[johnmflores]

APS-C (and APS-C dSLRS in particular) will continue until someone/something else can fill an end cap with $400 two lens kits for soccer moms and dads.

My bet is that 1" will take over that spot eventually. Maybe within 10 years.

[osv]

Here's why relying on dxomark PRINT snr leads to wrong impressions with regard to the true performance of a sensor.

wrong as usual, because nobody delivers photos at 100% pixel size.

i laugh at how your quack science ideas got you kicked off of dpr: You do not understand f-stop at all by dtmateojr: Photographic Science and Technology Forum: Digital Photography Review

[THoog]

Assuming dedicated cameras continue, and assuming the small-ish ILC segment continues, I don't think it makes much sense to say u4/3 will replace APS-C. Sony, Canon, and Fuji, who have APS-C MILCs in the same size range as u4/3, aren't going to just concede the segment to Olympus/Panasonic. Nor are they going try to compete at that size & price point with a 35mm FF sensor - nor are they going to throw away their existing APS-C MILC platforms and switch to u4/3 for a slight size difference. If small lenses are what it takes to compete in the segment, they will make more small lenses. For buyers, I think price, features, & system compatibility will be more of a deciding factor than size alone.

35mm FF may be growing and eating into the top end of the APS-C share, but that hardly means APS-C is going away - APS-C also has the farthest to fall. If they aren't making as many APS-C lenses as 35mm FF now, it's because there are so many APS-C lenses already out there.

[mee]

Getting back to the OP:
1) Smartphones will continue to take over and eventually dominate the industry. Modular add-on lenses and even sensors will improve and become available.
2) APS-C sales will slowly decline, but the cameras will be better and better due to sensor improvements, which will improve in a way similar to Moore's Law.
3) For most serious amateur photographers an APS-C camera is all that is needed. At some point the MP in each sensor will be "good enough" and the prices will significantly drop.

I agree. But with every trend, the chicken littles come out.

However, I think what happened in the past 5 years is APS-C DSLRs became so affordable that anyone who was ever interested in taking serious photos could obtain one. The lower rung ... the entry level tier. That market is wholly saturated now. So that side will probably diminish some as the pull was unusual (a spike). But the desire for higher end models did not.. the desire is still there and (guessing) is increasing.

Just as recently it was the tablet trend.. and desktops were going the way of the dodo bird. The tablet market saturated and, while the market waned, the PC did not disappear. Many gamers and media makers are still desiring the qualities a desktop can provide. So much that sales of high end PCs actually INCREASED last quarter.

Point being.. ignore the static.. the chicken littles screaming over a trend.. the market ebbs and flows and continues on.

[dtmateojr]

The requirement for downsampling by a certain amount is not arbitrary. It is what you have to do when doing an apples-to-apples comparison at the same print size, and the fact remains that the Canon's print is cleaner. I have a hard time seeing how this bolsters your case that m43 is as good as FF by that metric.

---------- Post added 03-17-16 at 09:05 AM ----------



The numbers don't lie. If getting clean prints at that size is all you care about, you did get a bargain with the D800. I don't want to get in an argument with you about why that is. Suffice it to say that bringing up a case where two FF cameras match each others performance by that metric does not help your case claiming that m43 is just as good. What would help is you bringing up an example where an m43 camera actually gets close to an FF in this department, but I suspect you'll have a very hard time digging that up.

The only reason the D800 matched the print output of the D4 is because the normalised print size is only 8x10 or 8Mp. If the print size is 36Mp the D4 wins even if it is enlarged and the D800 was printed at "native resolution".

Now when it comes to E-M5 vs 5DS at print size of 8x10 the human eye won't even notice the pixels. I have seen a 85" 4K tv and from a distance of 1.5m I could not see any pixels. An E-M5 has twice the resolution of a 4K tv. So there.

So, again, no. The print snr does not tell you everything.

---------- Post added 03-18-16 at 09:11 ----------

wrong as usual, because nobody delivers photos at 100% pixel size.



i laugh at how your quack science ideas got you kicked off of dpr: You do not understand f-stop at all by dtmateojr: Photographic Science and Technology Forum: Digital Photography Review

I have no patience for the stupid "experts " in DPR. heck, the "experts" in hardware can't even shoot even if they tried.

And for the record "quack science" is my degree in Physics major in optics and digital signal processing. Yeah, quack it is. ROFL!

[Ikarus]

Now when it comes to E-M5 vs 5DS at print size of 8x10 the human eye won't even notice the pixels.

In my book, two full stops of difference in SNR ain't chump change to a trained person's eye, but anyway, now that you changed your tune from "m43 is just as good as FF" to "it isn't, but it doesn't matter (to me)", I think we can leave it at that.

[dtmateojr]

In my book, two full stops of difference in SNR ain't chump change to a trained person's eye, but anyway, now that you changed your tune from "m43 is just as good as FF" to "it isn't, but it doesn't matter (to me)", I think we can leave it at that.

Why do you keep ignoring the facts I pointed out about the D4 and D800? Had dxomark normalised to a 16Mp print instead of 8Mp the D4 would have come out on top of the D800 in print snr. you keep using a measly 8x10 print as the sole basis of image quality. You keep ignoring the facts I told about billboards and 85" tv. You are selectively accepting facts. In a thread that is supposed to be informative your personal bias is much louder than the truth.

[Ikarus]

Why do you keep ignoring the facts I pointed out about the D4 and D800? Had dxomark normalised to a 16Mp print instead of 8Mp the D4 would have come out on top of the D800 in print snr. you keep using a measly 8x10 print as the sole basis of image quality. You keep ignoring the facts I told about billboards and 85" tv. You are selectively accepting facts. In a thread that is supposed to be informative your personal bias is much louder than the truth.

You don't get to change the subject and deflect from the fact that you made a completely unsubstantiated claim, i.e. that m43 is as good as full frame in terms of noise, while the example you picked shows the exact opposite, since the m43 cannot even match the FF at that "measly 8x10" size. You have been asked to provide a print-size DxO mark 18% SNR example, where the m43 is as good as FF, and I'm still waiting. I'm all for discussing D4 vs. D800 and 8x10 vs. billboard size once we have that out of the way.

[philbaum]

The one thing i'm missing from all this dialog, as very interesting as it is, is What Are The Cameras To Be Used For?

One doesn't need enthusiast cameras, aps, FF, or even m4/3 for facebook. For wall decorations - art if you wish. maybe some. Perhaps in the future, still pictures will just be picked out of a stream of 4K video. One needs pics of your children, than smart phones will do that just fine.

I don't think any of us know where this will end up. Used to be that FF was expensive, now one has the base A7 model at around $1000, when APS used to sell above $1400. Thousands, perhaps millions of people will buy cameras. The different camera models will be around for a long time if people continue to buy them. If not, then there will be fewer and fewer models. That would be sad.

Video for example. If younger generations are more into video than still pics, that will be where the large aggregate of expenditure will be. And the incredible resolutions and still camera performance we love today will be relegated to some museum dedicated to olden days, as my son once asked about :-)

[6BQ5]

I think a better question is what will happen to K-mount APS vs. APS in general? The K-mount is meant to be used as FF format. It has a massive registration distance which prevents it from being small - ever. Compare the distance of K-mount's 45.46mm to u4/3's 19.25mm. The smaller u4/3 sensor also further shrinks the lenses. Fast lenses, for those who want them, exist in other formats. How fast is fast enough? Well, that's up to you decide with your wallet. I still think APS on K-mount will fade to a has-been. New bodies will still be produced but the lenses will fade. Ricoh would be better off making one D-FA 77mm Limited vs a separate FA Limited 77mm and a separate DA Limited 70mm. Having FF lenses will provide a logical upgrade path for APS users since their new lenses will cover the FF sensor. I know many people get upset thinking that Ricoh will let APS fade because these people have invested a lot of money in their lenses and are attached to them. Yes, it's going to hurt to eventually move over to FF but that's the only place Ricoh can go with K-mount if they any to survive. Thankfully, they will be supporting APS equipment for a while as K-mount grows back to a true FF system.

Contrast this to Fuji and Sony who have fresh APS format designs with their mounts. These systems may still find growth before feeling a tight squeeze as u4/3 and 1" catch up. There is no massive mirror box to fight against. The body is truly compact and full of advanced shooting features.

Don't get me wrong. I love Ricoh and I'm thrilled about FF! There's no doubt in my mind that I will be moving to FF. I'll keep my K-3 as a teleconverter for all my FF lenses.

[dtmateojr]

You don't get to change the subject and deflect from the fact that you made a completely unsubstantiated claim, i.e. that m43 is as good as full frame in terms of noise, while the example you picked shows the exact opposite, since the m43 cannot even match the FF at that "measly 8x10" size. You have been asked to provide a print-size DxO mark 18% SNR example, where the m43 is as good as FF, and I'm still waiting. I'm all for discussing D4 vs. D800 and 8x10 vs. billboard size once we have that out of the way.

Well I can't because a PRINT snr obviously favours more megapixels but NOT necessarily a bigger sensor. If the m43 maintained the same SCREEN snr but was 50Mp it will match the 5DS performance at any print size.

[Ikarus]

Well I can't because a PRINT snr obviously favours more megapixels but NOT necessarily a bigger sensor.

Alright, so there is in fact no current m43 that can hold a candle to any current FF in terms of noise. That's a start.

Now, that the print SNR metric at this "measly print size" favors more megapixels is not at all "obvious". Already your very own Nikon FF example from earlier refutes the claim. You also might want to compare the 20.3 megapixel Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 m43 against its lesser megapixel, larger sensor competition like the 16 megapixel K-5 APS-C or the 12 megapixel Sony A7S FF. I think you'll see a pattern emerge.

[dtmateojr]

Alright, so there is in fact no current m43 that can hold a candle to any current FF in terms of noise. That's a start.

Now, that the print SNR metric at this "measly print size" favors more megapixels is not at all "obvious". Already your very own Nikon FF example from earlier refutes the claim. You also might want to compare the 20.3 megapixel Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 m43 against its lesser megapixel, larger sensor competition like the 16 megapixel K-5 APS-C or the 12 megapixel Sony A7S FF. I think you'll see a pattern emerge.

How is PRINT snr not favouring more megapixels when a 36Mp D800 matches the snr of the superior 16Mp D4 at 8x10? You don't get the basic logic don't you?!

The GX8 will never match the K5 or A7S because of its very poor SCREEN snr. Again, very basic logic that you fail to understand.

[Ikarus]

How is PRINT snr not favouring more megapixels when a 36Mp D800 matches the snr of the superior 16Mp D4 at 8x10? You don't get the basic logic don't you?!

Funny. The two have vastly different amounts of pixels, yet, the print SNR is virtually identical. From this you draw the conclusion that the amount of pixels is "obviously" the determining factor for print SNR and then tell me I am the one having a problem with logic. The irony is palpable. I'm clearly wasting my time here. Unsubscribed.

[dtmateojr]

Funny. The two have vastly different amounts of pixels, yet, the print SNR is virtually identical. From this you draw the conclusion that the amount of pixels is "obviously" the determining factor for print SNR and then tell me I am the one having a problem with logic. The irony is palpable. I'm clearly wasting my time here. Unsubscribed.

Thank you. Please ignore me forever. You will never understand what SNR or resampling means and how they are related and unrelated to each other.