Do crop sensor interchangeable lens cameras have a future ? 3 May 2021

Strongly backlit scenes like this are more easily handled by full frame cameras which usually have greater dynamic range than crop sensor models. Canon EOS R5, RF 50mm f1.8

The Advanced Photo System (APS) film format was introduced in 1996.  The reason given at the time was that many users had difficulty loading film properly when using standard 35mm film cassettes. The most common frame size (25.1 x 16.7mm)  was known as  APS Classic (APSC).

In the event the APS venture failed for a variety of reasons one of which was the arrival of digital photography around the same time.

In the early years of digital, sensor fabrication was costly with larger sensors being much more expensive than smaller ones. The only way camera makers could offer products at consumer friendly prices was to use a sensor size smaller than the standard “35mm” 24x36mm.  Camera makers called this crop sensor size “APSC” even though the exact dimensions are different from the original film APSC.

Canon uses a sensor 22.5x15mm, Sony uses 23.5x15.6mm.

Cameras using these sensor sizes became the mainstay of the interchangeable lens digital camera market for 20 years.

During that time several things changed.

* The bottom has dropped out of the budget consumer camera market as smartphones have taken over the snapshot photo role.

* “Full frame” 24x36mm sensors have become less expensive to produce relative to smaller sensor sizes.

* Those camera makers which want to stay in the business are looking to market high spec, high performance models with a decent profit margin per unit.

I suspect that one thing has not changed.

I think  camera makers always saw crop sensor models as  a temporary expedient, to be offered until they could get full frame models onto the market at prices acceptable to buyers.

That time is upon us. We now see several full frame models being offered at prices little different from similarly specified crop sensor models.

Advantages of crop sensor cameras and lenses

Are there any ?

Let us run through the possibilities:

* Body size and mass. The problem for crop sensor cameras is that the elements of the body which dictate the dimensions have little to do with the sensor size.

These are the handle, grip and thumb support, the rear monitor and  viewfinder on the outside and IBIS unit, battery, heat sink, processor, and other electronics on the inside.

It is possible to make camera bodies very small but they are then uncomfortable, awkward little things with poor ergonomics.

* Lens size and mass.  The problem here is that if the crop sensor lens is to be equivalent to a full frame one in focal length and aperture then they end up a similar size.

Look at the photo below:

This shows a Canon EOS R full frame camera with RF 35mm f1.8 lens beside a Fujifilm X-T4 camera with 23mm f1.4 lens.

Photo courtesy of camerasize.com

You can see the X-T4 body is a little smaller than the Canon but that is partly because it lacks a proper handle. When fitted with any of the numerous aftermarket accessory grips which are available the Fuji ends up being taller than the Canon.

The Canon lens is 35mm f1.8. The Fuji lens has an equivalent focal length of 34.5mm and an equivalent aperture of f2.1.  In other words the two lenses are very comparable in basic specifications, including dimensions and mass.

The Canon body+lens kit has about the same dimensions and mass as the Fujifilm body+lens.

* Price. Comparing prices is a slippery business these days with deals, discounts and pseudo-discounts running rampant in the industry.

However the standard prices advertised  from one vendor on the day of writing this were (Australian dollars, retail, GST paid}

EOS R  $2699,  35mm lens $698, Total $3397.

X-T4 $2489,  23mm lens $1239,  Total $3728.

So, no price advantage to the crop sensor there. Of course you can buy more or less expensive Canons and Fujis. I tried to pick a pair which are approximately comparable in each maker’s catalogue.

* Speed. One potential advantage of the smaller sensor could be that image data can be captured and offloaded to the buffer faster than is possible using the full frame sensor. This might be an advantage for sport/action photographers.

However in recent times we are seeing full frame sensors from Sony and Canon with super fast readout speeds allowing still photos to be taken at up to 30 frames per second.

So, no advantage to the crop sensor there either.

Advantages of full frame cameras and lenses

* Better image quality.

* Better performance from the higher end models.

* Almost all the camera maker’s R&D is going to full frame bodies and lenses. The consequence of this is that the quality/performance advantage of full frame will increase with time.

New lens announcements

One way to track a camera maker’s product development intentions is to count the number of new lens releases each year.

* Sony had already built up its FE lens catalogue in previous years.

I think the  message is clear enough.

What about Fujifilm ?

For many years Fujifilm produced mainly compacts and bridge type superzooms. But in 2015 their product development strategy changed completely.  Since then Fuji has concentrated on producing APSC sensor interchangeable lens models and more recently digital medium format models. There are no traditional “full frame” (24x36mm) sensors to be seen in the Fuji catalogue.

I have no insight into the inner workings of Fuji product development decisions so I have to guess.

And my guess is that they wanted to differentiate Fuji from the mainstream SoCaNik offerings with cameras which

a) Use the crop sensor (and some medium format)  and

b) Have lots of dials on top.

c) Use the X-Trans sensor filter array and demosaic algorithms in many of the crop sensor models

Fuji has actually done quite well with this strategy over the last five years but I wonder if their run might be about to hit a few roadblocks.

It seems to me that the three main problems with Fuji’s strategy are in fact the three elements cited above which differentiate Fuji from the others.

a) Neither crop sensor nor medium format has any compelling advantage in image quality or performance or size/mass or price over 24x36mm full frame.

b) Some Fujifans say they really like those dials but the process of making adjustments to exposure parameters with the dials usually requires more actions, each more complex than making the same adjustments using a camera with a more unambiguously modern control layout.

c) I have not been able to discover any compelling advantage of X-Trans over Bayer sensor.

It seems Fuji’s execs are aware of these things because they have introduced a more traditional X-S10 crop sensor body, expanded their medium format offerings and made Bayer array sensors available on some APSC models and all medium format models.

We shall see how that goes but I think Fuji has backed itself into a corner from which escape might be difficult.

What about Micro Four Thirds (MFT) ?

Panasonic and Olympus made the very brave move to introduce a new camera system in 2008, right in the middle of the global financial crisis.  This uses an even smaller sensor than APSC having just one quarter the area of 24 x 36mm full frame.

The main selling point for MFT was that the system was smaller and lighter than the prevailing DSLRs of the time. But MFT was only smaller because it was mirrorless. These days there is not much difference between MFT and full frame mirrorless cameras in size.

MFT never really gained much momentum in the professional or consumer sectors with the exception of some well regarded Panasonic MFT models for video.

Now Olympus has exited the camera imaging business and Panasonic is busily trying to move itself upmarket to the full frame mirrorless space.  Good luck with that.

Panasonic introduced just one MFT body and no MFT lenses in 2020. Their top-of-the-range MFT body, the GH5 has not been updated since 2017.

Photo courtesy of camerasize.com

Conclusion

I have acted on my own prognosis and sold out of all Micro Four Thirds and APSC bodies and lenses in favour of Canon RF mount full frame mirrorless gear.