Is the future of DSLRs FF only?

[Curmudgeon]

 Market trends are comprised of thousands--or millions--of individual purchasing decisions, and "infared" may have gotten to the nub of the matter by responding to the topic of this thread at the personal level. As camera phones, point-and-shoots, compact formats (M4/3 etc.) and mirrorless get better, the weight and expense of DSLRs--not to mention the weight and expense of their lenses--will probably shape  the dslr as the tool for those for whom photography is a passion or a career not an adjunct to their social life. And although wildlife photographers who depend on crop effects get testy when you say so, for the great majority of serious photographers the superior quality of FF is compelling. My own digital purchasing decisions parallel those of infared. I started with ASP-C (the 20D), but my lens-buying decisions were predicated from the beginning on the belief that FF would become the MF of the digital age. I bet on Canon with the 5D series, while Nikon seems to have gotten there first with the 800e, but I think 24x36mm--even if it's mirrorless in some cases--is the future of serious photography from all major manufacturers. Technology will allow for that miniaturization and the price-per-unit advantages of a standardized size will eventually limit larger formats to highly expensive niche applications. That's my theory anyhow, and like infared, I'm betting my photography dollars on it. 

[dr croubie]

I got bored at work so made some drawings on CAD:
Take an 8" wafer (radius 101.6mm).
Take a 7D-sized sensor (22.3*14.9mm), add 5% to each size to account for bits around the edge and cutting and whatnot, makes 23.415*15.645 per sensor.
Draw them out, you get 4 rows of 8 wide in the middle, plus 2 rows of 6, 1 of 4 and 1 of 2 each side, I get 68 APS-C sensors from an 8" wafer.

Take a 5D3-sized 36*24mm, add 5% to each side again, you get 37.8*25.2. Laying them out I get 24 sensors (5 rows of 4 plus 2 top and bottom).

So that's theoretically 2.8x better. Can't muck around too much at work, so i'm not going to do 12".

As for yields, i dunno. Deposit 5 defects around the wafer, you might hit 5 of the aps-c sized sensors, but you might only hit 4 of the FF sensors (one could get hit twice). Still, knock 5 out of each and you get 19 FF or 63 APS-C, now we're at 3.3x more chips per wafer.

[Rocky]

I got bored at work so made some drawings on CAD:
Take an 8" wafer (radius 101.6mm).
Take a 7D-sized sensor (22.3*14.9mm), add 5% to each size to account for bits around the edge and cutting and whatnot, makes 23.415*15.645 per sensor.
Draw them out, you get 4 rows of 8 wide in the middle, plus 2 rows of 6, 1 of 4 and 1 of 2 each side, I get 68 APS-C sensors from an 8" wafer.

Take a 5D3-sized 36*24mm, add 5% to each side again, you get 37.8*25.2. Laying them out I get 24 sensors (5 rows of 4 plus 2 top and bottom).

So that's theoretically 2.8x better. Can't muck around too much at work, so i'm not going to do 12".

As for yields, i dunno. Deposit 5 defects around the wafer, you might hit 5 of the aps-c sized sensors, but you might only hit 4 of the FF sensors (one could get hit twice). Still, knock 5 out of each and you get 19 FF or 63 APS-C, now we're at 3.3x more chips per wafer.

Thanks for backing me up. Most of people have never question the Canon Whitepaper. You and me come up with different count is due to the"Scribe line" width. In the industry the scribe line is about 0.3 to 0.4mm wide. Thanks again.

[Videoshooter]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that sensors are not the only component of FF cameras that are more expensive compared to APS-C. There are also added production costs for the better shutter, larger mirror and better motor required to drive it, bigger prism, larger body, etc.

APS-C cameras have thier place and will be around for a long time - they're cheaper and less bulky than most DSLR's, and for the majority of all DSLR buyers (ie soccer moms) those are two main criteria that need to be satisfied.

I personally love the 1.6x crop for shooting surfing. If I was using FF it would cost me an extra $10,000 in lenses to get the same focal lengths.

[Marsu42]

Another reason for a "bright" ff future: The electronic viewfinders on consumer cameras will get better and better with more features, so the tiny peephole on aps-c will look worse and worse. For an optical viewfinder, ff sure is an advantage.

[infared]

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

My comment was not directed at you. Just my opinion ...everyone has their own take.  A balanced FF camera is all I need in a DSLR..
I understand that if you have not held and used a 5D III (after owning a II)...then you could not yet know how much more of a complete professional tool the new camera is. I choked on the price and sold my III to offset the price...and it was worth it for a solid step forward. All the sniglets from the III are gone and the III is just a fun, fluid machine that doesn't get in the way of the capture.

[dr croubie]

You and me come up with different count is due to the"Scribe line" width. In the industry the scribe line is about 0.3 to 0.4mm wide. Thanks again.

Yeah, I totally guessed at 5% being a bit on the wide side. You can probably just squeeze one more row of sensors in if your cutting tool is thinner (also there has to be wiring and stuff around the edges, the photosites don't go all the way to the edge of the silicon). rotating a few 90 degrees might fit more in, but that's probably more waste in tooling and design to be worth it.

I used to home-make my own printed circuit boards, I found out about the thickness of cutting implements the hard way ($30 is a lot for a 12 year old to spend on another pcb when you cock it up and your tracks on the edge get cut off by a hacksaw)

[awinphoto]

Just my 2 cents, but Canon, well since 2004-2005 had been making a killing on EF-s lenses and the rebel and xxd line of cameras...  While the old school side of me yells, yes, make everything full frame... that's the way it always USED to be and the way it should be, the newage side of me says a 7d image full res ISO 100 has more resolution and detail and clarity than a 5d2 or 3 or likely a 1dx full frame scaled down and then upsized to the same dimensions... heck if you take the 7d image and downscale to matched the crop factor of the 5d2,3,1dx, it would likely be as good...  So while you can "ALWAYS" crop to match the scale of the crop cameras... you lose vital detail, which is one of the big draws of the D800 from what I can tell.  While we are always looking for the best of both worlds, one size fits all camera, in all reality, it isn't as cut and dry. 

[unfocused]

Just my 2 cents, but Canon, well since 2004-2005 had been making a killing on EF-s lenses and the rebel and xxd line of cameras...  While the old school side of me yells, yes, make everything full frame... that's the way it always USED to be and the way it should be, the newage side of me says a 7d image full res ISO 100 has more resolution and detail and clarity than a 5d2 or 3 or likely a 1dx full frame scaled down and then upsized to the same dimensions... heck if you take the 7d image and downscale to matched the crop factor of the 5d2,3,1dx, it would likely be as good...  So while you can "ALWAYS" crop to match the scale of the crop cameras... you lose vital detail, which is one of the big draws of the D800 from what I can tell.  While we are always looking for the best of both worlds, one size fits all camera, in all reality, it isn't as cut and dry.

Careful, reasonable and logical posts like that are just asking for trouble.

I can't believe people continue to rehash this same old theme. I guess it's mostly the result of a summer lull in new product announcements, so there is nothing else to talk about.

For the record:

Someday, all DSLRs will be obsolete. Just probably not in my lifetime, which is all I really care about;

As long as they keep selling cameras with the legacy 35mm format, neither Nikon nor Canon are going to abandon that format;

As long as they keep selling cameras in the APS-C format, neither Nikon nor Canon are going to abandon that format;

Each format has it's advantages and corresponding customer base. It is ridiculously self-centered for the advocates of one format to suggest that their preferred format could ever meet the demands of those who prefer the other;

There is absolutely no reason why an "entry-level" legacy format camera and a professional quality APS-C format camera cannot co-exist in the marketplace. Each appeals to different customers and one will not significantly affect the target market of the other.

[Dylan777]

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

I used APS-C sensor for 3yrs. Last year I decided to go for FF. I enjoy my 5D III so much, I'm not sure if I ever go back to crop sensor again.

Again...this is just me, can't speak for everyone else

[briansquibb]

There is absolutely no reason why an "entry-level" legacy format camera and a professional quality APS-C format camera cannot co-exist in the marketplace. Each appeals to different customers and one will not significantly affect the target market of the other.

I look forward to seeing a professional quality APS-C format camera.

Could be, like the 10D, that is only supports EF lens as well

[Random Orbits]

There is absolutely no reason why an "entry-level" legacy format camera and a professional quality APS-C format camera cannot co-exist in the marketplace. Each appeals to different customers and one will not significantly affect the target market of the other.

I look forward to seeing a professional quality APS-C format camera.

Could be, like the 10D, that is only supports EF lens as well

Especially if it can AF at f/8.  When focal length limited, APS-Cs have the edge.

[Rocky]

Just my 2 cents, but Canon, well since 2004-2005 had been making a killing on EF-s lenses and the rebel and xxd line of cameras...  While the old school side of me yells, yes, make everything full frame... that's the way it always USED to be and the way it should be, the newage side of me says a 7d image full res ISO 100 has more resolution and detail and clarity than a 5d2 or 3 or likely a 1dx full frame scaled down and then upsized to the same dimensions... heck if you take the 7d image and downscale to matched the crop factor of the 5d2,3,1dx, it would likely be as good...  So while you can "ALWAYS" crop to match the scale of the crop cameras... you lose vital detail, which is one of the big draws of the D800 from what I can tell.  While we are always looking for the best of both worlds, one size fits all camera, in all reality, it isn't as cut and dry.

Careful, reasonable and logical posts like that are just asking for trouble.

I can't believe people continue to rehash this same old theme. I guess it's mostly the result of a summer lull in new product announcements, so there is nothing else to talk about.

For the record:

Someday, all DSLRs will be obsolete. Just probably not in my lifetime, which is all I really care about;

As long as they keep selling cameras with the legacy 35mm format, neither Nikon nor Canon are going to abandon that format;

As long as they keep selling cameras in the APS-C format, neither Nikon nor Canon are going to abandon that format;

Each format has it's advantages and corresponding customer base. It is ridiculously self-centered for the advocates of one format to suggest that their preferred format could ever meet the demands of those who prefer the other;

There is absolutely no reason why an "entry-level" legacy format camera and a professional quality APS-C format camera cannot co-exist in the marketplace. Each appeals to different customers and one will not significantly affect the target market of the other.

Well said. Totally agree.
The following is for information not intended to stir up anything.
"Legacy" can mean anything, either good or bad ,or just historical. Let us look at the "legacy format". Yes it is 24mm X 36mm. It has been around since 1920's. Actually it come from another 'legacy". Leitz uses 2 frames of the movies standard at that time and makes it becomes the standard of 135. This was never challenged until Olympus started the 1/2 frame standard in the 1960's.  At the peak there are people actually  proclaimed the end of 24 mm X 36mm standard and 1/2 frame is the future.  Every body were making 1/2 frame camera also. Well the rest is history.
As for digital, the first DSLR (none of them are  FF) from either Canon or Nikon do not have choice but using existing 35mm SLR lens (for financial reason??). Therefore DSLR has been using "legacy lenses" since day one and the other manufacturers follows.  Later Canon started APS-C ( close to the size of 1/2 frame)for cost reduction. Canon also comes up with the EF-S lenses for cost reduction. What is legacy??? Where does it start??? Where does it stop??

[Marsu42]

I used APS-C sensor for 3yrs. Last year I decided to go for FF. I enjoy my 5D III so much, I'm not sure if I ever go back to crop sensor again.

Why? Because of the iq (that'll change on aps-c), the viewfinder or the full use of the lenses (that won't change)?

Later Canon started APS-C ( close to the size of 1/2 frame)for cost reduction. Canon also comes up with the EF-S lenses for cost reduction.

What makes you say that? Another reason could have been that they can build smaller, lighter lenses because of the smaller mirror which is beneficial on its own. And in absolute terms, the price tag of some ef-s lenses isn't exactly budget (anymore).

Each format has it's advantages and corresponding customer base. It is ridiculously self-centered for the advocates of one format to suggest that their preferred format

For one, I don't see advocates of "their" sensor size defending their babies, but it looks more like a academical and theoretical discussion to me...

As long as they keep selling cameras with the legacy 35mm format, neither Nikon nor Canon are going to abandon that format; As long as they keep selling cameras in the APS-C format, neither Nikon nor Canon are going to abandon that format;

No one (I guess) is disputing that, but their level of r&d and support (i.e. lenses) may change due to corporate policy. And just manufacturing something because there happen to be some customers around isn't the smartest thing to do for a global company, look at what happened to Polaroid and Kodak...

[Rocky]

Later Canon started APS-C ( close to the size of 1/2 frame)for cost reduction. Canon also comes up with the EF-S lenses for cost reduction.

What makes you say that? Another reason could have been that they can build smaller, lighter lenses because of the smaller mirror which is beneficial on its own. And in absolute terms, the price tag of some ef-s lenses isn't exactly budget (anymore).

I was talking about the kit lenses. They are relatively cheap for what they can do. Making use of the smaller mirror is a given (Canon optical engineers are smart and use it to their advantage).  The only expensive lens is the 17-55 f2.8. but that comes quite a bit later after (5 years???) the first APS-C camera (10 D). In fact EF-S comes after the Rebel. That shows the cost cutting trend.