Is FF sensors going to slowly phase out?

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Just Having Fun Veteran Member • Posts: 3,869
Re: Reality check

Erik Magnuson wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

My bet is the RX100 lens is still much cheaper to make.

That's likely, but your thousands estimate was way off.

It depends how you compare.  Every way the FF lens costs more which was my point.

Also, in checking DxO and other sites, I see the RX100 and new Canon 6D FF camera have the same DR at ISO100.   Overall there is not ALWAYS a 2.7 stop difference.

For equating lens apertures, use the "low light ISO" score as max aperture is most relevant in lower light.

FYI, current Canon sensors are non-linear at low ISOs which hurts the base ISO DR.  If you use the equiv Sony sensor in the RX1, the DR difference at base ISO is 1.9 stops. YMMV.

...but not 2.7

Maybe, but in real life is there is not a noticeable difference,

That depends on your life, e.g. ever shoot volleyball in a high-school gym?  Birds at dusk?  Models in a garage lit by torchlight?  The people I know who have switched to FF are photo enthusiasts who make trips just for the photography.  They shoot more types of things than just day-to-day life.

Sure, I have a D600 and a 105mm F/2 lens.  People like us are rare and are outnumbered by soccer moms more than 10:1.  Last I saw FF was only 6% of DSLR (Nikon) sales IIRC.   This niche will be around a long time.

If you check the Sony, NEX and other mirrorless forums you will see post from people selling off their FF cameras every day.

You also see many more posts on "moving up to FF"  in multiple forums.

Sorry, but we will have to disagree on that one.  (I have to admit I did buy a D600 a few months ago).

Except in a few years mirrorless went from 0% to over 40% in counties like Japan.

Any growth from 0% looks impressive -

Yes 0 - over 40% is impressive.


You can't look at only a few months of data.

That graph shows 4 years of data averaged over the entire year.

Not sure why, but it looks like he left the first year off, so maybe only 3 years (see lines on chart).  Anyway, if you add in what he left off (like 2009), it will have a huge difference.  Anyway we can go on record here.  I say DSLRs sales will take a huge hit over the next 5-10 years.  What is your opinion?

As anyone here will tell you, cameras without a mirror are cheaper to make, and CDAF is more accurate than PDAF for the kind of focusing 90% of camera users do.

I use both NEX and DSLRs, but I'm not part of that 90% as I get similar accuracy.  I recommend NEX to people who want smaller but capable and like EVFs (but not if they want to shoot a lot of wetlands birds.) Then again, I've been using PDAF systems since 1990 and understand many of the quirks/limitations.

-- hide signature --


This is not an opinion. Look at the tests:

1. Phase-detection autofocus (even using still targets and center-point only) wasn’t nearly as accurate as contrast detection.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow