Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

  1. #21

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Years ago I bought an Apple II computer for S$2400 and an IBM PC AT PC for $4000. ! ! !
    Now you can get computers for 1/4 of that price.

    Nowadays electronic components, ram chips, computers and printers are so cheap, I don't understand why the camera manufacturers don't just concentrate on FF sensors and forget about the APS-C or 1/2.23 " sensors.

    If FF sensors are mass produced, I am very sure the price will drop like a stone. And from then on, all cameras will have FF sensors, much better features, superb IQ and cheaper price too !

    Hope they are listening !


  2. #22
    Senior Member zac08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    11,755

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky78 View Post
    Years ago I bought an Apple II computer for S$2400 and an IBM PC AT PC for $4000. ! ! !
    Now you can get computers for 1/4 of that price.

    Nowadays electronic components, ram chips, computers and printers are so cheap, I don't understand why the camera manufacturers don't just concentrate on FF sensors and forget about the APS-C or 1/2.23 " sensors.

    If FF sensors are mass produced, I am very sure the price will drop like a stone. And from then on, all cameras will have FF sensors, much better features, superb IQ and cheaper price too !

    Hope they are listening !

    It's not they don't want to. It's the chances of making a good sensor that size is statistically lower than APS-C sensor sizes.

    Just think of it this way, if I give you a slab of cookie dough and 2 sizes of cutters, which would you choose to give you more working chips? The bigger one or the smaller one?

    If you choose the bigger one, you have less chips to begin with and the ratio of bad chips is much higher.

    This is the MAIN problem which forces them to reduce the FF sensor amount as well as drive up the cost.

    Now ONLY if someone is able to come up with a way to control the quality evenly, this may have an impact and a change to this issue.
    Michael Lim
    My Flickr Site

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore - Jurong West
    Posts
    807

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky78 View Post
    Years ago I bought an Apple II computer for S$2400 and an IBM PC AT PC for $4000. ! ! !
    Now you can get computers for 1/4 of that price.

    Nowadays electronic components, ram chips, computers and printers are so cheap, I don't understand why the camera manufacturers don't just concentrate on FF sensors and forget about the APS-C or 1/2.23 " sensors.

    If FF sensors are mass produced, I am very sure the price will drop like a stone. And from then on, all cameras will have FF sensors, much better features, superb IQ and cheaper price too !

    Hope they are listening !

    FF sensors require bigger lenses, which are in turn heavier, and need more effort if you want sharp CA free images from the corners. FF sensors ARE mass produced, and prices have definitely dropped in the recent years. Just look at the Sony A900 or A850.

    Not everyone wants to carry around a 24-70 f2.8 that weighs well over 1 KG. I'm pretty sure some of you guys have felt what it is like to use a 24-70 on a d700 (or the equivalent for any other brands). It's bulky, heavy, and you'll get tired after a while of using the camera.

    Consider that a Canon 550D weighs about 550 grams body alone, add the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM say another 700 grams. Total weight of the setup is around 1250 grams.

    Now consider the weight of the Canon 24-70 f2.8, about 950 grams. Add a Canon 5Dmk2 body 810 grams. Totaling around 1760 grams

    That's just addition of one lense. The more lenses you have, let's say a 24-70, 70-200, 100macro, the heavier it is going to add up.

    Ignoring the weight issue, consider the price issue. bigger lenses = more $$$

    You mentioned better features, superb IQ and cheaper price if they mass produced FF sensors. So what are the better features and superb IQ that are present in FF sensors now, ignoring prices?

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    741

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    While good ff lens are generally heavier, not all ff lens are heavier than their crop counterpart. A good e.g. would be the tamron 28-75. However, IMHO there are still lots of advantages in using ff lens on crop body despite the weight. Because you are only using the center portion of the ff lens with a crop sensor, you effectively get no significant corner fall off at wide open, very sharp image from edge to edge and no visible barrel distortion.

    Corret me if I am wrong, but a smaller sensor is not always a bad thing, sometimes it can be an advantage. For instance, in macro usage, you can use a 60mm macro lens on a crop and get a similar fov as a ff on a 90mm macro lens. However, yet because the crop is only on a 60mm lens, you get more usable dof with the same aperture setting as compared to the 90mm on a ff. It is pretty much like why a pns can get a flower all in focus with the lens at f2, while a ff user with a 24-70 has to stop down to f5.6 or more.

    Very often, we see claims like "you only need a 200mm lens on a 4/3 to get what a 400mm can produce on a ff, only idiots will carry the big and heavy lens with the ff" or "stick to crop, your 400mm lens will be like a 600mm on a ff". I guess the above is true to a certain extent.

    However, when pixel density is considered, that "crop factor zoom" advantage might or might no longer be valid. For instance, if we have a 2x crop factor sensor at 12mp vs a 18mp aps-c sensor, the pixel density is close. Then the often claimed advantage of a smaller sensor is effectively gone.

    Why? Because while the claim is fov on a 2x crop factor sensor with a 200mm is eq to a aps-c sensor with a 300mm, the resultant images are not the same when we take into consideration the pixel density. Unlike what the marketing department like to claim, the aps-c 18mp with a 200mm lens can produce exactly the same photo as the 12mp 2x crop sensor with a 200mm lens, albeit the 200mm aps-c sized lens might be slightly bigger. Har, does that even make sense, yes it does imho. This is because if you use the 200mm lens on the 18mp aps-c lens and take out the middle 12mp, then the resultant image will be similar to the view produced by a 200mm lens on a 2x crop factor lens. Wouldn't that be so? As such, any dof, fov advantage is just marketing BS.

    Yet, when comparing sensors of different physical size but the same number of total pixel, i.e. a 12mp 2x crop vs a 12mp ff sensor, the advantages that we like to associate with crop factor is real and present, simply because when you crop out the middle part of the ff sensor, you no longer have the same 12mp as the smaller sensor. Of course, this is assuming the pixels are of the same quality.

    Is the above right?

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore - Jurong West
    Posts
    807

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Lemme see if I can sum up what you are saying:

    1) Using FF lenses on crop factor bodies can be an advantage due to less vignetting

    2) Crop factor's 'reach' is negated unless pixel density is higher

    3) Crop factor's DOF advantage is negated by lower pixel density

    4) Smaller sensors have the DOF and Reach advantage provided they are the same in MP count as their FF counterparts.

    My concern with most of the sensors these days, FF or smaller is their pixel density. Look at the 5DMk2 or the A900 / A850 FF cameras. They demand a lot from their lenses. And there simply isn't many non-professional grade (loosely defined as f2.8 or faster primes or zooms) that can match up well with those sensors. You'll most likely see CA, Vignetting, Corner Softness. All these problems are magnified by a higher pixel density (which applies to APS-C as well as FF sensors)

    My real issue is with the current crop of lenses not matching up to what the sensors can resolve. For example, even the fantastic canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM is starting to be outresolved by the current crop of high MP APS-C sensors.

    High MP FF sensors of course, will show even more clearly, the problems of current mid-range lenses. Canon however seems to have no problem making even higher MP sensors. For example. this one

    So yes, it's possible to bring down prices of FF cameras. But Canon seems to be going the route of higher MP for their FF cameras. Higher MP means need better lenses, means more $$$. I wonder what route Nikon will go with their since they have both High ISO and high MP covered. Will they keep offering 12MP FF sensors that can do ISO 10,2400 cleanly or perhaps they might do what Fuji did and branch out into UV / IR type cameras.

    The future definitely looks interesting

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Shunfu Road, Singapore
    Posts
    2,465

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd View Post
    Lemme see if I can sum up what you are saying:

    1) Using FF lenses on crop factor bodies can be an advantage due to less vignetting

    2) Crop factor's 'reach' is negated unless pixel density is higher

    3) Crop factor's DOF advantage is negated by lower pixel density

    4) Smaller sensors have the DOF and Reach advantage provided they are the same in MP count as their FF counterparts.

    My concern with most of the sensors these days, FF or smaller is their pixel density. Look at the 5DMk2 or the A900 / A850 FF cameras. They demand a lot from their lenses. And there simply isn't many non-professional grade (loosely defined as f2.8 or faster primes or zooms) that can match up well with those sensors. You'll most likely see CA, Vignetting, Corner Softness. All these problems are magnified by a higher pixel density (which applies to APS-C as well as FF sensors)

    My real issue is with the current crop of lenses not matching up to what the sensors can resolve. For example, even the fantastic canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM is starting to be outresolved by the current crop of high MP APS-C sensors.

    High MP FF sensors of course, will show even more clearly, the problems of current mid-range lenses. Canon however seems to have no problem making even higher MP sensors. For example. this one

    So yes, it's possible to bring down prices of FF cameras. But Canon seems to be going the route of higher MP for their FF cameras. Higher MP means need better lenses, means more $$$. I wonder what route Nikon will go with their since they have both High ISO and high MP covered. Will they keep offering 12MP FF sensors that can do ISO 10,2400 cleanly or perhaps they might do what Fuji did and branch out into UV / IR type cameras.

    The future definitely looks interesting
    The 135 SLR format used to be refered to as the "miniature" film format. Look at what AF technology has done to it.
    Last edited by Anthony Lee; 6th October 2010 at 01:04 PM.
    Home is where the heart is.

  7. #27
    Member zk-diq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Telok Blangah
    Posts
    1,387

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    So, after spending 18k for a camera plus some lens, dump all away? From APS to FF and then HDFF?
    How ah?

  8. #28

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    I don't get what this debate is all about... When digital photography took off maybe a decade ago, I don't think any camera maker knew or was able to forsee what the market will be like, the tech innovations, or what consumers are willing to pay for, in the future.

    For instance, Nikon for many years insisted that APS-C is good enough (remember the D2X?) -- all that anyone ever needed. Then they came out with the D3 and the rest, as they say, is history.

    Any why restrict the issue to FF vs APS-C sensor sizes? To me, there is a whole continuum of sensor sizes in the market, from tiny cellphone cameras to medium format 48 x 36mm. In between, we have ALL kinds of sensor sizes including 1/2.7 inch, 1/1.7 inch, Olympus 4/3, APS-C, APS-H (Canon 1D series), FF, Leica S2, Hasselblad medium format, etc. Now we have SLR, mirror-less SLR, Sony's SLT -- who knows what is or is not an SLR anymore?? Clearly there is a big market out there, and manufacturers are just trying to grow their respective niches or create new ones -- who knows what will succeed and what will not?

    Also useful to bear in mind that Moore's Law is not relevant to digital photography -- no one wants a 12MP sensor the size of mustard seed, even though it can be done. As someone highlighted, FF sensors occupy a lot of space on a 12 inch wafer, so it will invariably be more expensive to produce.

    My 2 cents.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Shunfu Road, Singapore
    Posts
    2,465

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    The 135 format (36mm x 24mm) is still the defacto standard even up to today as 'focal length' of all lenses and sensor size are still measured. The total size and weight of the DSLR system is not the result of the sensor size but 'AF'.

    This used to be the size of a 135 format SLR with a 55mmf1.2 lens. When compared to an EOS 1dsIII with an EF 50f1.2 lens, it will be comparing a PnS with a 5d2/d700.

    Last edited by Anthony Lee; 6th October 2010 at 01:29 PM.
    Home is where the heart is.

  10. #30

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Lee View Post
    The 135 format (36mm x 24mm) is still the defacto standard even up to today as 'focal length' of all lenses and sensor size are still measured. The total size and weight of the DSLR system is not the result of the sensor size but 'AF'.

    This used to be the size of a 135 format SLR with a 55mmf1.2 lens. When compared to an EOS 1dsIII with an EF 50f1.2 lens, it will be comparing a PnS with a 5d2/d700.

    I don't get how AF makes SLR bigger - explain please.

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,195

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Quote Originally Posted by bigpond View Post
    I don't get what this debate is all about... When digital photography took off maybe a decade ago, I don't think any camera maker knew or was able to forsee what the market will be like, the tech innovations, or what consumers are willing to pay for, in the future.
    I started this thread thinking maybe APS-C would not have existed if manufacturers are able to produce FF cameras for the mass market, in continuition of 36x24 film format. Since prices for FF cameras are coming down steadily. I am wondering if there will still be a place for APS-C in DSLR market. Afterall, manufacturer can streamline their production lines, reduce overheads, etc when the day comes when FF sensors drop to the price of today's APS-C levels.

    Then they will start marketing campaign to croon about FF DSLR, reduce # of products for APS-C DSLR, etc. For example, we are seeing more new lenses meant for FF. So maybe APS-C will move away from mainstream DSLR into m4/3 and PnS. And FF will dominate DSLR, instead of only a handful of models from each manufacturers. End of the day, there are really only 2 types of consumer - those that want performance from their gears, and those that want a small, light and usable setup. If there are more APS-C such as NEX, I am sure a lot of APS-C DSLR users will move towards the NEX type of cameras - small lenses, light setup. Leaving serious amateurs and pros on DSLR - FF and big lenses.
    Last edited by ManWearPants; 6th October 2010 at 01:51 PM.

  12. #32

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWearPants View Post
    I started this thread thinking maybe APS-C would not have existed if manufacturers are able to produce FF cameras for the mass market, in continuition of 36x24 film format. Since prices for FF cameras are coming down steadily. I am wondering if there will still be a place for APS-C in DSLR market. Afterall, manufacturer can streamline their production lines, reduce overheads, etc when the day comes when FF sensors drop to the price of today's APS-C levels.

    Then they will start marketing campaign to croon about FF DSLR, reduce # of products for APS-C DSLR, etc. For example, we are seeing more new lenses meant for FF. So maybe APS-C will move away from mainstream DSLR into m4/3 and PnS. And FF will dominate DSLR, instead of only a handful of models from each manufacturers. End of the day, there are really only 2 types of consumer - those that want performance from their gears, and those that want a small, light and usable setup. If there are more APS-C such as NEX, I am sure a lot of APS-C DSLR users will move towards the NEX type of cameras - small lenses, light setup. Leaving serious amateurs and pros on DSLR - FF and big lenses.
    OK, I think you have to appreciate that the market is constantly evolving and very dynamic -- you are looking back with the benefit of hindsight and making your own presumptions.

    I think your earlier statement: "Will the day come when cameras all * go back * to the 36x24mm format?" suggests that maybe you should look up the historical development of film cameras. Don't think people like Ansel Adams regard 36x24 as the standard format.

    There are pros and cons of each format, just like there are pros and cons of different types of cars -- should we all be driving nothing but Toyota Altis?

    Maybe more fruitful to start a discussion on "How many lenses does one need?"

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Shunfu Road, Singapore
    Posts
    2,465

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Quote Originally Posted by cks2k2 View Post
    I don't get how AF makes SLR bigger - explain please.
    Just compare the Leica M9 with either a 5d2 or d700, or for that matter, the Nikon FM2 with the Nikon F4, both film SLR, one manual, the other AF.
    Home is where the heart is.

  14. #34

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Lee View Post
    Just compare the Leica M9 with either a 5d2 or d700, or for that matter, the Nikon FM2 with the Nikon F4, both film SLR, one manual, the other AF.
    I still don't get it.
    I'm only familiar with Canon, and with Canon the AF motor is on the lens. So how does AF make the camera body bigger?

  15. #35

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    I like DX camera. FX camera is too heavy to carry around. The market is always there. Don't worry.

  16. #36
    Senior Member zac08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    11,755

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Quote Originally Posted by cks2k2 View Post
    I still don't get it.
    I'm only familiar with Canon, and with Canon the AF motor is on the lens. So how does AF make the camera body bigger?
    You'll still need to fit in a AF module right? And it has to be compatible with all their lenses. So it will take some space in the camera and electronics to link as well.
    Michael Lim
    My Flickr Site

  17. #37
    Member banana0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jurong west
    Posts
    1,488

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Quote Originally Posted by zac08 View Post
    You'll still need to fit in a AF module right? And it has to be compatible with all their lenses. So it will take some space in the camera and electronics to link as well.

    I won't say anything but please refer to the picture.
    Here's a cut-off view of the K-5 and see how AF module affects the mirrorbox and total DSLR size.

    http://falklumo.smugmug.com/Photogra...005_FvKA7-A-LB
    I dunno!!!
    It's banana-zero-neh. :)

  18. #38

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    End of the day, there will still be a bunch of faithful followers using 135mm film and some of them will continue to stubbornly(?) process their own negatives... same for digital, the APS-c market may shrink but nevertheless, it'll not be forgotten. There will surely be diehard fans of APS-c that I'm sure it'll still be around in a good 20 years time!

    A time and place for everyone and everything else!
    Its just a box ... ... [ Ō ▀ ]

  19. #39

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    Quote Originally Posted by zac08 View Post
    You'll still need to fit in a AF module right? And it has to be compatible with all their lenses. So it will take some space in the camera and electronics to link as well.
    Isn't the AF module just ICs and PCBs and the like (for non-internal motor bodies)? Shouldn't really take up too much space, especially if they mount it vertically.

  20. #40
    Member zk-diq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Telok Blangah
    Posts
    1,387

    Default Re: 36 x 24mm and APS-C

    End of the day, there will still be a bunch of faithful followers /enthusiast using 135mm / 120mm (6 x 6 cm -- 6 x 24 cm) 4 x 5 - 11 x 14 inch film and some of them will continue to enjoy process their own negatives/slide (colour and BW)... same for digital, the APS-c market may shrink but nevertheless, it'll not be forgotten. There will surely be diehard fans of APS-c that I'm sure it'll still be around in a good 20 years time!

    A time and place for everyone and everything else!

    This sound better

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •