certainly helped along with single pass capable lithography equipment.  But, you can always get 10-20  APS-C sensors for the cost of one FF sensor.
When 18 inch wafers hit the market in about 2018, that will further lower the price, but the ratio of APS-C to FF from a wafer will likely still be over 10:1

Let us look at some numbers:
For 8 in wafer, the cost of a processed wafer is about $1000, throw in the micro lenses and AA fiter for extra $300 (my guestimate) So each wafer is $1300. My estimate is that there may be only 75 sites for the 8 inch wafer for APS-C sensor. Let us assume the yield for APS-C is 75 %, then we will have 56 sensor per wafer, $1300 per wafer, that will be $23 per sensor. There are 24 FF sensor site  for 8 in wafer. Assuming the yield for FF is 25% (1/3 of the yield  of APS-C, being pressimistic ). then each wafer will yield 6 FF sensor. that will be $210 per sensor.
So the difference between FF and APS-C is $193. I would call it about $200 is just a rough number in case my guestimate on the micro lens and AA filter is wrong.  IF Canon have moved the sensor production to 12 in (300mm) wafer, the difference is even smaller. However, Canon white paper mention that there are 200 site of APS-C sensor in a 8 in wafer. That is totally wrong. Anybody can prove it by drawing it out on a peice of paper.

The FF is a lot more expensive the the APS-C body is due to the sales volume of FF is a lot lower than APS-C and the manufacturer try (and succeeded) to put FF on a pedestal and command a higher profit. 5DII was about $500 higher than 7D. That sounds about right.

[Richard8971]

I would have to say that ASP-C, ASP-H and FF sensors will still be around for a long time. Why? Consumers have become accustomed to the formats found in current DSLR's and manufacturers won't just "up and change" formats without a long period of gradual changes to get people used to the new "formats", if and when they ever become available. Heck, the current digital sensors were based on now "obsolete" film formats to help film users make an easier switch to digital! Why APS-C? Why 35mm? Why not some other random sensor size instead? Why didn't Canon just create whatever size sensor they wanted?  It's because of the thousands upon thousands of film users out there that they had to convince that DSLR's were the way of the future. What better way to do that then offering a product that was compatible with their current lenses and conformed to known film sizes for crop factors!

Don't believe me? Look at the gradual changes in automobile designs even though everyone has known for decades that certain aerodynamic designs work better than others.

Personally, I like having the option of the 1.6X magnification when I need it without having to buy more lenses or teleconverters!

There are advantages and disadvantages of all the camera bodies, one simply needs to choose which body is best for their needs AND budget. There will NEVER be just ONE camera body produced! Unless of course they find a way to tap into your optic nerve and brain and you could process whatever image you want, however you want, just by looking at it and thinking you would love to have a photo of it!

I have the advantage of having crop sensor bodies and FF bodies to choose from, so I just pick which one I want to shoot with that day.

Honestly? As much as I love my new 5D2, I wouldn't give up my 7D for anything. And for the cost, you can keep the 5D3!!! (my opinion)

D

[Mt Spokane Photography]

His analysis seems to be ignoring the facts.  The cost of the sensor.  Wafers used to make camera sensors are not cheap run of the mill wafers, and the yield from a given wafer generated 10-20 times the number of APS-C chips.  This means the cost of a FF sensor is at least 10X the cost of a APS -C sensor.  And, since the cost of parts used is subject to a percentage markup, that further increases the price of a FF sensor.
Just how much the cost to manufacture a FF sensor has dropped over the last few years is unknown, but they are not cheap.  Switching from 8 in to 12 in wafers certainly helped along with single pass capable lithography equipment.  But, you can always get 10-20  APS-C sensors for the cost of one FF sensor.
When 18 inch wafers hit the market in about 2018, that will further lower the price, but the ratio of APS-C to FF from a wafer will likely still be over 10:1

Let us look at some numbers:
For 8 in wafer, the cost of a processed wafer is about $1000, throw in the micro lenses and AA fiter for extra $300 (my guestimate) So each wafer is $1300. My estimate is that there may be only 75 sites for the 8 inch wafer for APS-C sensor. Let us assume the yield for APS-C is 75 %, then we will have 56 sensor per wafer, $1300 per wafer, that will be $23 per sensor. There are 24 FF sensor site  for 8 in wafer. Assuming the yield for FF is 25% (1/3 of the yield  of APS-C, being pressimistic ). then each wafer will yield 6 FF sensor. that will be $210 per sensor.
So the difference between FF and APS-C is $193. I would call it about $200 is just a rough number in case my guestimate on the micro lens and AA filter is wrong.  IF Canon have moved the sensor production to 12 in (300mm) wafer, the difference is even smaller. However, Canon white paper mention that there are 200 site of APS-C sensor in a 8 in wafer. That is totally wrong. Anybody can prove it by drawing it out on a peice of paper.

The FF is a lot more expensive the the APS-C body is due to the sales volume of FF is a lot lower than APS-C and the manufacturer try (and succeeded) to put FF on a pedestal and command a higher profit. 5DII was about $500 higher than 7D. That sounds about right.

I do not know what the current cost is, since Canon has gone to 12 in wafers, but in their white paper http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3725428/Canon-CMOS-White-Paper   of a few years ago, they state cost of  up to $5,000 for a high resistivity 8 in wafer.  It will make 200 APS-C, or 46 APS-H, or 20 FF.  Each wafer typically has about 20 defects, so you could get 180 APS-C or 26 APS-H, or 0 FF in the worst case.
Thats why the switch to 12 in wafers dropped the cost of making a FF camera, but, the numbers are heavily in favor of APS-C as far as yields go. 

[infared]

On another rumor site was a link to a blog that talked about the future of DSLRs being FF only:

http://falklumo.blogspot.it/2012/06/true-reasons-full-frame.html

Well I do not know about the market or any of the manufacturers....but for this photographer....my DSLR FUTURE is definitely FF ONLY.   Why carry a camera of that size around without getting full capture benefits!?

[Richard8971]

Why carry a camera of that size around without getting full capture benefits!?

Because some of the advantages of crop sensor bodies outweigh the advantages of FF bodies from time to time, without costing the user a ton of money!

Like I said, I love being able to choose from both.

D

[Rocky]

It will make 200 APS-C, or 46 APS-H, or 20 FF.  Each wafer typically has about 20 defects, so you could get 180 APS-C or 26 APS-H, or 0 FF in the worst case.
Thats why the switch to 12 in wafers dropped the cost of making a FF camera, but, the numbers are heavily in favor of APS-C as far as yields go.

After you have drew 200 APS-C sensor plus scribe line within a 8 inch diameter circle, then you know how much you can trust the  Canon white paper. Your 20% yield lost for APS-C sized silicon is way too optimistic.