The Last Generation of the Crop Sensor Cameras

[distant.star]

Here we go again.

Eventually all DSLRs will be obsolete. And, eventually, we will all be dead.

In the meantime, these proclamations about the "death" of one particular format are beyond silly.

.

Yep. Mr. Smirky throws out a piece of red meat then smirks at the ensuing "controversy."

As unfocused suggests everything is eventually "...made irrelevant by the advancement of technology," as Mr. Smirky said.

A couple of thoughts come to mind.

First, for 90% of people now actively on this forum, by the time crop sensors are done, we will have moved on to wholly different interests -- creating communicator "apps," collecting antique birdbaths, maybe looking up trying to see what it says on that tombstone they put over our heads. Better, as my friends in the 12-step programs always say to take it "one day at a time."

Second, I will agree that Canon isn't putting much into the crop frame products line. I see their real energy and resources going into video. That, along with the move of prominent photojournalists to video, supports my belief that the heyday of still photography is ending. I really believe that 50 years from now, given the world survives intact, almost everything we now see as still photography will be video. A still picture will not hang on the wall in your house -- it will be a compelling video that looks real enough to walk into. Same with little photo frames on your desk or atop the bookcase. Perhaps even the venerable printed book will be gone.

As it says in Ecclisiastes, "To everything there is a season." All of us, including Mr. Smirky, will one day be made irrelevant by the advancement of technology.

Thanks, unfocused.

 

[briansquibb]

I read this as the 1.6 crop dying as the sensor for the semi pro body.

This to me this still leaves the entry level and the 60D types

A few years back a core 2 duo was expensive - now they are budget items. There is no reason to suggest that the sensors will not continue to drop in price, which means that higher spec sensors will become available at todays budget prices

 

[3kramd5]

Sensor density will more than likely continue to get cheaper with time. But no matter how advanced the tech of the wafer, a 22X15 frame sensor will always be 40% of the size of a 36X24 sensor, which cuts two ways. Even if they were perfect and larger sensors weren't more likely to have defects, fewer sensors can be made for the same material cost.

 

[ryanjennings]

What if crop sized sensors become better than the lenses?

 

[Neeneko]

By this logic, wouldn't full frame also be doomed since medium format is 'better'?

At the end of the day, smaller sensors are cheaper to produce and crop sensors exist in a sweet spot between production cost and results, and much of that has to do with the physical geometry in relation to the lenses.

Something to keep in mind with sensors and price reductions is that there is an opportunity cost that prevents cheaper older generation sensors from being produced. Just like memory, it just isn't worth it to produce them when the production lines can be swapped over to newer ones with better margins.

I do have to comment though, the move to video is not a forgone conclusion. While many people talk about the death of still photojournalism and the rise of 'video is everything', there is already a growing backlash to this over enthusiasm. Media outlets have jumped on the bandwagon so they don't look like they are behind the curve, but customers are increasingly getting annoyed with content that can only be accessed via time consuming video. Eventually this will even out and I suspect that a large chunk of viewers will continue to prefer static content even if hipsters and technophiles obsess over 'video is everything'.

 

[briansquibb]

We are looking at the top of the range ie 7D up so cost is not such a major factor as image IQ and other 'pro' feature such as mp, fps, iso etc

For example there may be a case when a 120GB SSD is internal to the camera and transfered for pp by either wireless or ethernet - this would allow a massive increase in data transfer from the sensor - mabe more fps or larger mps.

I can see no reason why mf may be possible - but as 120mp is possible on aps-h I think this may be some time away

One thing I am certain of - we should not be wedded to a specific technology - just the pursuit of better image IQ

 

[AJ]

If video is the future then both EF and EF-S lenses may be risky investments.

Suppose Canon invents a whole new lens mount, to facilitate things like follow-focus, focus racking driven from the camera body, aperture control while filming, and things like that.

If so, no matter what you buy right now, you'll be hooped and you'll have to start from scratch. Just like the FD to EF switch.

 

[dtameling]

What if crop sized sensors become better than the lenses?

They already are. The sensor used in the NEX-7, A77, D3200 is there today. Recent tests of the NEX-7 show that you need some serious glass to even come close to resolve all the sensor is capable of. At least $1000 worth of Leica or Zeiss optics.

While FF cameras certainly offer a lot, crop sensors offer their own benefits...they're far from the cut budget version of full frame many make them out to be.

Many DSLR shooters are videographers. The 1.6/1.5 crop is almost identical to Super35 and that's a good place to be at.

Many of these same shooters are also shooting with high end video cameras...many of which are adopting Super35 sized sensors as the new standard. Being able to replicate the DOF and feel between the two is very appealing. I've been told by more than one DP that the 5D is TOO shallow for some shots.

And those that are worried about the video race, don't watch what Canon (and others are doing), watch what the video lens makers are doing. As long as Zeiss is making cinema primes with an EF mount, you're safe. They're making E Mount cinema primes now...who saw that coming?

I like having the options of smaller lenses. While my L glass is sharp and amazing, my crop sensor lenses are smaller, lighter, and cheaper. With the exception of top shelf L glass, they're very good compared to most lenses.

I like crop factor. It can get a bit annoying on the wide end but turning a 400mm lens into a 600+mm lens is nice to have around for certain applications.

Megapixels can be nice in the studio but I shoot portraits with a 7D and almost always get more detail than I need, having to back things off in Lightroom so the customer can't count their own pores.

 

[emag]

APS-C mirrorless that takes only EF-s lenses. It could happen. And it would sell. Canon should have put one out a year or more ago. My old 4MP G2 still gets used for time lapses, I'd love to have something of somewhat similar form factor with interchangeable lenses and 7D-ish features and IQ. 'twould extend the life of the 18MP sensor, IMHO. In fact, I think it makes more sense than what we're expecting the T4i to be. Just my $.02

 

[unfocused]

...I do have to comment though, the move to video is not a forgone conclusion. While many people talk about the death of still photojournalism and the rise of 'video is everything', there is already a growing backlash to this over enthusiasm. Media outlets have jumped on the bandwagon so they don't look like they are behind the curve, but customers are increasingly getting annoyed with content that can only be accessed via time consuming video. Eventually this will even out and I suspect that a large chunk of viewers will continue to prefer static content even if hipsters and technophiles obsess over 'video is everything'.

Yes. For those who want to really think about this, I recommend a look at Roland Barthe's comments on film vs. stills in the classic Camera Lucida (which is cheap, readily accessible, amazingly readable and educational). Like painting and photography, video/film and photography are two distinct mediums. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, but they are far different and there is plenty of room left to explore still photography. Video hasn't killed off the novel and it won't kill off still photography either.

 

[oosh]

You think film is dead? You could't be further from the truth! That said it's probably a pretty typical thought process of users apart of a rumours forum that insist on buying the latest and greatest digital equipment at all costs.

Film is not dead. Have medium format or larger scanned properly and it will out-resolve any 35mm DSLR. D800 included. Shoot large format and it will out-resolve ANY digital sensor, and will continue to do so for years to come yet.

 

[V8Beast]

I prefer the IQ of full-frame sensors, but it comes at a substantial price premium. I'm not rich, so the only reason I can justify the cost of full-frame bodies is because I use them for work. At the risk of getting flamed, I'd venture to say that many, many people with full-frame bodies don't have the skill set to justify having such expensive gear. If you're rich, who cares, but if you aren't, then I don't see the point in spending 4-7 times the price of a Rebel on a 5DIII or 5DIII. IMHO, the overall value you get in a camera drops substantially when going form a crop to a FF body.

Full-frame proponents will say there is a substantial difference in IQ compared to a crop body. This is true in some situations when the images are viewed by a trained eye, but most of the general public can not distinguish the difference.

I shot professionally with a 20D for four years before going full-frame, which was two years longer than I planned. It just so happened that by spending some extra time in the field and in post processing, I could get 80% of the IQ of a full-frame file with a crop body, so I held off on upgrading as long as I could. This wasn't necessarily a bad thing, since it forced me to refine my technique instead of relying on the camera to hide my mistakes. Anyone looking through my portfolio would have an awfully hard time distinguishing which images were taken with my 20D, 5DC, or 5DIII.

That said, I know which images were taken with which camera because I still vividly recall the total effort required to achieve those results. From a business perspective, my current FF bodies allow streamlining my shooting process in the field and overall workflow enough to where it is now cost effective to shoot full-frame. It's a time savings thing more than anything else, in addition to allowing me to eek out that last smidgen of IQ. However, everyone's needs are different. and since I don't own Canon stock, I can't in good conscience recommend buying a FF body unless you really need it.

 

[stilscream]

When crop sensors and mirrored dslrs are obsolete are probably when cameras themselves are obsolete. We'll all have bionic eyes and brains that record everything using biological based signals to control zoom and focus.

Before that generation focusing will become obsolete, with cameras taking information and focus will be selected in post processing.

 

[idimoe]

I'm sorry, last time I checked the Rebel series is one of the best selling DSLRs in the market today, period. Reason? Accessibility and price. Unless FX manufacturing costs go down substantially, crop sensors will be around for years.

 

[briansquibb]

I moved to ff when I had a 50D - so yes when I got the 5D i saw an immediate improvement in the reduced noise and the improved skin tones.

The 5DII followed and I didn't see much improvement except another stop in iso performance plus the 21mp which I never really utilised

The 50D was replaced with the 7D, which I hated - I find the colours rather garish out of the camera and alongside the 5DII the low light performance was poor.

The 7D was replaced by the 1D4 which improved my images almost overnight. Hooked on the Series 1 body (I have large hands that makes the 7D feel like a toy) I then replaced the 5DII with the 1DS3 instead of the more logical move to the rumoured 5DIII.

The 1DS3 is a really fantastic camera for me. The skin tones are so much better out of the camera than from the 5DII. I love the series 1 body allowing rapid moves from landscape to portrait and back at will ( and AF point following like the 7D) - plus the controls work better for me.

Moving from the 7D and the 5D2 the AF on both is so much better - in speed, accuracy and extra points to choose from. My failure rate due to AF problems that are not mine have dropped significantly. The fps and (occasionally) the bigger buffer is a major factor for me.

The 1D4 ability to have the Manual + ec + auto iso is my default and makes the 1D4 rather like a top P&S where I can forget the technical bits and focus on the content whilst knowing that the camera will deliver.

The series 1 AF point metering is excellent - as is the ability to select up to 8 AF points for metering a real bonus.

What I am getting too (albeit slowly) is that I have two different sensor types with very simillar functionality. I dont feel a need for ff or any other specific sensor - the key is :

- IQ of the pictures (including low light, noise etc)
- practicality of the body
- functionality to do what you want
- it has the features you need for the job you are going to do with it

I think we should move away from thinking crop or ff and start thinking of IQ - because that is what sells the images not the sensor type

 

[foobar]

APC-C is not obsolete, and even if it becomes obsolete some day, it won't be because everyone is moving to FF.

- An APS-C sensor will always cost a fraction of what a FF sensor costs (read Canons FF whitepaper if you want to know why that is)
- APS-C cameras can be built smaller, lighter and cheaper than their FF counterparts
- Lenses designed for APS-C can be built smaller, lighter and cheaper (especially in the non-tele focal ranges) than their FF counterparts

Even disregarding the cost of the sensor, there are enough other reasons why smaller sensor formats make sense. Just think about why mirrorless cameras have become so popular: Mainly because they offer DSLR-like quality in a much smaller form factor. To a lot of people, this is important (probably not to the majority of people on this site, though).


If there's a sensor format that's obsolete, it's APS-H. Born out of technical circumstances, used only by a single manufacturer (Canon) on a single, relatively low volume line of cameras (the 1D series) and never having a wide-angle or even just a standard zoom with crop-factor-adjusted focal lengths for it. I still don't get why people think this is the future, while on the other hand, Canon (and other manufacturers) have built complete lineups of cameras, lenses and accessories for FF and APS-C.
Of course the APS-H cameras themselves were/are brilliant, but they were for people who knew why they needed them.

 

[pwp]

APS-C will be around for a good while yet. It's a cash cow for the manufacturers. It's probably best to just on with taking great images and not get too worked up about uncertain futures.

I shoot FF & APS-H. APS-H has become a real favourite for the way I shoot and have had a very productive relationship with the format all the way from the original 1D. I mostly shoot with longer lenses. So the 70-200 becomes a 91- 260 f/2.8. And the 300 f/2.8 becomes a very handy 390 f/2.8.

Given the virtual certainty APS-H will vanish after the final 1D4 is sold, I'll be hoping for a comprehensively upgraded 7DII to fill the gap as a practical working companion to the 1DX when it finally ships.

Paul Wright

 

[briansquibb]

APC-C is not obsolete, and even if it becomes obsolete, it won't be because everyone is moving to FF.

- An APS-C sensor will always cost a fraction of what a FF sensor costs (read Canons FF whitepaper if you want to know why that is)

Is that important if a aps-c is 1 dollar and a ff is 2 dollars?

- APS-C cameras can be built smaller, lighter and cheaper than their FF counterparts

Not a lot smaller - and not everyone wants miniature featherweight bodies like the NEX5

- Lenses designed for APS-C can be built smaller, lighter and cheaper (especially in the non-tele focal ranges) than their FF counterparts

and be expensive as Canon wont be able support economies of scale

Even disregarding the cost of the sensor, there are enough other reasons why smaller sensor formats make sense. Just think about why mirrorless cameras have become so popular: Mainly because they offer DSLR-like quality in a much smaller form factor. To a lot of people, this is important (probably not to the majority of people on this site, though).

That is why they are moving to larger sensors and aps-c then?

If there's a sensor format that's obsolete, it's APS-H. Born out of technical circumstances, used only by a single manufacturer (Canon) on a single, relatively low volume line of cameras (the 1D series) and never having a wide-angle or even just a standard zoom with crop-factor-adjusted focal lengths for it. I still don't get why people think this is the future, while on the other hand, Canon (and other manufacturers) have built complete lineups of cameras, lenses and accessories for FF and APS-C.
Of course the APS-H cameras themselves were/are brilliant, but they were for people who knew why they needed them.

So you think 1.6 aps-c is obsolete because they are only used by a single manufacturer (Canon).

What on earth is a 'standard' zoom? If you are talking about a 70-200 - then why isn't there an aps-c crop-factor-adjusted lens? If you are talking about the 18-55 then the 24-70 is very very close to 1.3 adjusted

APS-H is a lot cheaper to make than ff too - so does that means they are not obsolete then?

 

[foobar]

Given the virtual certainty APS-H will vanish after the final 1D4 is sold, I'll be hoping for a comprehensively upgraded 7DII to fill the gap as a practical working companion to the 1DX when it finally ships.

I really hope Canon gets it's sensor tech up to scratch with the 7D Mark II. Apart from that, I think we'll mostly see an APS-C version of what the 5D3 brought to the table (since the 5D3's body already seems to be an evolution of the original 7D).

Is that important if a aps-c is 1 dollar and a ff is 2 dollars?

We are far, far away from those prices. And unlike other silicon chips (which get cheaper because of reduced chip size), the only time camera sensors get a major drop in manufacturing price is when wafer sizes increase, which only happens every couple of years because the factories need to be completely retooled for that.

Not a lot smaller - and not everyone wants miniature featherweight bodies like the NEX5

Of course not everyone, but the mass market is moving towards smaller cameras, and that's where the money is. Different people have different needs, that's why Sony is also offering a bazillion other camera models besides the Nex series.

and be expensive as Canon wont be able support economies of scale

Canon sells a lot more APS-C cameras and lenses than it does FF bodies and lenses.

That is why they are moving to larger sensors and aps-c then?

There is a market for larger sensors and it's profitable. It's not a mass market compared to APS-C, though. And currently, Canon is consolidating it's pro lineup from two sensor formats (APS-H and 35mm FF) to a single one (the 35mm FF format people have known and used for years).

So you think 1.6 aps-c is obsolete because they are only used by a single manufacturer (Canon).

If you want to be nitpicking, 1.6x crop is indeed only used by a single manufacturer because all others are using a very slightly larger sensor. Well played. If you want to be even more precise, you could even say that Canon is using a whole lot of different "about APS-C sized" sensor formats, since their individual APS-C sensor models actually differ by fractions of millimeters.

Does this nitpicking help this discussion? I don't think so. For the majority of photographers, there are two common sensor formats: Cropped sensors, meaning 1,5~1,6x crop factor and FF, which means the classical 35mm format to most people.

What on earth is a 'standard' zoom? If you are talking about a 70-200 - then why isn't there an aps-c crop-factor-adjusted lens? If you are talking about the 18-55 then the 24-70 is very very close to 1.3 adjusted

A zoom lens in the "moderate wide-angle to slight telephoto" range is commonly refered to as a "standard zoom".
And if you think that the 31mm-equivalent field of view you get at the wide end of a 24-105mm is about equal to the real 24mm you get on a FF camera (or the 15mm you get with the 15-85mm on a crop camera), well... okay. That's your opinion.



Anyway, I don't know what the bashing is all about. I don't dislike APS-H, I'm just saying that Canon hasn't shown much interest in the format over the years.
Besides, I really liked the statement at the end of your previous posting:

[quote author=briansquibb]I think we should move away from thinking crop or ff and start thinking of IQ - because that is what sells the images not the sensor type[/quote]

I'm totally with you on that. I just wanted to shed some light on the economic side of things in my posting. I can't predict what we'll have in 50 years, but for the time being, it simply looks that APS-C will continue to be the primary sensor format for DSLRs in terms of volume. In the pro sector, I believe that we'll see a few more FF models in the coming years (the 5D3 and D800 have become so advanced that there's now room for more entry-level FF models). Still, I don't think we'll see a sub-$1000 FF DSLR (used market excluded ) in the next couple of years.

And to come back to the original topic: Even if Canon managed to release a $1500 entry-level FF camera next to a (potential) $1500 7D Mark II, the FF camera would be more or less a large sensor/body rebel while the 7D Mark II would be almost a small sensor/body 1-series in comparison.

 

[Violettpunkt]

Can someone name something electronic that hasn't gotten faster, smaller, cheaper, and better for less? that's a real question, perhaps there are examples, i just can't think of any.

Graphing Calculators somewhat fit your description.