Originally posted by Pål Jensen The problem is that there is no such force in the DSLR arena. In 2012 all potential "big" FF sellers where either introduced or recently introduced; ie at their peak selling moment. Still, the FF share stood virtually still. Expect a following decline.
Better sensors makes smaller sensor more viable in the market.
That's price, not sensor size.
I have argued on other threads that price is the Pentax FF problem as the # of people who will buy a $2,000 body and $4,000 system is very, very small compared to those who will buy a $500 system.
Better larger sensors at the same price as the smaller sensors is what is killing smaller sensors. Smartphones are moving to larger sensors and killing the P&S market. To survive as a standalone camera, the design will require:
1) Larger sensor that a smartphone cannot cram in; the consumer is buying pure IQ increases for special events, functions, trip of a lifetime, etc.
2) Dedicated functionality, like ruggedness, WR, underwater, like GoPro with video
3) Highly specialized applications, like what Ricoh has with their industrial solutions products
There may be room for a P&S small sensor in a system camera, but not at $400, closer to the traditional $250 price point being rapidly vacated by P&S models because smartphones ate that turf in 2 years. And its going to be a toy system, not really in the mirrorless camp.
Is this really what Pentax intended with the Q? I think not. Go back to their original statements about it and I think they genuinely thought that Nikon, Sony, Canon, and Fuji would not go to an intermediate sensor size like 1" for fear of cannibalizing DSLR sales. I think the Pentax guys bet it all on the idea that people would be fine paying near low-end DSLR prices for a P&S sensor in a mini-system camera. When Nikon debuted the CX-series and Sony did the RX100 I bet there was a collective gasp at Pentax.