It only will take one company to continue APS-C or less (4/3) formats to deny your so called "forcing consumers into this". I think you already know the name of at least one of those.
Radu

That of course will depend on whether that company is making their own sensors.

I think we are getting close to the time when the manufacturer begins to decide what we want and will take choices like APS-C or FF away from the consumer and offering them choice of colour instead.

[K-9]

I fully agree but your 2 assertions are far from being the same. Yes, plasma tech evolved and it is an alternative among LCD, OLED, DLP, projectors for big screen tv and video, a lot of processors are available and evolved tremendously but not a single one has eliminated all the others. And one more differences IMO is that all the general electronics has a luxury that sensors don't have. The chips can shrink and will shrink until physics lows won't allow it anymore.

So, yes all the technology will come down in price and increase in performance but the ratio of areas will pretty much remain the same (with the observation that the difficulty is not linear).

Radu

The OLED TV I saw at the Sony store last year was only like 6 or 7 inches for $3000-$4000. They won't keep selling the 7" for $4000 when they finally come out with a 32" for similar price. I just saw an 11" OLED TV at BandH for $2499. Already a larger size and cheaper price in a year's time and I don't see the small one even sold anymore.

Once a new technology is here, the older one may stick around until all stock are sold, but they don't return to it.

[ytterbium]

Full frame isnt as much about technology evolution as it is about its application.

It is the same as saying the everyone will be driving trucks instead of ordinary cars because they will become cheaper.

Technology evolves but those improvements are implemented in respective segments. If it was a year or two when APS-C was as a transition to the digital full frame upon the introduction of digital SLR's then you could talk about it gradually becoming obselete.
Now it has taken a very stable and suitable position offering many advantages as an entry level/compact format.
As previously told, you can only expect larger divergence between full frame and APS-C cameras, creating greater gap between the two. Expect more rugged and feature rich FF's and silver bodied APS-C's with plastic mounts, EVF's and pink rounded lenses without manual focus ring. Thats how they will make pay for the $1000 FF everyone who need serios camera or otherwise leave you with acceptable quality, exchangable lens gadget.

P.S. I still don't believe that sensor prices have come down that much as well as they make up most of the camera price. If you can provide a graph showing one manufacturers latest sensor price during last few years maybe i will believe.
I think tuat they just been putting a lot more stuff in those cams, that they usually don't put in APS-C ones. Do you think that those big penta-prism glass humps come for free, or their manufacture technology has changed significantly during last 20 years?
Or that ton of magnesium alloy to make up those huge, rigid bricks for big hands. Or higher precision (because of shallower DOF), wider coverage (FF frame is bigger, current pentax 11-point sensor would cover only the very centre of FF) AF modules cost the same? If they use plastic bodies as for APS-C cameras then they will get closer to APS-C. It is very likely that the price decrease seen is just a product of cheaper memories, processors, decreased difference between actual manufacture expenses and price for the name and exclusivity, more sloppy manufacture and lower quality components (which is not seen from the outside).

That of course will depend on whether that company is making their own sensors.

I think we are getting close to the time when the manufacturer begins to decide what we want and will take choices like APS-C or FF away from the consumer and offering them choice of colour instead.

Don't forget Gary that as real as it is what you said about access to sensors could be the other way around. Imagine that tomorrow Intel or IBM decide that they want in this sensor business. They have a lot of technical prowess in semiconductors and few options to whom to sell the final products. The foundries of the AMD separated and they have state on the art technology available to almost any paying customers.
Also Kodak makes APS-H, FF (in a week Leica will announce the FF M9) and over FF sized sensors and they could make lots more if they would have a camera partner.

It's not an one way street IMO.
Radu

[FullertonImages]

My prediction is that in the near future, the combination of FF getting cheaper and more accessible and aps-c improving its capbilities, will result in these two formats no longer be designated as 'professional' and 'prosumer'. Instead, I think there will be cameras for all levels of shooter in either format. There's will be very high end, powerful aps-c dslrs, an there will be crappy low end FF's. It become a funtion of what's right for the job. In my opinion, if Pentax came out with an amazing FF dslr tomorrow, it wouldn't change my needs for the K-7. I would want both, and I would use which ever one was better for the job. It's niceto be able to shoot and f/2.8 and keep more stuff in focus, it's nice to be able to get more reach out of your lenses. It's also nice to be able to shoot mega wide or get really clean images in low light. The formats will no longer be asociated with price range or professionalism, and will just become diferent tools.

The problem with the current Pentax line up is that it is way too redundant. I know lotsof people that have a d300 and a d700/d3, and use them both constantly, and I know lots of people that have a 50d and a 5dmkII and use them both. But now having a k-7 and a k20, there's no time where I'm like I'd rather be shooting with the k20. There enough over lap in the current lineup, that if you have any two cameras, there's no reason to ever be using the leer model. Size used to be the only one. I could see someone waning to ue their k2000 instead of their k20, because they wanted something small at the moment, but with the k-7's smaller size, I don't even think that's enough of a reason anymore.

Like other's have said before, I think aps-h might be the next logical step. Many more of the DA* lenses would work with this format, it would introduce more diversity into the lineup nd would allo for larger pixel sites/more MP. I would think and 18mp aps-h with some really nice pro features like 1/250th+ sync speed, further improved AF, two card slots, full size body without need for a grip but still smaller than 1d's and d3's, and pretty darn good high ISO capabilities, would be an amazing package. I would get one, and it would make for an awesome small professional kit betwen it, the k-7 and the DA* series.

Don't forget Gary that as real as it is what you said about access to sensors could be the other way around. Imagine that tomorrow Intel or IBM decide that they want in this sensor business. They have a lot of technical prowess in semiconductors and few options to whom to sell the final products. The foundries of the AMD separated and they have state on the art technology available to almost any paying customers.
Also Kodak makes APS-H, FF (in a week Leica will announce the FF M9) and over FF sized sensors and they could make lots more if they would have a camera partner.

It's not an one way street IMO.
Radu

Ya got me there. maybe.

I still stand by my second statement though. The manufacturers are already taking real choice out of the customers hands and replacing it with perceived choice.

[rparmar]

Technology is not whether or not the majority of people, care, know, or will ever get it. It moves fast and companies have to keep up. Do you think that Apple cared if anyone ever needed a G5 chip when there were still people who only used computers for chat rooms and used a dial up modem?

Technology does not exist in a vacuum; it exists in the market. Companies are not going to invest in an expensive new technology if there is not a reasonable expectation of demand.

The fact that some people use dial-up modems has what to do with chip speed? What to do with processer architecture? And what to do with cameras? Exactly nothing.

[schmik]

There is an expression...... Never argue with an idiot. First he will drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

And what does this have to do with sensor size? hahahaha The internet would be boring wiothout these little spats.

I know lotsof people that have a d300 and a d700/d3, and use them both constantly, and I know lots of people that have a 50d and a 5dmkII and use them both. But now having a k-7 and a k20, there's no time where I'm like I'd rather be shooting with the k20.

Predicting the futurte of DSLR sales based on people who own TWO expensive DSLRs is not wise. they do not represent the greater market.

Technology is not whether or not the majority of people, care, know, or will ever get it. It moves fast and companies have to keep up. Do you think that Apple cared if anyone ever needed a G5 chip when there were still people who only used computers for chat rooms and used a dial up modem?

But that race is almost over. We 'could' have computers 4 times more powerful than we do on our desks at work to perform a job but we do not..... because the ones we have now do the job just fine.

I know it doesn't feel like it all the time but there is a finish to a lot of these races. I'm not saying that the tech stops improving but it just isn't important anymore because it is good enough.
eg... when was was the last time you wished your cell phone was smaller? once upon a time this was part of the race.

mike

[ytterbium]

But that race is almost over. We 'could' have computers 4 times more powerful than we do on our desks at work to perform a job but we do not..... because the ones we have now do the job just fine.

I know it doesn't feel like it all the time but there is a finish to a lot of these races. I'm not saying that the tech stops improving but it just isn't important anymore because it is good enough.
eg... when was was the last time you wished your cell phone was smaller? once upon a time this was part of the race.

mike

So true.. just a few years back everyone was constantly upgrading their pc's and always tried to get the best there is just for the PC to be able to run latest software packages after a year or two. Now most of people except for those who the top performance really matters (like gamers, 3d movie renderers, science centers and similar) are using the same already 4..5 or more year old computers.
Most of people upgrading just go from PC to Laptop without much increase in specification or buy another PC when the previous brakes down.

How much "heavier" can a word processor get without starting to look like a game or programming environment and being too confusing. Now you need a leap in software or whole new approach to computers to make significant number of user go for expensive and considerable upgrades.

Now i can start a browser, music player, gimp and a word processor on current years dual core 2 gig computer or few years older celeron with 1 gig of memory and i actually feel no big difference, they both perform well and respond quick enough that i don't have to wait for anything.
Both run the games i like (most of them even more older than the computers, some nostalgic game "classics").

[Clarkey]

Ya got me there. maybe.

I still stand by my second statement though. The manufacturers are already taking real choice out of the customers hands and replacing it with perceived choice.

I agree - I don't know how the powers that be agree on specifications, but I bet it is on what can be commercially delivered with a small input of perceived customer need.

Sensor partner: How about Toshiba?

[schmik]

I also find it funny how 'we' all think that FF will trickle down to entry level DSLR..... camera company execs probably want to stick a P&S sensor in there.

I guess APS.C is a good compromise.

mike

[rparmar]

I agree mike, so time to bow out of this discussion. I'm sore from that "experience" you mentioned.

[soycory]

I think people like the idea for the following reasons and is the reason why Pentax needs a more expensive/professional - Full Frame DSLR

1. People like to see that they are using the same camera as a pro. The person with a Nikon D40 feels like they have the same thing as the National Geographic photographer with 3 D3Xs. They know they can use the same lenses etc. and feel that they are "part of the club"

2. People like to feel that they have something they could upgrade to. The lowest DSLR made by Pentax or any other decent company is good enough for most of us, but I remember when I first got into photography I had a Canon AE1 and would still look at an F1N and think ... Someday I am going to buy one. I stuck with Canon for a long time gradually getting better bodies (Never a F1N or EOS 1) I had the dream of having a "real" pro body.

[ozlizard]

I know it doesn't feel like it all the time but there is a finish to a lot of these races. I'm not saying that the tech stops improving but it just isn't important anymore because it is good enough.
eg... when was was the last time you wished your cell phone was smaller? once upon a time this was part of the race.

I agree, but when is enough enough? I would have thought that in relation to DSLR's the benchmark is the IQ of film images. I read somewhere that we are only just getting to that level with 14-15 megapixel cameras (and there is some debate about that!). Are the current top end DSLR's (Canon 5D MK2, NIkon D700, Sony 900 etc) producing images equal to or better than film?
I think that once we get images as good or better (is there a better?) than film then that would be enough for me and if it takes a FF camera to acheive it then that's what I want.

1. People like to see that they are using the same camera as a pro. The person with a Nikon D40 feels like they have the same thing as the National Geographic photographer with 3 D3Xs. They know they can use the same lenses etc. and feel that they are "part of the club"

2. People like to feel that they have something they could upgrade to. The lowest DSLR made by Pentax or any other decent company is good enough for most of us, but I remember when I first got into photography I had a Canon AE1 and would still look at an F1N and think ... Someday I am going to buy one. I stuck with Canon for a long time gradually getting better bodies (Never a F1N or EOS 1) I had the dream of having a "real" pro body.

Pentax have never made Pro DSLRs, the LX had Pro features admittedly but it was never the market that Pentax chose to align themselves with. Their Pro line was medium format which isn't really considered an upgrade from DSLR.
There are Pros using Pentax DSLRs however. A true pro is defined by his/her work, not the camera they use.