[nosnoop]

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.
....
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.

Falk, you are one of the more respected member in this forum and I do read your posting most of the time. When I use the term "educated guess", it was not meant to dismiss or diminish your work. On my book, "educated guess" is the same as "informed estimate" (as opposed to facts); and it is definitely not the same as pure "guesswork".

I did not take part in discussion in your research because I do not know the subject well enough. It is out of my league. Whenever I made a statement, I like to have factual back up, if possible. Like when I said FF market was currently very small - it was not my impression, but it was based on bcnranking sales data.

Your calculation was interesting, but I don't know the area well enough to challenge you or to agree with you. All I know is that the end figures you came up with do not match other articles figures I read. And for example, I know there are difference in cost of the wafer depending on the composition (e.g. high vs low resistivity), and FF manufacturing is more complicated as you need three separate exposures requiring tripling the number of masks and exposure processes. I don't know whether they were taken into account in your calculations or not.

FF costing 10-20x more than APS-C is the most quoted figure, including the Canon white paper. I understand that you disagree with that number. But it was an official Canon release. So in my mind, it was still a question mark depending who you want to believe.

[Kunzite]

Eigengrau:
I'm afraid that those 6MP sensors wouldn't be that cheap, if they still were in production. Cost doesn't scale with megapixels, but with things like chip's size or yields. A 6MP could be cheaper because it's made on a well-known process, it's R&D was long-ago recovered and because no-one wants to buy it - but that's all.

2. Then you didn't understand the "good enough" part. Having usable ISO3200, being able to easily print gallery-sized is "good enough" for many photographers.
On an absolute scale, of course, the "FF" will be "better". And a Porsche is definitely "better" than my Toyota.

3. IMO, consumers want numbers: they don't have to understand them, and they're easy to compare. They all know 12 is "better" than 10

Btw, I think Pentax should launch a "FF" camera, as soon as they can do it (making a profit, being able to deliver the required lenses...). I'm not holding my breath over it, though... and from what I see, they can have a decent growth even without "FF". Becoming even more marginalized? Come on...

[Eigengrau]

Eigengrau:
I'm afraid that those 6MP sensors wouldn't be that cheap, if they still were in production. Cost doesn't scale with megapixels, but with things like chip's size or yields. A 6MP could be cheaper because it's made on a well-known process, it's R&D was long-ago recovered and because no-one wants to buy it - but that's all.

2. Then you didn't understand the "good enough" part. Having usable ISO3200, being able to easily print gallery-sized is "good enough" for many photographers.
On an absolute scale, of course, the "FF" will be "better". And a Porsche is definitely "better" than my Toyota.

3. IMO, consumers want numbers: they don't have to understand them, and they're easy to compare. They all know 12 is "better" than 10

Btw, I think Pentax should launch a "FF" camera, as soon as they can do it (making a profit, being able to deliver the required lenses...). I'm not holding my breath over it, though... and from what I see, they can have a decent growth even without "FF". Becoming even more marginalized? Come on...

1. The point isn't so much that they are cheap, as that they can't be sold profitably. If the price to manufacture hasn't come down, the price that you could sell one for sure has. At any rate, I think the point still stands that we can expect cropped sensors to be in the same place eventually, the only question is when.

2. Again, the point is that 'good enough' doesn't matter that much - if I have the choice between 'good enough' and slightly more 'good enough', for the same money, or even a bit more, I will pick the latter option. Sedans are sufficient for most, but SUVs sold like hotcakes. When FF is only marginally more expensive than APS-C, what do you think consumers will choose?

3. Numbers, or features, or whatever. Look at shake reduction - went from an unknown idea to one that any legitimate camera company had to offer. There's no reason that FF couldn't do the same thing. Especially because it will offer numerical advantages as well - we can't expect APS-C to ever compete in performance with a FF sensor of a similar technological level.

Again, the point is not that Pentax will go out of business this year. The point is that FF will come to dominate the share of DSLRs the way that APS-C does right now, at some point in the future, and that Pentax needs to have some fingers in that market. 10% of 90% of the market still gets you 9%, but 10% of 10% of the market only gives you 1%. I'm saying that anybody who thinks FF will always be a segment for the high end pros and wealthy amateurs is deceiving themselves, and that Pentax better be ready when FF comes to occupy a majority position.

[Groucho]

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.

Hmm, Nikon's done one or two APS-only primes lately... maybe they're abandoning FF. But seriously folks. It's also possible that said primes had been in development and even if the company changes direction, it can make money off releasing them and selling them to existing customers even as it focuses on a different strategy in the future.

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.

I think that if you could buy a 6mp sensor, you'd spend more, not less. Look at computer memory - the cheaper stuff is the stuff currently in demand; older memory that is used less tends to go up in price. (FWIW, I'd be perfectly happy with a 6mp APS camera if it had the low-light abilities of a D3S. Gimme those big, lazy microsites!)

As for size and weight - an old manual film SLR isn't really a fair comparison to a DSLR. Think about this - the 4/3rds DSLRs should be able to be as small as an Auto 110 - which sports the same 2x crop factor as 4/3rds, and has a full mirror and prism. Yet they're nowhere close, not even the mirrorless ones. Remember the size of those lenses, too!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, again - remember the lenses! 50-135mm on APS vs 70-200mm on FF - basically the same range, but the 70-200mm is ~2x the weight and quite a bit longer. Also remember what Olympus was able to do making lenses for a smaller format - F2.0 zooms and many other unusual fast lenses. Those are a pretty compelling argument in favor of smaller sensors.

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.

Yes... and remember when Mike Johnson found that he was actually getting better IQ with a K20D than a D700? Obviously this changes as ISO goes up, and the DoF is different, but let's face it - put 'em side by side, and any of us would have a very, very hard time telling an image from an APS DSLR from an FF one.

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.

Since when? People are buying high-def TVs and still buying DVDs to play on them, or just watching highly compressed, interlaced, and/or lower resolution (720p) cable/satellite broadcasts - or even internet streams, which are usually very highly compressed. People are buying music off itunes that costs as much or more than the physical CD often, getting worse sound quality. People buy DVD and hard drive camcorders over miniDV ones, despite the drop in image quality. People bought VHS instead of Beta. Need more examples? There's a zillion of them - the point is that consumers will not automatically buy "amazing", even if "amazing" costs exactly the same and has zero negatives (and yes, FF does have negatives!)

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.

Consumers still don't know what a megapixel is. (I try to tell people that it's like the size of the print and the sensor is the size of the film.) ISO is mentioned now because consumers are noticing that their pocket cameras are crap in anything close to low light - but the high ISO pocket cameras are still crap at low light, it's just that they'll happily churn out an even noisier photo than before.

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?

Remember that the sensors are cut from a wafer. FF gives you not only many fewer sensors but more throwaways due to imperfections. They are unavoidable more expensive. Are they cheaper than they used to be? Of course. But they're still CMOS wafers cut into large pieces when those wafers could be cut into many more smaller pieces.

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.

Not necessarily. Has Sony actually made a penny in profit with their FF cameras? Or has it all been a loss? (I don't know, but I have my suspicions!) Are people who buy the Sony APS cameras - which are, more and more, targeted specifically as the uneducated consumers - more likely to buy because they could go FF in the future? And again - why stop at FF, why not demand the 645D sensor?

Meanwhile, Olympus probably saved itself from doom by essentially dropping their 4/3rds cameras and going mirrorless. I hope that Pentax doesn't follow this route, but the fact remains that the vast majority of money to made in the DSLR world is in APS sensor models.

[Groucho]

Sedans are sufficient for most, but SUVs sold like hotcakes. When FF is only marginally more expensive than APS-C, what do you think consumers will choose?

That's a terrible example.
1. SUV sales are in the toilet. People are buying small cars.
2. You're talking like an American. Don't feel bad, I am one too, but you have to take a "world" perspective here - the rest of the world drives more small cars than we do. They also drive diesels, which have advantages that we would appreciate, but Americans generally don't diesels. Yet another example of people not wanting what would seem logical on paper.

[Mountain Vision]

I've been saying for years.

FF has no future for smaller brands. It's an antiquated format that worked best for small format film cameras. For digital the format that works best might be different. IMO, APS-C is the sweet spot.

Sony DSLR division has not made a profit in any quarter that I know of. This includes since it released a full frame camera. Canon and Nikons top selling cameras are not full frame, they are both APS-C.

The bottom line, people that think 24x36 is a magical number are better off cashing out of Pentax and moving to Canon or Nikon.

Those of us that have moved on (and yes, I was a full frame fanboy for a while), are enjoying the smaller lenses and lower cost of FF.

Pentax just purged itself of FA lenses, why does anyone think they can just release a FF camera without a lineup of lenses? It isn't going to happen. And even if it did, they would be a laughing stock in comparison to Nikon and Canon.

The fact that Pentax went exclusively to making DA lenses should have been the clearest writing on the wall the 24x36 is never happening. Pentax engineers said themselves in an interview that they didn't think maximum quality from APS-C had yet been achieved and there was still plenty of room for improvement with that format sensor.

Basically, there is no FF Pentax upgrade path.

[Mountain Vision]

That's a terrible example.
1. SUV sales are in the toilet. People are buying small cars.
2. You're talking like an American. Don't feel bad, I am one too, but you have to take a "world" perspective here - the rest of the world drives more small cars than we do. They also drive diesels, which have advantages that we would appreciate, but Americans generally don't diesels. Yet another example of people not wanting what would seem logical on paper.

I'm an american, I covet a diesel engine, and I love small cars. Diesels are super effecient, and unlike the bullsh!t hybrid technology, no matter how abusive you are to a diesel engine, you will ALWAYS get decent gas mileage.

Recently a car magazine put the Prius Hybrid against the Jetti TDi, take a guess who got better gas mileage by about 20mph? The Jetta. It was a curvy mountainous test, and the hybrid was often running on it's underpowered gasoline engine. The Jetta got horrible MPG too, but it got over 30mpg, while the Prius got close to 10mpg. And of course diesel is a proven and simple technology that doesn't require tons of modern upkeep.

Don't put us all into a mold.

However, I agree with your premise. American's are more prone to marketing then other nationalities, they are more prone to bigger (or more) is better philosophy. Keeping up with your neighbor is also more of an issue.

I mean if my neighbor has 2.5 kids, a cat, a dog, 2 SUVs, a swimming pool and a full frame camera, I am gonna want the same. Right?

[Winder]

Hmm, Nikon's done one or two APS-only primes lately... maybe they're abandoning FF. But seriously folks. It's also possible that said primes had been in development and even if the company changes direction, it can make money off releasing them and selling them to existing customers even as it focuses on a different strategy in the future.

So you think Sony is planning on cashing in on their "huge" user base of A900 & A850 users? Yeah.......
If the company has a large establish customer base then it is a possibility. Sony, however does not have a large established customer base of FF users they can sell FF glass too.

A companies release of APS-C glass is only relative to their support for the APS-C format. Camera companies are not in business to make glass for bodies they do not intend to make. Sony is introducing more FF glass because they plan on making more FF bodies.

[Eigengrau]

Since when? People are buying high-def TVs and still buying DVDs to play on them, or just watching highly compressed, interlaced, and/or lower resolution (720p) cable/satellite broadcasts - or even internet streams, which are usually very highly compressed. People are buying music off itunes that costs as much or more than the physical CD often, getting worse sound quality. People buy DVD and hard drive camcorders over miniDV ones, despite the drop in image quality. People bought VHS instead of Beta. Need more examples? There's a zillion of them - the point is that consumers will not automatically buy "amazing", even if "amazing" costs exactly the same and has zero negatives (and yes, FF does have negatives!)


Consumers still don't know what a megapixel is. (I try to tell people that it's like the size of the print and the sensor is the size of the film.) ISO is mentioned now because consumers are noticing that their pocket cameras are crap in anything close to low light - but the high ISO pocket cameras are still crap at low light, it's just that they'll happily churn out an even noisier photo than before.


Remember that the sensors are cut from a wafer. FF gives you not only many fewer sensors but more throwaways due to imperfections. They are unavoidable more expensive. Are they cheaper than they used to be? Of course. But they're still CMOS wafers cut into large pieces when those wafers could be cut into many more smaller pieces.


Not necessarily. Has Sony actually made a penny in profit with their FF cameras? Or has it all been a loss? (I don't know, but I have my suspicions!) Are people who buy the Sony APS cameras - which are, more and more, targeted specifically as the uneducated consumers - more likely to buy because they could go FF in the future? And again - why stop at FF, why not demand the 645D sensor?

These examples more or less support the power of marketing, though. Most examples you listed supported my argument as well as yours. We've got people who buy hi-def TV's that won't even take advantage of the resolution advantage, but it's the 'next big thing' so they are all over it. I know people who have bought blu-rays to play on their standard-def TV. The blu-ray offers no advantage at all for their situation, but they buy it because it is "better" since the marketing man told them so. The same thing can and will happen with FF - people buy it whether they need it or not, because they know it is better. I bet we'll see people buying FF and then shooting only APS-C lenses, but a manufacturer would be stupid not to capitalize on that and get a few of those sales.

I'll grant you that the wafer process introduces inherently higher costs for FF, but those costs can still be made so small as to be negligible. When the cost difference is only $100 total or even less between FF and APS-C, you can be sure that some company will take advantage of that and sell a FF camera at APS-C prices.

Whether or not Sony has done well isn't really relevant. They haven't done that well with any of their cameras as far as I can tell. The argument isn't about right now, but that eventually, FF will be ubiquitous and inexpensive. Also, larger than full frame isn't part of the argument for an obvious reason - it would require an entirely new line of glass. With FF, though, all we're doing is taking advantage of potential in the lenses that is sitting unused. None of the mounts used by any of the big players were designed for APS-C, so we're basically using FF cameras right now, just with all the limitations of APS-C.

As well, I know that you think FF has drawbacks, but it really doesn't. Right in the middle of your FF sensor is a nice patch of sensor exactly the size of APS-C, so whether you have the body crop automatically or do it later you still have the exact same result, assuming constant performance per square mm of sensor. So, what would you rather have, a camera that can only do APS-C, or a camera that can do APS-C and FF? That is all we'll be choosing between.

[Winder]

Whether or not Sony has done well isn't really relevant. They haven't done that well with any of their cameras as far as I can tell. The argument isn't about right now, but that eventually, FF will be ubiquitous and inexpensive. Also, larger than full frame isn't part of the argument for an obvious reason - it would require an entirely new line of glass. With FF, though, all we're doing is taking advantage of potential in the lenses that is sitting unused. None of the mounts used by any of the big players were designed for APS-C, so we're basically using FF cameras right now, just with all the limitations of APS-C.

As well, I know that you think FF has drawbacks, but it really doesn't. Right in the middle of your FF sensor is a nice patch of sensor exactly the size of APS-C, so whether you have the body crop automatically or do it later you still have the exact same result, assuming constant performance per square mm of sensor. So, what would you rather have, a camera that can only do APS-C, or a camera that can do APS-C and FF? That is all we'll be choosing between.

Sony has not done well because of market timing. Just after the A700 and A900 were released Canon introduced the 5DII and HD video became the "must have feature" for DSLRs. Not even Canon knew how much of a game changer HD video would be. The A900 is a very good camera.

The only way cropping a FF down to APS-C works is if they have the same pixel density. If I crop my 5D down to the same size as my Olympus E-3 I end up with a 1/4 the pixels on the subject vs using my E-3 to take the same picture. Both APS-C and FF have their place advantages.

I have been using FF and 4/3 for the past few years and to me APS-C is a bad compromise. Everything that APS-C does better than FF, my 4/3 does even better. Everything APS-C does better than E-3, my 5D does even better.

[Kunzite]

1. The point isn't so much that they are cheap, as that they can't be sold profitably. If the price to manufacture hasn't come down, the price that you could sell one for sure has. At any rate, I think the point still stands that we can expect cropped sensors to be in the same place eventually, the only question is when.

2. Again, the point is that 'good enough' doesn't matter that much - if I have the choice between 'good enough' and slightly more 'good enough', for the same money, or even a bit more, I will pick the latter option. Sedans are sufficient for most, but SUVs sold like hotcakes. When FF is only marginally more expensive than APS-C, what do you think consumers will choose?

3. Numbers, or features, or whatever. Look at shake reduction - went from an unknown idea to one that any legitimate camera company had to offer. There's no reason that FF couldn't do the same thing. Especially because it will offer numerical advantages as well - we can't expect APS-C to ever compete in performance with a FF sensor of a similar technological level.

Again, the point is not that Pentax will go out of business this year. The point is that FF will come to dominate the share of DSLRs the way that APS-C does right now, at some point in the future, and that Pentax needs to have some fingers in that market. 10% of 90% of the market still gets you 9%, but 10% of 10% of the market only gives you 1%. I'm saying that anybody who thinks FF will always be a segment for the high end pros and wealthy amateurs is deceiving themselves, and that Pentax better be ready when FF comes to occupy a majority position.

1. And why do you "expect cropped sensors to be in the same place eventually"? Knowing that current APS-C sensors are best sellers? And the next APS-C sensors will also be best sellers? When is that supposed to happen?
I can find some obsolete "FF" sensors no-one would buy. I can apply your logic and say "FF is doomed". I won't, though.
2. SUV are not "better" than sedans; they're just bigger And, since I live in Romania - Dacia is selling quite well, not because it's "better"; it isn't. But it's cheaper.
3. But "FF" is nothing new; it's just another format, and quite an old one. There is no added feature; it doesn't have any additional function - except the sensor is bigger.

Let's see first FF at least threatening the APS-C domination, then we'll talk. Until then, 10% of 10% (very optimistic numbers) can be said about FF, and not APS-C.

[falconeye]

Your calculation was interesting, but I don't know the area well enough to challenge you or to agree with you. All I know is that the end figures you came up with do not match other articles figures I read.
[...]
FF costing 10-20x more than APS-C is the most quoted figure, including the Canon white paper. I understand that you disagree with that number. But it was an official Canon release.

nosnoop, I understand your grief. It is a pitty that not more people try to compute manufacturing cost from published sources. Those who do publish expensive studies You're right, I may be wrong. But I see no evidence I am.

The 10-20x claims are clearly false, written with a hidden agenda and making false assumptions, like APS-C be produced on 300mm wafers while FF be produced on 200mm wafers.

The fact that the industry publishes with such a strong and "on purpose" emphasis to make FF appear more expensive than it actually is, is the strongest support for my statements, actually. Obviously, we shall believe that FF is too expensive for a mass product. It keeps the margins high.

[goubejp]

Sorry to say that, but Pentax seems to have gain more market shares and more revenues in selling the Kx than it would have with a full frame body. And the 100 colors of the Kx has played an important role, more than IQ; the fact is that Pentax does not want to compete with Canon and Nikon on the professional full frame market, because it needs not only a FF body, but also a lot of high end lenses, and professional support network that does not exist yet - see which the 645D is available in japan only. One day will come where Pentax will need a FF body to adress the niche market of "enthousiats amateur" ; it will be not in 2010.

[Eigengrau]

1. And why do you "expect cropped sensors to be in the same place eventually"? Knowing that current APS-C sensors are best sellers? And the next APS-C sensors will also be best sellers? When is that supposed to happen?
I can find some obsolete "FF" sensors no-one would buy. I can apply your logic and say "FF is doomed". I won't, though.
2. SUV are not "better" than sedans; they're just bigger And, since I live in Romania - Dacia is selling quite well, not because it's "better"; it isn't. But it's cheaper.
3. But "FF" is nothing new; it's just another format, and quite an old one. There is no added feature; it doesn't have any additional function - except the sensor is bigger.

Let's see first FF at least threatening the APS-C domination, then we'll talk. Until then, 10% of 10% (very optimistic numbers) can be said about FF, and not APS-C.

1. I have established this with actually some pretty decent logic. That being: digital era technology has, in every single case, become so cheap that today's top-of-the-line stuff will be in the bargain bin in only a couple of years. This in and of itself should make it obvious that we can expect sensors to develop to insane levels and become really, really cheap simultaneously. This is the only fact I need to build the rest of my assertions off of, and as far as I can tell you haven't addressed it.

2. I never claimed that SUV's are better. I claimed that they were more than the average person needed, yet they sold like hotcakes. As an answer to your contention that people won't buy more than they need. (FF in this case)

3. FF is the feature. It has been relegated to the top of the top-end for quite a while, but as soon as a camera manufacturer finds a profitable way to offer a good one to the masses, we can expect to see them take off.

By the time FF is threatening APS-C it will be too late. I'm arguing that it will happen eventually. I have yet to see any good evidence of why it wouldn't happen.

Responding to Winder, if you reread my original post you'll see that I said 'assuming constant performance per square mm of sensor', suggesting that we have the same pixel density in both cases. If a sensor can be made to a certain density at APS-C size, it should be equally possible to scale that up to FF. Thus the argument that a FF camera could do everything an APS-C can plus more. The only limitation here is that putting APS-C density on a FF chip would lead to tons and tons of data, which would be an engineering issue to work out.

[Winder]

Sorry to say that, but Pentax seems to have gain more market shares and more revenues in selling the Kx than it would have with a full frame body. And the 100 colors of the Kx has played an important role, more than IQ; the fact is that Pentax does not want to compete with Canon and Nikon on the professional full frame market, because it needs not only a FF body, but also a lot of high end lenses, and professional support network that does not exist yet - see which the 645D is available in japan only. One day will come where Pentax will need a FF body to adress the niche market of "enthousiats amateur" ; it will be not in 2010.

The Kx is a great camera at a great value. If Pentax continues to produce cameras like the Kx they will continue to grow their user base and demand for step-up bodies will grow as well. I do not think the body colors played as much of a role as IQ.

Pentax would LOVE to compete with Nikon and Canon, but realizes it is not in a position to challenge them in those markets at this time. I don't think it is an issue of them not wanting to compete. Nobody goes into business to be the "4th" best.

The 645D is definitely a play for professional photographers and Pentax will expand on that and build upon it. I have already been crunching number to see what I can sell my Contax 645 w/glass, & Canon 5D w/L glass for. I have already sold $3,000 in Olympus glass and equipment.