My problem with aps-c cameras

Many people have compared the sensor sizes and what it means before. I don’t think I need to rehash that. I do believe that the sensor size doesn’t affect image quality. It hasn’t for a very long time. The quality from smaller sensors has been good for a very long time.

When I say smaller sensors, I’m referring to the DSLR’s or mirrorless cameras with micro four thirds/four thirds and aps-c sized sensors with interchangeable lenses. Not the point n shoots or camera phones. They’re a separate use case.

The sensors are fantastic. They have been for some time. The image quality on my first DSLR was good, a Digital Rebel (the original).

A smaller sensor brings some advantages. The biggest being the size and weight of the kit. Yes, the cameras are generally smaller, but the lenses can be much smaller and lighter than a full frame kit. It’s why I really like the micro four thirds cameras. I realized that a big priority for me is having small and convenient camera bag. I like the small every day cary.

When I was shooting mostly film last year, I travelled with an olympus OM-4 or OM-3 and a few lenses. Those original OM mount 35mm manual focus Zuiko’s are so compact, I could bring 3 with me and it would take up less space than a typical 24-70/2.8. Better is the weight hanging off the front of the camera for each lens. It’s so unobtrusive, no seems to notice except when you’ve stopped to load film or buy a coffee and they see this very classic looking film camera hanging around your neck.

It’s all about the lenses.

I like primes. I’ve owned zooms, but they just don’t work for me. Primes are better image quality. Period. They just are. Now, modern zooms are great. The image quality is clinically sharp these days. But, primes are still better.

Prime lenses are smaller. I can grab a nifty fifty f/1.8 and it’s a quarter of the size of a f/2.8 24-70mm. If I grab a zoom, even one that’s made for an aps-c sensor, it’s still obvious and looks like a semi-professional rig when I’m out and about. When I pick up my camera to my eye, people notice that more with a big 18-55mm zoom hanging off the front of it.

A prime lens makes you think in that focal length. I know what field of view my 35mm lens is giving me. I instinctly know what my 50mm looks like. I don’t think about what focal length I should change my zoom to. I move my feet. I find the composition. I’m already thinking in the focal length attached to my camera and my mind is trying to exploit that. It limits the number of variables.

APS-C lens selection sucks

It does. Because most of the manufacturers that make aps-c cameras, also make full frame, and the full frame cameras are the flagship or prosumer lines. They only seem to make good lenses for the full frame cameras. I own a Nikon D90 for example. It was bought new the week it came out in 2009. I only know of one lens made for the DX (aps-c) format that is a decent prime lens. That’s the Nikon 35mm f/1.8. It’s meant to be the “nifty fifty”. That’s it. It’s the only one.

Yes, I could use a number of FX (full frame) lenses that are compatible, but they all carry the added weight and size of full frame lenses. I’m missing most of the benefits of the smaller sensor. It’s rather annoying. It’s like they never were serious about the DX sensor size. The lenses made are mostly “versatile” zooms. Mostly slower lenses with higher apertures. If they (anyone) would take the aps-c format seriously, DX cameras could be a real contender. They would come with benefits, but instead, they’re just a stepping stone to buy a larger full frame camera.

Right now, I’m shooting with a Nikon D series 28mm f/2.8 on my D90. Giving me an equivalent of 42mm. Not exactly a wide angle, and not the latest in autofocus. If the D90 didn’t have an autofocus motor, I would even be able to use it. There is a G lens that is 24mm f/1.8, but again, it’s full frame only and the size of it really negates the smaller sensor choice.

Are Sony or Canon Better?

Sadly, the same is true for Canon and Sony. Albeit, it’s a little better on the Sony side, the choices are still second rate compared to the Full Frame lens offerings. The marketing of the smaller sensors was a sham. They never gave us smaller lenses that were really good. I never saw a Canon EF-S L lens. It was always second rate.

It’s too bad. If the companies would have prioritized the aps-c sensored cameras, maybe people would have used them. It would have been a different choice for reasons other than just cost. Just like the auto market, not everyone wants a huge truck that get’s 12 miles to the gallon. Some people just need a truck bed and don’t need a 10,000lb towing capacity and they like the idea of getting 20+ mpg. But, the camera manufacturers didn’t. They never made lenses on par or even close to the full frame offerings.