[biz-engineer]

We see more and more content about full frame. Ricoh currently, beside the Theta, main offering is the Pentax K1. Canon and Nikon and Sony also main offering and marketing appear to be for full frame cameras. Aren't we entering a new era of the standalone digital cameras with a come back of the 24x35 format?

[microlight]

I don't think so. 36/24 frame size is only relevant as a 'standard' (which appears to be what you're implying) if we continue to compare it with film-era SLRs and film stock that they used, which only happened so that existing 35mm movie film stock could be utilised. Then, 35mm was small-format and serious photography was done with larger format cameras.

These days, except in defined circumstances, the difference between APS-c and 35mm format (I still can't bring myself to call it 'full fr*me', even though Ricoh does! Lol) image quality is all but undetectable, as posters on numerous forums (and numerous wedding photographers) have stated. Indeed for telephoto, APS-c is probably preferable.

Another factor is the difference in size between say a K-3 and a K-1 which is substantial, as many forum members have commented on, comparing APS-c + lens to K-1 + lens. Even the K-1 is small compared with some of the 35mm format offerings from Canikon, and still you read about people taking their APS-c Pentax out for a walk because the K-1 plus zoom is just too durn heavy.

So to me it's a bigger issue than just sensor size. YMMV.

[Paul the Sunman]

APS-C is the better option for wildlife in many circumstances.

The weight of a FF kit is more to do with modern (and Pentax's) idea of what a FF lens should be. The K1 body isn't that much bigger than the K3, but their first group of new FF lenses (24-70, 15-30, 70-200, 150-450, not to mention the upcoming fast 50) are huge! The three princesses though show that this is not absolutely necessary. Excellent easily portable FF kits are possible with a different design philosophy. I would like to see more modern options going in that direction (with WR, silent focus, and quick shift).

[biz-engineer]

36/24 frame size is only relevant as a 'standard' (which appears to be what you're implying)

I'm not implying that 36/24 is only relevant as a standard. In this post, market trend is considered rather than the capability of the equipment itself.

---------- Post added 03-03-18 at 09:07 ----------

I would like to see more modern options going in that direction (with WR, silent focus, and quick shift).

It seems that there is a group of smaller lens designs but they are rather dedicated to apsc mirrorless, for instance the series of samyang small primes (manual focus) or the zeiss loxia (manual focus again), otherwise the pentax limited although not refreshed for digital.

---------- Post added 03-03-18 at 09:09 ----------

I'd be interested to know the ratio of full frame vs apsc camera sold over the years.

[Kiwipixter]

Well, there are more FF bodies to choose from now than a few years ago. As the result prices have dropped also. The K-1 and A7 series have made FF more affordable, will be interesting how nikon will respond to the A7III. Maybe the popularity of smartphones have spurred ILC makers to concentrate on FF investment, Sony certainly looks like they are.

[Fenwoodian]

.
I think the OP is right on.

Some camera makers have a renewed emphasis on full frame. Of course I don't know why, but I suspect it is because they are fearfull of ever improving smart phone cameras catching them, and the larger the sensor in the camera, the more distance they place between them and smart phone cameras.

[biz-engineer]

Of course I don't know why, but I suspect it is because they are fearfull of ever improving smart phone cameras catching them, and the larger the sensor in the camera, the more distance they place between them and smart phone cameras.

I agree on this. If the standalone camera market is changing from addressing all segments including the casual amateur photographer to a segment of enthusiasts hobbyists and professionals, volumes are dropping significantly and at the same time the remaining customers are more demanding on imaging capabilities.

[BigMackCam]

We see more and more content about full frame. Ricoh currently, beside the Theta, main offering is the Pentax K1. Canon and Nikon and Sony also main offering and marketing appear to be for full frame cameras. Aren't we entering a new era of the standalone digital cameras with a come back of the 24x35 format?

It's an interesting point, but no - I don't think full frame is becoming the mainstream again. It's just that FF cameras are becoming more affordable and therefore accessible to a wider user base, so there is some swing towards that format as APS-C and m43 users dip their toes in the water. But APS-C and m43 cameras offer advantages for a lot of photographers, especially where more compact bodies and lenses are concerned. For general photography, I still tend to pick up one of my APS-C rigs because it's a nice compromise on size, weight, image quality and creative control.

Also, I'm not sure I'd agree that the K-1 is Ricoh's "main offering". It's the overall flagship, for sure, but for many the KP might be considered the main offering (indeed, there are more lens choices available in the APS-C format and that will be the case for some time). The K-1II is of course getting the most attention currently because it has just been announced, but what we've seen on these forums suggests there's just as much interest for a K-3II replacement. Not everyone wants full-frame, and not everyone that tries it will stay with it.

Canon and Nikon are pretty similar to Pentax (albeit with larger model ranges), with a continued mix of both APS-C and full-frame bodies and lenses. Marketing may be more heavily oriented towards full-frame, but other factors - pricing, especially - keeps many users focused on the APS-C model.

Sony is quite unique, with its older (but still current) A7 MkII offering a very low cost route into FF for those that want it (although lenses can soon cancel out that cost advantage). The mirrorless approach has allowed them to narrow the gap on APS-C in terms of size and weight... but not everyone likes EVFs. Still, I'd probably agree that Sony's focus is more weighted towards full-frame, even though the A6500 continues to be popular.

And then there's FujiFilm with a very APS-C focused range, with Olympus and Panasonic in the m43 space, and showing no obvious signs of moving into the full-frame arena...

[ffking]

I think that perhaps 'FF' is the best available compromise between IQ and functionality vs affordability and weight for most people who take their photography seriously but are not total specialists. APC-C is better for most wildlife - it tends to have higher pixel density for better detail and extends the effective magnification of lenses. And of course medium format (if we;re talking digital only) is qualitatively better for landscape and portraits, but at a high financial and portability cost and with less flexibility of function.

[aslyfox]

personally speaking:

since I am invested monetarily with a very good system based on the ASP-C system, I am not interested in changing to the K 1 and its FF

although I will invest in lenses capable of being used on FF if I am interested in the lens

primarily I seek a lens that

- my wife says we can afford at the time

- are good value ( I have had good luck in finding " experienced " " like new " lenses at very good prices, most through the market place here ) although I do have some I bought new on sale

- fit nicely with the other lenses I currently have [ I don't collect multiple copies ]

- and fit a perceived need [ I am not into the ultra wide lenses ]

JMHO, YMMV

( if interested, all of my equipment is listed in my profile )

[RobA_Oz]

Even though we have talked over the pros and cons of the two sensor formats for quite a number of years, for much of that time we didn't have a native K-mount 35FF body. Now many of us have had the K-1 for a while, we can be more objective about our comments. The negative issues that keep coming up for the K-1 are the combined body and lens weight, and the total cost of ownership. I'm not so concerned with the latter, as I invested in good film-era glass early on, and my experience is that it largely meets my needs for IQ. However, when I compare the most versatile travel combination for both (the FA*28-70/FA*80-200 for the K-1, and the DA*16-50/DA*50-135 for the K-3), the K-3 combo wins on weight and size (not to mention battery life) in spite of the K-1's IQ and functionality edges. The newer D FA 24-70 and 70-200 aren't going to change that much, either.

A KP would undoubtedly dispel much of the latter advantages for the K-1, as may the K-3's replacement when it arrives. A mirrorless body might make a difference as far as body weight goes, but not for total system weight and cost.

So, given there will continue to be a significant price differential between the two systems, I can't see APS-C being overtaken or even approached by 35FF in terms of units sold, in the foreseeable future. Then again, my assumptions may be wrong. Who knows?

[lytrytyr]

However, when I compare the most versatile travel combination for both (the FA*28-70/FA*80-200 for the K-1, and the DA*16-50/DA*50-135 for the K-3), the K-3 combo wins on weight and size

I guess it depends on what you're looking for in your travel combination.
Yours does not include anything wider than 24mm FF.
However, at the wider end of the range,
FF lenses for a given angle of view can be smaller and lighter than APS-C lenses.
Compare a Voigtlaender Color-Skopar or Pentax M20/4 pancake on FF
with the APS-C options around 13 or 14mm focal length (e.g., Samyang 14/2.8).

[Pentax Syntax]

Intriguing question from the OP. With Smartphones Micro 2/3, APS, FF, cropped MF, and MF there are so many options that the idea of any of these becoming a standard is unlikely. The cost of large sensors has dropped and that has allowed more camera manufacturers to enter the FF fray. Pentax is a conservative company from the sensor adoption perspective. They chose not to introduce the first 6 MP FF camera because they found the sensor inadequate. Those of us with lots of vintage lenses certainly appreciate the K-1 and it’s successor but I don’t believe it will become the mainstream format that 35mm film was in its heyday.

[MadMathMind]

.
I think the OP is right on.

Some camera makers have a renewed emphasis on full frame. Of course I don't know why, but I suspect it is because they are fearfull of ever improving smart phone cameras catching them, and the larger the sensor in the camera, the more distance they place between them and smart phone cameras.

In short: the market for the $500-800 camera dries up because the vacationer just doesn't see a need for such an item. The market for the $2000-3000 camera will always be there because those are professionals, serious hobbyists, etc. They're not going to be able to do what they need to do with a tiny sensor until someone changes the laws of physics.

I was shooting some art photos for a coworker of mine last night and she said this: "I could buy a nice camera and use it but what I can do with it is worse than what I can do with my phone." We weren't discussing cameras or anything but I think that comment is insightful: she doesn't feel a fancy camera helps her because she can't work it well. That's probably the situation for a lot of people.

[BigMackCam]

In short: the market for the $500-800 camera dries up because the vacationer just doesn't see a need for such an item. The market for the $2000-3000 camera will always be there because those are professionals, serious hobbyists, etc.

Hmmm. But there are plenty of hobbyists - including some rather serious ones - who simply can't slap down $2,000 for a camera. I've done it before, but I honestly don't know if I'd want (or even be able) to do it again. I suspect there will always be a healthy market for the sub-$1,000 ILC. Maybe not as healthy as it once was, due to saturation... but still there nonetheless.