Is 24 X 36 Obsolete?

C

Contarama

Well-known
Local time
4:43 PM
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,315
Simple question.

Digital is apparently going to win in the end IMO.

So shouldn't they come up with something better than 24 X 36 format for their new digital sensors?
 
Size is a relative term.

Also a "win" is a very relative term. There's no true winning without losing, from energy conservation law till simple observations in simple life. Even when digital surpasses analog in every spec many independent artists will still use analog because of it's nuances - it's been the same with analog synthesizers, acoustic pianos, etc that have digital foes that surpass them in "every specification" yet they don't possess that raw artistry, involvment and musical nuances of their analog counterparts. Ever heard that perfect high-end digital (software/hardware-based) piano sounding better than that "obsolete" mechanical acoustic grand piano in the same room played by the same artist?

35mm's been "obsolete" for the pros for over a half-of-century already. They've shot and still shoot MF and LF film, only handful of high-budget pros have the luxury to use high-end MF digitals that cost 20 000$+.

Bringing out medium- or large format digital sensors is utterly cost-prohibitive and I don't see much improvement in the near future, maybe in 10 years we have "really affordible" 645+ sized digital cameras.

Another reason is that photography is the most common hobby in the world - so true pro market is shriking since the manufacturer's interests are in what they sell the most - the consumer stuff. For "regular" users 35mm and smaller is more than enough... Why bother making something bigger and utterly expensive to sell couple hundred cameras while sell millions cheap for the masses?

Since Sigma SD9 I have whished they'd come out with a Foveon 6x7 - I must be daydreaming too, since it'd cost well over 50 000$ now while I can shoot the same format for 300$ in the good old fashioned film domain :)
 
Contarama said:
Simple question.

Digital is apparently going to win in the end IMO.

So shouldn't they come up with something better than 24 X 36 format for their new digital sensors?
Click to expand...


Better in what sense?
Aspect Ratio? 1:1 might be better in terms of getting the best of the image from a lens, but then a circular sensor would be even better. 3:2 is, if not quite a golden ratio, a good a adaptable format.

Sensor Size? Bigger is not necessarily better, nor smaller. Accomodation of legacy glass and familiar depth of field character favours 'full-frame'. A smaller sensor may win out in the marketplace. The quality is already better than most peoples ability.
 
There's a lot of momentum pushing the 24x36 format forward. Vast selection of lenses made to cover that format, and because it's been popular so long, there's the mental momentum too.

I favor medium format, but 24x36 is still the basis for comparison.
 
but they did. they decided for quite a number of new formats, 4/3 and APS and smaller ones.
"Large format" digital cameras are also smaller than their film equivalents.

There is a good argument to maintain some form of downwards compatibility, meaning allowing the old lenses.

And then, why did they win? CDs "won" against vinyl but You still get vinyl, and now CDs are dying out; who won?
 
By "win" do you mean gain the upper hand in market share or lead to the absolute demise and disappearance of film? If the former, I agree but, if the latter, you couldn't be more wrong. Film is niche and will remain so - much in the way that vinyl has. CDs are now facing extinction at a faster rate as that is digital technology replacing digital technology. There will always be a market for analogue versions, IMO.

As for "better than 24x36 for new digital sensors, they have. Mamiya ZD, Leica S2, Leaf, Phase One and all the point and shoot / four-thirds cameras have different sized sensors. But are they really better? What does size matter (as I keep asking my wife)?? Wouldn't a tiny sensor be "better" than a full-frame 35mm format sensor if it out-resolved it and gave better low-light performance, etc?

What aspect ratio do you prefer? My Lumix LX7 offers 1:1, 3:2, 5:4, 4:3 and 16:9. My D3 offers 3:2 and 5:4. When I process the photos, Photoshop allows me to crop and resize to pretty-much what I want.

Ultimately, I'm more surprised that there's any variance iin sensor size as you could crop at viewfinder stage or post processing.
 
Yes I meant market share and my original question was not really about film but more about format. A duh moment for me - of course they have created new formats I should have thought that one out a little more but with digital the full frame format (24 X 36) has always been a lot pricier than the other formats for the most part and still is although it is becoming cheaper. The larger format sensors are very expensive we all know that. It just seems strange to me that will all of this rapid digital change that they would stick with the old tried and true 24 X 36 why not say 30 X 45 or even a circular shaped sensor?

Roger I live in Hickville Oklahoma and own three fine horses. But I wouldn't ride one to town...no cd player with surround sound. :)
 
With film, they wanted to use all negative - can understand that. With digital and "free pixels" they could finally make round pictures to use all glass of lenses. THAT would be new format!
 
David Hughes said:
Hi,

The word "obsolete" means worn out.

Perhaps you mean "less popular" or ""advertised less" or what?

Regards, David
Click to expand...

Well you could use it in that meaning but

ob·so·lete

adjective
1. no longer in general use; fallen into disuse: an obsolete expression.

2. of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date: an obsolete battleship.

3. (of a linguistic form) no longer in use, especially, out of use for at least the past century. Compare archaic.

As to the question.
for profesional press-, fashion-, Portrait-, wedding- and sportphotographers yes 24X36 is rendered obsolete by digital.
Though some may still use 24X36 camers profesionally they are only a fraction of the total amount of pro photographers.
The rest of us are mainly shooting 24X36 for the fun of it.
Best regards
 
Contarama said:
Yes I meant market share and my original question was not really about film but more about format. A duh moment for me - of course they have created new formats I should have thought that one out a little more but with digital the full frame format (24 X 36) has always been a lot pricier than the other formats for the most part and still is although it is becoming cheaper. The larger format sensors are very expensive we all know that. It just seems strange to me that will all of this rapid digital change that they would stick with the old tried and true 24 X 36 why not say 30 X 45 or even a circular shaped sensor?

Roger I live in Hickville Oklahoma and own three fine horses. But I wouldn't ride one to town...no cd player with surround sound. :)
Click to expand...

Don't you mean that there are three horses who have trained you to take care of them properly? ;)

Back on topic:

From the perspective of current technology, the 24x36mm format makes no sense at all. If I were designing a new sensor format it would either be 1:1 square or 6x7.

That said, from a marketing perspective, 24x36mm digital sensors have been the holy grail for camera manufacturers because it's been the holy grail for consumers who already own lenses for 35mm SLR and rangefinder bodies. There's a bunch of marketing hype for them about depth of field being greater than APS-whatever sensors, and whatever other technical jargon things they can come up with, but the bottom line is that they're desirable because film lenses work on them without any hassles.

It's been a natural progression to get there, and along the way folks have been surprised by the ability of smaller digital sensors, but because consumers drive the market, and they demand 24x36mm sensors because it's a format they're familiar and comfortable with, and for which they already own lenses, it will remain the premier size sensor even though there's really no technological reason to keep it on.

I have an M4-P body, an M8 body, and an M9 body all of which enjoy the luxury of using the same lenses designed for the 24x36mm format. With the M4-P and M9-P there's no thought that has to go into lens selection for me... it's all by habit and muscle memory. The M8 takes a little more thought, but not much as I just step down one focal length from "normal" for the same field of view. It's not that simple for me with other formats.
 
What would 'better' mean?

the 35mm format is a wonderful compromise of size and image quality (including DOF issues), has access to masses of legacy lenses and still make a whole lot of sense.

I think 35mm is increasingly the sweet spot for digital. Cameras like the D800 and Monochrom reinforce that view. APS-C still has a lot of potential and will be all the more appealing with anticipated future Fuji products, but I just don't feel the pull for MF digital for what I do.
 
Is 24 X 36 Obsolete?
Click to expand...
In a word - no.

Is wool obsolete? No.
Are mechanical watches obsolete? No.
Is cast iron cookware obsolete? No.
Are bicycles obsolete? No.
Are sailboats obsolete? No.
Are view cameras obsolete? No.

Just sayin'... ;)
 
Contarama said:
Simple question.

Digital is apparently going to win in the end IMO.

So shouldn't they come up with something better than 24 X 36 format for their new digital sensors?
Click to expand...

They (the camera manufacturers) tried convincing people that smaller sensors are *always* better because they can produce similar quality images.

I agree with them in some cases, it's the 'always' that I have a real problem with. I think in the future as technology continues to progress (and camera makers need to come up with new things to compete with each other), we would see larger than 24x36 sensors becoming the mainstream.

Personally, I started with digital and continue to use it because it's convenient and it's satisfying enough in most cases.

But it is film has won my heart.
 
I wish someone would invent a thin digital sensor that would replace the film pressure plate of any 35mm film SLR or RF camera, and a battery/electronics package that fit the shape of a 35mm film canister. Then we could retro - fit our favorite cameras to digital....

Personally, I still enjoy film, so I'll keep using my old cameras as long as film is available!

Regards,

Kent
 
BardParker said:
I wish someone would invent a thin digital sensor that would replace the film pressure plate of any 35mm film SLR or RF camera, and a battery/electronics package that fit the shape of a 35mm film canister. Then we could retro - fit our favorite cameras to digital....
Click to expand...

That would dictate price of such module to be about same or higher than current prosumer digital cameras cost. But then good part of potential buyers would just buy 100% digital cameras witout extra efforts of adaptation and potential issues. So probably this product isn't going to appear suddently, unless something in industry changes fundamentally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom