Will APS-C become obsolete ?

Photo courtesy of camerasize.com

A personal view, with reasons

The Advanced Photo System  was introduced in 1996, towards the end of the film era. APS used  24mm wide film in dedicated cassettes. Completely new cameras and processing equipment were required to accommodate the new format.

If APS was the answer, what was the question?  I was using film at the time and I must say I never figured that out. I just kept using regular 35mm film which delivered substantially better image quality.

In due course APS was pushed aside by the advance of digital and the format disappeared, at least in its film manifestation.

In the early days of digital,  sensors corresponding to standard 35mm film were so costly to manufacture that cameras using this sensor size were too expensive for the  great majority of camera buyers.

Camera makers faced a wipeout unless they could find a less expensive digital sensor.

So the smaller, APS-C size, or something close to that,  was reborn in digital.

Format	Width mm	Height mm	Diagonal mm	Crop Factor
35mm Film = Full Frame digital	36	24	43	1
APS-C Film	25.1	16.7	30	1.4
APS-C Digital Sony and others	23.5	15.6	28	1.5
APS-C Canon	22.4	15	27	1.6
4/3 and M4/3	17.3	13	21.5	2
1 Inch	13.2	8.8	15.9	2.7

I am just guessing here but I suspect the big two camera makers Canon and Nikon might have imagined they could return to the standard 35mm (“full frame”) format sometime quite soon.

In fact I believe that is probably still where they want to go, possible reasons being:

* The huge inventory of 35mm lenses and other equipment in circulation.

* The corporate identity of CanoNikon is so identified with the 35mm (D)SLR camera.

* The 43mm diagonal sensor can form the basis for a versatile range of cameras from compact, moderately specified enthusiast models up to high performance professional versions.

Neither Canon nor Nikon has provided their APS-C format cameras with a full selection of professional zoom and prime lenses.

In 2008 the Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC) was born. First product onto the market was the Lumix G1, a Micro Four thirds camera from Panasonic with imager diagonal of 21.5mm.  

Olympus also used the M43 format.

But Sony, Samsung, Pentax, Leica, Fuji and Canon all opted for the APS-C imager size in their MILC lines.

Nikon, in an uncharacteristically daring move went for the much smaller “One inch” (15.9mm diagonal) format for its MILCs.

Samsung recently announced the NX1 (MILC) camera body together with two high performance zoom lenses, making a claim on the professional and advanced enthusiast market.

The photo at the top of the post illustrates how this plays out in terms of size.

I have shown

* Canon EOS 6D with EF 70-200mm f2.8 lens

* Samsung NX1 with 50-150mm (Equivalent 75-225mm) f2.8 lens

* Panasonic GH4 with 35-100mm (Equivalent 70-200mm) f2.8 lens.

The kit price given for each refers to the approximate current price in Australia, retail, of the camera body plus the lens illustrated plus a 24-70mm f2.8, or equivalent, zoom, making the classic professional/enthusiast all purpose body + 2 zoom kit.

You can see that Samsung APS-C  kit is smaller than the Canon full frame kit but not remarkably so.

In order to substantially reduce kit size you need to go down to the M43 system, represented here by the largest camera in the system, the GH4.

I have used the M43 system extensively and am able to report that it is capable of making excellent photographs in a wide variety of circumstances.

So here is the nub of the problem for APS-C.

Cameras using the APS-C sensor size, be they DSLR or Mirrorless ILC,  lack the ultimate image quality of full frame but also are unable to match the compact kit size of M4/3 or smaller formats, particularly when pro style and longer zooms are added to the kit.

Sony has had success with its (erstwhile) NEX (E Mount) line of cameras, now renamed something forgettable, but most of these are fitted with a collapsing kit zoom of standard focal length range.

When I last checked Sony was offering no lenses for the E Mount equivalent to the standard 24-70 and 70-200mm f2.8 pro lenses for full frame.

Why ?  If they did make such lenses they would be like the Samsung ones, confrontingly large and too big for the NEX style bodies.

When MILCs were introduced some industry representatives wanted to refer to the genre as “Compact System Camera”. The problem with this is that while the bodies can indeed be more compact than an equivalent DSLR, lens size is largely determined by sensor size and long, wide aperture zooms are always going to be sizeable on any body type.

But wait,   APS-C has another problem.  Most APS-C cameras are entry/mid range DSLRs or MILCs. 

Most of these are sold with a kit zoom which stays on the camera permanently.

In effect this converts an interchangeable lens camera (ILC) to a fixed lens camera (FLC).

But manufacturers can make a fixed zoom lens camera (FZLC) which because it does not have to factor in a lens mount can be smaller, or have a lens with longer zoom range or wider aperture or all three of those things, than an ILC.

In addition modern sensor technology has seen the image quality of smaller sensors come on strongly in recent years.

So the FZLC can have a smaller sensor, say 15.9mm diagonal, still with very good image quality, allowing even smaller size, greater  zoom range and wider lens aperture.

Summary

* At the professional/expert/enthusiast level APS-C cameras be they DSLR or MILC cannot match the image quality of full frame cameras which can also be DSLR or MILC.

* For the enthusiast/expert or even professional photographer seeking a substantially more compact kit size than full frame, APS-C is really not the answer. M4/3 does “compact” much more effectively.

* For the amateur/enthusiast user who is unlikely to change lenses a modern FZLC makes much more sense.  

Conclusion  I really don’t quite see where the APS-C sensor size fits into the near future camera world. 

I see it as having been a stop gap size which technology and changes in the market have made redundant.

Of course if people keep buying cameras with this sensor manufacturers will keep making them.

But it seems to me there are better alternatives for every camera user group.