[mrNewt]

FF will NEVER be cheaper than APS-C sensor.
Eventually it will get as low as an APS-C sensor but in the same time APS-C will get lower in its price as well.

[Rondec]

We're yet to see someone who's claimed that FF sensors would be less expensive than APS-C. Who knows, could've been a mis-type by the poster (me?), bad edit by the poster, misunderstanding by the normhead, etc.


Until we do I think it's best not to argue against a strawman.

I guess the question if somehow all of the camera companies would just decide together to discontinue APS-C cameras because they just aren't making enough money on them and only market full frame cameras. Doesn't seem likely, but I suppose it could happen...

[jsherman999]

I guess the question if somehow all of the camera companies would just decide together to discontinue APS-C cameras because they just aren't making enough money on them and only market full frame cameras. Doesn't seem likely, but I suppose it could happen...

And I think there's a real possibility that could happen, at least to everyone but the big two.

If Pentax is no longer able to sell entry-level aps-c DSLRs in the same volume they did in 2010 because of encroaching disruptive players like MILC and Mirrorless-fixed (and, frankly, phone cameras to some degree,) and are unable to sell in the same volumes on the upper end because of encroaching FF, Ricoh may give up the ghost on their DSLR product (K-mount) and go another direction.

[jsherman999]

We're yet to see someone who's claimed that FF sensors would be less expensive than APS-C. Who knows, could've been a mis-type by the poster (me?), bad edit by the poster, misunderstanding by the normhead, etc.


Until we do I think it's best not to argue against a strawman.

Yes, maybe Norm has a link to where he saw someone specifically say FF sensors will be cheaper than aps-c sensors?
.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 01-08-2014 at 12:11 PM.

[jsherman999]

For every one of these assertions, that APS-c is in some way inferior at producing images,

There are a few nice images in there Norm, although aside from the DOF image, at about 5x7 size it's hard to see any real quality (or problems) that might be there, and the PP applied when downsampled to those tiny sizes makes the landscapes look almost garish, over clarified... larger might be much better. And to me the wolf shot may have been a lost opportunity to pop the subject out more from the background. IMO.

It seems like you're posting them though to prove that aps-c can take nice pictures; as far as I know, no-one has said otherwise. So it seems like you're arguing against a point no-one tried to make, right?

Class A very clearly and succinctly expanded on some of the stuff I've said already in this thread, and added a few nice insights - I'll paste what he wrote below, with a few things bolded. Please read and consider and don't answer what you think it says or what you want it to say - that's a strawman crutch.

Like many others I'm not in the business of selling FF to anyone and I am very happy for everyone feeling that APS-C or Micro Four Thirds, or whatever is all they need.

I do not start "FF is great" or similar threads.

However, again like many others, if I see FF being misinterpreted, I often comment.

For instance,

shooting in low light 2.8 on APS-c is better than 3.5 to 3.5 on FF. .. For exposure,ƒ 2.8 on FF is the same as ƒ2.8 on APS-c.

is a factually wrong statement. Also, misses the point because "exposure" is not the deciding factor for image quality. The amount of total light captured is relevant, not the per-unit-square measure of exposure.

A Q with an f/1.8 lens can achieve the same exposure as a D800 with an f/1.8. Yet the latter captures 28 times the amount of light which is almost a 5 stop advantage in terms of noise. Stating that in both cases the exposure is the same, is not helpful.

As a former teacher, you should be keen to make sure that any information / advice you publish is correct. So I suggest that you read up on the topic before you misinform more readers and invite more comments from those who have a hard time seeing wrong information being spread.

A good explanation of what is relevant for image quality and how to compare different formats is the "Equivalence" essay by Joseph James.

Please also know that larger formats are not just about achieving a shallow DOF aesthetic. While I have to admit that I'm keen on a Pentax FF because it will make it easier to achieve subject-background separation at larger distances there are many other reasons why FF isn't just addressing an alleged 2% of photos you cannot take with APS-C.

For one, larger sensors have higher dynamic range, everything else being equal. As a landscape shooter, you may be interested in that aspect.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out before, lenses can operate much nearer their sweet spot (e.g., f/4) while collecting the same amount of light that a lens on APS-C collects wide open (e.g., f/2.8). Clearly, a lens at f/4 has less trouble projecting a quality image than a lens at f/2.8 (which often is wide open on APS-C).

Moreover, to that you need to add that the image from the lens at f/2.8 will receive higher magnification by a factor of 1.5. Hence, lens aberrations (which are higher to begin with) and/or the inevitable tolerances of the AF system will be magnified by a factor of 1.5.

Although it is not always light reading, I highly recommend the "True reasons for Full Frame -- Whitepaper" by Falk Lumo.

Here's a quote:

"In theory, every image quality can be made with every sensor size by making an equivalent camera.
...
However, with a sensor too small, this becomes increasingly expensive such that for each given image quality, there is a sweet spot of best sensor size."

In other words, at a certain level of image quality, FF does become the cheaper choice. It would just become prohibitively expensive to achieve the same quality with a smaller format. Note how pricey the Zuiko lenses from Olympus are. To the best of my knowledge these are not "rip-off" prices, it is just so expensive to manufacture lenses with such a level of precision that they deliver high image quality despite the small sensor size they are designed for.

Again, I don't think anyone wants to convert you to an FF fan. I'm personally very happy with anyone being fully contend with APS-C. For many, there is no reason not to be fully contend with a smaller than FF sensor size. However, that does not mean that one should spread wrong information regarding larger sensor sizes.

.

[Rondec]

And I think there's a real possibility that could happen, at least to everyone but the big two.

If Pentax is no longer able to sell entry-level aps-c DSLRs in the same volume they did in 2010 because of encroaching disruptive players like MILC and Mirrorless-fixed (and, frankly, phone cameras to some degree,) and are unable to sell in the same volumes on the upper end because of encroaching FF, Ricoh may give up the ghost on their DSLR product (K-mount) and go another direction.

I don't know. I would say that Pentax is more likely to get volume pricing for APS-C sensors than for full frame sensors. Assuming that they pay more for full frame sensors than Sony/Nikon/Canon, there is less revenue with a full frame camera for them than for the other major players.

I really doubt that APS-C is going anywhere soon. Who knows what will happen in five years -- that's basically an eternity in electronics. We could be shooting Ar7s by then...

[mecrox]

And I think there's a real possibility that could happen, at least to everyone but the big two.

If Pentax is no longer able to sell entry-level aps-c DSLRs in the same volume they did in 2010 because of encroaching disruptive players like MILC and Mirrorless-fixed (and, frankly, phone cameras to some degree,) and are unable to sell in the same volumes on the upper end because of encroaching FF, Ricoh may give up the ghost on their DSLR product (K-mount) and go another direction.

Isn't there a danger of the whole middle ground of the industry giving way over the next few years, and not in the DSLR's favour? So one might have smartphone (better than now) > 1" sensor in MILC format, mostly fixed lens > full frame format, interchangeabe lenses. The reason might be that cameras like middle-ranking DSLRs need large volumes - to make them affordable and to sustain the R&D, etc. If those volumes shrink, perhaps because something like the Sony RX10 is seen as "good enough" for all but high-end uses, and because folks have stopped upgrading nearly so often, then the next step up the ladder becomes correspondingly more expensive. At the top of the ladder are those who need or want the best and can afford it. They'd never be happy with a 1" sensor or their work precludes it. Not long ago, my impression is that if you wanted a top-of-the-line professional camera you had to be ready to pony up 5000 bucks or so and there were only a couple of models. Maybe we're just going back to where we were a few years ago, with a few expensive pro models and the rest of the market congregated around a couple of smaller formats, but this time smartphone and 1" rather than 1/1,7" and APS-C (or M43). The change is driven by economics, not image quality.

[northcoastgreg]

For one, larger sensors have higher dynamic range, everything else being equal. As a landscape shooter, you may be interested in that aspect.

Well, of course everything is never all equal. The K-5 was dynamic range king for a year and a half, and even now, after being dethroned by the D800, the difference in dynamic range is negligible. So in recent years there's been no real FF advantage for dynamic range. Perhaps that will change in the future. But given the current emphasis on cranking up the megapixels (rather than optimizing DR or high ISO performance), I'm not so sure about that.

In other words, at a certain level of image quality, FF does become the cheaper choice.

True but potentially misleading. If you insist on "equivalence," than you can spin FF as cheaper and no heavier than APS-C. But people don't buy APS-C to gain equivalence; they buy APS-C to save money (or, what amounts to the same thing, because they can't afford FF). Things that cost less money are, generally speaking, not as good as things you pay more for. APS-C and FF are not equivalent. Consumers are willing to pay more for FF because FF is "better" (although how much better is a matter of dispute). Many consumers, however, cannot afford the extra costs related to FF. I know several photographers who are really struggling financially and can barely afford an entry level APS-C DSLR, let alone a "budget" FF (which costs more than three times as much). Not every hobbyist can shell out $1,500+ on a camera and another $1,000 to get some decent zoom glass (and few photographers are going to be satisfied with just a few cheap primes). So while it may be true that you can attain a specific DOF at a given FOV more cheaply with FF, nonetheless (1) for some photographers, attaining that specific DOF is not worth the extra cost; and (2) for many photographers, attaining that DOF is beyond their financial means.

I would also note that there are opportunity costs involved. If I had $2,600 to spend on photography, I could easily afford an FF camera, but I would have much less money to spend on glass. If I went APS-C and bought a $500 entry level camera, I would still have enough money to buy the Sigma 8-16, the Pentax 17-70 and the Tamron 70-200; I'm essentially covering 8mm to 200mm with some pretty good glass. You give up DOF control, but gain greater FOV coverage. Most photographers I know would go for the greater FOV coverage.

[jsherman999]

I don't know. I would say that Pentax is more likely to get volume pricing for APS-C sensors than for full frame sensors. Assuming that they pay more for full frame sensors than Sony/Nikon/Canon, there is less revenue with a full frame camera for them than for the other major players.

For that matter there's less revenue from aps-c as well - Canon and Nikon dwarf Pentax's aps-c volume 10 to 1. They can get volume discounts on those sensors Pentax will probably never see, and that doesn't stop Pentax from making profits on aps-c.

And the fact that they see less revenue at any tier may be beside the point - if the tier they want to stay in dries up to the point where it can't sustain them by itself, they may abandon it.

I really doubt that APS-C is going anywhere soon. Who knows what will happen in five years -- that's basically an eternity in electronics. We could be shooting Ar7s by then...

I'm positive Ricoh didn't buy the business to see it peter out 7 years after purchase, and if there's a danger that could happen they should be making plans now to secure revenue streams. My gripe is it's something that should have started happening a few years ago, because it takes time to expand the lens lineup. (I do keep telling myself, however, to keep the ownership situation in mind the past 5 years - that can turn a coherent plan into a series of fire drills.)

[Rondec]

Well, of course everything is never all equal. The K-5 was dynamic range king for a year and a half, and even now, after being dethroned by the D800, the difference in dynamic range is negligible. So in recent years there's been no real FF advantage for dynamic range. Perhaps that will change in the future. But given the current emphasis on cranking up the megapixels (rather than optimizing DR or high ISO performance), I'm not so sure about that.



True but potentially misleading. If you insist on "equivalence," than you can spin FF as cheaper and no heavier than APS-C. But people don't buy APS-C to gain equivalence; they buy APS-C to save money (or, what amounts to the same thing, because they can't afford FF). Things that cost less money are, generally speaking, not as good as things you pay more for. APS-C and FF are not equivalent. Consumers are willing to pay more for FF because FF is "better" (although how much better is a matter of dispute). Many consumers, however, cannot afford the extra costs related to FF. I know several photographers who are really struggling financially and can barely afford an entry level APS-C DSLR, let alone a "budget" FF (which costs more than three times as much). Not every hobbyist can shell out $1,500+ on a camera and another $1,000 to get some decent zoom glass (and few photographers are going to be satisfied with just a few cheap primes). So while it may be true that you can attain a specific DOF at a given FOV more cheaply with FF, nonetheless (1) for some photographers, attaining that specific DOF is not worth the extra cost; and (2) for many photographers, attaining that DOF is beyond their financial means.

I would also note that there are opportunity costs involved. If I had $2,600 to spend on photography, I could easily afford an FF camera, but I would have much less money to spend on glass. If I went APS-C and bought a $500 entry level camera, I would still have enough money to buy the Sigma 8-16, the Pentax 17-70 and the Tamron 70-200; I'm essentially covering 8mm to 200mm with some pretty good glass. You give up DOF control, but gain greater FOV coverage. Most photographers I know would go for the greater FOV coverage.

That's the thing is that there is pretty good bang for your buck with a K30/K50 at this point -- nice viewfinder, decent frame rate, dual control wheels, and sealing -- basically everything you would have gotten in a K5 when it was released for 1500 dollars. Even the K5 II, which I think most people agree is a nice camera, sells new for 650 at the end of its cycle.

I struggle with knowing how much you can compare entry level full frame with flagship APS-C. I mean obviously you can compare any two cameras, but how much does the bigger sensor make up for other deficiencies?

[jsherman999]

So in recent years there's been no real FF advantage for dynamic range.

With same-gen bodies (AFAIK) there always has been a DR advantage to FF once you move up from base ISO. (What's changed is that the D800 has now claimed the base ISO as well.)

I would also note that there are opportunity costs involved. If I had $2,600 to spend on photography, I could easily afford an FF camera, but I would have much less money to spend on glass.

If you were willing to buy gently-used, you may be surprised at how much FF kit you could buy for $2600. In the near future you may be making the choice between a new $1200 FF camera and a $750 aps-c camera with similar specs, save for the larger sensor. Would you choose the aps-c camera so readily then if the savings was only $400 or so?

Also - $2600 can get sucked up in an instant with aps-c purchases as well. There are a lot of aps-c shooters quietly reading this thread who know what I'm talking about

[normhead]

There seems to be an on going theme in this thread that APS-c is bought only because it's cheaper. The fact that some people only bought it because it's cheaper, doesn't mean everyone did. It may have that advantage at the moment, but there is absolutely nothing to support the notion that people wouldn't buy APS-c, even if it was more expensive. APS-c has lots of advantages over FF that are worth paying for. Longer reach with shorter lenses, more magnification for macro.the majority of it's skill set overlapping with FF. It's an opinion that floats around with absolutely not an ounce of data to support it. I'm willing to bet, there would b as many APS-c shooters, say 10% of the market shooting APS-c, pretty much the same as 10% now shoot full frame. That would assume, 10% prefer APS-c, 10% prefer FF and 80% don't care and go with what's cheapest. There have always been smaller, less capable niche cameras. But if you look in the 300 plus lens club, you'll see many of the best shooters take full advantage of the APS-c superiority in some areas, and also take some of the best images posted.

One of my friends bought a D3200 with an 18-200 on it. She liked how it fit in her hands and she didn't want to change lenses. I bet there are more DSLR purchasers like her, than there are FF enthusiasts.

It's just an opinion, but it's as likely as anything else that's been proposed. You can say if FF became cheaper APS-c would disappear, in your house. Predicting what the rest of humanity will do is probably not a good place going.

[ElJamoquio]

Would you choose the aps-c camera so readily then if the savings was only $400 or so?

...or if it's -$500? -$1500?

Look at what FOV and DOF control you want to have, then calculate costs and kit weight... not that hard.

The are some reasons for APS-C system, sure.
1) Faster frame rate (almost always)
2) Lower cost (sometimes)
3) lower weight (usually, but 'it depends')


In those cases where 2 isn't a factor, then what?

[jsherman999]

... but there is absolutely nothing to support the notion that people wouldn't buy APS-c, even if it was more expensive.

I would bet my house that every manufacturer has loads of market research saying otherwise.

The only time it consistently doesn't work that way is if the item in question is a Veblen good, or has other market characteristics that cameras/tech don't tend to have. Price drives markets, yields drive prices.

APS-c has lots of advantages over FF that are worth paying for. Longer reach with shorter lenses

This is only true if current-gen pixel density supports it. For example, aps-c had no 'reach' advantage at all over the D800 until the 24MP sensors started coming out, because you could just crop the D800 image 1.5x and get the exact same image the D7000/K5 would produce. Once the 54MP FF sensors appear, 24MP loses that ground back again.

Do you think aps-c is going to 36MP? (it very well might, but think about what that starts to imply about diffraction limitations, etc.)

[normhead]

But the distortion doesn't restrict itself to human figures. Yes, it's more prominent on persons. But being the nitpicky pixelpeeping photographer that I am, distorted rocks, trees or any other distorted objects jump out just the same. I don't like it. And the solution was FF because its simply better at that. Of course APS-C with WA works, it just looks bad. And no, in my opinion distortion is never good. It's like lens softness, that's never good either. In the rare case that it is desired it could be added in PP. Or in that case a cellphone can be used.

I would bet my house that every manufacturer has loads of market research saying otherwise. The only time it consistently doesn't work that way is if the item in question is a Veblen good.



This is only true if current-gen pixel density supports it. For example, aps-c had no 'reach' advantage at all over the D800 until the 24MP sensors started coming out, because you could just crop the D800 image 1.5x and get the exact same image the D7000/K5 would produce. Once the 54MP FF sensors appear, 24MP loses that ground back again.

Do you think aps-c is going to 36MP? (it very well might, but think about what that starts to imply about diffraction limitations, etc.)

I am waiting for Apple to come out with a profile for the K-3 with some built in noise reduction to say for sure, but if things were to stay the way they are today, I'd say noise will stop APS-c from going to 36 Mp before the diffraction limit will. If memory serves me well, the diffraction limit for APS-c is somewhere around 40 MP. That's when the limit would fall below ƒ5.6.

Based on current technology, 24 MP will be it for me in APS-c. If they can come up with noise reduction that doesn't cost resolution, then 40 Mp should be perhaps the upper limit. Already you need 4 more MP in APS-c to get the same resolution as a similar FF camera. That's not too bad. As the diffraction limit gets lower, the law of diminishing returns will make higher Mp APS-c less desirable. Just a guess.