Future of APS-C

[ecka]

You can see that in my previous post I was talking about D800 vs D7000 and there are no if-s.

Sorry, I must have missed that.  Let's check:

...FF can do everything as good or better than APS-C, no need to have both. If 5D3 had 46mp sensor, then you could crop 18mp image out of 46mp and it would be just as good as your 7D image and much better when you don't need to crop it.

Nope, there's definitely an 'if' in there.   

Now, earlier, you stated:

Not the reach - because, when both formats have the same pixel pitch (like D800 and D7000), we can just crop the FF image (or shoot in crop mode) and get exactly the same result as if we shot it using a crop sensor camera. I'm not a big super-telephoto fan...

...but again, I don't see the relevance because there is no FF dSLR that matches the pixel pitch of current APS-C dSLR offerings (18 MP from Canon and 24 MP from Nikon, the latter being much higher than the 16 MP example you're using!).

Bottom line, I with agree that APS-C really comes down to $$ - both for bodies and for lenses.  If you can afford a longer lens, you'll get better IQ with that longer lens on a FF camera.  In most cases, even without the longer lens, cropping the FF image will yield equivalent IQ, merely fewer megapixels.  The only time when one could argue that the APS-C 'reach' advantage is actually necessary is when you need a framing tighter than the longest available lens, even assuming you can afford that lens, and you need the full resolution image for printing large, etc.

I'm sorry for my bad english. However:
D7000 - 16mp APS-C
D800 - 36mp FF - 16mp in 1.5x crop mode (if it's not the same pixel pitch, then it must be pretty close)
D600 - 24mp FF - 10.7mp in 1.5x crop mode

Yes, Canon doesn't make 46mp FF cameras, not yet. If they will, then 7D would lose the reach advantage over FF, because you'll be able to crop those 46mp to get the same angle of view at the same 18mp resolution.

[neuroanatomist]

D7000 - 16mp APS-C
D800 - 36mp FF - 16mp in 1.5x crop mode (if it's not the same pixel pitch, then it must be pretty close)
D600 - 24mp FF - 10.7mp in 1.5x crop mode

Forgetting something?

D3200 - 24mp APS-C

So, what Nikon FF camera delivers a 24mp image in 1.5x crop mode, thus negating the 'reach advantage' of APS-C?

[ecka]

D7000 - 16mp APS-C
D800 - 36mp FF - 16mp in 1.5x crop mode (if it's not the same pixel pitch, then it must be pretty close)
D600 - 24mp FF - 10.7mp in 1.5x crop mode

Forgetting something?

D3200 - 24mp APS-C

So, what Nikon FF camera delivers a 24mp image in 1.5x crop mode, thus negating the 'reach advantage' of APS-C?

I am talking about D7000 having no advantages over D800 other than price. If Sony can make 24mp APS-C sensor, so they can make 54mp FF sensor as well.

[Marsu42]

The only reasonable APS-C advantage is the price.

Which is a very large advantage. At the risk of repeating myself: "A crop camera is the best/only way of optimizing the following combination of attributes (1) lower price, (2) higher frame rate and (3) smaller pixels (i.e., lots of "pixels per feather").

I recon the scenery will change drastically when better mirrorless cameras will be around - no need for an expensive, sturdy flipping mirror anymore (i.e. more fps are much cheaper to include, just add some faster electronics) and a viewfinder as big as you want it (no need for ff).

The only thing left for ff in the future will be more mp simply because of the larger sensor, but aps-c imho will see a revival after some years of ff advancing until mirrorless systems are ready. And then many people will discover that 25mp aps-c really is enough.

[neuroanatomist]

I am talking about D7000 having no advantages over D800 other than price.

Ok, but you're the only one talking about that...  One theme in this thread is the 'reach advantage' of APS-C over FF, and while in the specific example you've picked, there is none, in general, there is.  I could as easily say that the 8 MP 20D has no reach advantage over the 21 MP 5DII...and that's an equally meaningless statement if used to support the argument that APS-C does not have a reach advantage over FF, which is the argument you're making.

If Sony can make 24mp APS-C sensor, so they can make 54mp FF sensor as well.

Maybe.  But they haven't...and until they do, the statement is irrelevant, and APS-C still has an apparent reach advantage that translates to the ability to get more pixels on target when you're focal length limited.

[Canon-F1]

i wonder what neuroanatomists never have to work...... retired ones?

honest, every time i visit here the froum is full of new neuroanatomist postings.
where the hell do you find the time?

end even enough time to reply, in length, to every BS here.... ? 

[wayno]

The only reasonable APS-C advantage is the price.

Which is a very large advantage. At the risk of repeating myself: "A crop camera is the best/only way of optimizing the following combination of attributes (1) lower price, (2) higher frame rate and (3) smaller pixels (i.e., lots of "pixels per feather").

I recon the scenery will change drastically when better mirrorless cameras will be around - no need for an expensive, sturdy flipping mirror anymore (i.e. more fps are much cheaper to include, just add some faster electronics) and a viewfinder as big as you want it (no need for ff).

The only thing left for ff in the future will be more mp simply because of the larger sensor, but aps-c imho will see a revival after some years of ff advancing until mirrorless systems are ready. And then many people will discover that 25mp aps-c really is enough.

Agree with pretty much all of that.

[ecka]

I am talking about D7000 having no advantages over D800 other than price.

Ok, but you're the only one talking about that...  One theme in this thread is the 'reach advantage' of APS-C over FF, and while in the specific example you've picked, there is none, in general, there is.  I could as easily say that the 8 MP 20D has no reach advantage over the 21 MP 5DII...and that's an equally meaningless statement if used to support the argument that APS-C does not have a reach advantage over FF, which is the argument you're making.

You see, that's the mystery. Why I am the only one talking about that? It seems like nobody cares about making things right. If you want a better future, then things have to change.

If Sony can make 24mp APS-C sensor, so they can make 54mp FF sensor as well.

Maybe.  But they haven't...and until they do, the statement is irrelevant, and APS-C still has an apparent reach advantage that translates to the ability to get more pixels on target when you're focal length limited.

Yes, they haven't ... and that's the problem

[sdsr]

On the other hand, people who use the APS-C cameras for its reach or use better lenses than the kit might have a larger hurdle then merely the price of buying a full frame camera. The case of long tele-s have been discussed ad nauseam. I'd like to add that I can't hope to get the quality of the 17-55 on an EF zoom lesser than the 24-70 II, and that means a difference of $ 1100.

If you want a zoom of that range at a constant f/2.8, that's true enough.  But out of curiosity, a couple of weeks ago I rented a 17-55 f/2.8 for a week to try on a Rebel t3i.  Maybe I got an imperfect copy, but the photos I took with it (not that they were bad) were never quite as good as the photos I've taken in that range on my 5DII with, say, the 24-105L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and Sigma 85 1.4 (photos taken with the latter three, without IS, were all sharper than photos taken with the 17-55 with IS), nor as good as photos I've taken on the Rebel with EF lenses.  (I've no idea how it compares with other EF-S lenses - that's the only one I've tried.)  So maybe it's not quite as bad as you fear....  (Also, while it may not be as good as the 24-70II, the much less expensive new Tamron equivalent is pretty impressive.)

[Synomis192]

Is there a point where an APS-C camera can have the low noise performance like a 5DmkIII? I understand the limitation of an APS-C sensor, smaller sensor=less light to work with. But do you think in the near future there will be a low-light APS-C King?

I think I'm specifically talking about Canon though, Nikon has a reputation for having good low light performers. Never had a real first hand experience with it though?

[Marsu42]

But do you think in the near future there will be a low-light APS-C King?

I guess it'll take Canon aps-c at least another 5 years to get to 5d3 level, but I'm certain they'll get there eventually - the limitations of aps-c are lens resolution and pixel density, I don't see why there would be physical any constraints to low light capability.

[paul13walnut5]

@Marsu42

I guess it'll take Canon aps-c at least another 5 years to get to 5d3 level, but I'm certain they'll get there eventually - the limitations of aps-c are lens resolution and pixel density, I don't see why there would be physical any constraints to low light capability.

If Canon were to release a new APS-C camera with 10MP but 5D3 low light performance would anybody buy it?

7D is niche, and rebel target market get sold on silly things like numbers.

What about an APS-C camera with 6 or 8MP with 1DX low light performance?

I personally don't really need anything more than 6MP if I'm being honest, and I'm sure most of the APS-C market are the same...

Canon reduced the resolution of their premium compacts a while back and have reduced the resolution of their flagship model... all for IQ dividend.

Apart from the benefits in pixel size, the vast majority of EF lenses would better fit with the lower resolution sensors and have more usable aperture range too.

Folk may salivate at the D800, I don't, I wanna go 'backwards'!