[Kunzite]

There is one thing I'd like to know (besides the exact specs of some of the products Pentax will soon launch): that Simon Smyth - was it you? And if not, why are you constantly trying to "prove" he was "on the money" about one thing or another?

[Aristophanes]

You are exactly right, and I totally agree with you.
The post was in response to Aristophanes' claim that FF would take over the current APS-C market, and consumers would all be happily buying up the FF cameras in the next few years, with the demise of APS-C.

They will. the cost difference for larger sensor production will fall to "close enough" levels for FF to push APS-C out of the market.

They will buy FF cameras because APS-C will no longer cost-effective to produce. It will be far less expensive for Canikon to run only 1 fab each for their larger sensors than 2 or 3 as they do now. Same principle for lenses.

Both of you make the grievous error that this is something to do with current market demand for FF, bound by the false notion that technology is static as a result. Every FF camera Canikon produce chips away at APS-C.

[creampuff]

They will buy FF cameras because APS-C will no longer cost-effective to produce.

Wow, are you on drugs or what? Seriously, how do you come up with such howlers? Your wishful thinking about FF is far, far ahead of present reality and you have no basis for your wild unsubstantiated claims.
Doesn't Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax still produce APS-C cameras? Why would they continue to do so if they aren't cost-effective?
Have any of them expressed publicly any intention not to continue to produce APS-C cameras?
Last I noticed, APS-C cameras still outsell FF cameras by a large margin.

[eigelb]

Four Third DSLR´s are dying out.
APS-C DSRL´s are still fighting against FF-DSRL´s
regarding of evolution Aps-c has eaten Four Third and FF will eat Aps-c.
Why not in some years we will see who survives

[Aristophanes]

Wow, are you on drugs or what? Seriously, how do you come up with such howlers? Your wishful thinking about FF is far, far ahead of present reality and you have no basis for your wild unsubstantiated claims.
Doesn't Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax still produce APS-C cameras? Why would they continue to do so if they aren't cost-effective?
Have any of them expressed publicly any intention not to continue to produce APS-C cameras?
Last I noticed, APS-C cameras still outsell FF cameras by a large margin.

Because someone will come out with $1,500 FF, slimmed of pro features, and make every APS-C camera over $1,000 not cost-effective. After that event, every model at the K-7 level will be FF. Then the FF sensor will gain even greater economy-of-scale and it will push down below $1,000. Sony's E-mount is FF, but is currently using APS-C. Why make it FF? Because the economics of sensor development and competition say clearly that brands will have to compete on sensor size at some point. The newest mount in the industry built in that probability from the start. Once video, form factor, and software enhancements hit the inevitable wall of diminishing returns (and we're very close), the brands will then move to the raw industrial might of "my sensor is bigger than yours". Happens in TV, cars, food processors, vacuums, etc.

Again, the silliness of basing future sales off current sales is profound. If that were the case, no one would have made Micro 4/3! By your logic, there was no demand, so they should not have made it. Now we have a parallel thread talking up how this new development is taking market share.

[northcoastgreg]

Doesn't Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax still produce APS-C cameras? Why would they continue to do so if they aren't cost-effective?
.

The assumption is that they will cease to be cost effective because consumers will prefer the FF cameras, because, as everyone knows, FF is better than APS-C. This, of course, is an entirely gratuitous assumption. The fact that product A is superior to product B in no way guarantees that product B will inevitably win out over product A. When Apple released OS 10.1, it had operating system that was "technically" superior to Windows XP. As the years rolled on, Mac OS X only got better, making XP seem increasingly outdated. Yet what was the result of this? Apple marginally increased its OS market share; Windows remained dominant. And why? For a number of reasons, but mainly for this: because consumers don't buy computers to run operating systems, they buy computers to run the applications they have purchased, and they are loathe to eat the cost of those purchases. It's not so very different with cameras. Once the consumer has invested in some lenses, he will feel locked into the brand and the sensor size that correlates with his glass. If he has invested hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in APS-C glass, he will be loathe to move to FF unless (1) he is wealthy (a small percentage of DSLR consumers) or (2) he already has a stable of FF glass to fall back on. The fact that APS-C lenses can theoretically be used on FF cameras is irrelevant. Very few consumers will be amenable to using APS-C glass on an FF camera, any more than PC users were amenable to running Windows applications in OS X (even though this was possible). Therefore, there is no reason to believe that APS-C is inevitably doomed. Many consumers who have invested in APS-C lenses will demand APS-C cameras for many years to come. What company would dare turn their backs on such a large consumer base? If I had invested in several expensive DX lenses and Nikon suddenly announced it was abandoning APS-C, what incentive would I have for remaining with Nikon? At that point, it would cost me very little to reinvest in another brand; and I would have every incentive to switch, as Nikon would've hosed my investment in DX glass and I'd probably be rather annoyed at this development.

[falconeye]

With all due respect, [falconeye's FF sensor cost, ed.] is more of an educated guess/estimation rather than facts.

It is an as good as possible computed upper boundary for production cost. Not necessarily purchase cost for a camera maker other than Sony and Canon though. But it's not a guess. I really don't like if people post like you did w/o contributing a single bit to a discussion.

[nosnoop]

It is an as good as possible computed upper boundary for production cost. Not necessarily purchase cost for a camera maker other than Sony and Canon though. But it's not a guess. I really don't like if people post like you did w/o contributing a single bit to a discussion.

Nobody likes to be questioned or disagreed on the posts they made. As to whether my posting has contributed to the discussion, it's for other users to decide. To me, it is still an estimate (if you don't like the term "guess" which can be used as an equivalent of estimate) as long as it is not a factual information. You may be correct, OR your "computed" cost could be way off. At least I have not read any other articles agreeing with (or come up with something similar to) your estimate; and I don't feel it is unreasonable for me to question it. That's the whole point of having a discussion. If you don't like it, so be it.

[nosnoop]

Four Third DSLR´s are dying out.
APS-C DSRL´s are still fighting against FF-DSRL´s
regarding of evolution Aps-c has eaten Four Third and FF will eat Aps-c.

4/3 was not success because their products did not offer any advantages or any differentiation from the dominant brands. And it was not as small or compact as promised.
Now micro 4/3 is alive and kicking - and defintely not "eaten" by APS-C.

APS-C fighting FF? Not much of a fight at this point; let alone being "eaten".

[nosnoop]

They will. the cost difference for larger sensor production will fall to "close enough" levels for FF to push APS-C out of the market.
They will buy FF cameras because APS-C will no longer cost-effective to produce.
....
Because someone will come out with $1,500 FF, slimmed of pro features, and make every APS-C camera over $1,000 not cost-effective. After that event, every model at the K-7 level will be FF.

I agree with northcoastgreg. This ain't going to happen.
First $500 is a big difference; not every potential K-7 buyer would be willing to shell out an extra 50% to get a FF - plus replacing all the glasses they own.

And I don't think Canikon would be willing to give up the golden goose any time soon.

Both of you make the grievous error that this is something to do with current market demand for FF, bound by the false notion that technology is static as a result....
Again, the silliness of basing future sales off current sales is profound. If that were the case, no one would have made Micro 4/3! By your logic, there was no demand, so they should not have made it. Now we have a parallel thread talking up how this new development is taking market share.

It would be equally silly to ignore current sales. We never said the current status represents future sales - but current sales, and more importantly, current trend can gives clues to sales in the foreseeable future. And apart from you, no one else can predict the future , so there is no guarantee; and obviously, no one can predict (also except you) the launch of any new/revolutionary/game changing products 4 or 5 years from now.

Contrary to what you said, my prediction fully takes into account of technology progress, especially in the quality and price of APS-C, that makes it even harder to convince people to pay extra for FF (not a problem for enthusiasts obviously, it is the general consumer we are talking about).

In the end, the DSLR arena is getting smaller by the day, and mirrorless would gradually take a huge bite. The demand for smaller and more compact system would ensure other sensors size would also dominate over FF in mirrorless except in the top niche.

[ilya80]

And I don't think Canikon would be willing to give up the golden goose any time soon.

Now we are talking golden goose. Can you provide any logic on why FF cameras should be a disaster for Hoya while being a golden goose for others?

[falconeye]

I don't feel it is unreasonable for me to question it. That's the whole point of having a discussion. If you don't like it, so be it.

Au contraire. But you didn't discuss my research on Cmos sensor production cost when I presented it here. With all the relevant data on the table. And therefore, I express my irritation if now my results are cited en passent and "in all due respect" as if they are guesses only. If you didn't challenge my work then you shouldn't now or make it its own topic.

BTW, my estimate was an estimate for an upper limit for production cost only. This can be computed fairly accurately from published semiconductor cost models. Don't call that level of work "guesswork".

Anyway, all I actually wanted to say is that I felt wrongly cited by your remark. That's all actually. Never mind. Your opinion is appreciated.

[Winder]

Why do people really think Sony is going to abandon the FF market? Sony just released a FF lens and is expected to release another FF this spring.

The A900 is on a 3 year update cycle, so it is not scheduled to be replaced until 2011. The A900 was released the same year as the Canon 5DII and will be replaced at the same time.

If Sony starts releasing a bunch of small DA-style lenses then I might worry that Sony is abandoning FF. When/IF Pentax starts releasing new D-FA lenses I'll start expecting Pentax to release a FF body.

Prime lenses are a good indication of where a company is headed. They are slow sellers that require several years to recoup all the cost that goes into design and production. When Olympus stopped producing new primes for 4/3 it was obvious that 4/3 was on the way out. Sony still developing FF primes lenses, so I doubt they have any intent to abandon the FF segment. Sony plans on being just as big of a player in the pro-DSLR market as they are in the pro-video market. The think the delay of the A7xx replacement has a lot to do with the development of the ExmorHD sensor and the new AF system.

[civiletti]

Aristophanes' argument depends on the cost of sensors coming down faster than advances in sensor acuity per area. This is not an unreasonable expectation. At this point it seems there is a point of diminishing return in decreasing pixel size. Unless some new way of packing pixels is developed, it seems that reduced sensor cost would make full frame advantageous in the future, at least for folks who value increased information in their exposures. This might not kill APS, but would likely decrease market share severely.

We know that 35mm film slr's can be quite compact. Why should improved technology not lead to full frame d-slr's the size of an MX or OM-1?

[Eigengrau]

There are a few key points of contention here.

1. FF will always be more expensive/bigger/heavier.
2. FF does not offer a significant advantage, APS-C is 'good enough'.
3. FF is not something that most consumers will ever care about.

All of these things are wrong for a variety of reasons.

1. We know that digital technology always, always, always gets cheaper. Go ahead and try to find a 6 MP sensor in a new DSLR. You won't. A 6 MP sensor is so cheap now and so outclassed that it isn't worth the cost of the metal and plastic in the camera body. I'm not saying that a K100 can't do good pictures, just that economics dictate that noone is making them anymore because there isn't a way to make money doing it. This is the same exact thing that has happened in EVERY technology sector, ever. Sensors used to be expensive, but they are quickly going to become one of the cheapest parts of the camera. As others have noted, size and weight aren't good arguments because FF can obviously be made small - look at all the old film SLR's.

2. It is a physical inevitability that FF offers more performance that APS-C. APS-C is good enough for many purposes, but SLR buyers are almost always after IQ - if they care more about size, then they will be looking at a P&S or an EVIL. And, even EVIL can be FF. Also, everybody seems to be ignoring the lens resolution factor. Many think that APS-C has already come close to the limit of what lenses can offer in terms of resolution. Do you really think that manufacturers are just going to sit by and stop improving the sensors? Sensitivity and DR can only be taken so far for a given format, as there is a physical limit to how many photons you have to work with. We're getting close to a point that there isn't realistically going to be much left to improve, sensor-wise, with APS-C. And, whether or not APS-C can already do some amazing things (it can) when it comes down to it, if a consumer has to choose between an amazing camera and a slightly more amazing camera, they will choose the latter. Pentax shouldn't be content to be in the former category.

3. To those saying that consumers don't know the difference between APS-C and FF: nobody knew what a megapixel was 20 years ago, either. And, more recently, the average joe didn't care about sensitivity, but now that resolution has reached an optimum level for many, ISO range is being advertised a lot more than it ever was before. What happens when ISO gets topped out? Eventually, manufacturers WILL be looking for whatever edge they can find, and the physical limits of APS-C will mean that FF is the place to find it. Honestly, the only reason anybody ever went with a cropped sensor in the first place was that the tech was so damned expensive. Now that it is cheap, why should we stay strapped to an inferior solution?

Nobody is saying that APS-C is going to disappear entirely, but anyone who looks honestly at the situation has to realize that this isn't about what we want or don't want, it is about physics and economics. Camera manufacturers have always competed on technology and price, and when tech gets cheaper it gets used to try to gain market share. You have to use every advantage available to you or go out of business. Pentax will have to go FF or will become even more marginalized, maybe past the point of survivability. Maybe they don't need FF at Photokina, but they need it soon or things will get ugly.