Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Dan Wells on October 10, 2018, 11:32:07 am
-
As all the other manufacturers move to full-frame for everything except entry-level cameras, what will happen to the availability of class-leading APS-C sensors? Fuji placed a huge bet on APS-C, and they did it right - with high-quality lenses that took advantage of the potential weight savings, and were the right focal lengths for the sensors.
Other manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Sony) focused their lens development efforts on cheap lenses and superzooms for APS-C, while saving the high-quality lenses for full-frame (with few exceptions). We'd occasionally see a non-Fuji APS-C body over $1000, but they never had the lens support, and they lingered on the market with very few updates (D300-D300S-D500 is a classic example).
With FF mirrorless appearing all over the place, three new systems (including Canon and Nikon) released in the last month, nobody except Fuji has released a higher-end APS-C camera in nearly two years (the D500). I can't recall when we last saw a non-Fuji APS-C lens of note...
Will Fuji's business be enough for Sony (or someone else) to keep putting the latest technology in APS-C sensors? Or, since the APS-C market now consists of "$400 cameras and Fuji", will they be relegated to only sensors that are suited for cheap cameras (with custom color filters)? If you're building a D3500, you can't afford to spend more than $30(?) on the sensor, while you're happy to spend $250 if you're building an X-H1 - but will there be a $250 sensor to buy???
Dan
-
As all the other manufacturers move to full-frame for everything except entry-level cameras, what will happen to the availability of class-leading APS-C sensors? Fuji placed a huge bet on APS-C, and they did it right - with high-quality lenses that took advantage of the potential weight savings, and were the right focal lengths for the sensors.
Other manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Sony) focused their lens development efforts on cheap lenses and superzooms for APS-C, while saving the high-quality lenses for full-frame (with few exceptions). We'd occasionally see a non-Fuji APS-C body over $1000, but they never had the lens support, and they lingered on the market with very few updates (D300-D300S-D500 is a classic example).
With FF mirrorless appearing all over the place, three new systems (including Canon and Nikon) released in the last month, nobody except Fuji has released a higher-end APS-C camera in nearly two years (the D500). I can't recall when we last saw a non-Fuji APS-C lens of note...
Will Fuji's business be enough for Sony (or someone else) to keep putting the latest technology in APS-C sensors? Or, since the APS-C market now consists of "$400 cameras and Fuji", will they be relegated to only sensors that are suited for cheap cameras (with custom color filters)? If you're building a D3500, you can't afford to spend more than $30(?) on the sensor, while you're happy to spend $250 if you're building an X-H1 - but will there be a $250 sensor to buy???
Dan
There are a lot of rumours out there regarding a high performance crop camera coming from Sony...so maybe APS-C is not dead quite yet.
-
APS-C is still the main seller in the serious camera market so I wouldn't worry too much right now.
Moreover, who can tell what size sensor we will all be using 5 years from now?
Besides, I don't need too many sensors/cameras in my life (even though my GAS is a huge problem). A smaller supply would still be OK.
Sent from my Pure1 using Tapatalk
-
With most of their camera they can fit a full frame sensor and use just the APS-C portion of it ;D
-
You camera will continue to work properly even if APS-C sensor supply diminishes, so I am not sure what you are worried about. It is not like they are discontinuing a certain size film.
-
The abandonment of sub-35mm formats has been exaggerated I think, even for the better than entry level sector. One driver is higher resolution (Lp/mm) allowing smaller, lighter lenses, particularly for telephoto. The less expensive 35mm format cameras have only about the same pixel count as APS-C (which is now moving a bit beyond 24 MP) so really do need about 1.5X longer lenses, and to get the advertised speed advantage of the larger sensor, they also need to have proportionately larger front elements, substantially increasing weight and cost.
-
From time to time I enjoy taking pics with long lenses. Particularly so when travelling. I much prefer zooms for this due to the framing flexibility: when "framing with your feet" the more camera/lens reach you're working with, the further you have to go and the longer it takes to get there. With the little Panasonic GX8 my out & about long lens of choice is a Pany 100–300/4.0–5.6. Weighs 520g and fits easily in a small-ish Domke shoulder bag. Image quality is pretty darn good.
If I were to abandon m43 for a "full frame" equivalent travel rig, here are my best current long zoom options:
• Tamron 150–600/5.0–6.3 — 2010g
• Sigma 150–600/5.0–6.3 — 1950g
Note that these are both SLR lenses. There are no 135 format mirrorless equivalents at present, though I imagine they'll come. Not that they'll be small or light…forget about cramming such lenses into small shoulder bags or even just lugging 'em around for any extended time.
IMO once the marketeering sheen of full frame fever dulls, lotsa folks will rediscover the size & weight advantages of smaller formats.
Attached pic via GX8 and 100–300mm at 300mm (600mm equiv.). ISO 6400…I made the mistake of downing a double espresso shortly before going on a park walk, so to compensate for the inevitable jitters I bumped up my shutter speeds. ;D
-Dave-
-
IMO once the marketeering sheen of full frame fever dulls, lotsa folks will rediscover the size & weight advantages of smaller formats.
Or just realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
-
If I were to abandon m43 for a "full frame" equivalent travel rig, here are my best current long zoom options:
• Tamron 150–600/5.0–6.3 — 2010g
• Sigma 150–600/5.0–6.3 — 1950g
I have that Tamron and it's huge, I tried it a couple of times and it's just too much unless you absolutely know that you need that reach. I'll try to sell it. The m43 has some nice telephoto options as long as very shallow DOF is not an what you need. For very long telephoto I can use the Sony RX10 iv, similar in DOF to your Panny.
-
Full-frame is completely arbitrary - there is no reason why a hack to take still images going the "wrong" way on 35mm movie film a century ago (it was before Oskar Barnack, although he popularized it) should have any relevance at all to the optimum size of a digital sensor today (neither should a slightly undersized version of one size (of three) of a failed 1990s film format). The only value it has is that if all the body and lens makers have standardized on one size (which just happens to be that century-old hack) for enthusiast to pro cameras, the sensor makers are going to respond by making their best at that size...
Until the recent announcements, sensors came in every which size.
Sony was pushing full frame (although they made APS-C as well, they made mostly junk lenses for it, and their APS-C bodies were not compelling enough to use their much better FF lenses on).
Fuji loved APS-C (they still do), and had actually put the substantial investment into custom lenses for it. They were also working with a format halfway between full frame and traditional medium format.
Olympus and Panasonic were going for an even smaller format (was it coincidence that it was very close to 110 film?)
Leica was full frame (although they were partially making commemorative cameras that even they admitted they could omit the sensor from many units of (and nobody would ever notice) - they were going to sit on a shelf gathering value).
Nikon was in a bit of disarray - most of their sales were inexpensive APS-C bodies that had a limited range of inexpensive native lenses (and could also use excellent full-frame Nikkors), while much of their profit came from very well-regarded higher-end full-frame bodies and lenses, which were where their development energy seemed to be going. They had one or two odd higher-end APS-C bodies (depending on whether you count the D7x00 as higher-end) that really didn't have appropriate native lenses. Oh, and they had an oft-forgotten mirrorless line that used a sensor size normally found in compact cameras...
Canon was similar to Nikon, except that they had a clearer differentiation - their APS-C line didn't run quite as high (and the highest end of it was neglected). Their mirrorless effort was (mainly inexpensive) APS-C.
Pentax was small enough that they'd buy whatever sensor someone would sell them, and their lenses rarely matched their sensors (many of their lenses were full-frame before any of their sensors were, because they were film-era lenses...). They managed to have THREE different mirrorless sensor sizes (two versions of the Q, plus one K-mount APS-C mirrorless), none of which sold.
Photokina 2018:
Leica and Panasonic (and Sigma, adding the possibility of an unusual sensor) make a huge commitment to full-frame together. There is a subtext from Panasonic that this is their primary way forward...
Nikon says "our mirrorless strategy is high-end full-frame" with some well thought-out bodies and lenses, and shows no signs of a commitment to APS-C outside of the entry level.
Canon introduces a full-frame mirrorless line that offers no migration path from their APS-C mirrorless (it does from their DSLRs).
Pentax and Olympus say nothing at all - how much longer does either have in the camera business?
Fuji introduces an iterative APS-C body and a couple of exciting small medium format bodies.
The game of musical sensors appears to be settling in... I hope Fuji can find their seat, when everybody else is on the full-frame side of the circle.
Thee are technical advantages and disadvantages to various sizes - my concern for Fuji isn't that they took a technically inferior approach, but that they took an approach nobody else did and may have trouble getting parts?
-
As all the other manufacturers move to full-frame for everything except entry-level cameras, what will happen to the availability of class-leading APS-C sensors? Fuji placed a huge bet on APS-C, and they did it right - with high-quality lenses that took advantage of the potential weight savings, and were the right focal lengths for the sensors.
Other manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Sony) focused their lens development efforts on cheap lenses and superzooms for APS-C, while saving the high-quality lenses for full-frame (with few exceptions). We'd occasionally see a non-Fuji APS-C body over $1000, but they never had the lens support, and they lingered on the market with very few updates (D300-D300S-D500 is a classic example).
With FF mirrorless appearing all over the place, three new systems (including Canon and Nikon) released in the last month, nobody except Fuji has released a higher-end APS-C camera in nearly two years (the D500). I can't recall when we last saw a non-Fuji APS-C lens of note...
Will Fuji's business be enough for Sony (or someone else) to keep putting the latest technology in APS-C sensors? Or, since the APS-C market now consists of "$400 cameras and Fuji", will they be relegated to only sensors that are suited for cheap cameras (with custom color filters)? If you're building a D3500, you can't afford to spend more than $30(?) on the sensor, while you're happy to spend $250 if you're building an X-H1 - but will there be a $250 sensor to buy???
Dan
It does not matter that all other manufacturers FF sensors and Fuji is the last APS-C standing. The sensor will be produced in the same lines FF sensors are produced, that it is the same line as Medium Format sensors are produced, compact camera sensors are produced or mobile phone sensors are produced. That it is the way CMOS technology works. You start with a very pure silicon wafer of 300mm of diameter. Over it, it goes via the same automated machines (it is highly automated process to avoid little pesky humans introducing dust in the environment), the chips are build in the wafers and then cut. If you are doing Medium Format sensors, you will get few chips per wafer, if you are doing FF a bit more, a bit more in APS-C, a much more in Mobile Phones (with more chips per wafer, smaller chips, the costs of production are reduced).
Sony, as any other CMOS manufacturer, like TMSC that is manufacturing right now iPhone CPU processors, nvidia graphics chips or AMD processors, gives all its clients a set of VDHL libraries that they can use to design their sensor, this is very well illustrated in this Imaging Resource article about how Nikon designed its D850 sensor using Sony fabs: https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/07/17/pixels-for-geeks-a-peek-inside-nikons-super-secret-sensor-design-lab .
That other manufacturers are using ASP-C sensors only mean that Sony can offer everyone an standard design, but, as it was demonstrated with the case of D850 sensor, it does not mean you can not custom design your own sensor using Sony technology. This is what I suspect Fuji is doing here. If no other one uses a 26 megapixel sensor and the sensor is made by Sony it only means that Fuji had to invest a bit more upfront designed the sensor and fine tuning the manufacturing process for it (the first wafers coming from a new design usually have worst yield rates until the machinery is fine tuned for it).
Also, there is a rumor circulating that the sensor is in reality made by Samsung: https://www.fujirumors.com/samsung-will-supply-aps-c-sensors-to-fujifilm-report-says/ that it is trying to get back to sensor business in their CMOS fabs since now the market of CMOS sensors is still growing, with phones having several cameras and cameras needed for intelligent cars...
So, yes, don't worry, Fuji has no problem getting sensors... CMOS technology is not like CNC tooling, where many times you need to build the CNC machine for an specific design, think it more like a 3D printer, same machine can produce thousands of designs... from all sizes and shapes...
-
In the film-era, APSC formats were really the odd ones out. With digital, they became more used by camera makers because they were a lot cheaper to produce compared to FF.
Today, combining improving manufacturer techniques and yields for FF sensors, plus the profit they allow (they are popular), translates into a sort of going back to "normal".
But I still think that APSC systems have their place, and that Fuji X is the place to be for such systems.
-
In the film-era, APSC formats were really the odd ones out. With digital, they became more used by camera makers because they were a lot cheaper to produce compared to FF.
And also because the overall image quality and capabilities with "APS-C" digital or even as small as 1" is already well ahead of what 35mm film offered, in a kit that is smaller and lighter than 35mm format kit.
Today, combining improving manufacturer techniques and yields for FF sensors, plus the profit they allow (they are popular), translates into a sort of going back to "normal".
But I still think that APSC systems have their place, and that Fuji X is the place to be for such systems.
The price difference is still huge: about four-fold from the entry-level ILC kits to the cheapest kits with 35mm film-sized sensor. The larger formats (44x33mm too) will likely increase their share, but with it now at 10% or less after some years of $2000 bodies in the 35mm film format, I see no reason to expect that a few more bodies at $2000-2300 with kit lenses at $600-1000 will get them close to matching the share of the smaller ILC formats.
But I still think that APSC systems have their place, and that Fuji X is the place to be for such systems.
Agreed—Fujifilm X has a place, along with many other options that cost far less then 35mm format digital (and weight less) while offering vastly greater capabilities than any pocketable camera can in areas like telephoto reach, zoom range and low-light/high-speed handling.
-
Worried? Ridiculous
-
It does not matter that all other manufacturers FF sensors and Fuji is the last APS-C standing. ...
I agree, with one qualification: the smaller sensor formats generally have smaller pixels—for example the Sony 24MP 24x16mm sensors from as far back as 2014 have the pixel size of 54MP in 36x24mm, which Sony still does not offer.
But of course Sony (and others) are designing photosites and sensors for far more than just the cameras we think about in this forum, including this 31.5MP "APS-C" sized video-oriented one: https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor0/img/product/cmos/IMX342LLA_Flyer.pdf and probably many of those industrial/security/video sensors sell in far smaller numbers than ones for APS-C format ILCs. So I doubt there will be any problem for customers like Fujifilm, Nikon, Ricoh-Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, or indeed Sony Imaging getting the photosites and sensors needed for their mainstream format ILCs.
P. S. AFAIK, Fujifilm X cameras sell in lower numbers than Canon EF-S, Canon M, Nikon DX, Sony E APS-C models, Olympus MFT — and maybe Panasonic MFT too. Not to suggest that the system is doing badly (it might be a successful lower volume/higher profit margin operation); just to point out that the perspective sometimes seen in this forum that "X" is the one sub-35mm ILC format with the best chance of survival is amazingly detached from the realities of the ILC camera market.
-
Fuji is the only one of those APS-C makers that would have much interest in pushing the limits of sensor capabilities (maybe Sony if they come out with a higher-end APS-C body and finally support it with lenses). Almost all of the rest get the vast majority of their APS-C volume from cameras that sell for under $600 with a lens or two. Their interest is in how cheap the sensor is, not how much DR it has.
I'm not worried that there will be no APS-C sensors, but that they'll all be made to a very low price point...
-
No worries about Fuji and APS-C sensors. At Photokina 2018 Fuji confirmed that the X-T3 sensor was built by Sony.
https://www.dailycameranews.com/2018/10/confirmed-fujifilm-x-t3-sensor-is-made-by-sony/
APS-C vs. 35mm sensor pixels sizes is nonsense. This is an old argument from early days of digital cameras before they could even produce 35mm size sensors. If pixel size mattered so much then how did 35mm sensors go beyond 30MP so easily? How is it that the latest iPhones take decent images with sensors a lot smaller than APS-C?
The next frontier is likely computational photography. Then it goes beyond the sensor to the processor in the camera and as you already know, the processing on our computers.
FWIW I'm happy with my Fuji X-T2 and looking forward to owning the X-T3.
NB - I don't make 4-8 foot wide prints. I do make some 3 foot wide prints but they are stitched panos and still the 35mm sensor isn't required.
P.S. Yes, I used to have Canon 35mm digital sensor cameras.
-
I agree, with one qualification: the smaller sensor formats generally have smaller pixels—for example the Sony 24MP 24x16mm sensors from as far back as 2014 have the pixel size of 54MP in 36x24mm, which Sony still does not offer.
You can use that argument also for ASP-C, Sony manufacturers also mobile phone camera sensors with smaller pixels that will create a density higher that 24MP.
-
I'm not worried that there will be no APS-C sensors, but that they'll all be made to a very low price point...
Maybe my previous comment was to long and the idea got lost, but basically, the way CMOS manufacturing works, smaller sensors are always cheaper to make than bigger ones. Even if Fuji is the only manufacturing in the world making ASP-C sensors, an ASP-C sensor will be always more cheaper to manufacturer that a FF one, using the same kind of technology (i.e. BSI-CMOS, Stacked CMOS, whatever Sony comes next... )
P.D.: I'm mentioning Sony because as rdonson pointed out, it looks like the sensor is made by them, but this will apply to any other imaging sensor foundry in the world, such the ones Samsung has...
-
The next frontier is likely computational photography. Then it goes beyond the sensor to the processor in the camera and as you already know, the processing on our computers.
Take a look at the new Google Pixel 3 and see where computational photography is going, pretty cool stuff
Alan
-
The m43 has some nice telephoto options as long as very shallow DOF is not an what you need. For very long telephoto I can use the Sony RX10 iv, similar in DOF to your Panny.
About DOF at narrow fields of view: my attached photo in the above post is at 300mm & f/6.3. An "equivalent" aperture DOF-wise of ~f/12.5. Even so DOF is pretty shallow. The chipmunk's eye is in focus but very little else is. I've even used the 100–300mm at 200mm for portraits with darn good results. A kinda/sorta example at f/5.0 (wide open at that focal length) is attached. :D
-Dave-
-
Fuji is the only one of those APS-C makers that would have much interest in pushing the limits of sensor capabilities (maybe Sony if they come out with a higher-end APS-C body and finally support it with lenses). Almost all of the rest get the vast majority of their APS-C volume from cameras that sell for under $600 with a lens or two. Their interest is in how cheap the sensor is, not how much DR it has.
Since even the cheapest of recent APS-C cameras seem to use the current best Sony sensor (the 24MP one), I am not persuaded that there is much in the way of "cheaper" vs "better" sensors at a given size. Size dominates the unit cost of sensor manufacturing, not features, which mostly come elsewhere in the camera, like with more powerful processing chips. So I expect that sensor makers like Sony Semiconductor will make sensors of each size using their current best technology for photosite design and such. Second after price is unit volume, which heavily favors smaller formats, and if anything justifies putting more R&D effort into smaller but higher volume formats, and often working on a "trickle up" basis with new technologies. This is seen over the whole size spectrum, with the fastest innovation happening in phone-cameras and the slowest coming in the larger-than-35mm domain. For example 44x33mm is only now getting on-sensor PDAF, and AFAIK 54x40mm still does not have it yet. (And 35mm has been slower to get EVF's than the smaller formats!)
-
You can use that argument also for ASP-C, Sony manufacturers also mobile phone camera sensors with smaller pixels that will create a density higher that 24MP.
I think I did not express myself well. My only point about smaller photosites was that the sensor makers probably do have to go to the expense of designing different (smaller) photosites for the 24x16mm sensors than those designed for 36x24mm sensors, so pessimists might predict that they will stop bothering to do that. But I am very optimistic that sensor makers will have good reasons to design the best possible photosites of various smaller sizes (all the way down to one micron so far) and will then put them into good quality 24x16mm sensors that offer distinctly more telephoto reach from a given focal length than 36x24mm sensors offer.
One more note on resolution: Sony's 20MP 4/3" sensors have photosites that would give 34MP in 24x16mm and 77MP in 36x24mm — the lens size advantage of smaller ILC formats is not going away, and a wide array of smaller format ILC users like that advantage.
-
One more note on resolution: Sony's 20MP 4/3" sensors have photosites that would give 34MP in 24x16mm and 77MP in 36x24mm — the lens size advantage of smaller ILC formats is not going away, and a wide array of smaller format ILC users like that advantage.
Amen, brother!!!!
-
I can't recall when we last saw a non-Fuji APS-C lens of note...
just recently: Sigma 56/1.4 for E & m43 mounts ( https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/56mm-f1-4-dc-dn-c )
-
just to point out that the perspective sometimes seen in this forum that "X" is the one sub-35mm ILC format with the best chance of survival is amazingly detached from the realities of the ILC camera market.
to that point Zeiss stopped bothering with smallest X-mount market after couple of touits and Sigma never bothered at all (while designing new APS-C lenses for m43 & E mounts)
-
to that point Zeiss stopped bothering with smallest X-mount market after couple of touits and Sigma never bothered at all (while designing new APS-C lenses for m43 & E mounts)
For Sigma you should also mention that the Fuji mount is proprietary and that might be part of the problem, along with the smaller market. This for example would be the main reason why they didn't realease this 56mm lens for Fuji X when they did for E and m43, I'm sure it wouldn't have been that difficult. The smaller market it's not an indicator of survivability by itself.
As for Zeiss their lenses were more expensive without being any better than the native Fuji, no wonder they did not sell well. Even when they had huge sales I didn't think they were worth it.
-
I think I did not express myself well. My only point about smaller photosites was that the sensor makers probably do have to go to the expense of designing different (smaller) photosites for the 24x16mm sensors than those designed for 36x24mm sensors, so pessimists might predict that they will stop bothering to do that. But I am very optimistic that sensor makers will have good reasons to design the best possible photosites of various smaller sizes (all the way down to one micron so far) and will then put them into good quality 24x16mm sensors that offer distinctly more telephoto reach from a given focal length than 36x24mm sensors offer.
One more note on resolution: Sony's 20MP 4/3" sensors have photosites that would give 34MP in 24x16mm and 77MP in 36x24mm — the lens size advantage of smaller ILC formats is not going away, and a wide array of smaller format ILC users like that advantage.
Yes, my fault, I misunderstood you before... I agree 100% with what you have just said.
-
As for Zeiss their lenses were more expensive without being any better than the native Fuji, no wonder they did not sell well. Even when they had huge sales I didn't think they were worth it.
I think this is one of the strong points for Fuji. They have one of the most excellent line of lenses in their X-Mount system. High quality and expensive lenses, decent quality and cheaper lenses. It is difficult for a third party to enter there.
The market may be smaller than other offerings but I don't see Fuji stopping releasing new cameras or lenses, I think the X-Mount it is quite healthy right now.
-
I think this is one of the strong points for Fuji. They have one of the most excellent line of lenses in their X-Mount system. High quality and expensive lenses, decent quality and cheaper lenses. It is difficult for a third party to enter there.
That's certainly what initially attracted me to Fuji.
I also like the company's systemic approach to the product line: the wide variety of lenses, announced well in advance in a frequently-updated roadmap; different styles of ILC bodies for each generation of capture technology; quick turnaround to fix firmware bugs and feature upgrades for older bodies through firmware updates.
Fuji continues to roll out new lenses at a fairly brisk pace, and to keep selling them I have no doubt the company will invest whatever engineering effort is necessary to keep their sensors state-of-the-market.
(I have a feeling the X-Trans pattern may turn out to be an evolutionary dead end, but that really won't make much of a difference to me as an end-user. Or it may actually improve my experience as an end-user by simplifying post-processing of Fuji raw files.)