Is FF sensors going to slowly phase out?

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Grevture Veteran Member • Posts: 4,188
Re: Nope, it's rather the opposite.

Bart Hickman wrote:

Grevture wrote:

If you are talking about closing the gap in terms of performance, no: a FF sensor will remain 2.25 times larger then a APS-C one, and when using the same technology in both, the larger surface have some advantages (like when looking at D7000 and D800 which have very similar sensor technology).

I'm not talking about closing the absolute gap in dynamic range.  I'm talking about the whole product experience.  I guess AF speed and tracking are the main deficits those products have right now.

Huh? Which products are mainly held back by AF speed and accuracy? APS-C or FF cameras?

I'm just arguing the advantage of the larger surface area can become irrelevant at some point.

Well, I agree that we at some point reach a "good enough" level where the differences become subtle. But just look at something like low light ability, the frontier of what we can - and want to - achieve is moving along as sensors get better. And a FF sensor (using the same technology) will still always have something like a one stop advantage. And that stop will always be a stop which can be useful to have. Also look at DOF control which will remain more extensive with a larger sensor no matter what level of sensor technology we are at.

Add to that the marketing advantages. Smart PR people always can inflate the differences that remain to appear very important also for customers that might not in reality benefit very much from them.

But old lenses generally aren't sharp enough for the new resolutions

Well, many of them are. When we reach FF resolutions of 200 megapixels and beyond I might agree with you. Until then, not a big issue.

I think the high volume lenses I'm thinking about aren't nearly this sharp.  Certainly not much that gets tested at places like photozone.

Even an almost untolerable lousy lens will benefit from a higher resolution sensor - also 200 megapixels. Of course not as much as a better lens will do, but it still benefits. And why should we design our sensors to match our worst lenses? I much prefer to design the sensors to take as much advantage as possible of our best lenses

Actually for those lens mounts where you have both sensor sizes, volumes for FF lenses remain higher, since those work fine on both FF and APS-C.

For telephoto that's true.  There's been very little market drive to shrink the size--at least not until recently.

It is true for all focal lengths - one telling example is Nikon. Even during those years when they only produced APS-C digital cameras (up until 2007) they still produced - and sold - much more FF lenses of all focal lengths then those limited to APS-C sensors. And since they introduced FF models, only a handful APS-C specific lenses has been released (mostly variations of kit zooms) while a wide variety of FF lenses has been released.

And even when they do shrink the size, they'll differentiate the lens from the more expensive FF version by crippling AF speed.

That part I do not get at all - which lenses focuses slower because they are limited to APS-C? Some cheap lenses focuses slower then more expensive counterparts, but that has nothing to do with sensor size.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow