Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Guillermo Luijk on September 09, 2018, 11:59:51 am
-
Now with the Nikon Z and Canon R mirrorless systems we can say all main camera brands are finally developing serious ML systems. Some argue this took too long from the launch of MFT in 2008 to make mirrorless a game changer. Putting things into perspective, and even with the Canikon duopoly delaying the transition as much as they could, my opinion is that the introduction of mirrorless has been quite fast for a reason: it works. DSLR digital cameras are just analogue devices with film replaced by a sensor, far from being truly digital devices as any point and shoot compact camera or mobile device are.
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/perspectivasistemas.png)
The F and EF mount have been Nikon and Canon workhorses for 60 and 32 years now, but in the digital era (2003 onwards) managed to survive without a mirrorless option from their brands only for the last 16 years.
Thoughts?
-
It's not a game changer (a phrase that is now almost meaningless anyway). At best mirrorless replaces some suckage of DSLR systems (e.g. crappy manual focusing) with another suckage (e.g. focus by wire lenses).
-
it did take too long, stagnation & perhaps not wanting to upset existing business seems to be the best answer. however, let's see if they learn from this, that nikon z mount has a large enough flange to put a bigger sensor in, that would be good if they kept the price point!
-
If Canikon waited another 5 years they might have gone the Kodak route. As it is I'm sure they'll return to strength although Sony, Fuji, Oly, Panny, et al are not going to slow up. They've all found niches that they will defend aggressively. At some point though 35mm sensors won't seem to be the panacea they seem to some these days.
-
Funny how to consecutive posts predict exact opposite things... ;)
- going towards APS-C
- going towards larger sensors
There is really a lot of diversity among photographers, btwn their wants, they needs,...
I personally hope that Nikon will not go larger than 35mm, I hope also they will drop APS-C progressively moving forward and concentrate on delivering the best 35mm system. This is IMHO where sustainable revenue is to be found and the sensor size with the best compromise between body compactness and very high image quality.
- I find cameras smaller than the Z7 too small to handle seriously in a variety of situations,
- I find the quality to be gained by 33x44mm sensor not to be significant considering the downsides (lesser abilities, larger lenses,...).
I'll be willing to pay a premium for top quality glass.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Still waiting for a mirrorless camera that can AF-C as good and fast as my Nikon DSLRs (darn, I must try that A9), and still waiting for a mirrorless camera that can start-up and switch between play and record in less than .5 seconds.
In the meantime, I am having fun with whatever is out there, mirrorless or not :-).
-
I think Generation Smartdevice is gonna run a rototiller through the entire ILC
market landscape (excuse the metaphorical maintenance) before long.
-Dave-
-
It's not a game changer (a phrase that is now almost meaningless anyway). At best mirrorless replaces some suckage of DSLR systems (e.g. crappy manual focusing) with another suckage (e.g. focus by wire lenses).
Man, you owe me. When I read your dual-suckage comment above I think I might have ruined my keyboard with the coffee I spewed laughing. Good one. Yeah, if there’s one thing I actually HATE about my Fuji cameras it is fly-by-wire manual focus. It is like driving a ‘59 Caddy with power steering and really soft suspension, combined with under inflated tires.
At least Fuji now has a ‘linear’ mode where the rate of change is constant while focusing, rather than the “faster you spin the faster the focus changes.” And, I’m looking forward to seeing if their “fake microprisim” focusing aid on the new X-T3 is worth a darn. Focus peaking is better than nothing, but that ain’t saying much.
Rand
-
Man, you owe me. When I read your dual-suckage comment above I think I might have ruined my keyboard with the coffee I spewed laughing. Good one. Yeah, if there’s one thing I actually HATE about my Fuji cameras it is fly-by-wire manual focus. It is like driving a ‘59 Caddy with power steering and really soft suspension, combined with under inflated tires.
At least Fuji now has a ‘linear’ mode where the rate of change is constant while focusing, rather than the “faster you spin the faster the focus changes.” And, I’m looking forward to seeing if their “fake microprisim” focusing aid on the new X-T3 is worth a darn. Focus peaking is better than nothing, but that ain’t saying much.
Rand
This would be a game changer ;D in itself, i.e. restore the previous behaviour with manual focus lenses. I still don't understand if the non-linearity:
- was meant as an improvement over the existing paradigm with manual focus lenses;
- was the work of an influential and well-intentioned person who was totally clueless about manual focussing;
- is an inherent limitation of focus by wire design that can't be easily changed without making lenses bulkier or more expensive.
I would appreciate any insight in this matter.
Meanwhile, it is possible to have the best of both worlds (EVF and manual focus lenses) with Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses on Sony FE systems. With the exception of the manual focus lens by Nikon (58mm f/0.95), there is no clear commitment that manual focus lenses wil be developed for the new Canikon mirrorless systems.
Cheers,
Fabien
-
I would imagine that the Zeiss and Voigtlander MF lenses would be very easy to adapt or release for the Canon and Nikon systems... The problems with adapters tend to involve electronics for autofocus, stabilization or aperture control. Whether through an adapter or by making a version of the lens that mounts directly, a lens that is manual focus, mechanical aperture and has no lens-based stabilization is the easy case. A few such lenses have electronic aperture, and are modestly more difficult, but even that is not hard.
Nikon has one advantage in that case - the lenses gain stabilization from the body...
-
Funny how to consecutive posts predict exact opposite things... ;)
And even paragraphs within the same post:
There is really a lot of diversity among photographers, btwn their wants, they needs,...
Indeed, including those for whom a format like MFT or APS-C is ideal now (and vastly more capable that a phone can ever be, due to the realities of optics), and with improving technology these formats will giv ven better results, giving even less reason to change to the inevitably larger and more expensive kit of a larger format.
And yet:
I personally hope that Nikon will not go larger than 35mm, I hope also they will drop APS-C ... This is ... the sensor size with the best compromise between body compactness and very high image quality.
So somehow all these diverse want and needs will be best served by one single ILC format; the one that is a relic of designs trade-offs based on what film was capable of almost a century ago!
P. S. I instead see a persistent role for ILC formats as small as 4/3", and at least as large as 36x24mm (I have no opinion either way on the long-term future of the larger formats): that range is only a linear factor of two; far less variation than film formats offered.
-
So somehow all these diverse want and needs will be best served by one single ILC format; the one that is a relic of designs trade-offs based on what film was capable of almost a century ago!
Just a coincidence obviously, but it turns out that this was just about perfect.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is natural for the brands that dominate with one technology to be slower than others in adopting a new alternative: in the early days when a new option allows an "insurgent" to take sales from incumbents, the incumbents will initially see it mainly poaching sales from their own existing product lines. But they can also afford to enter later and catch up, if they have enough ability to leverage existing advantages (lenses, technology that carries over, brand goodwill, market presence, financial resources, etc.), and can benefit from letting the insurgents try various approaches and make some mistakes, and then step in when the best approach is clearer, the new technology is more mature, and its advantages are more widely recognized. I doubt that Canon and Nikon have both mis-timed their entries to the "serious EVF camera" market.
P. S. EVFs and focus-by-wire are not tied together; there have been FBW lenses for SLRs (including many for Four Thirds DSLRs), and direct manual focus coupling in some lenses for EVF cameras. Some high-end Olympus MFT lenses allow switching between both options.
-
It is natural for the brands that dominate with one technology to be slower than others in adopting a new alternative: in the early days when a new option allows an "insurgent" to take sales from incumbents, the incumbents will initially see it mainly poaching sales from their own existing product lines. But they can also afford to enter later and catch up, if they have enough ability to leverage existing advantages (lenses, technology that carries over, brand goodwill, market presence, financial resources, etc.), and can benefit from letting the insurgents try various approaches and make some mistakes, and then step in when the best approach is clearer, the new technology is more mature, and its advantages are more widely recognized. I doubt that Canon and Nikon have both mis-timed their entries to the "serious EVF camera" market.
Yes, I agree. I believe that both got their timing mostly right.
Btw, on the size of the sensors, I have just read this article from Thom that pretty much echoes my views: https://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2018-news/september-2018-nikon-news/i-see-dead-mounts.html
In short, APS-C is dead except probably Fuji. But then again, I played for the first time with a X-H1 a few days back and was surprised by its size. It is larger than the recent FF mirrorless (Sony, Nikon, Canon). I am not sure what the point is of going for a larger body with a small sensor really. I am pretty sure that the pro versions of the mirrorless bodies at Nikon and Canon will be a bit larger than the current Z7/R, but still...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Btw, on the size of the sensors, I have just read this article from Thom that pretty much echoes my views: https://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2018-news/september-2018-nikon-news/i-see-dead-mounts.html
In short, APS-C is dead except probably Fuji.
Is that what he is saying? I think his predictions of demise are for most current "APS-C" mounts, but in large part due to the SLR mounts being displaced by mirrorless systems.
-
Is that what he is saying? I think his predictions of demise are for most current "APS-C" mounts, but in large part due to the SLR mounts being displaced by mirrorless systems.
Well, his forecast isn’t very optimistic for Sony and Canon APS-C mirrorless either.
Which seems to be backed up by poor lens line-ups and very few new releases.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I really like the Sony APSC cameras and it’s a major reason I will stick with the system. I don’t know if the system is dead or not. I’m not so confident making these predictions but I hope it continues. For over a year when I first went mirrorless I shot literally everything on two APSC cameras and made a reasonable living while doing so. Sometimes I wonder if I made the right decision going FF. Non of my clients ask about file size anymore. Seems those days are over.
On the question as to did Canon and Nikon wait too long to enter mirrorless I think the answer is a yes. Now we talk about Canon Sony Nikon. That is a result of Sony having a three year head start I think. It was a two way race now there is very definately three competitors. Take emotion and legacy lens systems out of it and I really think Sony has the best system at the moment. The only negative I see is the weather sealing. Ergonomics is very subjective and I am very comfortable with the Sony menus after an admittedly frustrating adjustment period. What ever the fans of the various systems feel it is hard to pretend that Sony isn’t a serious contender.
Anyway it turns out I don’t need anything at the moment. I see nothing that I don’t have that will make me more competitive in my industry or more creative with my personal projects. I will let it all sit for a year or two and then see. There is always an amateur with loads of money that didn’t like photography as much as they expected dumping gear or chasing the latest thing in a misguided attempt to improve their work and I tend to buy my equipment from those people. I kind of expected either Nikon or Canon to come up with something that would tempt me but it didn’t happen.
So yes they took too long and what they come up with wasn’t measurably better FOR ME than what I currently have
-
Well, his forecast isn’t very optimistic for Sony and Canon APS-C mirrorless either.
Which seems to be backed up by poor lens line-ups and very few new releases.
Cheers,
Bernard
Guess no new fantastic 7D lll ? LOL I think Canon may make one but it will not be mirrorless.
Don
-
Thom Hogan seems to ignore the great majority of smaller format ILC buyers who either (a) aspire only to a distinctly “non-professional” kit, well met by current E lens offerings (and maybe even by Canon’s “M” lenses, and (b) those who accept that any future upgrade to a larger format will involve a new set of lenses. Even so, “M” is particularly limited except for those relying partly on adapted EF lenses, and if those fade away in favor of R lenses, continued viability would require adding more “M” lenses. Which Canon is perfectly capable of, if and when changing circumstances were to require it; clearly that has not been needed yet, given the surprisingly strong sales growth of the M system so far.
In short, I tend to trust the “dinasaurs” (C and N) to adjust to changing situations on a “just in time” basis.
-
I doubt it will take long for Canon and Nikon to recapture their customer base who may have (temporarily) abandoned them in favor of Sony. Their new mirrorless offerings are good enough, though hardly pace-setting. It may take Canon a little longer given the old sensor technology.
-
I doubt it will take long for Canon and Nikon to recapture their customer base who may have (temporarily) abandoned them in favor of Sony. Their new mirrorless offerings are good enough, though hardly pace-setting. It may take Canon a little longer given the old sensor technology.
I shot Canon for 25 years and moved to Sony when I needed a lighter kit which still maintained excellent image quality. Canon's releasing just good enough cameras just won't do it for me after I tasted great cameras. It's like going back to cheap wine after you acquired the taste of good wine...just won't happen.
-
I shot Canon for 25 years and moved to Sony when I needed a lighter kit which still maintained excellent image quality. Canon's releasing just good enough cameras just won't do it for me after I tasted great cameras. It's like going back to cheap wine after you acquired the taste of good wine...just won't happen.
I totally agreee with you. Loved my Canons. First one was an A1 I bought in 1981 I think it was. Not going back based on what they are currently offering.
-
I bought my first Canon SLR in 1970 (Pelix) followed up a year later with the F1. Both great cameras and the FD lenses were good for the day. I followed up in DSLRs with Canon.
I bought a Fuji X-T1 because I wanted a lighter travel/walk-around camera. I instantly fell in love with it. First for the size/weight and then the controls then the image quality. I bought an X-T2 and it was definitely a step up in image quality. Now I'm contemplating the X-T3 after useful production camera reviews. Fuji lenses are great. I also appreciate the Kaizen firmware updates that Fuji is committed to. That's something that never caught on with Canon.
Nope, no more Canon since the X-T2. If I need a gazillion pixels I'll likely go Fuji MF instead of 35mm sensors from Canikon.
-
I would imagine that the Zeiss and Voigtlander MF lenses would be very easy to adapt or release for the Canon and Nikon systems... The problems with adapters tend to involve electronics for autofocus, stabilization or aperture control. Whether through an adapter or by making a version of the lens that mounts directly, a lens that is manual focus, mechanical aperture and has no lens-based stabilization is the easy case. A few such lenses have electronic aperture, and are modestly more difficult, but even that is not hard.
I tried out a chipped Voigtlander 180/4 F mount on a Z7 at one of their hands on events, and the handling was great (very brief impression only, of course). AI chipping means that even the aperture appeared to be working from the rear dial, though I didn't think to confirm it by looking down the lens to see it changing.
The larger manual focus options may end up a bit front heavy adapted, but I suspect the price of older glass, particularly Nikon, is going to jump a bit.
-
I agree with Bernard that APS-C may be a goner, except for Fuji. I think any particular stand-alone system could use any size sensor that the company wishes, and there may be some arguments for it. For mainstream cameras, though, it will be FF. There's a reason for that -- FF is a kind of sweet spot for camera-lens-sensor size/weight. The problem with APS-C is that you get less resolution for not much less money that FF and essentially the same system size/weight. The problem with MF is too much size/weight and cost, even though quality is a step up from FF. The next sweet-spot down from FF is the m4/3 systems, which offer quite a bit less size/weight but still good performance, if not at the FF level. Down another step are the RX10-type cameras, and then cell phones.
The arguments about FF systems IMHO come down to personal preference. I've always thought Canons performed as well as Nikons, but I'm a Nikon guy and I like Nikon's ergonomics better than Canon's. I understand that Canon guys feel the same, the other way around. God bless them.
I will be interested to see what Panasonic comes up with. IMHO, the interesting thing about Panasonic m4/3 cameras is that they are very high quality and in most ways superior to Sony's offerings in terms of things like weather proofing, ergonomics, glass and software. The company is also the same size as Sony (so it has money) and it has a contractual connection with Leica. If this new camera is FF, and the glass is as good as it is on the m4/3 cameras, there could be another 500-pound gorilla on the block.
-
For mainstream cameras, though, it will be FF. There's a reason for that -- FF is a kind of sweet spot for camera-lens-sensor size/weight.
Probably not the case but certainly the perception. The thing is, a camera is part of a system. Which may include 3rd party lenses, professional support, status, ergonomics and video quality. The "sweet spot" is a bit of a moving target.
I was an early switcher from a full frame Canon to an APS-C Fuji because the the quality from the Fuji was better for what I do - printing. The system was much lighter, the files were more malleable, had better highlight detail and a little more usable resolution. If I was a wedding photographer I would have stayed with Canon because Canon had faster autofocus and didn't need a dedicated raw converter.
It may well prove to be true that perception wins out over what photographers actually need. It certainly has in the past. The decade is going to be interesting.
-
This idea that “APS-C is dead except maybe Fuifilm X” seems utterly detached from the reality of what the great majority of ILC camera buyers want and how much they are willing to pay for it. The entry level pricing for 36x24mm format is over four times that of entry level for the smaller formats, and most of the advantages of a larger format also require bigger, heavier and inherently more expensive lenses. This is very different from the situation with film, where 35mm format had no significant cost disadvantage compared to smaller formats (printing costs dominated over film and development costs.) No one will settle for cheaply built f/3.5-5.6 kit zooms on 36x24 format digital the way they did with consumer level 35mm film cameras. Also, look at actual sales figures: the X system is a wonderful one, but serves a somewhat elite sector of the smaller format ILC market: the mirrorless systems from Olympus, Canon and Sony (and probably also Panasonic) outsell it, and adding in APS-C format SLRs, so do Canon EF-S and Nikon DX, by big margins.
I think a lot of very enthusiastic and demanding photographers are confusing “what I want in a system in that format” with “what will attract the most customers and revenue in the mainstream market”. The latter, it seems, is not so concerned with having dozens of wonderful but expensive and/or specialised lenses available. And my guess is that even many of those smaller format users who aspire to higher quality eventually are expecting that such an upgrade will involve a new format and new lenses to go with it, so that cross-format lens compatability is not a major marketing factor.
-
The main reason I think APS-C has no future except Fuji is that the lens line-ups were never there to please high end shooters happy with an APS-C sized sensor.
There are of course some niche such as bird shooters who are in heaven with their D500 and 200-500 f5.6 and will soon be even happier with the 500mm f5.6 PF.
But I think that the bulk of APS-C shooters is made up of people who buy a body and one or 2 kit zoom lenses and just keep it for years.
I agree that our perception is biased at LL, but I think it is biased the other way around. It is not biased because 10 FF shooters ignore 100 APS-C serious shooters. It is biased because 100 serious APS-C shooters ignore 10,000 casual APS-C camera users.
The money for camera manufactuers isn't coming from these 100 APS-C serious shooters, if it were Canon, Nikon and Sony would have developped matching high end glass for APS-C bodies, money has been coming from the 10,000 casual APS-C shooters with their zoom kit lenses.
And I think that this segment is dead to smartphones. I am not a major fan of the Northup, but there are getting it right for once in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2HQ85unDS8
Cheers,
Bernard
-
and will soon be even happier with the 500mm f5.6 PF.
https://www.lenstip.com/540.10-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_500_mm_f_5.6E_PF_ED_VR_Autofocus.html
"...after setting it on the 8 meters to infinity range the focusing time decreases to about 0.3-0.4 of a second..." - that slow ???
-
But I think that the bulk of APS-C shooters is made up of people who buy a body and one or 2 kit zoom lenses and just keep it for years.
and with proliferation of FF cameras that will FF's fate too ...
-
most of the advantages of a larger format also require bigger, heavier and inherently more expensive lenses.
consider for example Sony FE 85/1.8 - find cheaper AF eq in dSLM's APS-C or m43 realm... or for Sony FE 55/1.8... good luck.
-
consider for example Sony FE 85/1.8 - find cheaper AF eq in dSLM's APS-C or m43 realm... or for Sony FE 55/1.8... good luck.
Some photographic needs are clearly served better by a larger format, and in particular those that benefit from large apertures: below about f/2 for primes, or by zoom lenses of f/2.8 or faster. But to repeat, a large proportion of ILC users do not need such lenses, and looking at more mainstream choices like standard and telephoto zooms (and my favorite exotic lenses, macros), the lenses that satisfy the needs of a great many users of smaller ILC formats are generally smaller and less expensive than what they would be replaced by with a larger format.
P. S. Indeed my hard-line position is that expensive exotic lenses like f/2 zooms for a smaller format make little sense if the same results can be got with an f/2.8 zoom in a larger format at similar price. I even prefer the flexibility of f/4 zoom designs over trying to match low light performance in a smaller format with a f/2.8 zoom.
-
Bernard, the new version of your argument is more nuanced, but I am still not persuaded. The claim seems to be that:
- basic two zoom lens kits in the smaller (mainstream!) ILC formats (4/3” to 24x16mm) will be displaced by phone-cameras of comparable abilities
- the only “small format” systems that currently offer lens systems that clearly outperfom phones are Fujifilm and MFT, so only those can survive.
I suggest instead that:
1. Even that most basic two lens kit has light gathering power and telephoto reach (angular resolution) far exceeding what any pocketable, go anywhere device can do. For example the telephoto lens on the new iPhone XS Max has the FOV and effective aperture (light gathering speed) of about an f/11 short telephoto prime.
2. Every APS-C system, even EOS-M and more-so Sony E, goes significantly beyond a mere two zoom lenses, so even further beyond what a tiny-lensed phone-camera can do, regardless of software advances.
3. Canon in particular is perfectly capable of expanding lens options for a APS-C mirrorless system; it has had no need to do so yet, given the sales strength of both its M and EF-S options.
4. Any recent tapering of effort on APS-C SLR systems could be explained by something we seem to agree on: those smaller format SLR systems are edging towards retirement, now that the market leaders Canon and Nikon have dropped their disdain for the EVF alternative. And where those two lead, a lot of mainstream ILC customers follow.
-
If you don't have legacy lenses to contend with, any reasonable sensor size will do... 35mm full-frame is nothing especially optimized - it is an early 20th Century format running 35mm movie film horizontally to get a decent frame size and an easily held camera. It actually predates Oskar Barnack by a couple of decades, although Leica did popularize it.
You don't want to make the frame too small, because you can't shrink the camera beyond a certain point while still having it easy to handle. Micro 4/3 begins to run into this problem - yes, you can make smaller cameras than you can for APS-C or full frame, but they're hard to handle if you have bigger hands (and the easier m43 cameras to handle could fit an APS-C sensor, with the biggest having room for full frame). There are also parts of the camera that either can't shrink or shouldn't - you want a ~3" screen, an EVF with a reasonable eye window, and a decent-sized battery. You don't want to make the frame too big, because the cameras and lenses start to get unwieldy. Hasselblad's H1D fits a 33x44 mm sensor in a small body, but the lenses are relatively large and you give up stabilization. Anything bigger would require very large bodies and lenses (most small film-era lens designs don't work well on digital because of the requirement that the light strikes the sensor closer to head-on) - Mamiya 6 and 7 lenses would be as much of a pain as older, tiny Leica M designs have been.
The original reason for the APS-C sensor size had nothing to do with APS film - it was just about the largest sensor that could be imaged in a single pass on the silicon wafer, and a lot of them fit on the wafer. FF sensors were nearly impossible to make in the early days of affordable digital SLRs, and were very expensive for quite a while thereafter.
I don't know the story of why the manufacturers stuck with a 3:2 aspect ratio - I suspect simply for familiarity. At first, the R&D effort went into getting the cameras out - the manufacturers stuck with lens mounts photographers already had lenses for, and didn't bother making "digital-only" lenses for quite a while. Several popular primes worked out well - a 35mm is a very nice normal lens on APS-C, while 24mm is a moderate wide angle, 20mm is almost wide enough for a true wide angle, and 50mm is a slightly short portrait lens. Long telephotos gained reach, which nobody complained about, especially on resolution-starved early sensors. Zoom lenses were more of an issue - 70-200mm was fine (it's a useful 100-300 equivalent), while most of the zooms that started wide became markedly less useful because they lost too much coverage on the wide end.
By the time Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Minolta started making digital-specific lenses in optimized focal lengths, the vast majority of body sales were on the low end - they needed $300 lenses to go with their $1000 bodies. For the most part, that's what the digital-specific lenses were... There's no reason they couldn't have built a beautiful 18-55mm that sold for $1500 - they just (for the most part) didn't. There were a few nice APS-C lenses in their lines (and there still are) , ranging from Nikon's original 18-70 f3.3-4.5 that was the D70's kit lens to much more expensive 14mm primes, 12-whatever zooms and and f2.8 zooms.
Just as they were broadening their lines of better quality APS-C lenses, full-frame sensors became affordable enough to use in most higher-end cameras. Instead of building lenses to go with APS-C sensors, they had sensors that went with their existing lenses - Canon had 18 years of EF lenses by the time the EOS 5D was a smash hit (they also had the earlier, very expensive full-frame EOS 1Ds, but that was a specialty camera). Nikon had nearly 50 years of F-mount lenses when they started selling a lot of D700s.
The market for APS-C bodies from Canon and Nikon in the wake of the 5D and D700 was strongly skewed down, so the majority of lens designs were built for low-end bodies. Both Canon and Nikon maintained a few higher-end APS-C bodies that were crying out for great APS-C lenses (the D300/D500 line and the D7x00 line for Nikon and the 60D/70D/80D and later the 7D line for Canon), but the big sellers were Rebels and D3x00 bodies, so the innumerable 18-whatever zooms that prized price, compactness and stuffing in as much reach as possible were the order of the day.
Fuji didn't have an existing lens system that made sense for the X-Pro 1 - it was always going to be a new mount. Sales projections were low enough that a custom sensor was out of the question (it used a custom color filter on top of a standard sensor). The 16 MP Sony sensor from the Nikon D7000 (and many other cameras) was readily available and affordable. It happened to be APS-C, so Fuji started building nice lenses to go with an APS-C sensor. They ended up with something no other manufacturer has ever had - a full line of high-quality APS-C specific lenses. Canon or Nikon could have done the same thing with EF-S or DX lenses, and probably would have if FF sensors hadn't come along as film compatibility became less important.
Sony's initial foray into mirrorless with the NEX system prized extreme compactness. The first few bodies had essentially no controls on them, and were so tiny it was remarkable an APS-C sensor fit. They made the E-mount small to make sure it fit on the NEX-3 and NEX-5. Their initial lenses followed the same pattern - compactness over quality, and they have never really released the right lenses for the NEX-7 or the later a6000 series. I've never been able to figure out why they kept the mount for their full-frame line - the sensor barely fit, and it has made lens design a pain,by their own admission at one point. They didn't have any lenses that mattered - no APS-C E-mount lens covered the larger sensor, so they could have easily gone for a larger-diameter version. Their initial FE lenses were compromised, although they've released some beauties since then (not always the most compact, though).
Canon and Nikon have both gone for brand-new mounts for high-end mirrorless, and they've both picked wide, but shallow mounts for easy lens design. Why stick with a sensor size that was originally two frames of movie film? Why not something like 27x32mm, which would be about the same size with a different aspect ratio? Why not 28x34 or even 28x36mm, which would fit easily in those big mounts? Going the other way, why not a 16:9 sensor of about the same area for native 8K video (with sufficient processor power) - Panasonic, are you thinking that way? Probably because they can share sensors with their own FF DSLRs, at least in part? They both rely on lens adapters to broaden compatibility to all of their older lens designs, and a different sensor size would reduce that compatibility - even if the image circle fit, baffles in the lenses might be a problem.
Interestingly, we are reaching a convergence where sensor size and resolution are tightly correlated. Most APS-C sensors today are 24MP, with a pixel pitch very close to 4um, and those sensors are excellent performers. The high resolution FF sensors have pixel pitches a bit larger (about 4.1 - 4.5 um), for resolutions ranging from 42+ to 50MP. You gain a little bit of dynamic range and noise performance (at least on the Sony-sourced versions of those sensors), probably in part from lower base ISOs. Going to a 4um pitch on full-frame would put resolution in the 55-60 MP range - that's a small difference from what we have today, so the R&D may or may not be worth it. Both the Sony 100MP 33x44mm sensor and the 150MP "full-frame 645 (it's not quite)" sensor are right around 4um pitch sensors.
To get a meaningful increase in resolution (it would be around 36MP on APS-C and almost exactly 80MP on full-frame), would require going to a 3.3 um pixel pitch. That sensor exists, and its performance is nothing to write home about - it's the 20MP Micro 4/3 sensor. I'd far rather have a 24 MP X-H1 or a 46 MP D850 with their dynamic range and rendering than a 36 or 80 MP camera with the dynamic range and rendering of modern Micro 4/3. It's not bad, but it doesn't have the richness of other modern sensors.
-
Thanks Dan Wells,
That is a quite detailed summary of how I seen things having gone so far. Sensor shapes and sizes have ben heavily influenced by "externalities" of history, adapting video technology and so on.
My only quibbles are that:
(a) APS-C is again moving ahead of the larger format on resolution (lp/mm) with a 26MP sensor just announced, so that the fairly steady pattern of all formats increasing resolution/pixel count at about the same rate persists ever since Four Thirds was at 5MP, APS-C at 6MP and 36x24 at 11-13.5MP.
(b) Though I have no desire for final images of more than 24MP—or even the 16MP of my aging Olympus OM-D E-M5—I expect resolution increases anyway, and I will accept them for the sake of more cropping latitude when pushing the limits of telephoto or macro photography. Also, "per pixel" DR is not a very useful way to compare sensors of different pixel counts; most of the per pixel DR reduction from having more, smaller pixels on a sensor of the same size goes away in practice if one either downsamples to the lower pixel count, or simply print/display at the same size and so higher PPI (thanks to dithering). And for the images for which the per pixel DR of the higher resolution sensor is completely satisfactory, it has the advantage of more detail for more cropping latitude and so on.
So I neither much crave nor fear the inevitable increases in sensor resolution. My bet is that MFT sensors will get to 8K wide within a few years, if only for the fashion of 8K video (which I do not understand!); the pixel size needed is already there (or close enough) in Sony's 20MP 1" format sensors.
-
Dan,
100% agreed.
And to me, the logical consequence of all that is the end of APS-C except in Fuji bodies within 2-3 years. ;)
Then, the problem that Fuji will be facing is the difficulty to get new APS-C sensors from Sony because the market may become too small to invest in.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder if the recent news and rumors about Fuji playing around with just about everything other than Sony sensors are for exactly the reason Bernard states? The sensor in the X-T3 is unlikely to be a Sony (Sony wouldn't bother making one 26 MP sensor for a relatively low-volume customer when it's not meaningfully different from a 24 MP sensor). If it were 30+ MP, or if it were 24 MP but BSI and possibly stacked (memory directly behind the sensor, not a Foveon-type RGB sensor), I'd say " mildly interesting, new Sony sensor variant", but a couple of MP different suggests someone else... Then we have the recurring rumors about Fuji, Samsung and Panasonic in various combinations designing more radical sensors - organic, global shutter, heavily video-optimized, etc.
This all makes sense if Sony is slow-walking APS-C sensor development because the market is becoming "$400 cameras and Fuji". If you want to sell a finished camera for $400 ($500 in a kit with a terrible lens), which is what a Nikon D3x00 goes for, you probably can't afford to pay Sony more than $30-$40 for the sensor (someone like Edmund who knows far more about the chip market than I do, feel free to correct me). Fuji is building $800-$1800 cameras, and not only can they pay more for the sensor, they'd like to if it bought them better sensor-level performance. Sony may not want to build a higher end APS-C sensor that can't sell into the $400 market just for Fuji, though.
Of course the wild card is some new Sony APS-C body above the entry level - it would almost certainly feature a new sensor. It might be a new 24 MP variant, or it might be a resolution jump. If it's the 26 MP sensor, I'll be surprised that turned out to be a Sony design - it's possible that some new technology led to an accidental resolution increase (what if the space between pixels was reduced, so the same pixel size led to a slightly higher resolution sensor)? Whatever the new Sony might be, Fuji probably has access to it.
If Sony doesn't release more APS-C bodies, Fuji's other hope for Sony sensors is Nikon (big enough to get Sony moving, especially if Fuji also wants the sensor) releasing something in upper-end APS-C - potentially mirrorless. Nikon doesn't want to release a $1300 Z5 and admit "well, it's actually the D3500 sensor in a nice body"... Apart from that, Fuji needs to be sensor-shopping, and they seem to be starting.
-
Dan,
100% agreed.
And to me, the logical consequence of all that is the end of APS-C except in Fuji bodies within 2-3 years. ;)
Then, the problem that Fuji will be facing is the difficulty to get new APS-C sensors from Sony because the market may become too small to invest in.
Cheers,
Bernard
IMO, if that will happen, it will take far more than 2-3 years. Right now, the best selling ILC are the entry level DSLR: 1 camera + 1 kit zoom (+ maybe a kit telezoom) = done deal, at very affordable prices.
-
I don’t know if Fuji actually ‘needs’ to be sensor shopping. The market for APS-C sensors is still very interesting for Sony, just as with FF and medium FMT sensors. Apart from this many of today’s sensor designs are scalable in size where for instance a 4 micron BSI cell can be utilized for 4/3, APS-C as well as larger designs. Therefore it is no coincidence that we are now going to see all kinds of BSI sensors in various chip sizes.
But there are opportunities. Samsung has the capabilities to manufacture great BSI sensors as well, such as the NX1 sensor. It is also known that organic sensor development, a Fujifilm and Panasonic collaboration, is already running for quite some years and I expect commercial products to arrive sooner than later. Possibly first to arrive in a Panasonic camera? With this I have high expectations in further reduction of pixel size while maintaining noise levels and dynamic range.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
Dan,
100% agreed.
And to me, the logical consequence of all that is the end of APS-C except in Fuji bodies within 2-3 years. ;)
Then, the problem that Fuji will be facing is the difficulty to get new APS-C sensors from Sony because the market may become too small to invest in.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well in the first 6 months of this year, APS-C and smaller lenses outsold FF and larger lenses by more than a 2 to 1 ratio according to CIPA figures. Seems like smaller format is still going strong.
-
I wonder if the recent news and rumors about Fuji playing around with just about everything other than Sony sensors are for exactly the reason Bernard states? The sensor in the X-T3 is unlikely to be a Sony (Sony wouldn't bother making one 26 MP sensor for a relatively low-volume customer when it's not meaningfully different from a 24 MP sensor). If it were 30+ MP, or if it were 24 MP but BSI and possibly stacked (memory directly behind the sensor, not a Foveon-type RGB sensor), I'd say " mildly interesting, new Sony sensor variant", but a couple of MP different suggests someone else... Then we have the recurring rumors about Fuji, Samsung and Panasonic in various combinations designing more radical sensors - organic, global shutter, heavily video-optimized, etc.
This all makes sense if Sony is slow-walking APS-C sensor development because the market is becoming "$400 cameras and Fuji". If you want to sell a finished camera for $400 ($500 in a kit with a terrible lens), which is what a Nikon D3x00 goes for, you probably can't afford to pay Sony more than $30-$40 for the sensor (someone like Edmund who knows far more about the chip market than I do, feel free to correct me). Fuji is building $800-$1800 cameras, and not only can they pay more for the sensor, they'd like to if it bought them better sensor-level performance. Sony may not want to build a higher end APS-C sensor that can't sell into the $400 market just for Fuji, though.
Of course the wild card is some new Sony APS-C body above the entry level - it would almost certainly feature a new sensor. It might be a new 24 MP variant, or it might be a resolution jump. If it's the 26 MP sensor, I'll be surprised that turned out to be a Sony design - it's possible that some new technology led to an accidental resolution increase (what if the space between pixels was reduced, so the same pixel size led to a slightly higher resolution sensor)? Whatever the new Sony might be, Fuji probably has access to it.
If Sony doesn't release more APS-C bodies, Fuji's other hope for Sony sensors is Nikon (big enough to get Sony moving, especially if Fuji also wants the sensor) releasing something in upper-end APS-C - potentially mirrorless. Nikon doesn't want to release a $1300 Z5 and admit "well, it's actually the D3500 sensor in a nice body"... Apart from that, Fuji needs to be sensor-shopping, and they seem to be starting.
So... in reality, in the way CMOS sensor manufacturing works... it is not a Sony problem, it is a Fuji problem. For Sony the manufacturing costs and benefits are the same.
So, making sensors from mobile phones to the Phase One 150 MPx monster... it uses the same manufacturing lines using the same processes. It all starts with a silicon wafer if 300 mm of diameter than then it is cut to the size of the chip... if the chip is bigger, you get less chips per wafer... higher costs per chip... (that also joins that it has lower yields the bigger the chip... it is more easy that a defect in the purity of the silicon wafer or the process ruins a chip than if you make it smaller... you get in percentage more good chips per wafer and a higher yield).
Usually new technologies like BSI and stacked sensors are teste first with smaller chips... because yields are higher and the probability of screwing something is higher... so you at least get some good chips per wafer and recover some of the money... that it is the reason you saw first things like double ISO or BSI in mobile phones than cameras.
Now, Sony produces some standard designs... like the typical 24MPx that has been used a lot of cameras... but also allows other companies (and Sony imaging division) to custom fit their designs. D850 sensor is a clear example, they used Sony libraries to design a sensor and Sony is building it... Nikon had to pay much more for it... since they can’t share the design cost and fine tuning of the manufacturing line until getting a nice yield with other camera makers, like in the case of the 36 MPx sensor used in the D800, A7r or Pentax k1.
So, Fuji could come to Sony and do the same, design from scratch their sensor using Sony fab technology... they just have to pay more for it... (although the whole year there is the rumor Sony will release an update to the ASP-C cameras, specially to compete with Panasonic and Fuji in vídeo with 4K 60p... if that happens and the sensor is of 26MPx probably is a shared design)
Now, I will really love that it is a Samsung design... it will make things more interesting
http://dgpfotografia.com