Making sense of the current camera market. Why is it so strange?

Many years ago I started writing about the inevitable switch from DSLR cameras to mirrorless ones. It seemed obvious to me that once electronic viewfinders were perfected that there would be no one who would pass up the chance to have real time live view and a convincing and mostly accurate preview of what their final images will look like. But I did not predict that sensor size would become a fashion imperative. The “full frame” sensor is all the rage right now. And, to a certain extent, I get the emotional attraction of getting something that was either unattainable (Nikon) or brutally expensive (Canon) just a bit more than a decade ago, but the question is whether or not it’s still important, necessary or even that much of a differentiator for most people. 

If you’ve been reading this blog for a good while you’ll know that I’ve vacillated back and forth between the pixie formats and three different camera makers’ full frame offerings. In the best of all possible worlds I can see a difference in absolute quality between the bigger sensors and the smaller ones but I can also see that it’s mostly a big, long game of diminishing returns. 

I do think that if you are truly concerned with ultimate image quality you should now be considering the even larger sensors in the new flood of medium format cameras from Hasselblad, Fuji and Phase One. My take is that the overall geometry and size of the sensor makes more of a difference in the look or visual style of files than whether or not the actual technical quality of one sensor is superior to another. Or whether the differences are worth the $$$.

The common comparison is generally between any of the new 50 megapixel mini-medium-format cameras, like the Fuji and Hasselblad and the flagship of 35mm style cameras, the Nikon D850. Techno-enthusiasts love to point out that the Nikon at least equals the dynamic range of the bigger cameras (but only when used at ISO64-100) and that the resolution differences are so small that they are mostly unnoticeable. I’m sure it’s true that it would be hard to discern any advantages as you spend more money to get into the big stuff, unless you want to take the big step up to the larger, 100 megapixel cameras and backs. 

But this misses the point of the difference in overall size. It’s the real estate. The need for longer focal lengths in order to get the same angle of view as the lenses on 35mm sized cameras. The different linear dimensions of different size classes of sensors impacts what I like to call the “focus ramp” of a lens/camera system.

But for better or worse the emphasis on full frame orbits around two parameters: How well you can drop stuff out of focus in the background and how high an ISO you can use before you get multi-colored, popcorn-sized noise in the files. It’s a small envelope of advantages for a nice premium in price.

I find it fascinating that everyone seems to have a conflicting sense of the current camera market now. The smallest segment, full frame mirrorless absolutely dominates the news and appeals to people who follow the camera industry daily.  Why is it so strange? Why have multiple companies set their camera manufacturer tipping point to mirrorless+full frame at the same time? All except for Sony, who have had a five year head start in this particular market. My thought is that the fashion for full frame started buzzing about four years ago on the internet and that the companies who make cameras anticipated a longer timeline for mass adoption of mirrorless and got caught with their pants down. But I think it's critical to remember and understand that this market segment (FF mirrorless) is actually a very small percentage of the overall market for cameras. APS-C and smaller is the bulk of what people actually buy.

If I had to guess I would conjecture that the market for mirrorless will continue to rise in relationship to DSLR cameras but the percentages of the overall mix between smaller formats and larger ones will remain the same unless and until full frame cameras drop in price dramatically and become as affordable. For the vast majority of users micro four thirds and APS-C cameras delivers results now that are mostly far above the abilities of most practitioners to wring out of them. I prefer the smaller formats for a number of reasons but foremost is the ability to do so many different things well: 4K video, high resolution stills, generous depth of focus and great handling. While premium m4:3rds doesn't represent the ultimate in price to value ratios the current flagship Panasonic and Olympus cameras are formidable imaging tools that deliver variations of image stabilization that bigger formats cannot currently match. 

Following the herd means stepping in a lot of manure. The right camera for one user might be another users least favorite. I council my friends who are camera shopping to pick the camera that feels best to them and does what they want it to do; regardless of sensor size. You might feel the same.