willie_901
Veteran
Keith,
Physics is what happened. When one stands the same place with a 24 X 36 mm and an APS-C camera, they will make the same photograph unless the thinnest possible DOF, ultra-challenging dynamic range or extremely low-light levels become important.
Initially the difference in the sensors' analog signal-to-noise ratios was a compelling reason to move to a 24 X 36 mm camera. The increased surface are yielded a distinct and noticeable advantage.
Today, APS-C CMOS technology outperforms the top performing 24 X 36 mm systems from just a few years ago. This data compares the dynamic range for a large number of camera. Dynamic range depends almost entirely on the SNR of the camera's data stream.
Of course many of the current 24 X 36 mm sensors still have a higher SNR than APS-C systems. But now that difference is much less limiting than before.
People have the option of trading weight/size or user interface differences for a relatively small improvement in SNR. Most photographers deal with weight/size/enjoyment of use issues everyday. They may require the extra stop or so of dynamic range/SNR on rare occasions. With optimum exposure technique, the shadow region SNR of APS-C CMOS sensors in no longer a concern. It's good enough™.
Nikon and Canon let their user experience remain stagnant. Only recently have they responded to challenge of APS-C and m4/3 systems. Nikon still refuses to market a D300 replacement. Canon still uses inferior analog to digital converter technologies. SONY has responded well, but I'm not sure they even sell DSLRs anymore. I haven't read about one for a long time.
Physics is what happened. When one stands the same place with a 24 X 36 mm and an APS-C camera, they will make the same photograph unless the thinnest possible DOF, ultra-challenging dynamic range or extremely low-light levels become important.
Initially the difference in the sensors' analog signal-to-noise ratios was a compelling reason to move to a 24 X 36 mm camera. The increased surface are yielded a distinct and noticeable advantage.
Today, APS-C CMOS technology outperforms the top performing 24 X 36 mm systems from just a few years ago. This data compares the dynamic range for a large number of camera. Dynamic range depends almost entirely on the SNR of the camera's data stream.
Of course many of the current 24 X 36 mm sensors still have a higher SNR than APS-C systems. But now that difference is much less limiting than before.
People have the option of trading weight/size or user interface differences for a relatively small improvement in SNR. Most photographers deal with weight/size/enjoyment of use issues everyday. They may require the extra stop or so of dynamic range/SNR on rare occasions. With optimum exposure technique, the shadow region SNR of APS-C CMOS sensors in no longer a concern. It's good enough™.
Nikon and Canon let their user experience remain stagnant. Only recently have they responded to challenge of APS-C and m4/3 systems. Nikon still refuses to market a D300 replacement. Canon still uses inferior analog to digital converter technologies. SONY has responded well, but I'm not sure they even sell DSLRs anymore. I haven't read about one for a long time.
oltimer
Well-known
X2
And I can wait for the XPro 2. The lenses are second to none. Real leader Fuji in that area.
kuuan
loves old lenses
simple: I want it small and light ( I am kind of a 'permanent traveler' and for me the smaller and lighter the better ) and I want to use my legacy RF lenses on a sensor of the size they had been designed to cover
btw. there is no reason e.g. the small body of the NEX5n could not take a FF sensor, and the argument of lenses having to be big isn't true, I'd use my tiny CV, Canon RF asf lenses.
still hoping that Sony will offer such a small FF for interchangeable lenses, that after the first run of A7 style bodies ultimately there will be two lines of bodies with FF sensors, one bigger like the new A7II, and another with smaller bodies.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The most compelling reason for FF, unless you need big, high quality prints, is legacy interchangeable lenses. That, more than anything else, is why I have an M9 as well as an M8. Quality? Not so much.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Camera industry sales slowed down, which translates to less R&D and fewer new cameras introduced.
Stephen
oltimer
Well-known
I agree with you Stephen, but you sure are filling an area of need with the lenses you're bringing in. Plus Adapters
isoterica
Established
And this is it. You have an amazing 50mm lens and it becomes 80 on a crop.. then you're stuck hunting for a 35 to become your 50, and on down. Maybe I wanted to shoot that 50mm at 50mm.
The Sony didn't do it for me though it is the closest thing right now. If the Fuji XT1 successor went FF, with its dials etc.. I'd jump on it and toss on an M adapter though I wished Voigtlander made one for X-mount. That close focus is excellent.
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
Canon and Nikon haven't suffered enough pain yet on their DSLR sales yet to move full speed into the mirror less market. They still have time to see how things work out and find the sweet spot.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
seems there are phone/cams and pro-cams with not much happening between the two.
back alley
IMAGES
with what fuji is offering for lenses i do not miss using any legacy lenses...i like small cameras and until i found the eos m i thought fuji WAS small!
the 2 systems are working perfectly for me though...small and light and smaller and lighter...
and really, it's not all that hard to think 23 & 56 instead of 35 and 85...
the 2 systems are working perfectly for me though...small and light and smaller and lighter...
and really, it's not all that hard to think 23 & 56 instead of 35 and 85...
Michael Markey
Veteran
I tried my legacy lenses on a crop sensor and they looked different.
I didn`t like the result .
It was a surprise to me but there you go ...
I didn`t like the result .
It was a surprise to me but there you go ...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Sales evaporated: buyers found that MF film photography was more fun and more aesthetically pleasing!
daveleo
what?
"Overkill" regarding IQ . . . most (not all, but most) camera buyers now realize that their pictures don't need anything near FF IQ . They just don't need it.
On top of that, FF gear is bigger than they want to carry around and more expensive than they want to pay for.
I actually think that most buyers don't even look at the size of the sensor. They look at camera size, Mp, cost and zoom rate.
FF has a tough row to hoe these days.
raid
Dad Photographer
My last digital camera bought was a 5 MP camera with a small sensor but with an amazing Summicron zoom lens.
I am regressing back to basics. Maybe this is the trend?
I am regressing back to basics. Maybe this is the trend?
Bill Clark
Veteran
Raid, the basics for me is film!
And I love how it slows me dowm.
Time to spend getting creative with makng photographs rather than the machine gun approach that digital allows.
Happy Easter.
And I love how it slows me dowm.
Time to spend getting creative with makng photographs rather than the machine gun approach that digital allows.
Happy Easter.
BenJT
Established
I think at the end of the day, its only a small group of people (relatively speaking) that want compact full frame cameras.
I also think most of the hype in the beginning was about the potential to mount rangefinder lenses on a FF digital body. Again, a small group compared to the people who are happy to buy complete FF systems from companies like Nikon and Canon. I remember a while back when all this mirrorless FF stuff came to fruition, almost no one was talking about the system lenses.
And I think people also realized that when you look at pictures on a screen, which probably 95% of camera buyers and users do, having a full frame 24 or 36 megapixel sensor doesn't matter.
I also think most of the hype in the beginning was about the potential to mount rangefinder lenses on a FF digital body. Again, a small group compared to the people who are happy to buy complete FF systems from companies like Nikon and Canon. I remember a while back when all this mirrorless FF stuff came to fruition, almost no one was talking about the system lenses.
And I think people also realized that when you look at pictures on a screen, which probably 95% of camera buyers and users do, having a full frame 24 or 36 megapixel sensor doesn't matter.
kuzano
Veteran
I have the answer to that one.....
I have the answer to that one.....
Overkill in the same sense as RAW is for most people.
Just not necessary if you are an adept, or skilled photographer.
I have the answer to that one.....
Overkill in the same sense as RAW is for most people.
Just not necessary if you are an adept, or skilled photographer.
daveleo
what?
Yes, exactly. FF IQ is much higher quality than the mass digital camera buyers want or need.
The mass of people buying cameras today won't buy FF, because they don't need FF. Maybe you do .... they don't!
They question is NOT "Do you need FF IQ?" the question was why aren't we seeing lots of small FF cameras in the marketplace. Answer: the mass market doesn't want it, so why throw R&D money at it. That is my best guess as to why we are not seeing lots of FF small cameras out there.
EDIT: What is YOUR explanation for it?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I often wonder about the Sony full frames and their pricing ... yes they are a lot less than a Leica M digital but they still aren't exactly cheap compared to a full frame DSLR. That said if the 240 I own became unusable for any reason I'd be loathe to replace it in favour of an A7 whatever.
AzzA
Established
Want and need are two separate things.
Consumers always seem to want the latest and greatest. It's what fuels development and isn't unique to digital cameras. It's also what has driven film camera development over the years.
None of us need most of the equipment we have or all the features on the cameras we use. But if offered we'll take it and many will utilise it to its fullest ability.
It seems as though a majority of average consumers don't know the slightest thing about FF. They're not interested. Either they're too expensive or not compact enough and the reality is people probably will never print their photos and only see them 800px wide on a screen. Do they need FF? Nope. Does the market crave newer/better quality cameras? Yes. However the compact market is being taken over by phones which are improving and are infinitely more convenient.
Most consumers aren't interested in the technical features of cameras, only enthusiasts are. They do respond to marketing though, and that's all about megapixels and price.
FF cameras have many advantages, however as cropped sensors continue to improve at a cheaper price point and more compact size, FF will always have to justify its existence against something that works well enough and is more competitive in a tight marketplace.
Consumers always seem to want the latest and greatest. It's what fuels development and isn't unique to digital cameras. It's also what has driven film camera development over the years.
None of us need most of the equipment we have or all the features on the cameras we use. But if offered we'll take it and many will utilise it to its fullest ability.
It seems as though a majority of average consumers don't know the slightest thing about FF. They're not interested. Either they're too expensive or not compact enough and the reality is people probably will never print their photos and only see them 800px wide on a screen. Do they need FF? Nope. Does the market crave newer/better quality cameras? Yes. However the compact market is being taken over by phones which are improving and are infinitely more convenient.
Most consumers aren't interested in the technical features of cameras, only enthusiasts are. They do respond to marketing though, and that's all about megapixels and price.
FF cameras have many advantages, however as cropped sensors continue to improve at a cheaper price point and more compact size, FF will always have to justify its existence against something that works well enough and is more competitive in a tight marketplace.