[D1N0]

It is more than five years ago some said FF would dominate the marked by now. They were wrong.
It can be argued that there has been no real traction in the FF market the last five years. The year both entry level FF DSLR's were released (D600 and 6D), which happens to be the same year the 5DIII and the D800 were new and in their prime selling time, the market increase for FF was only from about 6% to 8% of the total DSLR share. (In addition, the competing APS DSLR's were all old. And now the K-3 is here and proven very popular). The minor increase in FF popularity, in spite of the news interest in the new model all of them representing the bulk of FF sales, really indicate that the FF market is truly saturated....

It is about profitability.
I don't think the marked for FF willl be significantly better down the road. Sensors are getting better making a stronger case for smaller sensors.

Cheaper FF sensors have been available for less than a year. It is not just about pixel iq but also about DOF characteristis. FF Sensor will become cheaper when the move from 12" to 18" wafers is made. Al lot more sensors will be made per production cycle.

[Pål Jensen]

Cheaper FF sensors have been available for less than a year. It is not just about pixel iq but also about DOF characteristis. FF Sensor will become cheaper when the move from 12" to 18" wafers is made. Al lot more sensors will be made per production cycle.

But the first year is when the sales of new models are strongest. DOF characteristics is in fact against the FF format. 99,99% (without exaggregation!) of all images shot have DOF no thinner that what you can easily achieve with APS. People want DOF in their images. Catering for the 0,01% won't cut it when the competition let you shoot at one stop faster shutterspeed for the same DOF.
Cheaper FF sensor also means equally cheaper smaller sensors. All you do is lowering the baseline for what camera costs. Lenses will continue to cost the same though....

[boriscleto]

Lenses will continue to cost the same though....

Lenses will continue to increase in price.

[cali92rs]

But the first year is when the sales of new models are strongest. DOF characteristics is in fact against the FF format. 99,99% (without exaggregation!) of all images shot have DOF no thinner that what you can easily achieve with APS. People want DOF in their images. Catering for the 0,01% won't cut it when the competition let you shoot at one stop faster shutterspeed for the same DOF.
Cheaper FF sensor also means equally cheaper smaller sensors. All you do is lowering the baseline for what camera costs. Lenses will continue to cost the same though....

If you think the only advantage of FF is thinner DOF, you are sadly mistaken.
By your logic, why not just go to a smaller format than APS? You can get all the DOF you want with a 1/1/7" sensor.

[Pål Jensen]

If you think the only advantage of FF is thinner DOF, you are sadly mistaken.
By your logic, why not just go to a smaller format than APS? You can get all the DOF you want with a 1/1/7" sensor.

Where did I say that?
Read before you reply.

[cali92rs]

Where did I say that?

It seems like every one of your posts spew the same thing, "people want more DOF, they dont want less", while never mentioning the fact that you get better SNR (less noise), more DR, and diffraction sets in later with a larger sensor.
You also seem to ignore that you can stop down to get more DOF, but the reverse isn't true.

[aurele]

Cheaper FF sensor also means equally cheaper smaller sensors. All you do is lowering the baseline for what camera costs. Lenses will continue to cost the same though....

For the last years, the sensor and the megapickels are no longer the main selling arguments. the VF size (no matter if it's EVF or OVF), the swivel screen, the burst rate, the AF, body size, the ergonomics, etc ... are now the main selling points.
That's what is changing the market.

If pentax succeed in creating a rather small (but easy to hold) body, big bright VF, with great ergonomics, no matter the number of megapickels on the sensor (considering in this case a FF one). In fact something different than the big two, it can be a real winner, a real showcase of the main idea of what is a Pentax camera.

[Pål Jensen]

It seems like every one of your posts spew the same thing, "people want more DOF, they dont want less", while never mentioning the fact that you get better SNR (less noise), more DR, and diffraction sets in later with a larger sensor.
You also seem to ignore that you can stop down to get more DOF, but the reverse isn't true.

Why don't you read what I'm writing. I did not bring up DOF. I was replying to someone who said that FF was not only about pixel peeping but also about thin DOF. I replied that thin DOF is not suitable feature to inccrease FF popularity. And you make this out to be that I think thin DOF is FF's only virtue !
If anything I'm saying the opposite.

I have always said that larger formats is about better image quality. Claiming that I ignore that you can stop down FF for more DOF is hilarious when I have said the very same thing in post you were replying to. Do you read what you reply to?
One stop longer shutterspeed at the same DOF compared to APS is the same thing as stopping down the FF.

[D1N0]

It is not just about DOF it is a combination between focal length DOF sharpness to unsharpness transition. On the same focal length you will get more FOV. This means that the perception of the photograph will be like the viewer is closer to the subject and not looking to binoculars. It gives a more intimate and at the same time more open impression to a photograph. That is the real strength of full frame.

[Pål Jensen]

It is not just about DOF it is a combination between focal length DOF sharpness to unsharpness transition. On the same focal length you will get more FOV. This means that the perception of the photograph will be like the viewer is closer to the subject and not looking to binoculars. It gives a more intimate and at the same time more open impression to a photograph. That is the real strength of full frame.

But this is lost on the public who can't tell the difference whether a print is made from FF or APS. You are still catering to the few here.
The looks of this format vs that is purely subjective; some think APS is perfect, others FF and some MF. For me FF is about better image quality than you can get from APS.

[Uluru]

One crucial thing we all confuse ourselves is that we think of digital cameras in terms of film. We ought to think about them in terms of computers. How many 16-core desktop class Xeons end up in computers? And how many energy efficient and small A5/6/7 chips end up in iDevices?
Even if Xeon costs just $1, it is totally impractical for an iDevice. A bad choice. And yet iDevices are replacing desktop PCs daily.

We are already on that level of quality of small sensors that cameras like Q7 and MX-1 beat the old 35mm film. A K-3 level camera is at the quality of the film MF.
Lens is the only department where image characteristics can be different, but that is also the weakest point of any 35mm camera too; a really good 35mm optics costs a fortune, and cheap ones are worse or as good as good optics for the small sensor. And smaller and more versatile camera is easier to make with smaller sensor and better quality smaller optics, and will easier find its customer too. Etc.

Pentax totally got it right: the 1/1.7" and APS-C sensors are the sweetest spots of digital photography. Every camera being a compromise of sorts, those two deliver most benefits and varied design choices at a very little overall loss of quality. Therefore their K-class DSLRs and Q mount cameras.

In film days 35 mm film was at the bottom of film food chain and it was present everywhere. In digital era the 35mm sensor is on the top of the sensor food chain and is doomed to stay there. FF will always be a niche.

[northcoastgreg]

Does anyone think the FF market will not be bigger down the road than today?

I doubt the FF market will be much bigger, if it will be bigger at all. It's not just that FF cameras are more expensive. FF glass, particularly zoom glass, is becoming more and more expensive. Just look at some of the prices of new Nikon or Canon FF glass, or the Sony FF glass for their new mirrorless offering.

[mecrox]

One crucial thing we all confuse ourselves is that we think of digital cameras in terms of film. We ought to think about them in terms of computers. How many 16-core desktop class Xeons end up in computers? And how many energy efficient and small A5/6/7 chips end up in iDevices?
Even if Xeon costs just $1, it is totally impractical for an iDevice. A bad choice. And yet iDevices are replacing desktop PCs daily.

We are already on that level of quality of small sensors that cameras like Q7 and MX-1 beat the old 35mm film. A K-3 level camera is at the quality of the film MF.
Lens is the only department where image characteristics can be different, but that is also the weakest point of any 35mm camera too; a really good 35mm optics costs a fortune, and cheap ones are worse or as good as good optics for the small sensor. And smaller and more versatile camera is easier to make with smaller sensor and better quality smaller optics, and will easier find its customer too. Etc.

Pentax totally got it right: the 1/1.7" and APS-C sensors are the sweetest spots of digital photography. Every camera being a compromise of sorts, those two deliver most benefits at a very little overall loss of quality. Therefore their K-class DSLRs and Q mount cameras.

In film days 35 mm film was at the bottom of film food chain and it was present everywhere. In digital era the 35mm sensor is on the top of the sensor food chain and is doomed to stay there. FF will always be a niche.

Having just returned from a break in a popular spot down South, I was surprised by the number of folks walking around with a red ring on their Canon lenses - so they've been buying L grade. And by the number of people carrying a Canon 6D. The majority of visitors were from Germany so far as I could tell and I know that Canon is popular there. One can see how this can be a win-win for a manufacturer. If you make FF cameras they you'll also make FF lenses which you can price up and then sell to lots of folks who don't have an FF camera but one of your APS-C ones. They still aspire to quality glass, though. Without an FF camera in their arsenal and a range of quality glass to go with it, this nifty upsell is not available to Pentax.

[D1N0]

But this is lost on the public who can't tell the difference whether a print is made from FF or APS. You are still catering to the few here.
The looks of this format vs that is purely subjective; some think APS is perfect, others FF and some MF. For me FF is about better image quality than you can get from APS.

It does not matter what is lost on "the public"the public does not even care about iq. They just care about sharing whatever crap they want to show their friends, complaining about iq is frowned upon. A full frame would be aimed at enthusiasts and maybe even pro's. Everything is subjective to some extent but sensor size does have an objective influence on pictures because of the focal lenght fov combination. I care about the feel of a pic and a more close up and airy feel appeals to me. Something the m43 crowd does not care to understand because they say look at my camera, instead of look at my images.

[oxidized]

I care about the feel of a pic and a more close up and airy feel appeals to me. Something the m43 crowd does not care to understand because they say look at my camera, instead of look at my images.

couldnt have said it better myself