| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2004/12/25-27 [Consumer/Camera] UID:35437 Activity:low |
12/25 Ok camera people: what's your 2 cents on the longevity of this "APS-C"
format or whatever (the smaller sizes on cheap dSLRs). The best lenses
still have the practical zoom range for full 35mm.
\_ I wrote this 5-6 years ago
http://tinyurl.com/47xj3
\_ Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was referring to digital SLR sensor
sizes. I did read this but it didn't really convince me either
way: http://www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html
\_ personally? I think the dSLR eventually going to full-frame,
36mm-24mm. The reason is simple. CCD/CMOS sensors will
eventually drop in price like LCD as the manufacturing
techniques gets better. The cost of making ultra-wide
lenses are much harder to come down. So, there isn't much
incensitive to roll out APS size cameras. |
| 4/4 |
|
| tinyurl.com/47xj3 -> groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_thread/thread/b5f201c751ca234e/a32571e2f95355ee?q=aps+kngharv&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fsourceid%3Dmozclient%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26q%3Daps+kngharv%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#a32571e2f95355ee the feature where APS film tells you whether it has been used or not is also useful I suppose. in every other department I can think of, 35mm is better. the difference between a good 35mm camera and a APS camera is huge in terms of detail on the photographs. In my humblest opinion, APS is a joke for the following reason... As far as I know, Kodak Premium Processing for 35mm film also offer such service. This is one of the true advantage APS film has the edge over 35mm. However, because of the price pressure from the "consumer" market which APS was targeted at first place, most of the camera doesn't provide the feature to take advantage of it. People with 35mm can do the same thing literally with a pair of scissors. OK, all these aside, APS does has the following advantage over 35mm: * Smaller film size means smaller lens thus smaller camera. The APS equipment will be substantially cheaper than 35mm. The point-n-shoot camera can be extremely SMALL (such as Canon Elph series). Advantage of 35mm: * LARGER negative size means better picture quality. This advantage became appearent at ISO 400 with print size of 4" X 6". This is very ironic because 35mm has being critisized for its "small negative size" compare with other formats. APS could be one of many film formats which comes and go. Moreover, there is a rise in popularity in digital photography. APS seems to be in a akward position, stuck between a well established 35mm format which takes better picture, and digital format which has the potential of being even smaller, cheaper, and more convinient to use. A better question would be: which format is better to suit your need (assuming APS is not going go away)? If you just want take casual snap photos and NOT planning on getting into photography as a craft, I would suggest you borrow couple prints made from APS film (preferably ISO 400 film as worse-case scenario) and take a look at it. If you find the pictu re quality acceptable, then go for APS for its convinience and price. I still don't understand why it is called 35mm while there is no 35mm measurement in the negative size (36mm X 24mm)! Report Abuse Harv, Your comments are exactly why I haven't purchased an APS camera. I purchased a Yashica T4S instead, and I'm very happy with the results. My wife, on the other hand, bought a Fuji APS camera with zoom lens. And yes, the *results are better* in that colours ar e truer when comparing quick delivery photofinishing in each format. Report Abuse I am not a big fan of the APS format because of the smaller negative size but I am considering purchasing an APS camera for the following reasons: 1 I often do some digital processing on my photos. Getting a whole roll of film scanned in a film scanner is an order of magnitude less laborious wi th APS than it is with 35mm. You can start the scanner in batch mode and lea ve it running until it's done. No more fiddling with negative strips or individual slides. To do the same thing with 35mm you would have to purch ase a high end scanner with automatic slide feeder. This would typically cost over $2000 and would only work with mounted slides (or negatives). I cannot afford really big, long lens (say 600/4), which means that I often have t o crop quite a bit and accept the resulting loss of quality. In this case t he smaller APS negative size is not really a disadvantage. Given the same le ns, the size of my subject will be the same on the negative, whether it's APS or 35mm (I am assuming an APS camera that can take 35mm lenses). All it mean s is that I have to do some of the cropping in camera instead of during printing. This actually may be an advantage if you don't do your own printing (and I don't). Report Abuse kngharv wrote: > The APS > equipment will be substantially cheaper than 35mm. The point-n-shoot > camera can be extremely SMALL (such as Canon Elph series). is fun for available light shooting, slow sy nc flash, etc. Getting a whole roll of >film scanned in a film scanner is an order of magnitude less laborious w ith >APS than it is with 35mm. You can start the scanner in batch mode and le ave >it running until it's done. No more fiddling with negative strips or >individual slides. To do the same thing with 35mm you would have to purchase >a high end scanner with automatic slide feeder. This would typically cos t >over $2000 and would only work with mounted slides (or negatives). Significant portion of my photography is wildlife, birds etc. I canno t >afford really big, long lens (say 600/4), which means that I often have to >crop quite a bit and accept the resulting loss of quality. In this case the >smaller APS negative size is not really a disadvantage. Given the same lens, >the size of my subject will be the same on the negative, whether it's AP S or >35mm (I am assuming an APS camera that can take 35mm lenses). All it mea ns >is that I have to do some of the cropping in camera instead of during >printing. This actually may be an advantage if you don't do your own >printing (and I don't). The APS cameras are getting better and better (try the Nikon Pronea S), but the problem is the film. You get Kodak's (or whoever) run-of-the-mill 100 ISO and 400 ISO films, and nothing else. The APS cameras are getting better and better (try > the Nikon Pronea S), but the problem is the film. You get Kodak's (or > whoever) run-of-the-mill 100 ISO and 400 ISO films, and nothing else. I would think that the problem is not just the lack of flexibility in fil m choice, but the fact that the film is smaller, for NO GOOD REASON. Smaller initial film size means that for any given print, more magnification has to be done, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU CHOSE SMALLER FILM TO START WITH. If you want a tiny, tiny camera like the Canon elph or Elph Jr, I can almost understand, even though there already are fine cameras, almost as small, like the Ricoh GR1. But if you have made up your mind that you want a good SLR type camera, with lots of flexibility and features, why handicap yourself initially with inferior film? If someone created an SLR using 110 film, or (God perish the thought) using Disc film, would you use that just to spite yourself too? Report Abuse Depends on what you are trying to accomplish with your photography. If you want to make big enlargements or use your work for commercial purposes where sharpness is critical, the size of the film is critical. If you want to make 4x6 pictures for your photo album, the film size is n ot critical so the automated features and compact size of APS cameras may be an advantage for many photographers. Every decrease in film size is a compromise, whether it be from large for mat to medium, medium to 35 mm or 35 mm to APS. You have to choose the compromise that is best for your needs. ca> wrote: > Depends on what you are trying to accomplish with your photography. Everyone should be trying to get maximal results given the compromiss tha t must be made. And APS is better than 110 film, but not as good as 35mm . And 110 film is better than a circular Disc, but not as good as APS. You have to choose the > compromise that is best for your needs. The point I make is that there is no reason to make an UNNECESSARY compromise of going down to APS, when one is already using a camera of some size, like a standard SLR or some mutation thereof. But if you are already going for a camera of flexibility, then there's no reason to use APS rather than 35mm . The advantage of slightly more compactness of APS film becomes almost los t in the bowels of a larger camera. And one will always have to live with the compromise of having settled fo r a film with a smaller negative size. net> wrote: >I would think that the problem is not just the lack of flexibility in fi lm >choice, but the fact that the film is smaller, for NO GOOD REASON. I thought the reason why they reduce the size o f the film is to so the lens in the camera doesn't have to be so large, thu s the PRICE of these consumer-oriented camera can be a lot lower. My theory based upon the fact that the piece of glass at front of camera is a significant part of total cost. Then again, APS camera's price at this point is almost expensive as ... |
| www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html Bob Atkins Note: This is an Op Ed article and represents only the personal views an d opinions of the author, who is speaking only for himself! There's lots of discussion these days on whether digital will move to "fu ll frame", meaning sensors which are 24x36mm, or whether a smaller frame size will "be good enough". The use of the term "APS-C" is perhaps unfortunate for a format some are hoping will stay around. It's derived from the similar frame size of the late, but not lamented, APS film format (APS "Classic" format was 234 x 167 mm) . Smaller, lighter camer as were promised - but not delivered, and image quality, though fine for small prints, couldn't match 35mm. Image quality may have been "good en ough" for the vast majority of users (who rarely make a print larger tha n 5x7), but that didn't really help! My guess is that it will be with us for a while, but in the end it will f ade out. Because nobody ever got rich by telling the American publi c that what they had was good enough and that they really didn't need an ything better! If 24x36mm sensors had been available for the same pric e as 22x15mm sensors do you think anyone would have made a camera with t he smaller sensor? Would arguments about it being "good enough" have con vinced the consumer? The sole reason we have APS-C sized sensors is cost and availability. To make a camera that retails at under $1500 today, you have to use a small sensor. That sensor yields excellent quality, quality good enough to lu re vast numbers of photographers away from using film. Did the camera ma nufacturers pick that size because they thought it was better than full frame 35mm? They'd rather have a full frame sensor, but they jus t can't afford it. You could argue that 35mm was good enough and people didn't move to mediu m or large format, but that's a cost and convenience issue. Both medium and large format cameras are much larger (and more difficult to use for the amateur) than 35mm cameras and both medium and large format processi ng is difficult to find and expensive. On the other hand APS-C and full frame DSLRs are about the same size and the cost and ease of processing the images is essentially the same. Yields on larger sensors are improving and the result is better availabil ity and lower prices. It may take another 5 years before they get to the price point that smaller sensors are today, but eventually they will ge t there. The major camera makers will then offer them as an "upgrade" pa th for users of smaller sensor cameras. As I said before, nobody ever go t rich by telling people that what they had was good enough and that the y didn't need anything better. If you don't believe that, just look at sales ever larger SUVs, or ever faster sports cars, or ever larger and m ore expensive LCD TVs. There are now a number of manufacturers making lenses that only cover a 2 2x15mm frame, so there will be a lot of lenses out there that can only b e fully used on APS-C sensor bodies, and that will probably keep the pro duction of smaller sensor cameras going for quite a while, but my guess is that they will end up being aimed at the lower end of the market and once full frame sensor cameras drop below $2000, that's where the manufa cturers attention is going to be. Marketing and advertising will switch from telling photographers about the benefits of the small sensor camera s, and start telling photographers about the benefits of full frame sens or cameras. There may well be a consumer market for DSLR with 8-10MP APS -C sensors selling for under $750 or so for a long time, but the more se rious photographers will certainly move to full frame bodies (with maybe a 12MP sensor) if and when the price falls below $2000. Another thing that will drive a whole industry move to larger sensors is, of course, when one of the major manufacturers (and my money is on it being Canon) brings out a 24mm x 36mm sensor camera at an affordable pri ce. The others will have to follow (if they can) or lose sales. If you want another driving force for larger sensors, it's megapixels. Th ere's a limit to the number of pixels you can cram onto an APS-C sized s ensor before you start to run into real problems with noise due to small pixel size. You can't make a noiseless sensor and the smaller the pixel s, the higher the intrinsic noise. There's a lower limit to noise which is determined by fundamental physics and includes things like photon sho t noise which is determined by the statistics of photons hitting a pixel , plus various forms of thermally induced noise. At some point you'll hi t a limit to the number of usable pixels on an APS-C sized chip. People like more pixels and will usually pi ck a 12MP camera over a 10MP camera over an 8MP camera. At some point th e only way you can up the pixel count without lowering image quality (by increasing image noise) is to go to a bigger sensor. That's why 8MP DSL Rs outperform 8MP consumer digicams with 5mm x 7mm sensors. Won't the number of APS-C coverage lenses out there keep the APS-C format in production? Well, there are millions of Pentax Screw mount lenses out there and nobod y makes a camera body that uses them. There are probably millions of Can on FD mount lenses, including very expensive telephotos, out there and C anon no longer make a body that can take them. There are other examples of lens systems that have died out. I see no real reason why the existen ce of APS-C format lenses should mean the format will control the market or prevent the introduction of full frame sensors in consumer DSLRs. Mo st owners of APS-C format DSLRs will also have full frame lenses - proba bly more full frame lens than APS-C coverage lenses - so upgrading to a full frame sensor isn't an insurmountable problem. You can't use a bigger sensor, therefore there's no obvious "upgr ade" path. I imagine it will stay with that format as long as it's in pr oduction. Should we avoid buying APS-C DSLRs and lenses because one day they may be "obsolete"? Definition: Obsolete - no longer in use: outmoded in design, style, or co nstruction Certainly not. I have an APS-C sensor DSLR myself and I have one APS-C l ens. One day I might not be able to fully use them on my full frame DSLR, but I buy lenses to use today, not in 5 years time. I wouldn't buy a $7000 super telephoto lens with APS-C cover age, but them again I don't expect Canon or Nikon will ever sell one! How much did you pay fo r your first computer, and where is it now? How about that 10MB hard dri ve you paid $500 for in 1990, or that 64Kbyte (yes, kilobyte) S100 memor y card that cost you $200 in 1978? How much did you pay for your car, wh at's it worth today and what will it be worth in another 5 years? Some p eople seem to look on lenses as investment vehicles that should hold the ir value and utility forever. I'm not quite sure why they apply this log ic to lenses, but not to cars, TVs, VCRs etc. Of course it would be nice if every lens and every body worked with ev ery other lens and every other body from now until the end of time. It w ould be nice if all Canon lenses worked on all Nikon cameras and vice-ve rsa. Just as an aside, it's possible to built an APS-C to full frame 35mm con verter which would act as a 16x multiplier and which would cover the fu ll 24mm x 36mm frame. So your 10mm f4 APS-C lens (which has the same fie ld of view as a 16mm lens on a full frame camera) would become, with the 16x converter, a 16mm f64 lens when mounted on a full frame DSLR! It defeats the point of APS-C le nses of course, but I'm just pointing out that you could, in fact, use r educed format (APS-C) lenses on 35mm format DSLRs with an appropriate op tical interface. You could make a " full frame" to "APS-C" focal length reducer. While such reducers are ver y uncommon photographically, they are made for use with telescopes for a strophotography (where they are usually known as "compressors" or "telec ompressors". They reduce the focal length, reduce the frame coverage and increase the effective speed of a lens! Of course the downside to optical con verters is that they can reduce image quality unless well designed, and it's somewhat tric... |