FDtimes published a PDF document containing an interview with Zeiss Vicepresident Winfried Scherle. Here are a couple of interesting tidbits:
1) Full Frame is the future:
“I’m convinced that in the near future the relevant innovations and improvements will be made with Full Frame sensors. With the huge number of FF still picture cameras being sold, these sensors will be available for attractive prices. Canon started with the 5D MKII and was, according to my understanding, surprised that the community used the still camera for motion pictures. Sony has the a7RII and a7S which is dedicated for motion pictures. I’m convinced we’ll see more and more cine cameras with Full Format sensors.”
2) About the lens strategy with Sony:
“We have regular strategy meetings with Sony where we discuss roadmaps and so on but please understand that we can’t disclose further details.”
3) About E-mount:
“I think they were surprised about the success when they introduced the first mirrorless cameras in an environment that was dominated by DSLRs. So the E-mount market and mirrorless cameras have been a really disruptive technology. It started to be very popular in Japan but now it’s spreading around the world. And it’s getting even more relevant with the a7 series Full Format cameras. We are convinced that this will also drive the motion picture industry.”
It’s very clear how Zeiss is focused on Full Frame E-mount lens development. I don’t think we will ever see a new [shoplink 41087 ebay]Zeiss Touit APSC lens[/shoplink] launch anymore!
–
For European readers: Gold Box deal on the Sony RX1R at Amazon Germany (Click here).
222 Responses
Full frame is the future!
DxO One is the future. It has super raw!
WTF is super raw?
Just playing around with Photoshop wishing I could have a full frame video camera w/ touchscreen for easy fast focusing like the Sony a5100.
This could be a good strategy if you want to grab the attention of wedding cinematographers and creatives in the film industry. Fast and precise focusing is crucial in split second when working in fast-paced environment. Sometimes I wish my a7s can do touch focus after playing around w/ the tiny mighty a5100.
Also why not go all the way by making an external recorder than can record in XAVCS instead of the huge file size Apple ProRes that Atomos is forcing us to use?
Make the external recorder act as a controller w/ touchscreen so we can control focus w/ it too.
Something like this but w/ more advanced features like what I mentioned above: http://bhpho.to/1LeIeBA
I think this is a good strategy if you want make video production to editing linear for the consumers w/o the hassle of going for third party like Atomos and their terrible video codec.
I’ll go easy on you since you obviously are new to videography, but saying you prefer XAVC before ProRes (NOT an Atomos product, it belongs to Apple) is like saying you prefer low quality jpeg before raw for stills. You could definitely team up with Mr Rockwell in this opinion. If large amounts of data bothers you, you should not do video at all, especially not 4K. Anyone who takes video seriously would prefer DNxHD, ProRes (both are slightly lossy) or even better, raw video (DNG).
XAVCS codec in S-Log2/S-Log 3 Picture Profile will give 14-stop of dynamic range. You’ll get the benefit of having medium file size w/ XAVCS compare to the huge file size of Apple ProRes. https://youtu.be/BGuwPOk2gIU
And the last time I heard from Sony, they want to capture the wedding market w/ their products. So if you’re shooting wedding videos you’ll definitely not want to shoot in RAW like ProRes/DNxHD/DNG because the file size are huge and it is impossible to edit them on the same day. If they want to capture the market they have to give what the customers want and need and that’s better video solution and support.
An external recorder will reduce/eliminate the overheating issue. XAVCS codec is better and smaller and efficient than shooting Apple ProRes. S-Log 2 and S-Log 3 is superior than any other profile. A touchscreen monitor is a must for autofocus lenses. Sony needs to make this happen if they’re serious about supporting the video consumers.
Yes, it’s very apparent you have never done much video at all. Colour grading is a central part of post processing. If you ever compared grading XAVC-S versus raw, you’d gladly take that raw data size any day of the week. If storage and computer is not up to the task, it simply means your gear is not up to snuff. Simple as that.
Your rationale might work for shooting casual holiday clips, but for critical use (which you imply with the talk about external recorders) you are way off. And yeah, I had the Shogun but now use a PIX E5. The ProRes+S-LOG I get from that is okay to use, but the raw from my Blackmagic cameras is a lot easier to grade. If there was one single thing I could change on the E5, it would be adding raw recording.
You have to look at the whole scenario. Wedding cinematographers w/ the task of doing the same day editing w/ just a laptop computer which is not up to task of rendering raw files. This an on location job so bringing a desktop machine for editing is not an option.
XAVCS + S-Log makes it possible to get better video quality w/o having to shoot in huge raw file size. Wedding is a different market than making indie film, shooting music video, stock video and your holiday clips.
Why I use Blackmagic? Wow, you really are clueless aren’t you?
Sorry, like Freddo said, apples (no pun intended) and oranges. ProRes is an intraframe format, made for editing and with a wide variety of options (especially bit depth and color sampling). XAVC S is max. 8bit and LongGOP only. I you want XAVC S as an additional option, no problem, choice is always good. But if I had to choose only one, I would take ProRes any time.
CinemaDNG is possibly still too big (file size) for non-professional use, but it should be available on any serious video camera as an option.
Oh, an A5s without the viewfinder but with image stabilization is exactly what I’m dreaming about. The most powerful camera to fit in your coat pocket. My biggest gripe with my A7s is the ungodly hump for the viewfinder which is ripping up the inside of my coat pockets.
But I can’t give up the amazing A7s sensor. I would walk a thousand miles for that low light performance. I just want that awful hump gone.
IBIS probably will increase size too much
IBIS = Worth it
Viewfinder hump needs to go. A detachable viewfinder or (even better) a popup viewfinder would make an A5 series perfect.
Detachable EVF is prone to breaking or being lost.
There are guys like me who mostly live at night. I almost never need the viewfinder. I would just like to have one when I need one for times when I’m shooting in strong daylight. Otherwise I really want the viewfinder hump gone. I get upset every time I look at it.
I totally agree, moved from a nex-6 to an a7s and I hate how much bigger it is. But dang dat sensor though.
Same here! Without VF, Nex5n size.
With EVF and it is mine!!!
FF NEX-7!!!
Nice.
I really hope to see more colaborations with Sony’s video department, a new model must get some cues from the FS5, for the A9 they should forget the size and focus in modularity (grip/VF/battery) and speed.
The problem will be the lenses, which are still pretty big save some of the smaller primes. Zeiss thinks it’s full frame while Fuji thinks it’s crop.
Sshhhhhh Mr Zeiss man! If CaNikon hear your fancy for mirrorless full frame, they’ll create competing systems that pros really want to use. We’re safe until someone discovers Sony’s accidental EMount bluff. Hate to think what would happen if a company designed this to be pro from the ground up, rather than trying to make a toy play in the big leagues.
Large Format Digital is the future. MAKE IT HAPPEN SONY. Give me my 9×10 sensor please!
I am also for MF prices to come down. Would be nice if Sony tests the water with a fixed lens and their 44×33 sensor.
Yes! Full Frame is the future.
Let’s have our cameras become more affordable while refining the functionality and high optical quality possibilities of Full Frame.
As someone who specializes in (hand-held) long tele and macro photography, full-frame would be a setback, not an advantage over APS-C, and, for that matter, Four Thirds formats. I understand that people with other applications mostly profit from full-frame, but manufacturers would be stupid to focus on full-frame only. And even for shooters not specializing on telephoto, full-frame has the disadvantage of somewhat larger and heavier lenses.
I think APS-C is a very good compromise to get like 90% of the FF feeling and effect. However, for people not keen on very shallow DOF or like you said, long tele or macro, then the even smaller sensor seems more advantageously to me. Like me, I went from APS-C to FF, and would go MF if it becomes financially viable as a hobby photographer. But if I wouldn’t care for shallow DOF, but instead for more like in landscape photography, then why stay with APS-C, scale down everything. M34 or even lower.. So APS-C gives you a bit of everything, but I think long term it will get marginalized from above and below. It started as the big brother, when FF sensors were too expensive to produce. Now you go m34 not because of price but for other reasons. If you want big sensor and you are serious, then you go FF instead. So APS-C becomes a bit niche for specialized photographers (tele but still want shallow DOF) and tourists who are too stingy to spend for FF.
Although I love my A7II I still believe there is a big market for APS-C. Cameras like the A5100 and A6000 are much smaller en lighter than the A7 series and the lenses are quite a bit smaller an lighter also. Much easier to fit in a small bag with multiple lenses and carry around all day with straining your shoulder too much. Not to forget the substantial price difference between APS-C and full frame lenses and cameras. I’m definitely buying a A6100 when it comes out as a second body for when I want to pack light. The sensor of the A6000 is excellent and the image quality isn’t that far from what the A7 can do imo. Full frame obviously has it’s advantages but Sony shouldn’t forget the advantages of APS-C also.
I used to carry nex 5n + 50/1.8 + 18-55, and I would easily consider to carry FE28 + some cheap 50/2 + compact FF body if it existed
BTW the cheapest non-Sony lenses (canon 50/1.8) are FF ones xD
Yes! The legacy 35mm film format, with those magical dimensions Eastman and Edison came up with in 1892, is clearly the future for digital photography. Because it’s “Full Frame”. More Kool-Aid for everyone, please. Zeiss is buying the house a round.
It was Leica that introduced 35mm.
The 35mm film format predated Leica, they were the first to utilize the motion picture film in a stills only format.
True! I don’t use my digital camera for making movies, so I was talking stills.
Oh come on. Just Google it.
The smartphone is clearly the future of photography by several orders of magnitude.
FF will be the rally point for dedicated photography systems, though there will be smaller and larger sized systems for a long while yet.
If Sony wants to replace APS-C by FF, give us A6000 sized bodies and more lenses with the price-tag of FE28.
The lenses would still be unnecessarily big, heavy and expensive.
Sony has now BSI sensor, they can make small lenses now
The cover glass will still be an issue for corner sharpness, though color shift is more or less gone.
Cover glass is only issue when using adapted lenses. Native lenses already have cover glass included in calculations. All they have to do is stick with certain thickness and don’t change it.
That’s only true when the exit pupil is at a relitivly far distance from the sensor, as the exit pupil gets closer, low angle ray angles still have issues, otherwise the FE 35/1.4 would be much smaller than it is, the design is trying to straighten out the ray angles, much like the RX1’s 35/2 lens does.
No, it’s always true. Sony A7RM2 sensors handles very well even Hologon 15/8. Loxia 35/2 uses the same Biogon as ZM 35/2 but updated to accommodate for Sony sensor, there were pictures on SAR that corner sharpness improved a lot compared to using adapted ZM.
FE 35/1.4 in all likelihood is not designed for BSI sensor.
Take a look at this:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140904_1012-ZeissLoxia-vs-ZM.html
nearly identical lens designs, but Loxia is made for A7R spefically.
I’ve been wanting a FF NEX-7 since the NEX-7 came out, I was told a FF mirrorless would never happen, I now have an A7r to go with my NEX-7, I still want my FF NEX-7.
FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!! FF NEX-7!!!
Yeah! FF is the future that if the price is right down to earth as the a7 & a7ii.
Caught many by surprised by the latest offering.
The comments cited from this interview are somewhat missleading because they are taken out of context.
This interview was primarily about cinimatography, not still picture photography.
Also this interview talks a lot about anamorphics.
Ziess is very much in favor of a standard mount for all lenses and cameras, but againt the interview was primarily about cinematography.
Although A mount is certainly dead, and ff will clearly be Sony’s dominent format ….I do not think apsc is dead…but the delay of the a6xxx/a7000 camera could be an indication that Sony is considering the future..or lack of future of apsc.
If Sony abandons apsc, I would abandon them. I love their apsc cameras ever since the NEX lineup. Now I know what an A-mounters must have felt like. *sniff*
I would like to see apsc with comparable iso and dynamic range to the a7rii, 42mp 12fps burst ans much faster autofucus.
I suspect the next generation of sensor with wh ok te pixels and multilayer 3d pd, bsi stacked…should be able to accomplish that.
Basically that would be equivent pixel density to a 100mp ff.
Sony will need to.make 100+ mp ff soon to compete with the already anounced 120mp Canon ff….prototype shown but actual camera and release date not anounced.
If the next apsc is like I describe I will get one.
If it is another 24mp camera I will not even consider it. I already have a77ii and a7rii and would have no use for another 24mp camera no matter how many improvements they make.
comparable iso? that is, you want SNR improved by 2.25 times. I suspect you’ll have to wait more than 10 years for this
Based on two differrent Sony patents that utilze white pixels…I supect that what I ask for can be coming soon.
You may gain DR with the white pixels, but you sacrifice color information to do that.
Not necessarily.
Each 4 pixel bayer unit contains 2 green pixels.
By replacing one with white and proper algorythms there may effectively be no less colr info.
The algorithm may be able to produce a color that’s close to accurate, but it does so with less certainty using an RGBW 4pixel unit than with the RGBG 4pixel unit, a loss of color information is just that, it has less information then before to figure out what color the pixels should be in the final image, a clever algorithm may be able to provide accurate color, but only time will tell if they can actually do it.
I think Fuji was on the right track with their old Super CCD layout, have a look at what the S5 Pro can do, I wonder what a CMOS sensor with a similar layout could do.
Every pixel and every pixel location is interpolated with bayer sensors, no pixel has full color info, only Foveon can do that.
With a duplicate green pixel we can interpolate data from 3 individual colors with a duplicate green.
With the white pixel we still have all 3 colors plus we have a full spectrum pixel containing not only the 3 colors but also all the in between colors that have been lost because they are filterd out…for example purple, orange,and many other colors are not detected but interpolated from r,g,b
Those missing colors can be interpolated by a combination of canceling out the rgb from the white, and using the rgb values to determine the most likely missing color.
I do not know just what the new algorythms will do but clearly the addition of a white pixel provides more color info, not less…if that data can be extracted.
For example….and I do not expect this WILL be done…it would be possible to create a six color file from an rgbw sensor.
Nonsense. It will happen long before then. We have no reason to believe that today, Sony is producing the best APS-C sensor that they could, even with current technology. Quite the opposite – no way would they let APS-C performance catch up with FF.
I doubt APSC can catch up to FF at any point in time. Even if Sony gave us the latest BSI APSC sensor of say 12MP, The FF version of it would still perform slightly better.
To abandon apsc, so soon after abandoning A mount…would be so foolish and alienate so many people that I would be surprised if Sony would do that.
They are capable of anything. If you want to drive radical innovation, you must not worry too much about the users of the old stuff that you are replacing. You need to convince them to make the switch by offering far superior value (that means an affordable FF camera in the shape of a traditional APS-C, Sony!). Sony is well on the way of killing the SLR let alone APS-C.
The a6000 was released in 2014. How can you be worried about the demise of APS-C because its replacement isn’t out yet?
I dont think the DSLR is dead for them. Too much money for them to make to kill it. The technology is there so the R&D is very little….mostly profit.
“We have regular strategy meetings with Sony where we discuss roadmaps and so on but please understand that we can’t disclose further details.”
Really??
Why a Touit 50mm f2.8 for 900€ when I can get a SEL 50mm f1.8 OSS for 300€. Not forget the cheap Sony has OSS – that is very important as long APS-C bodies don’t have IBIS.
Same with Touit 32mm f1.8 for 600€ compared to SEL 35mm f1.8 OSS for 450€.
Touit 32/1.8 is weird but Touit 50/2.8 is a 1:1 macro unlike the Sony. Using 50/1.8 with macro rings is very very inconvenient
I use bellows!
what, are there e-mount bellows with electronic contacts? xD
There are no E-Mount Luminars or Photars with electronic contacts, so what the heck.
Yes, Luminars or Photars are exactly what someone, who was mentioning an 1:1 macro lens, had in mind.
I have high respect of your 40k votes, but it seems you have a PhD in reality distortion. xD
Bob Atkins has a nice table on format size and limiting lens aperture for a sharp 8×10 print: http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html
Now take a macro lens of 80mm focal length like a Luminar or a Photar (or an M-Componon in my case) with maximum aperture of 5.6 and extend the bellows so you get a magnification of 4:1. What is the effective aperture when the lens aperture is set to f5.6 at the necessary bellows extenstion? I am waiting to hear. Then have a look at that table.
Touit series are designed by fujifilm
APS-C IS THE FUTURE!!!! SMALLER IS BETTER IS THE FUTURE!!! FF MUST DIE IS THE FUTURE!!!
THE FUTURE IS THE FUTURE! ALL HAIL THE FUTURE!
I predict: “THE FUTURE WILL COME TOMORROW!”
FF is the future and APS-C will live for a long time to come.
The sole and only reason I left Nikon, after three decades, was to get away from big massive heavy lenses. The A6000 APS-C is a massive best seller. Sony are kidding themselves if they think a majority of those APS-C users will be forced into going to FF. Weight is very important to a large segment of users. FF lenses are too heavy.
Canon EF 40/2.8 STM, 130 grams and $150 and sharp enough
I clarify … I left Nikon to get away from heavy zoom lenses. My mainstay zooms are a wide zoom (12-24 or 10-18, or 10-24) and a mid-range wide zoom (24-85). It is these sorts of zooms that I need to be lightweight, which is probably not going to happen for FF.
A FF 24-70/4 is about the same size as an APSC 16-50/2.8, and both are the same weight. You get the same DOF capability, the same low-light capability and the same noise levels, where ISO is adjusted for f-stop.
There is no practical difference between the two. A6000 with it’s 16-50 pzd is about the same as having a 28-75/f5-f8 mounted on a FF camera.
If a brand focuses only on FF and will make lenses to match what was available on APSC, you will have just as small’n’light lenses available, with bodies to match as well as huge’heavy’n’fast type of lenses available as well, whenever you need them.
But this is theory. Hopefully this will turn into reality.
I’m a wide angle fan. My main lens is a wide-end lens, currently the Sony 10-18. In contrast the FF 16-35 is a monster in size.
Lets say that Sony manages to produce enough sensor volume that, in the near future, they can sell FF cameras for the same price as APS-C are today. You can still use your APS-C lenses in crop mode. In fact the 10-18 works quite well on FF from around 12 to 15mm. Anyway then there are many small FF lenses that will fit the Sony body, from other manufacturers like Voigtlander, Leica Etc, as well as some small native FF lenses from Sony & Zeiss. So it would seem to me if they can get the cost issue covered, and increase the frame rates & autofocus system to match APS-C, then I don’t see any problem with moving to FF completely.
I use the 10-18mm on my A7 II. It works perfectly from 12-16mm. 🙂
APS-C has a lot of advantages in UWA lenses with cheap options available but this Sony 10-18mm is a God send for UWA freaks like me !!!
The only option to get 12mm equivalent on APS-C is an adapted Sigma 8-16mm that doens’t take filters. The Sony 10-18mm takes cheap 62mm filters even at 12mm. 😀
If you don’t care about Zoom … you can also have a look at the Rokinon/Samyang 12mm f2.0 (small, light, fast, sharp and not expensive)
Unfortunately thats for APS-C cameras only. 🙁
I had a terrible time finding an affordable UWA for my needs. I required filter usage and wanted something really really wide.
Unfortunately the Zeiss 16-35mm was too expensive for my tastes and most other lenses were either adapted lenses or were starting from 17mm which wasn’t too wide.
So the Sony made the best sense for me. 🙂
Here is a shot I took with the combo on FF.
https://500px.com/photo/119616227/sunset-at-bandra-by-brendon-fernandes?from=user_library
your pics are really amazing !!!!!!!!!! do you use any other tools in addition of Lightroom ?
Thank you ! 🙂
Yes I use Nik Filters also. Mostly the sunset filter to boost yellows and a sharpening filter like detail extractor.
perfectly? i find it hard to believe than 10-18 could produce sharp corners on FF. ATM I’ve only 1mp files. Can you please show fullres samples?
Here is one shot by me.
https://500px.com/photo/119616227/sunset-at-bandra-by-brendon-fernandes?from=user_library
Um I’m sorry, I am not going to buy it for $150 just to check edge&corner sharpness
Ah I don’t have a full res version anywhere. But the results are there for you to see. That shot was taken at 12mm. You won’t get much wider with any lens anywhere.
What i’m trying to say is that in theory for practical purposes, there is no difference in size, as long as you account for the f-stop. Now sure there are few lenses available. But the numbers are steadily increasing. It’s like me and A-mount. I’d love for it to stay, but I realize that it’s time has come and gone, and that my A65 might be the very last body in A-Mount that I own. If Sony ever releases A77III, then I will surely buy it, but I doubt they will ever make it.
And what are you missing now? APS-C for Sony in my view is pretty much set lens wise..
Stick that thing in the face of a griz to get a frame-filling Portrait shot and watch what happens :-)!
There’s Pentax 77/1.8 for portraits, 270 grams albeit expensive
The response of the griz will be just the same and you still will not be far enough away to escape it. I suggest a 600/4, 4000+ grams albeit very expensive.
Please just deliver the batis I ordered in May. That’s all I want right now.
It is only October!
This huge marketing drive to force the market into bigger, heavier, more expensive gear – by a combination of hype, and cutting off the alternatives – is going to look so lame, so foolish, a few years from now. You can lead a market, or you can follow it. But you can’t herd it to where you want it to go.
Not marketing, but the market has dictated that the future is high end DSLRs and high end mirrorless. Full frame is where the camera market is going, the low end and entry level camera market lost out to smartphones. If you want light and cheap buy a phone.
High end, yes. Unnecessarily big, heavy and expensive, no – that never flies, in the long run. Technology wants to be small – few trends are better documented.
Like the A380?
Good one!
Wait, are you talking about the Airbus or the Sony?
Ha, ha. Had completely forgotten that Sony made an A380, too.
DSLR stands for dinosaur SLR, now.
There will be plenty of APS-C cameras secondhand for some time to come. My NEX-6 has all I need when used with my A-Mount lenses. I can do without AF. For most of my life as a photographer, I got by very well without it as I do not normally take action shots and even when I did (e.g. fighting wild boars whirling around each other), I got good shots without it (was a Pentax LX if I remember correctly).
If sony wants to dump APSC then they should admit it openly. A lot of people buy cameras as an investment into a system and Sony shouldn’t be seen as pissing off these consumers.
And if the brillant /s Sony management team expect people to move to FF “only” by sabotaging their own APSC line up then certainly being a bit more sincere towards their customers shouldn’t hurt.
investment? BS. You buy cameras for making photos.
Why would you invest in a thing which loses 1/3 value in a year?
Invest:
To purchase with the expectation of benefit.
Financial investment doesn’t always make you money, it also doesn’t mean you don’t gain other benefits.
A car will provide the benefit of mobility
A camera… The ability to take pictures, the lenses… different types of pictures.
APSC E-Mount has been dead for a year now. We “A-Mount” users made sure of it. 🙂
It’s now hanging out with us.
Zeiss and Sony can’t get enough large body full frame
Nonsense comment. Zeiss’ specialty is making compact full frame lenses.
For my purposee s (wildlife photography) APS-C is the right format. If I used full frame, I would be spending three times as much for the camera only to crop the images down to APS-C size in most cases. I would like to have a full Frame camera for macro photography though, because APS-C is limited by physics in this category.
How would APS-C be “limited” there? I’ve chosen Four Thirds, and, after a short excursion into APS-C E-Mount, Micro Four Thirds, because of its size and weight advantages for both telephoto and macro photography, compared to larger formats. If I would have chosen Sony, Nikon, or Canon, I would always have chosen APS-C for both reasons, too.
Physics, i.e. the science. Google macro photography and film or sensor size.
http://www.savazzi.net/photography/macrodof.htm.
Remember, I am talking real macro (1:1 and larger) not close-up.
Don’t embarass yourself, you have no knowledge of physics.
You thought by increasing sensor size you cheat diffraction? No.
You need you stop down more on FF to get same DOF.
+1
This dude doesn’t know a darn thing.
I got a PhD and I do know this fact. At extreme magnifications, however, this effect becomes negligible when compared to the resolution issue and DOF can be created in the PC by superimposing images. There are some impressive shots of insects to be found on the web created in this way. Thus, it is the resolution that matters not the DOF. The embarrassment is all yours.
I’d be very embarrassed in your place to speak such nonsense, I hop you don’t have a PHD in photography LOL.
Jealous :-)? Blessed are the ignorant …
Blessed are the knowing, who are so self confident, that they cannot see their own wrong conclusions. Even the best scientists are wrong with conclusions, but only the great ones are able to see it.
Sorry but only one person here got it right…
tiny sensors = less diffraction? WRONG!!!
At a given DOF the larger sensor needs to stop down further. But a larger imaging area will show less diffraction at a given f-stop!
It’s a perfect equalization because the f-stop = focal ratio is relative (focal length/aperture).
The focal length has to be shorter on the big sensor (FOV)
The f-stop number higher by the same factor (DOF).
-> Diffraction is dependend on the DOF itself !! (unless you tilt or focus stack)
Actually larger sensors have an advantage of creating a high resolution all-in-focus image because they have more resolution at the same pixel pitch.
(The same relative but a higher absolute resolution)
The reason why smaller sensors are regarded better for great DOF is because they gather more light for a given DOF. (Important in motion picture where the shutter speed shouldn’t be adjusted)
“My current APS-C camera has 16MP” – fine, but neither that nor your personal choice of lens does make APS-C (or FT, for that matter) “limited” for other people. And if sensor-resolution is what your after (and if you add focus-stacking to the equation, i.e multi-shot operation which requires a tripod in the first place), you could just as well shoot with an Olympus M5 II in sensor-shift hi-res mode, giving you 40 MP, *plus* focus stacking, using a lens like the 50 or 60mm macro at f/2.8 (plus, as necessary, extension tubes), for the same field of view and with roughly the same diffraction effects as your f/5.6 setup on full-frame.
PhD in what, gender studies?
When speaking about extreme magnifications, they talk about numerical aperture from object side, not f-stop and imager size becomes little relevant
sorry, responded to the wrong one.
Thats not was he was talking about. He said diffraction turns out to be a major problem when you try to get high DoF with larger image formats. And that is true.
Simon concludes: “…For any given resolution, the diffraction-limited f-stop scales linearly with the sensor size, analogous to the scaling to maintain depth of field. The implication is that all systems are equally constrained (or unconstrained, if you wish) by the diffraction limit…”
You and Simon can have whatever PhD you want, all I know is, that I have experienced exactly the opposite in years of studio practice.
What counts is how physics happen in the field, not in theory!
Besides that, superimposing images, like any other image manipulation technique, can be done with any image, regardless of what format. It has nothing to do with the format related discussion.
Stop insulting – stop throwing PhD titles and the like – this is a serious topic – but lets make it simple:
If I have a m43 with a 25mm standard-lens mounted and if I use f20 to get a large DoF, then the FF-counterpart is 50mm with f40. Same DoF! Same FoV!
But f40 on FF might be a problem in terms of diffraction, whereas a m43 with f20 has less problems.
But now one can say: Well – I use on my FF body a 25mm f20 lens and crop my image!
Of course you get the same result as a m43-body does, same DoF, same FoV (cause you crop), so the sensor size does not hurt.
BUT: when you crop a FF-sensor, you have much less pixels in the crop area compared to a m43 sensor.
conclusion: on a FF system it is not the sensor size that limits your DoF to the large size, it is the pixel densitiy of the sensor.
note: I want to mention that a native m43 lens is usually sharper than a FF lens that is cropped to m43 section only.
I just tried to make my point. It was not my intention to insult anyone.
This was not a reply specific to you, Condor – I want to apologize.
This was a general try to bring this discussion back to the technical discussion. I think this diffraction thing and the sensor sizes is something quite confusing.
Superimposing images in photoshop and the likes has strictly nothing to do with setting up a camera lens to obtain a shallow or great depth of field…
Indeed. You are exactly right. I remember diffraction as the biggest issue when shooting large format. The question was not how good a lens was wide open. The question was how much can we stop it down without getting blurry images. It was a pain in the a*s to get enough DOF in product shots or architecture. Close-ups or macro were a nightmare, at least without special glass.
For one, there is no generally accepted standardized definition of what is “real macro”, especially not across different formats. 1:1 with a full-frame sensor is the same as approx. 1:1.5 on APS-C and 1:2 on Four Thirds.
And, equivalent results in mind, “diffraction” is no more a limitation whatsoever for smaller formats as it is for larger ones.
Take a full-frame camera with a 100mm f/4 macro lens, and an image shot at 1:1 and f/22. When I use a (Micro) Four Thirds camera with a 50mm f/2 macro lens and take a picture of the object at 1:2 and f/11, I get (differences in focal reduction at close distances and other small issues aside) the same image: the same field of view, the same depth of field, the same effective diffraction. No disadvantage whatsoever, I even get the same shutter speed at two stops less ISO, which actually equalizes the ISO advantage of the larger sensor. The only disadvantage left is that there are higher-megapixel full-frame sensors, providing more detail – which does come at the cost of more per-pixel noise, though.
But there’s the advantage of a much smaller and lighter package.
This is point I am not sure about: do you really get the same diffraction issues with both setups?
I was the opinion, that m43 has an advantage here, because it is just f11.
m43: 50mm f11
FF: 100mm f22
No, unfortunately not… The smaller the sensor, the more pronounced is the effect of diffraction* at a given F-stop, because you have smaller pixels and therefore have to deal with accordingly smaller circles of diffusion. But with the same F-number at equivalent focal length, you get more depth-of-field, too – so both formats become equalized, and in the end the smaller sensor at least has no disadvantage when it comes to diffraction and depth of field.
* Which is why very-small-sensor compact cameras often use ND filters instead of a real diaphragm, because their lenses tend to be already diffraction-limited without even stopping them down.
Here is another good one: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Just sold my A7II and went back to APS-C The zeiss 24 1.8 and this camera make a formidable pair.
both the a7rr and 5ds have the ability to crop to a APS-C format
I know. So, when I will finally buy one, I do not need to throw away my APS-C lenses as the camera adapts to them automatically, I hear. My point is that as long as it only makes sense for me to take APS-C size pictures, there is no point spending the extra money.
Actually APSC cameras are better than FF counterparts for macro photography because for the same aperture used, you have a greater DOF (which is never enough in this field).
Read what I wrote the Russian guy. This cannot be said in general terms. You have to take resolution limits into account. Anyway, DOF can be created by superimposing images (taking in the studio, not the field, I know) using software.
Which image would you find more pleasing? One tack sharp with shallow DOF or one blurry overall with huge DOF? For me, macro starts at life-size. Anything less than that is close-up. Macro images that do not show maximum detail is not what I am looking for.
You speak nonsense!
Proof it! I take science.
Do a proper google search on the subject, they should have at least taught you this in your PHD studies. 🙂
Why not stopping down and increase ISO on FF? Equivalence tells us that you can go both routes and there is no DOF-advantage. The diffraction limit hits both sensor types similarly (only at different f-stops, the APSC earlier as we all know). The advantage you have is more MP in the image with modern APSC-sensors (24MP) compared to a cropped FF image, even when using the 5DSr. However technically you could have a FF sensor with the same pixel pitch. So I see the advantage only in terms of more MP up to now.
The larger sensor is better for creating a high resolution all-in-focus image. Thus better for macro…
You picked up the extremely resistent myth that smaller sensors create a greater diffraction-free DOF.
It will be darker but that’s no problem in macro where you use flash anyway and likely are on a tripod.
On the smaller sensor you’d be diffraction-limited at the same DOF but at a smaller resolution!
Unless you focus-stack or tilt…
For sony e-mount APS-C owner, like me the upgrade from sony Nex 5N to A5100 was really usful. In terms of noticeably better still and video quality. And surprisingly inexpensive (350 USD for A5100 body).
Lenses 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 I have from Nex5N.
it is just 350 USD. 350 USD, Carl!
Suggested FF shift? No thanks. At least not at this price.
It will not give any better still quality at the normal dept of field, which I usually use.
Shift to A7-II make absolutely no sense, as there will be degrade in video quality, worse autofocus, and lack of the touch screen capabilities. And yet with similar setup (like with 85/1.8, 55/1.8 lenses) it would cost about 4000 USD.
A7R-II may provide a slightly to noticeable stills/video quality increase. But with similar configuration (like with 85/1.8, 55/1.8 lenses) it would cost about 6000 USD.
6000 USD, Carl!
I love the stories consumers that go out and spend a few hundred bucks on a camera tell themselves about how the pro gear is just a smidgeon above.
No its not. You are wrong. I appreciate you love and idolize your kit. We all do but I have shot all these cameras and studied them and there are multiple advantages and some clear differences between cameras like an a7s and a5100. And none of them favour the cheaper body.
Its great the camera suits your needs, it would not suit mine. Can you do pro work with it in stills or video? Sure you can.. But then so do people with 1950’s leicas.. That doesnt mean the kit is better.
does the a5100 really have better video than the a7ii?
yes, better video quality and better autofocus, including in the video mode
Not really. Just better AF in video.
full frame will give u better IQ then a crop in terms of DOF, Low Noise and better Image overal
“full frame will give u better IQ then a crop in terms of DOF”.
You don’t even know how to express the BS you are saying. First of all, DOF is the abbreviation from “depth of field” which is neither better of worst, DOF can only be greater or shallower :).
Haha, I thought the same thing. Reading SAR can be so funny.
If you meant this:
“full frame will give u better IQ than an crop at the same DOF”
Then I think this is wrong, because if you want to have same DOF on fullframe as you have on APS-C, you have to lower your aperture. With lower aperture, there you have to increase your ISO to have same exposure. With increased ISO, the fullframe IQ advantage has vanished. (In terms of Low Noise and so on)
U know nothing
explain
Cool story bro. I’m looking forward to hear which crop lenses you would recommend to replace my two full frame favorites: the Distagon 35/1.4 and the Mitakon 50/0.95.
I am not saying a crop lens is sharper on a crop sensor compared to a FF lens on a ff body.
But if you use a FF lens on a crop sensor you likely get softer results compared to a dedicated crop lens. Or you pay a magnitudes higher price tag.
Cool story.
Now that you’ve convinced us that you don’t need full frame, perhaps you can convince yourself…
If you so desperately need FF go get it, or perhaps you should skip de FF BS and reach for the real MF deal, if the money (as you say) are not such an important factor.
Why do people compare MF with FF ? FF and APS-C are very similar in that they can share lenses with full AF and all electronics.
MF is a very niche field that caters to a very small genre of photography.
FF is a mass market sensor size while MF is for a people with very narrow needs.
Because if some some people scream about the best image quality, they shouldn’t settle for something mediocre. 🙂
Yet I think the only person screaming here, is you. Why is it such a drama to you that many people prefer to just buy into full frame and stop worrying if their system is good enough. The water is nice, you should jump in.
So what ? MF is far far far more expensive. Takes a very very limited selection of lenses and has a fraction of the features of FF.
FF can take any lens APS-C uses with AF and all electronics plus all FF lenses and with cameras like A7rII with 42 MP you get very useful 18 MP images.
MF can take only MF lenses and most of them are not very fast. FF can use f0.95 lenses for ultimate DOF. MF cannot.
Most people can’t tell the difference between 1″ and APS-C at smaller apertures so not everyone needs FF.
Who cares. If you are confident in your choice of system you don’t need to go all over the internet defending your choice.
Yes, but then, why you need a new camera or Zeiss lens? You won’t see the difference either. FF only matters for less DOF, and not everyone is interested in that. But to make sharp pictures, APS-C is pretty much covered IMHO.
I find it very hard to believe that sony was “surprised” by the success of e-mount. I saw this strategy coming a few years ago. It’s called competitive advantage. The mistake in the whole game was when Nikon used their sensors. This allowed sony to subsidize their sensor tech and make a justifiable, strong push into new sensor technology. The 12mp a7s and 42mp a7rii sensors are both financed fundamentally by huge nikon sensor sales. With their minolta heritage, their massive cine department and a army of engineers it was just the next step to gain competitive advantage: produce a superior product. Its smaller, sharper, more versatile, etc. I think they play this up “Oh we’re not a threat? What we made a massively intricate device that the market loves better then your old dinosaur? OMG NO WAYZZZ! I never thought this would happen!”
Look harmless and they’ll never see you coming. Its a ruse. Yet I appreciate the humility behind it. Personally I loved it when Sony was the dark horse. When the masses were canikon. Now its coming out into the sun and the photographic world is going.. what the fig is that???! Some have yet to realize the significance and hang on to the old tech. Some will prefer the old tech for familiarity or aesthetic reasons, yet many will realize that what sony is doing is busting limits. All of the companies are, sony is just leading the charge. And they now it.
Things are indeed shifting. I travel a lot, and everywhere I went there were hordes of people using CaNikon gear, from consumer to pro. I just came back from three week trip to India (A7rII fared extremely well by the way), and I was overwhelmed by the number of A7x, A5/6xxx and RX100 cameras I saw people using.
Same over here in good old Europe, tourists with A7 something bodies. The tourists that used to run around with a Canon plastic kit now have either a new Nex or Olympus. It is not cool to have a DSLR anymore.
I have travellel 5 months non stop in Asia through Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand. Mostly I saw Canikon DSLRs, mobile phones and some mirrorless of which were some NEX, A5000/A6000. Only on rare instances I spotted someone with an A7 series camera… I live in Paris city centre next to the Eiffel Tower and I saw similar…
Same here, the number of A7-series cameras out in the field is stunning.
Sony’s surprise was made clear by the A-mount PR strategy disaster. The A-mount roadmap and FE-mount lens roadmap were not ready for the success of the A7-series. Sony was hoping to compete with Olympus and Fuji, but instead blew them off the table and went in direct competition with Canon and Nikon. They did not sufficiently plan for this.
Why is that hard to believe? Sony did try hard in the photography business, trying to do a better job than Minolta, but was not successful. Not at all. They were the frontrunner in the APS-C mirrorless world. I pretty much understand that they were surprised by the success. At the time the first NEX came out, nobody knew what would happen.
so lots of FF FE bodies – and how many Sony branded lenses ? I think only one ! ok – few Sony G Branded but they are quite costly – and then there is costly Zeiss lenses –
lots of these new owners are and will come to this realization that there are just costly lenses available – now this is ok for folks with deep pockets and Pros – but as it is rumored that Sony will discontinue FE E mount APS-C – which explains why they have not made any new lenses for that mount in a long time and no rumors for a new one –
many users will be and have got them selfs a FF FE mount and are realizing the very few lenses less then $1000 – that users group is not used to pay that much for lenses –
“We have regular strategy meetings with Sony where we discuss roadmap…”
And yet we see duplication and still the wait for those who want longer focal lengths and faster lenses! I’m fortunate that they are not vital to me, but I simply don’t believe there is a great deal of useful ‘roadmap’ co-operation.
Of course, I do appreciate they are two different businesses and will look to sell their own products. However, I suspect the co-operation only goes as far as a bit of kudos for Sony by having the Zeiss label and a wider market for Zeiss owing to the success of the E-mount.
What duplication? The AF lineup is 25mm Zeiss, 35mm Sony, 55mm Sony and 85mm Zeiss. That’s a perfect example of strategic coordination.
I know lenses aren’t always directly comparable and people vary in taste, but I was commenting upon the idea that they work closely together as though to provide the best options for photographers.
As it is we have a 25 and a 28, three 35s, two 50s and a 55, plus an 85 and a 90.
Again, I know apertures and macro (although I’ve heard lots of people really like the 90 for portraits), but there are endless calls for wider and longer. If it was so ‘strategic’ I would have imagined those would have arrived sooner, rather than not even on the radar yet!
I’m very glad for duplication, because that means at least some affordable alternatives. I would be very happy if Sony would release a 35mm/2 or even a 35mm/2.8 that costs not an arm and a leg. Glass like the Sony 28mm/2 is the way to go.
While I partially agree, I think it is a bit silly to look for “good value” in an early adopter product like the A7-series.
If I wanted “good value” I would look into established systems (Nikon, Canon) combined with third party glass (Sigma ART) or the affordable Nikon F/1.8 primes.
Nikon, Canon and Leica were early adopters too. Back in the 1950s. They always had affordable and expensive options for the same or similar focal lengths. Todays premium brands, like Zeiss or Leica, tend to have skyrocketed prices even on the most basic, slow aperture lens offerings. What I’m trying to say is, that I see no reason to complain about duplication. It makes sense to me. I don’t care if this duplication comes from partners (Sony/Zeiss) or unrelated competitors (Sony/Sigma).
Fair enough, but I’m not convinced that is through strategic agreement.
This is crazy. APSC is where 90% of the market still is and will remain!
nope, aps-c will go away in favor of 1″ for the masses and ff for the enthusiast/pro
“…and will remain!…” Just wondering how do you know that? I’m not so sure.
Most of the market is the ASPC market industry wide. Nikon says that the DX models outsell the FX 11 to 1…. or did at one time. Sony would be close I would assume.
It’s the affordable cameras that do outsell the expensive ones. There are no affordable (like DX) FF cameras. The second factor may be the size. So I think, if there would be compact and affordable FF options (like in the film days), no one will miss APS-C. We’ll see.
This is ridiculous comment. Zeiss is a premium brand. This is like arguing that Michelin star restaurants should serve fast food because 90% of the people eat at McDonalds.
Except the difference between FF and cropped sensor cameras isn’t that huge and some m4/3 / APS-C lenses are more expensive / better than some FF lenses…
The population is getting older and greyer, and the profits will be with lighter more compact systems. For me, that is APS-C since it combines the best of light weight with superb image quality.
If Sony dumps its APS-C customers in favour of chasing profits of FF, then I can see myself using my A6000, 10-18, 16-50, 55-210 for the rest of my life. After all, my earlier Nikon kit are still working fine, so I don’t see why this kit of Sony gear won’t last a few decades.
I don’t think they will abandon APS-C just yet, i’m sure sony will still come out with a new camera with some of the ff features every year or so. But i also think they will argue that the high quality full frame glass they are releasing will still work with their APS-C cameras and thus they are still expanding the e mount line.
Also for a company like zeiss, i think they may feel that while the mirror less market is still largely APS-C, FF camera owners are more likely to buy the $1,000 + glass they plan on selling. For alot of amateur/hobbyist, i think it’s a bit hard to convince them to buy glass that costs more than the camera. Or to spend twice as much as the available Sony lens for just a few extra stops. Meanwhile FF owners are most likely already prosumers or professionals who are not only willing to pay for the best, but also more likely to buy several primes as opposed to a single zoom.
I don’t see the point to carry a full-frame lens on an APS-C body (except for old and cheap legacy lenses) : more expensive, more bulk…
That’s because there is no point. Except, maybe, trying to look “serious”.
No, no, no. I’m saying that sony and zeiss will both say – well the full frame lenses can be used on the aps-c e mount so really we are expanding the available lenses for both lines….
i agree, in most cases the full framed glass makes no sense for people who have aps-c cameras (tho i do personally enjoy the a6000 with the ff 70-200mm tele lens)
I’m afraid then E-Mount is dead, FE-Mount is the future… Sony and Zeiss can say what they want, it’s only marketing…
90% of the market at 0% of the profit.
Sony manages to pump out 3 FF cameras a year, which are more or less the same, and charges between 1800 and 3000+. I would guess they are happy being that 10%!
APSC is the future for photography. Just a reality. It was the Sony A6000 that really put the Sony mirrorless on the market for photographers.
Btw, I am sick of the new Sony FF systems every other week but they can’t give some quality glass that is affordable. Flashes are just as much a problem. Give us glass, not a new body.
You almost have to believe there’s some deeper marketing agreement between Sony and Zeiss. The whole FF thing feels like an attempt to sell high end (meaning overpriced) lenses. There is some sort of partnership that goes even beyond the “co-branded” lenses, which seem to have been a slightly deceptive attempt to use the Zeiss logo on Sony lenses.
I’d agree with that.
People are getting their panties in a bunch over these out-of-context comments from Zeiss.
Full Frame is the future FOR ZEISS.
And he is right. 99% of the people spending over $1’000 on a premium lens (i.e. Zeiss) will be buying it for a full frame camera. They are not going to cater to the 1% of stubborn APS-C users that deny themselves full frame yet still want to buy expensive premium lenses. That is the Olympus/Fuji model. Sales results show that this strategy is a failure. Touit was a failure. Zeiss’ future lies in Otus, Loxia, Batis and Milvus…
Touit was a failure because :
– too expensive
– similar image quality to others companies
– ugly and sticky plastic for rings
– I’ve never seen a Touit in a shop…
“Deny themselves full frame” is brilliant. You should be writing ad copy for Sony.
I’m one of your stubborn APS-C users and although I find your words deprecative, I understand that my point of view is economically unviable. But as long as someone continuous to make compact lenses, I’m fine. For example, the FE 35mm 2.8 ZA is even smaller than the E 35mm 1.8 and the FE 55 mm 1.8 ZA is negligible larger than the E 50mm 1.8.
However, the Touit was a failure because competes with very good Sony lenses for a higher price tag and couldn’t deliver Zeiss-like image quality. One maybe would have started with more popular 24 and 35 mm focal lengths (35 and 50 mm FF equiv.). 50mm on APS-C is quite lame. 58 mm with excellent skin rendering for a portrait lens would be better.
Please tell me the A mount future.
–
The differences in IQ are there. You may not able to see them, but trying to talk them away, ist just silly. You don’t even have to do that, because your other argument is strong enough to defend APS-C. In film days (almost) all cameras (after the dawn of the Leica) were FF.
There were FF cameras of all price ranges. From super cheap to bloody expensive. Thats exactly the problem with todays FF cameras. They are not affordable for normal people. Just wealthy people, professionals and die hard gear whor*s can or will afford it.
The initial A7 looked like a step in the right direction. Affordable FF. As it turns out the initial A7 price was just for getting the thing started. Now the whole A7 lineup is on the same high price level, like other FF cameras.
Full-frame will became cheaper and cheaper and it’s gonna be quite stupid to buy a mft or aps/c premium body (like Olympus or Fuji) over an entry-lever or mid-level full-frame. The IQ is visible better with full-frame, not to mention the high-iso performance (even at ISO 200 you can see grain and artefacts on a E-M1). New full-frames will also be more compact and will weight less. The only advantage of smaller sensor cameras is the fact that the premium lenses are cheaper than their full-frame counterparts (comparing f2.8 zooms for example). But on the other hand, an f4 zoom on full-frame is going to get you better results than a f2.8 one on mft of aps-c, even if you have to increase the iso with one stop to compensate for the light loss.
In case of Sony FF, it becomes more and more expensive.
My E-M1, while I cannot find that grain and those artifacts you mention at ISO 200 unless I brighten the image severely in post, has another advantage: easily carriable, hand-holdable, affordable and optically excellent (super-) telephoto lenses, with two more serious ones to come next year, with nothing comparable in full-frame land, be it DSLR or Sony FE.
F4 zoom on full-frame better than F2.8 zoom on APS-C, can you explain ?
Well, regarding dof f2.8 on an aps-c camera = f4.2 on full-frame so with a f4 lens on a full-frame camera you get a little more control over dof. A full-frame camera has at least one stop ISO better performance than an aps-c. Regarding the light gathering t2.8 on a aps-c camera = t2.8 on a full-frame one. So overall the full frame has a slight advantage, even with slower glass. With comparative glass, like f2.8 the full-frame advantage is much bigger.
If I summarize, I gain 0.02mm thinner dof with a full-frame camera and equivalent ISO quality. Impressive !
The size is bigger too for f/2.8 on full-frame…
Amen brother! You have joined the church.
I’ll just keep doing everything I need to do with my a6000. I recently sold a 48″ print of a photo I did with this pathetic “crop camera” and the totally inferior “kit” lens. The horror!
Sony APSC sensor cameras are great tools in the same league as their full frame siblings A and E mounts. I went in with E-mount buying the NEX-5 because of its size / large sensor / great IQ combination. At this time I have a NEX-6, A7r and A7r mk2 and both are great tools returning top results.
A bit silly to think that Sony is not making any APS-C anymore when they just released two s35 cameras and they have yet to see anyone do better than the A6000 for the price.
So crop is the new A-Mount.
Well it’s pretty clear that camera makers have convinced a big share of the remaining market that the so-called “Full Frame” format (old 35mm film dimensions) has some sort of optical magic, or is favored by the laws of physics, and sensors of those dimensions will always be the best. But it’s also clear that another big share of the market isn’t convinced and really prefers APS-C. If Sony thought they could create a total stamped, it isn’t happening. So I agree with other that think in the end, Sony won’t walk away from the big success of the a6000 and the very large market it represents.
i think they will continue to make and update bodies but lenses may be a different story
They didn’t match the lens on FF yet, when they get the whole line-up filled they might have a spare time to go back and rework on their APS-C.
“We are convinced that this will also drive the motion picture industry.”
Whoa, that is a mistaken assumption. Professional cinematographers use Super-35
(which actually is slightly different than APS-C, although they’re often assumed to be the same).
Full frame has too limited depth of field for motion picture use, and the full frame is the wrong aspect ratio. Are they actually talking with any of us cinematographers? Or simply chasing the 5D market?
I think some RED cameras have a 24×36 sensor, also running Vista Vision was 24×36. It can be and is done, though yes Super 35 is much more common and easier to work with. Ease isn’t everything though, which is why we have 65mm and IMAX formats. 24×36 is an interesting format if you can get a handle on it, and it crops beautifully. 4k from the A7S is something to behold.
No that is incorrect. Per pixel sharpness of FF is higher than APS-C. I use both formats and still have my APS-C cameras but I don’t use them anymore. They are there for backup only. I find FF images better than APS-C and APS-C is for cost and convenience. People who want quality won’t be happy going back to APS-C from FF.
>because they gather more light for a given DOF.
wrong. it’s the same. it was important on film, though (which did not have arbitrarily high ISO)
Sony should help Zeiss to make a Ikon digital with E-mount to compete with m-mount and make a close focus m-mount adapter.