Why were crop-sensor cameras introduced instead of only full-frame cameras?
Asked 10/27/2011
3 views
2 answers
0
I'm trying to understand the history and business reasons behind crop-sensor cameras. Were they mainly introduced because they were cheaper to manufacture than full-frame sensors, helping digital cameras reach more buyers? I had assumed full-frame cameras came first and crop-sensor models appeared later, so I'm wondering why manufacturers chose smaller sensors and what advantages they offered.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
19
There were economic reasons, but they were not about getting to amateur market; it was more like getting any market. The main merit seen in early digital photography was speed of delivery (no need to develop films), so news agencies were the first targets.
During the dawn of digital photography, a full frame sensor would have been enormously expensive to produce. The technology was just not ready to produce perfect silicon wafers of that size; even the smaller ones were the price of a really nice car (or a top-notch medium / large format system). The first commercially available dSLR, Kodak DCS (1991, a.k.a. DCS100), managed to sell 987 units (with 1.3MP 1.8 crop factor sensors, some of them monochrome) priced at $20k...$25k (almost a median US household income). Provided that most professional photographers were convinced (and correct) that digital image quality was significantly worse than film, the market would have been too small for full frame cameras at their enormous price.
The first FF dSLR, 6MP Contax N Digital, came 11 years later at $7000, a sixth of average US household income. 11MP Canon 1Ds was announced at $8k the same year.
Smaller sensors were (and still are) several times cheaper, and with the 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor, the quality difference was (and still is) not that big to justify the cost difference for most people. At the same time with 1Ds, APS-C Canon 10D was announced at only $2k.
Originally by user4390. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4390
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Crop-sensor cameras were largely a practical and economic step in the early digital era. Smaller sensors were much easier and cheaper to manufacture than full-frame sensors, especially when sensor fabrication technology was still immature. Early full-frame-sized digital sensors would have been extremely expensive, so using smaller sensors helped make digital SLRs commercially viable at all.
At first, this was not mainly about the amateur market. Early digital cameras were especially attractive to professionals like news agencies because images could be delivered immediately without film processing. Smaller sensors made those early systems possible at a price the market could at least consider.
Crop sensors also enabled smaller, lighter camera and lens designs, and they gave photographers a more affordable way to get tighter framing with telephoto lenses.
So yes, cost was a major reason—but also manufacturability, size, weight, and market demand. Crop sensors were not just a later gimmick; they were a key part of making digital interchangeable-lens cameras practical in the first place.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why aren’t low-resolution full-frame sensors much cheaper to make?
Why were early digital camera sensors smaller than 35mm full frame?
Are crop-sensor cameras worse than full frame?
When is a full-frame camera better than a crop-sensor camera?
Why choose a fixed-lens compact over a mirrorless camera?