-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why APS-C might make sense for manufacturers
- Thread starter kolyy
- Start date
5
57even
Guest
They have always chased the FF crowd, but mainly in the West. They know who is most likely to buy $10,000 worth of lenses, and it isn't the bargain hunters.
APSC, and Canon M in particular, were much more popular in Asia - incomes are on average quite a bit lower, and hands are on average quite a bit smaller ;-)
But when a millennial with a moderate income and many expenses is looking for their first camera, perhaps because they are expecting a baby or planning a trip somewhere exotic, they are likely to have a much tighter budget, certainly no more than $1000.
Top of the range FF has also traditionally been used as the testbed for new technology, 3 layer BSI, DCG sensors, etc... and have to carry the cost of that development. This is partly why they are so expensive.
When the bugs are worked out, that cost is recouped by using the same tech in cheaper FF cameras, and lower-resolution APSC and MFT cameras. It's quite a long term process, and chip shortages/Covid have thrown a spanner in the gearbox, so current activity, sales numbers, factory closures, etc. are a red herring.
I expect APSC sales to bounce back big-time when Covid is over and people start travelling and socialising again. It has had a much bigger impact on the leisure consumer market than the professional market.
As for the Hi-fi market, there is still a big price gap between top and bottom, and it's still possible to buy a complete HiFi for an inflation adjusted price not far off an equivalent system from the 1980s.
What disappeared were the ghetto blasters and walkmans, portable cassette players, and all-in-one entertainment systems. All were replaced by smartphones.
The same is true in the camera market. APS-C/MFT does not represent the bargain basement of the camera market. Both are significantly more capable than any phone, and only marginally less so than FF. For video, perhaps equal.
They are equivalent to second tier hi-fi - the complete $1,000 Denon system with a decent pair of Fyne Audio F302s.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Except that isn't true. M43 is far more portable than APS-C.
Focus on the lenses where most size and weight differences occur.
I'm more concerned with the telephoto range than small compact zooms and primes where the real difference lies.
Virtually no practical difference between 20 and 24mp.
I'm not interested in M43. Since I shoot a lot of sports I only know that telephoto lenses of a comparable FF equivalent are smaller, lighter, and cheaper in M43 compared to APS-C.
FUJIFILM XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens 16501109 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)
Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 II Lumix G Vario POWER Lens H-FSA100300 (bhphotovideo.com)
That said I use a Sony RX10iv for daylight sports because as far as I'm concerned APS-C and M43 are not as portable as that camera. Also, they aren't as good in low light as full-frame. So for me, neither APS-C nor M43 is of interest. My point was if you want portability I believe M43 is better than APS-C.
Basic math: Two hundred fifty thousand $4,000 cameras is one billion dollars, then you add $2,000 lenses and it’s not chicken feed.
But I’ve been a vendor and I know the volumes, and the APS-C consumer cameras are several times higher in volume. The pro business is profitable in its own right, but I also believe the consumers know what the pro brands are when they pay $700 to $1,200 for their camera, and they want one of those brands.
Last edited:
Not sure about that depending on what you are going to do with it. For telephoto uses lenses that will cover the full FF sensor are going to be bigger, heavier and more costly. So if one were intending to use the FF almost always in crop mode but occasionally in FF, lens cost, size and weight would be the penalty for FF lenses.
5
57even
Guest
Yes, the 'halo' effect is very real and the pro camera business is certainly not chicken feed, but nor are the R&D costs. It's hard to tell how profitable the bodies are on their own if you don't count the lenses.
Any sensible company will maximise the ROI by using the same tech in the next generation of second tier higher volume products. The overall calculation is a difficult one, but the consumer market is generally important to camera makers, and sensor manufacturers alike. It's the 'gravy' part of the product cycle.
roby17269
Senior Member
I do think you're optimistic about the future of APS cameras.
I believe that those millennials are much more likely to spend that grand on a new phone than on a new camera, whatever the sensor might be.
To be clear, I've got nothing against APS and smaller-sensored cameras. The more the merrier, choice s great for consumers. Personally, I am not in the target market, but I do not wish for them to disappear. But at the same time I can't see any bounce back coming anytime soon.
I think that between trying to sell a lot of cheaper cameras and a smaller number of more expensive cameras, the manufacturers are pushing for the latter strategy. This is just my opinion.
No, it isn't, as I will show you in a moment.
Only in rare cases, like big telephoto lenses. For most use cases body size matters as well.
Ok, but we are talking about system comparison in general.
That's a 1.1x crop, which is quite significant compared to the theoretical 1.3x crop of M43 compared to APS-C.
Thank you very much for the example! Now, the important question is, why do you think these are the right lenses to compare? One is a budget lens, the other is a premium one. As I'll argue below, the correct lens to compare to the Panasonic 100-300mm is the Fujifilm 70-300mm. But I know why are you comparing them - you simply applied the crop factor for both systems and got similar "reach", while you neglected everything else. I'll tell you why that is not correct:
- first, the logic behind using the theoretical crop factor assumes that the sensors have the same resolution. But what you should really compare (theoretically) is the number of pixels on your subject and then it's quite important to factor in that the Fuji will use a 26Mpx sensor. To be entirely precise, Fuji's current sensors have 3.8μm pixels, while the M43 ones have 3.3μm ones. But that's just a 15% difference. In other words, to get a similar 20Mpx 4:3 image you get from a M43 camera with a 300mm lens, you only need a 345mm lens for the Fuji, not a 400mm one.
- second, all of that only matters if the lenses can actually take advantage of that resolution. But that is very far away from truth for budget telephoto lenses. A 4/3" crop from the 26Mpx Fuji sensor has 15Mpx. What you are counting on, when calculating the theoretical reach advantage is that the M43 lens is able take full advantage of the difference between 15Mpx and 20Mpx. But take a look at some tests - the 100-300mm is nowhere near that. My own experience with budget telephoto lenses on M43 is that they can realistically resolve a 10Mpx sensor at the long end. More than that is wasted, it does not matter. So you can forget about the pixel density of the sensors here, it's not the limiting factor. While I have no idea which of the two lenses (100-300mm vs 70-300mm) is better at 300mm, I think it's reasonable to expect them to be in the same ballpark. The Fuji 70-300mm is a much newer lens, so I would guess it wins, but I am not sure. The Fuji 100-400mm should be significantly better than both.
- third, you completely neglect all other factors beyond pure reach. Is a slight (theoretical) reach advantage really that much more important than, for example better performance under low-light or better subject separation? i don't think so.
So here is a correct comparison of M43 vs APS-C, using the Panasonic 100-300mm vs Fuji 70-300mm, with the Sony 70-350mm added as well:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#831.848,841.964,725.629,ha,t
As you can see, M43 has absolutely no portability advantage over APS-C here.
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
Not a legitimate comparison. To match the Panasonic you must attach a lens that goes to 400mm so they are all 600mm equiv. as I have done in the link below.
Compact Camera Meter (camerasize.com)
--
Tom
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
I assume it will be used mostly in FF mode and only in crop mode when you really need it or why bother with a FF camera. For example, you are shooting wildlife and you want to get a closer look you push the crop mode button. That's the way I use my FF camera.
Does that include your Fuji cameras as well? I was very happy with jpegs from my Fujis quite many years ago. What do you mean by the need to "edit" image?
Ok, my experience is very different and I have been taking pictures of my daughter and other kids for almost a decade. But let's just leave flash behind, it's quite unrelated to the topic here.
Canon sells a brand new APS-C DSLR with zoom lens for $449 at Best Buy, so to be honest, I don’t think it’s a big stretch to offer that in full frame, especially if consumers will accept a mirrorless full frame with no viewfinder, and just the rear screen.
Well, I think that's an issue of their overall strategy for APS-C and FF alike. Sony shifted their focus to premium lenses and seems to have left both the mainstream and low-end markets to third parties. They simply don't develop budget lenses very often, whether that's FF or APS-C. Even their "cupcake" G primes are essentially premium lenses. The only budget lenses they introduced recently, which I can quickly remember, are the 28-60mm kit lens and the 35mm/1.8. Compare that to the multitude of GM and G lenses.
My philosophy on system size is that if you're looking for equivalent lenses, you might as well go with the biggest sensor size you can afford, because there's not going to be much in the way of size savings, depending on the specifics. Oly 12-100 versus Nikon 24-200 ... the Oly is a nice lens, but if I were building a system around a super zoom, I'd go for the slightly smaller, lighter, cheaper Nikon.
The size advantage you get from smaller sensors comes from making compromises and prioritizing size over speed. So you can carry around an APS-C camera with small f/2 and even f/2.8 primes - smaller than those offered by FF systems. Sure, a Nikon f/1.8 prime might be no bigger than it's Fuji f/1.4 counterpart, but you can still go smaller with the crop sensor because Nikon doesn't offer f/2.8 primes that are equivalent to the smaller, slower primes for crop sensors.
Last year, I was in the market for a small camera (I have an APS-C DSLR kit) to replace a Sony e-mount kit I got rid of a while ago. I went to Bergen County Camera to see some gear firsthand because camerasize.com only gets you so far. I assumed I'd buy a z50 since I own Nikon gear, but wanted to look at Fuji and m43 (specifically Olympus). The E-M5 and XT30 were both a bit small for my tastes and I was more content with the X-S10 and E-M1-sized cameras (the Oly's being a little bigger than I'd like). I looked at the 18-55/2.8-4 (Fuji) and the excellent 12-45/4 Oly lens. It's not apples to apples - the 12-45 offers better range, but it was bigger than the Fuji. Smaller lenses require too much of a compromise for my taste (the slow kit lenses). Short primes are pretty comparable with each offering pancakes at different FLs, but in short teles, Oly definitely has smaller options in the 45/1.8 and 75/1.8.
So I'd say that it's easier to put together a significantly smaller APS-C kit than FF kit, given that you accept compromises in speed. It's also possible, to put together a smaller m43 kit than APS-C kit, but I think there might be a few more limitations (not so many lens choices where there's a smaller m43 option).
It may be that that's partly due to the different crop factors (bigger gap between FF & APS-C than between APS-C & FF). And some of that is just down to what specifics each manufacturer offers. If I insisted on a zoom that went to 24mm equivalent then maybe the Oly 12-45 would have been more compelling than the Fuji. And the fact that the smaller E-M5 was uncomfortable in my hands and the very nice E-M1 was bigger than I wanted might be down to specific marketing decisions by Oly.
Any of the three can present a better compromise for a given photographer - the question is whether all three present a better compromise to enough photographers going forward. (It seems increasingly clear that many photographers just don't find a lot of value in a system smaller than FF).
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
LOL, read my post please. Your comparison is simply ridiculous.
Cheap M43 telephoto lens can definitely outresolve current 20 Mpix sensors.
They have lower contrast, which means less details at worse light conditions but with enough light, sensor is a limitation.
I've tested it with my puny Oly 75-300 using hi-res mode and hi-res image contains more details.
5
57even
Guest
Millennials are not clones. I know quite a few with cameras, some doing photography at the local college. Yes, they have phones too, but they know the difference.
roby17269
Senior Member
Obviously there's plenty of people taking different choices. Whether their numbers and their spending willpower are enough to revive the camera sector, specifically smaller-than-FF cameras, remains to be seen.
5
57even
Guest
I don't really understand why this discussion is ongoing. The idea that the only alternatives should be a phone or a FF camera are mildly absurd, and not backed up by any data I am aware of.
roby17269
Senior Member
Well, let's agree to disagree then.
I am not aware of any hard data that backs the fact that there must be a return to form of APS cameras, while if we look at camera introductions in the last few years I think the trend is pretty clear.
Again, I am not saying nor I wish that APS cameras will disappear, I just do not think that manufacturers will go back to the modus operandi of a few years back.
I guess we will have to wait and see.
With this I will bow out of this sub thread. Feel free to have the last word
Similar threads
- Locked
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum