Why APSC is dead

[wolf33d]

Well .... FF is becoming very cheap (under 1000 USD). 
Performance wise, a lot of people think APSC = FF, well just check this : http://admiringlight.com/blog/sony-zeiss-fe-35mm-f1-4-vs-fuji-xf-23mm-f1-4/

Quite incredible considering how sharp is supposed to be the fuji (super lens + no AA filter + Trans X sensor said to be as good as FF) ... 
Incredible Bokeh difference too
NOT to mention the horrible noise on Fuji Bokeh at low ISO !! 
I am quite blown away by the results actually. 

Even Sony admits it: Zeiss interview makes it clear Sony’s focus “is moving” from APS-C to FF.

Only advantage of APSC today: cost (not true anymore, soon) and 1.6 crop for special use (not true anymore with high mpx body, 4K, and APSC crop like on the A7S for example)... 

Not even speaking about M43.... which is ok for video but horrible for photography. M43 can remain good in fixed lens body such as LX100 where the size is a big plus. 
Otherwise a GH4 and A7S have similar size so the sensor is not anymore very linked to body size. 

 

 

 

[Kristoferman]

But all legitimate cinema cameras are still APS-C. As far as photography goes, it probably should be dead.

[homestar_kevin]

Why does this matter so much to some people?

Like I understand the difference, I know the benefit's of each format, I've owned pretty a lot of the sensor sizes but it's still not a huge deal for me at all and one of the last big considerations when I buy a camera.

There are ample great cameras out there for all types of shooters, no need to trash one sensor size because it isn't what you want/need/like.

We live in an incredible time, just enjoy the ride.

[Julian]

 

Otherwise a GH4 and A7S have similar size so the sensor is not anymore very linked to body size. 

​True.

But lens size will always be linked to body size.

I also prefer full frame for photography. That doesn't make aps-c or m43 dead.

Of course Sony 'admits' it, they have been focussing heavily on fullframe cameras.

Sony is a good example of the lens size 'problem' though. Most of the FE lenses are huge. On the other hand, that is a design choice. Sony could make more small full frame lenses. The 28mm f/2 and 35mm f/2.8 are perfect examples and lenses I'd love to use if I had a A7. I don't like huge beasts like the 35mm f/1.4 or 70-200mm f/4 OSS.

I wish Sony would make more f/2 - f/2.8 lenses. 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2 OSS, 50mm f/1.8 OSS (just a cheap one :)) would be nice. They could be small and not crazy expensive.

One thing that does disappoint me is cost of lenses for smaller sensors and the inability of Olympus/Panasonic to make really FAST lenses. Take the new Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 for example. It's compact, 534 grams, costs €1299. I'm sure the image quality will be great, but essentially it uses half the glass (and is half the weight) of a full frame equivalent like the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 (€1679), but it is not half the cost. Volume is probably a problem here and again - the quality of the M.Zuiko will be outstanding, but so is the Nikkor.

I just wish M43 lenses were not only half the size and weight, but also half the cost. Or the same price with an aperture that makes the lens actually an equivalent. In theory a 7-14mm f/1.4 should be possible with the same size as a fullframe 14-28mm f/2.8.

So far only Sigma has accomplished something close to this with the 18-35mm f/1.8. Lenses like that show the value of aps-c imo. Would be great if there were more like them.

 

[Inazuma]

The bokeh of FF can be a bit overkill though tbh. Like even in Game of Thrones which uses Super 35 I find a bit annoying that they have all these amazing sets but then everything gets blurred out when someone speaks and theres a head shot 

[agolex]

The bokeh of FF can be a bit overkill though tbh. Like even in Game of Thrones which uses Super 35 I find a bit annoying that they have all these amazing sets but then everything gets blurred out when someone speaks and theres a head shot 

​Game of Thrones criticism? Don't attack my religion!

[Geoff CB]

Considering most still shoot with Super 35 mm sensors, that they strike the balance between DOF/ being impossible to focus, and I'm actually think of using the new Black Magic Micro Cinema camera as my A-camera if it lives up to spec, I have to pretty strongly disagree. FF is the future for photography, but not all video projects. 

[mtheory]

Agree, S35 is far from dead, primarily because it's still far more practical for cinema. This might start to change when ALL cameras have super low light abilities that can shoot at F8 at night without grain.

[fuzzynormal]

FWIW, I'm on M43 because it's compact.  Photos and Videos for me work great.  So this consumer in particular isn't caught up in the sensor size angst. 

And, if you really want mega DOF you can kinda get there with certain lenses.  But, yeah, the small size of body and lenses is really a killer feature.  The National Geographic mantra "f8 and be there" really resonates with me therefore I'm less about FF and more about just being in the right spot at the right time.

All that said, you can't beat an interview shot done on FF with a fast prime 50 or 85.

[BrooklynDan]

I don't think that Super 35/APS-C will be going anytime soon. For photography, maybe, but for motion pictures it is by far the most developed format. It's the perfect equilibrium between sensor size, lens size and depth-of-field. And while full-frame does have a tremendous range of optics available, it doesn't have the specific range that's desired by professional filmmakers. Look at the Leica Summilux primes. From 16mm to 100mm, all super-fast at 1.4, all the same exact size and with an identical front diameter. The Master Primes go from 14mm to 135mm, all virtually the same size and weight, at 1.3. This is something that would be very difficult or impossible to replicate in full frame format. I've never seen a full frame lens wider than 20mm that's faster than T2. Ditto for a full frame lens longer than 85mm. And for people harping about depth-of-field, 1.4 on Super 35 is about equal to 2 on full frame. Hell, if you really got a hard-on for shallow depth-of-field, pick up the new Vantage Ones  at T1 for large-format style razor-thin DOF craziness. Either way, the options are there in Super 35.

And I haven't even gotten to all the other types of glass. An entire universe of zooms, macros, tilt-shift, periscope, vintage, anamorphic, and all other manner of specialty and custom glass. Spend ten minutes browsing the shelves of Panavision and see how much is available to you in Super 35.

[wolf33d]

So for photography everyone agree. 

For video, you all seem to point one advantage of S35 over FF : DoF because FF has too swallow DoF. 

But wait, can you not just change your lens aperture ...? You want more DoF well shoot F5.6 instead of F4 and this is it ... This allows you to have the same DoF of APSC but at the same time have : more sharpness, less vignette, .... You will tell me what about low light and I will answer you that considering Full Frame is better at high ISO, just bump the ISO to compensate the aperture and you get exactly same speed and same DoF as APSC (with equal noise because you augmented ISO but FF is better than APSC for that). 

So I don't understand your argument at all. FF offers you very swallow DoF when needed, and just stop down the aperture when you want as simple as that (and compensate exposure with ISO). 

Then there is only the lens size argument left. We come again to what I said, if you want absolute smallest size get M43 like black magic pocket or LX100, etc. Otherwise an A7S even with FF lens is not big, especially for filmmaking. Not to mention bigger cameras where the lens size does not matter. 
But APSC you get still big lenses (Sigma 18-35) ... Almost same as FF. Plus most of the people on APSC use FF lens because they invest in lens (like all canon famous lens, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm ...) so this argument is again, a non sense for me. 

[Nikkor]

Actually it's a great thing, I hope they all move to bigger sensors and eventually classic cinema lenses become cheap

[AaronChicago]

So for photography everyone agree. 

For video, you all seem to point one advantage of S35 over FF : DoF because FF has too swallow DoF. 

But wait, can you not just change your lens aperture ...? You want more DoF well shoot F5.6 instead of F4 and this is it ... This allows you to have the same DoF of APSC but at the same time have : more sharpness, less vignette, .... You will tell me what about low light and I will answer you that considering Full Frame is better at high ISO, just bump the ISO to compensate the aperture and you get exactly same speed and same DoF as APSC (with equal noise because you augmented ISO but FF is better than APSC for that). 

So I don't understand your argument at all. FF offers you very swallow DoF when needed, and just stop down the aperture when you want as simple as that (and compensate exposure with ISO). 

Then there is only the lens size argument left. We come again to what I said, if you want absolute smallest size get M43 like black magic pocket or LX100, etc. Otherwise an A7S even with FF lens is not big, especially for filmmaking. Not to mention bigger cameras where the lens size does not matter. 
But APSC you get still big lenses (Sigma 18-35) ... Almost same as FF. Plus most of the people on APSC use FF lens because they invest in lens (like all canon famous lens, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm ...) so this argument is again, a non sense for me. 

​Well, DoF isn't the only thing. Angle of view changes. People are used to seeing certain lenses "look" a certain way on Super 35. Kind of like how people are used to 24 fps in cinema. It's just part of the look.

[mtheory]

So for photography everyone agree. 

For video, you all seem to point one advantage of S35 over FF : DoF because FF has too swallow DoF. 

But wait, can you not just change your lens aperture ...? You want more DoF well shoot F5.6 instead of F4 and this is it ... This allows you to have the same DoF of APSC but at the same time have : more sharpness, less vignette, .... You will tell me what about low light and I will answer you that considering Full Frame is better at high ISO, just bump the ISO to compensate the aperture and you get exactly same speed and same DoF as APSC (with equal noise because you augmented ISO but FF is better than APSC for that). 

So I don't understand your argument at all. FF offers you very swallow DoF when needed, and just stop down the aperture when you want as simple as that (and compensate exposure with ISO). 

Then there is only the lens size argument left. We come again to what I said, if you want absolute smallest size get M43 like black magic pocket or LX100, etc. Otherwise an A7S even with FF lens is not big, especially for filmmaking. Not to mention bigger cameras where the lens size does not matter. 
But APSC you get still big lenses (Sigma 18-35) ... Almost same as FF. Plus most of the people on APSC use FF lens because they invest in lens (like all canon famous lens, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm ...) so this argument is again, a non sense for me. 

​Wolf, an F4 on S35 sensor will deliver less bokeh and easier focusing than F4 on full frame sensor ( due to difference lenses, obviously ). To match the same look on FF, you will have to go several stops above F5.6, which will require more light. As I said, cameras like A7S are beginning to make this a non-issue, but why would you throw away several stops of "free" light?

[wolf33d]

To match the same look on FF, you will have to go several stops above F5.6. why would you throw away several stops of "free" light?

Well, in reality the equivalent DoF aperture is 6.4. 
I would rather shoot 6.4 on FF with higher iso than 4.0 on APSC (and benefit from higher sharpness from 6.4 vs 4.0) especially with a body like the A7S that is SO good at high ISO that the image would be even cleaner. 

So I answer you, why would you private yourself of amazing FF possibilities for creativity (super swallow DoF), amazing high ISO, and way better stills capability, STILL HAVING the opportunity to match 1.6 crop mode, and DoF (by stopping down the lens as said above) ?

EDIT: I am not trying to flood here, I am just trying to understand people arguments for going APSC. For now my point of view is that those people are conservative and reluctant to accept benefits of FF (because they can't afford it or don't own it or just convince themselves they did a good choice going APSC, or some other reason). 

[Inazuma]

Only a few FF cameras are actually better in low light than those with smaller sensors though

[Mikey R]

The most interesting low cost sensor out there for me is the new Blackmagic micro cinema.. global shutter.. all our motion cadencemo issues gone right? With a speed booster, it could be a 1.7x crop of "full frame", which is really a stills more than movie film thing, right?..

APSC size is about the same as 35mm movie film, all the apeture/field conventions translate straight across. If the BM micro cinema had the the lowlight of the A7s.. the perfect cheap sensor..

Global shutter, A7s lowlight, 4k, log, raw, hdmi out - speedbooster built into camera with auto calibration, wifi, pre cognitive auto focus logic.. what else do we want?

All in an NX500 sized body please, $450 w/o lens

And a half sized version built into a drone.

 

 

 

[wolf33d]

The most interesting low cost sensor out there for me is the new Blackmagic micro cinema.. global shutter.. all our motion cadencemo issues gone right? With a speed booster, it could be a 1.7x crop of "full frame", which is really a stills more than movie film thing, right?..

APSC size is about the same as 35mm movie film, all the apeture/field conventions translate straight across. If the BM micro cinema had the the lowlight of the A7s.. the perfect cheap sensor..

Global shutter, A7s lowlight, 4k, log, raw, hdmi out - speedbooster built into camera with auto calibration, wifi, pre cognitive auto focus logic.. what else do we want?

All in an NX500 sized body please, $450 w/o lens

And a half sized version built into a drone.

 

 

 

​My friend with some "IF" we can re-build the world ;). 
I agree that Black Magic Micro is cool (and as I said in my last post, M43 are interesting because AT LEAST they really have the possibility to be small like LX100 or BM micro ..). However for me it's a no go due to lack of screen (if you add screen and cables you loose the compactness and weight and so on, except if the screen would be integrated). 

I liked your wish list though. But man... come on, you forgot the slow mo. What would be YouTube without slowmo?? give us 240fps with FS700 quality. 
I talked to a Canon manager today and he told me the 5Dc will be very agressive (4K at 60p and FHD at 120p, Canon log, same codec and bitrates as the XC10, 18mpx with very good low-light and DR). Just joking. 

[Mikey R]

How bout in cam high frame rate to 25p

 

[mtheory]

Well, in reality the equivalent DoF aperture is 6.4. I would rather shoot 6.4 on FF with higher iso than 4.0 on APSC (and benefit from higher sharpness from 6.4 vs 4.0) especially with a body like the A7S that is SO good at high ISO that the image would be even cleaner. 

So I answer you, why would you private yourself of amazing FF possibilities for creativity (super swallow DoF), amazing high ISO, and way better stills capability, STILL HAVING the opportunity to match 1.6 crop mode, and DoF (by stopping down the lens as said above) ?

EDIT: I am not trying to flood here, I am just trying to understand people arguments for going APSC. For now my point of view is that those people are conservative and reluctant to accept benefits of FF (because they can't afford it or don't own it or just convince themselves they did a good choice going APSC, or some other reason). 

I actually agree with you overall, I'm personally used to thinking in FF focal lengths anyway, so my personal preference is to have a camera that can do both, either an FF that can crop or an S35 that can use a speedbooster to give me those ultra-wide shots without having to get new lenses.