Originally posted by Aristophanes 1. By emphasizing the high ISO qualities you're changing the yardstick. High ISO resolution is not necessarily a feature of the FF sensor itself. Current MF cameras often don't go over ISO 400 for a variety of reasons. Sensor gain is a technical advancement that relies a lot on software interpretation.
Noise performance
is, actually, a function of the sensor,
all else being equal. MF backs are tuned to absolute performance at low ISO because high ISO doesn't matter to MF back users for the most part, so that's not really an applicable comparison. All else being equal, lower pixel density will translate to lower per-pixel noise levels. This will continue to be a selling point for FF sensors until we hit the practical density limit for both APS-C and FF, at which point the extra resolution of FF sensor at the same density will still allow it to be downsized to the resolution of the APS-C to reduce noise, so it will continue to have an advantage over APS-C. We're a ways away from that though.
Quote: 2. Virtually all APS-C cameras sold in 2009 are capable of stunning results that place the format well beyond most 35mm film cameras. So the relative value of APS-C is already proven in a smaller form factor than FF. That's critical to widespread sales. APS-C satisfies 99% of the DSLR market in terms of quality, and it's only going to get better.
99% is your subjective number, but I won't argue against the fact that APS-C is already very capable and more than enough for the vast majority of users.
Quote: 3. Prosumer APS-C bodies can go substantially lower in price. In fact, I expect they will as they are in the "feature addition" phase right now with HD video come into into vogue. You will likely see APS-C bodies drop into the sub-$400 range, with older models below that. The bodies are not the cost issue (EVF replacing mirrors/prisms). The optics are. That's the FF rub.
Prosumer APS-C bodies won't drop to sub-$400 at introduction anytime soon. I predict the next generation of mid-range FF bodies will be in the low $2K range, and the next generation after that will be sub-$2K. Prosumer APS-C won't drop that much in 2 generations. There just isn't room. But we're both gazing into our crystal balls at this point, and yours might be clearer than mine.
Cost of optics has been the rallying cry for APS-C for a while (Olympus in particular), but how many manufacturers have actually capitalized on the potential? Olympus often charge FF-
equivalent prices on their lenses. They've gotten better now that prices have settled down a bit, but they still charge way too much for their lenses that only need to project an image circle big enough to cover a 2x crop sensor. Pentax might be close with their DA Limiteds, but it's hard to compare those to anything since no manufacturers have anything similar. Plus there are very few APS-C lenses, particularly large-aperture primes, that match up in max aperture and image quality to existing FF solutions. So it's all fine and well to say that APS-C optics are cheaper, but until we see top quality APS-C lenses of all varieties, where's the beef?
Quote: 4. As with most premium products, manufacturers can go a long way to retaining the margins by elevating pricing. In such a small market segment such as FF, there is less incentive to compete on price. Look to the MF market for an example of that dynamic. Again, the optics are the key.
That's true. But FF is much lower on the premium-price-vs-competition scale, i.e., there's a larger market than for MF and more incentive to compete on price. Obviously FF will never be cheaper than APS-C, but it has already dropped significantly (5D was $3300, 5DII is $2700) and will continue to drop more rapidly than APS-C can.