Originally posted by Ash ....
Oh, who am I kidding? - Pentax is dead already.... everyone's been saying so for years...
....
Im not saying Pentax is dead. Im confused about this full frame worship.
You have spectacular images in your gallery. Taken with an "inferior" APS-C camera that has no future and sooner or later must be replaced with some "REAL" format.
I dont think so.
There is not enough objective reasons for current APS-C level cameras to be replaced by FF unless APS-C gets used in compacts.
Or else you'd get a gap where FF's starting DSLRS at 1000$ and 4/3u, compacts, other weird concepts ending at 500$. Manufacturers want to a way leech the money in-between, by continuing endless upgrades and making as much segmentation as possible.
There are, for example already been serious discussions how much better the 40D IQ is vs 400D. Manufacturers don't like such talks. They want you to buy 400d, make you think its not enough and upgrade to 40d without a doubt it will be making better pictures.
It is more likely that they will get more merged with the upper levels of compact cameras than get replaced with FF. Something along the lines of disappearing OVF's, decreasing register distances and different body form factors, better universal/ultrazoom lenses. Making it more cluttered and possible to generate endless combinations of functionality and price.
And if more closer to reality. When they went digital they replaced ONE line of lenses, ONE system (btw after almost 10 years they are not quite over yet.. take the same normal fast prime for example). By making an FF it would not be a replacement. They would have to support TWO slightly overlapping (like one point five
) systems. This would make lens production and available range for each system even more limited. And take the price of 60-250, how much it would cost for FF?