Homepage › Forums › Gear & Links › Photography Equipment › Cameras › Is the true potential of APS now upon us?
- This topic is empty.
Is the true potential of APS now upon us?
-
andy mcinroyParticipant
Very interesting reading in amateur photography this week.
In the review of the new Nikon D300 (APS sensor) they state that the image quality is on par with the Canon 5D (full frame). They state that they will need to conduct more in depth analysis to set them apart.
I’ve long been a firm believer in the potential of the APS system. The lens systems are cheaper, lighter and more precise and now that the on-chip noise control systems are becoming so sophisticated, I wonder if there will actually be any future in full frame.
My own personal opinion is that the 4/3rds system will struggle to mantain pixel density while controlling noise. Meanwhile the full frame models will find it hard to justify their price tag when compared with cheaper APS models with equivalent image quality.
What’s your thoughts? Is the day of APS now upon us?
Andy
__________________
Andy McInroy Photography
Landscapes of Ireland and Great Britain
http://www.andymcinroy.comMartinParticipantI’m no expert. But my feel on it is that Nikon and Canon will move everything to full frame eventually. Its started on the high end models and over time it will rattle down to the lower ones (the full frame technology will become cheaper)
However i do see the possibility and it does make sense that Nikon and Canon will possible leave one camera with a 1.5 crop factor. This would be for wildlife/sport photographers to give them more reach with the crop factor. Nikon did something like this for wildlife/sports photographers before by reducing the megapixels on the D2H to push up the Frames per second rate over the D2X
As for the other camera manufacturers other than Nikon and Canon, id say it will be a mix of full frame and APS
Thats my thoughts on it
M
ThorstenMemberMartin wrote:
…camera with a 1.5 crop factor. This would be for wildlife/sport photographers to give them more reach with the crop factor.
I must admit that this is something I’ve never really comprehended! :( How is this different to simply taking the image from a full frame sensor and simply chopping off the edges?
Regarding the original question, I think it’s worthwhile taking into account the impact that medium format back will have on sensor technology. In terms of basic image quality there isn’t anything to match them as far as I’m aware. It’s not just that you’re working with a bigger sensor, but they generally have a greater bit depth and other such benefits (although on the downside they are more prone to moire). Don’t know if there’s a definitive answer Andy. Technology changes so much and so quickly these days that it’s hard to keep up and even harder to predict the future!
MartinParticipantThorsten wrote:
I must admit that this is something I’ve never really comprehended! :( How is this different to simply taking the image from a full frame sensor and simply chopping off the edges?
You will have more mega pixels with a dedicated 1.5 cropped sensor. Over time the full frame sensors will ramp up the mega pixels and make “chopping off the edges” more feasible and then making the 1.5 cropped sensors possibly redundant. But as you said “Technology changes so much and so quickly these days that it’s hard to keep up and even harder to predict the future!” so god only knows what we will have in 10 years time, the idea of an aperture, shutter speed and ISO could be gone and replaced with some other methods. Does it really matter. Like most I just enjoy being out and about taking shots
Anyhow time for bed, good night:-)
M
CianMcLiamParticipantThorsten wrote:
Martin wrote:
…camera with a 1.5 crop factor. This would be for wildlife/sport photographers to give them more reach with the crop factor.
I must admit that this is something I’ve never really comprehended! :( How is this different to simply taking the image from a full frame sensor and simply chopping off the edges?
I guess it’s all to do with pixel density. 12mp on a full frame means less pixels per square cm of sensor compared to 12mp on an APS. For an equivalent field/angle of view with an equivalent number of megapixels, the ones crammed closer together should give finer details than those spaced further apart. Think of a video wall at a concert versus a TV screen at home. The video wall only needs a low density of pixels to look sharp and detailed from the middle of an arena, a TV has to look sharp from a few feet. If you crop a full frame sensor you are getting even less pixels per cm of final image, so less finer details.
For a wildlife photographer, to get every whisker crisp you want a high density of pixels and long reach, so an APS sensor crammed with pixels is much better than trimming a FF image to the equivalent angle of view.
BTW, I have been trying out the D300 vs the D200 and to me the difference is night and day, for the first time in years I’ve found myself editing images only to find on re-evaluation that the RAW image at ‘as shot’ settings often looks better than my attempts in photoshop. Gorgeous colours and a noticeable ‘3D’ type of image that you could just walk into. Hats off to Nikon, they made my dream camera even better! It’s not that I couldn’t get a similar image out of the D200, I just had to work the image a little more. I was thinking of getting a D3 but with the wild locations I like to trek to, going light with the D300 turns out to have less compromises than I had imagined.
constantineParticipantInteresting stuff, haven’t opened my copy of AP yet this week, so won’t comment on the whole thing.
But it just struck me last night, even with all the advances seen in photography in the last 10 years, the biggest being the seismic shift to digital imaging, anyone who uses a dslr is essientially using a piece of equipment based on a decades old design, something that has a digital sensor horseshoed into it.
I’m not sure when the first DSLR came out, probably sometime around 94-95, and since than, nothing has changed, bar upgrades with processor and software tech, and of course making the sensor bigger, and than the paradox, they make it smaller. And than bigger again, well thats what ya get from focus groups.
Its all one big con. Drip feeding us the ‘latest’ technology, bit by bit, knowing we’ll salivate over it, be prepared to fork out multiple thousands on the latest and greatest, and than 12 to 18 months later, they throw out the next best thing. To give an extreme example, the leica M6 was introduced in 1984, and remained virtually unchanged until 1998!! 14 years. One model. Ok, I know its like one of the best cameras the world has ever known, but than you look from 98 on, three different models, the m7, mp and m8! 3 different models in less than 10 years. And that sort of thing is across the board. Leica fecked up with the M6, it was too good. They had to produce cameras that were a wee bit crap after that, so that people would feel pressured into buying the latest model. I know Leica is probably a bad example here, but I hope you get my meaning….
And that happens all over the shop nowadays. How many mega pixels will ever be enough?? I know some purists say digital will never match film, or at least it hasen’t up to now. But its damn close, and whatever you ‘break’ in camera, you can ‘fix’ afterwards on your PC.
My conspiracy theory is that the major companies know what makes a perfect camera. They know what constitutes the alpha and omega of digital photography. But they are never going to release it, cause if they do, they’ll be stuck down a cul-de-sac. No more upgrades cause the last one was a wee bit shite. Oh dear, the shareholders won’t be happy. This theory of mine stems from a chat I had with a nameless professional who told most memory cards are stepped down, ie. your 1gb card is actually a 4 or 6 gig, but they step it down, call it a 1 gig, put it in the shop, and ride us like the gimps that we are.
So where can the camera companies go if the produce the perfect camera? You can’t improve perfection, so, therefore, no more upgrades, or at least decade long gaps between upgrades. Digital was the best thing to ever happen to this industry, it has given them carte blanche to screw the photographer good an proper.
Personally, thats it for me, I have gone through my splurge of buying for this year. I solemnly swear not to buy another overpriced camera body ever again, no matter how tempting, alluring or shiny it is. No matter how many mega pixels it has. No matter how many buttons it has. Or features. Or frame rate. Or any other cool stuff that like I can so justify at the moment. Nope, just lens and filters and stuff, thats all I’m gonna buy. Thats it. Nada. Zilch.
*Ken……Ken, can you hear me? This is your inner child speaking. I’m very disappointed in you. Why won’t you buy me a new camera??? You know you deserve it!! And you’ll use it, and be such a great photographer, maybe even become a pro!! Wouldn’t that be cool! Taking pictures of mountains and cows and naked women and stuff, and getting paid for it! you so want that. You really do. You really, really do. Buy the camera ken. Buy the camera……..
Ah…..no, ah. Hmmm. What was I saying. Oh yeah, APS sensors and stuff…..Evil corporations and the like. Ah, their not all that bad really, sure their only getting to know the technology themselves. Of coarse theres a few mistakes here an there.Jays, that D300 is a mighty fine looking camera. Wonder how much it is???????
stcstcMemberI think the next set of advances you will see in camera technology will not be in raising the number of pixels, I mean for 90 % of photographers do we need any more?
But I think the major advances that will come are in bit depth dynamic range and noise suppression, just look at the latest cameras from the big two manufacturers.
And actually I personally thing this is where major improvements can be made. If these improvements can be made, is there still a valid argument for a full frame sensor???
ThorstenMemberI agree with you Steve, I think that is where development efforts should be focused on, if they aren’t already. I think we’ve already reached the stage where digital is far superior to film in the resolution stakes. That’s not to say that overall digital is better than film. Neither would I say film is better than digital. And those people that live in the hope that a digital image can one day be made to look like a film image are simply deluding themselves.
I can’t imaging why anyone would want that to happen. Digital and film results give you two distinct looks and I think they can very happily co-exist side by side. Much as I would like to see that happen, I suspect that the commercial reality is such that in years to come, we will see less and less film options available to us and it will eventually go the way of technologies such as Super-8, which is a real shame
stcstcMemberthorsten
your right
the whole discussion about film or digital is a non starter. they are different and its like comparing apples with oranges, rather than apples with apples
it will be interesting to see how the developments pan out, as the market seems to be for low end DSLR cameras, thats why the likes of canon have prime time tv advertising for the 400d
also in that end of the market there is still a perception that pixel count matters. A friend of mine who is a commercial photog was telling me recently he uses a 1Ds MkII and the only time he struggles for resolution is those glossy posters they put in bus shelters. As they are his res and you stand close to them.
When he saw that they had bumped the pixel count on the new Ds MkIII he said thats it I dont need anymore!!
ThorstenMemberstcstc wrote:
A friend of mine who is a commercial photog was telling me recently he uses a 1Ds MkII and the only time he struggles for resolution is those glossy posters they put in bus shelters. As they are his res and you stand close to them.
When he saw that they had bumped the pixel count on the new Ds MkIII he said thats it I dont need anymore!!
Sounds to me like he’s been using the wrong tool for the job. Surely he should have been using a MF back for work like that? :wink:
stcstcMemberactually he has tried stuff like the hasselblad H39
and say for the commercial stuff most of the time what happens when the image goes the the production house they strip out most of the extra from it
he says the difference is not really enough to make him jump to something like that, either cost or improvement.
he reckons for 95% of his work there isnt a useable significant difference.
CianMcLiamParticipantI actually can see a resurgence in film based photography in the next 5 years or so. For commercial photographers there is no denying the speed and convenience of digital but on the other hand, photography is like other areas where technology meets ‘art’. I can see film going the same way as vinyl versus CD, valve amplifiers versus transistors etc. You can now download tools that allow you to take a whole ream of exposures and have the software churn out a perfect exposure with high dynamic range, I could see a backlash coming that will emphasise the art of getting it right at the click of the shutter, and quite likely a big return to wet processing and print.
When any area of ‘art’ becomes commonplace and easy to attain there is a reaction, there’s no doubt there are now many of us who consider photography as an artform. You can see that with post-modern art in the 20th century when quality printing and music recordings meant any philistine could have beautiful music and art in their homes. Beauty (the original and main theme of art for thousands of years) became a dirty word, all in a bid to make it inaccessible to all but those in the exclusive art scene who could ‘get it’, even though the message behind it all was usually very banal and boring in the first place. I don’t think it will be too long before we see every self-respecting arthouse photographer going back to film, landscapers using self-built large format cameras and others going pinhole with barbed wire around the shutter and focus rings, photographing barbequed domestic ainmals. Whatever it takes to keep one step above the hordes with photomatrix.
randomwayMemberI find my D200 perfect for every kind of stuff that I do, it’s more the time and energy that sets up barriers. I’d prefer manufacturers keeping the aps-c sensors as I often need reach. If you want to print over an A2 size, the small sensors will let you down, no matter how many pixels are crammed onto them. There will be a point when I’ll get a large format camera and go back to the basics.
andy mcinroyParticipantJust to add one more point to this interesting discussion. Larger sensors have longer interconnect wiring within them (lossy) which in turn leads to an inherent baseline signal noise which cannot be overcome. There will be a limit to how far full frame noise reduction can go.
APS on the other hand with it’s shorter internal wiring is probably still in it’s infancy regarding what it is capable of in terms of noise supression (I believe). And I do believe that the ‘Amateur Photographer’ findings mark a crossroads for APS sensor capability where it now approaches full frame (albeit older full frame models). It will now be very interesting to see what the D3 can do.
The 4/3rds Olympus system will likely become a marketing mans worst nightmare. It may be very capable, but imagine trying to tell customers why equivalent APS sensors are offering higher pixel counts. My bet is that olympus is going to be stuck at 10megapixels for quite some time whereas Sony/Nikon are already offering 12 and Pentax will announce 14megapixels in january on the K20D (APS-C). Too many? Perhaps. But Olympus still needs “punters” to buy their cameras and I’m not sure optical quality alone will sell it. They could find themselves in trouble with 4/3rds.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a gear head. I love photography first and foremost. But it’s certainly very interesting to watch the big players very different strategies.
Andy
constantineParticipantIf I was less of a gear head and more of a photographer I’d be sound.
I do apologise for my earlier rant. Just re-read it and……well, thats what ya get for posting when your tired.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.