Originally posted by fisheye freak When smaller format cameras hit higher megapixels such as 40MP, just what will FF prove? At this stage, the lenses will need to be improved. Given the best that the old 35mm film could attain(80 MP equivalent) with best case scenario(Tec pan 25 ISO with best lens at best aperture.) Such shots could be blown up to 16 x 20 inch easily and were grainless. How often do we NEED to enlarge to that sort of size? For those odd shots that do need to be blown up so large, stitching programs can be used. Static landscapes that benefit from a lot of detail need the megapixels, but stitching can give gigapixels. Sports action that cannot be stitched does not rely on high detail- timing the action is what counts. Looks like macro and wildlife is where FF could be useful, at a cost of weight and cost. I suspect that like 35mm film, full frame sensors for regular non professional use has passed its use-by date. Pentax has probably missed the FF boat unless they can pull out some category-killer feature.
I believe the next round of APS format DSLRs will be mainly around the 24MP. Remember when 3.2MP was the ants pants? The next step up from 24MP could well be 40MP in 18 months time. Something to look forward to.
My concern with a smaller format hitting higher megapixels is noise/low light performance. When I am editing a wedding where my second shooter had a ff I do not need to apply noise reduction in the same way that I have to for my shots from the k5. Yes, in the end the shots are indistinguishable but every bit of post processing I can get is helpful and the lower light I can shoot in too, because some of those churches out there are pretty dark and don't allow flash.
In addition to ff being useful for sports (IMHO that requires both timing and detail to get it right), landscapes (so you don't have to stitch), macro and wildlife, ff is also great at events and parties. When you add all of those things up, it is a pretty attractive camera for an amateur photographer with a family and a little bit of money. It would cover every type of shooting they would want/need to do. I see a lot of dslr cameras out at weddings and some guests have easily out spent me for their kits. I do believe there is a market for ff for the advanced amateur and that is why we are seeing those rumors of a Nikon and canon ff at or below $2000. Pentax could come in around that $2000 price and with better features as it would be their top of the line and start to really build from that niche market. Of course, Pentax would also be selling the to all the pros out their using them and to people like the ones on here who have expressed that desire for ff.
As to 16x20 prints, if you aren't printing large frequently you should start! Of course my pro stuff has a need to be printed this large all the time, people love a large print of their wedding. But I print large for my house too. There is something really satisifying about having a huge print - much more than looking at the image on a screen.