[illdefined]

Illdefined, we're running in circles and it's both tiresome and pointless. It was simply a "burden of proof" matter (see below your original post), and you failed to provide it.

You're welcome to save this message and prove e.g. next summer, with data for the current fiscal year, that what you're claiming to be happening now is true, and how Pentax failed because they still didn't made a "full frame" DSLR.
Until then, I'll be more optimistic about the APS-C's prospects - and firmly believe it MUST be properly developed, alongside their plans for a future "full frame".
Have a nice day.

Agreed Kunzite, i'll keep this note too, and see if your APS-C DSLR "growth trend" continues. (even if it did, what matters is how much of that growth pertains to Pentax not Canon and Nikon)

I'm making no such guesses. I only said that, unless otherwise proved, it's safe to assume that right now the growing trend was continued. That's how trends works

Not sure why only my prognostications require "burden of proof", short of a time machine....it's a prediction afterall. ultimately, I believe we had a misunderstanding of tenses.

I too believe DA (K-mount APS-C) should continue to evolve alongside further FF development, just not exclusively with a mirror behind it.

[Franky2step]

I think the mirrorless limitations will become less and less prevalent over the next 5 years to the point where they will be negligible.

Sony already pushed this movement further with their "translucent mirror. Best of both worlds?

[Kunzite]

Agreed Kunzite, i'll keep this note too, and see if your APS-C DSLR "growth trend" continues. (even if it did, what matters is how much of that growth pertains to Pentax not Canon and Nikon)

With only the K-30 and the K-5II, it would be difficult to "steal" market share from the big two; I expect the real battle to start in the next fiscal year.

ultimately, I believe we had a misunderstanding of tenses.

Quite possibly.

[ozlizard]

My thoiughts.

I think that aps-c cameras will morph into more compact, mirrorless, high tech cameras while the top end enthusiest/pro versions will morph into FF. You can see this already happening with the release of the new canikon FF models.
It may well be that nearly all digital cameras will be FF in the future. Call it natural progression.

[Unsinkable II]

According to Thom Hogan, the future belongs to mirrorless and EV DSLRs:

Did Mirrorless Miss? | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan



"Many months ago I was made privy to a set of sales numbers collected and predicted by a major financial player (you'd know the name), and who was using that to make predictions about which companies that make cameras would and wouldn't thrive in the coming years. The supplier of these numbers was asking for my comments about the predictions on the camera market implicit in those numbers out through 2018.

Here's the thing that I said to my questioner after analyzing those numbers: mirrorless is going to hit a lower peak in sales than DSLRs.

We're starting to get decent numbers out of CIPA about mirrorless production, so can actually test against the predictions that I was given to assess. I stand by what I wrote.

Tech disruptions all follow a similar pattern, the well-known hockey stick curve. Early on there's little growth and the curve is near the bottom and flat (that would be the early Leica digital era ;~). Then the disruption gets leverage and takes off (m4/3 kicked that off). The angle of the growth slope and the length of the growth slope is important. Eventually the growth tapers and you get a plateau at the top. Basically: _/¯ is the way every tech disruption curve looks overall, with only the angle and size of the / being different.

One thing I look for is how long the >100% growth lasts. That tells us a lot about both things. Guess what? Mirrorless is already down to 50% growth per anum. Last year: 4m units. This year: 6m units (predicted out of CIPA numbers). That represents a far quicker decline of growth than the DSLR market saw, thus the general conclusion you have to reach is that the peak in sales won't be as high.

Of course, 50% market growth is >50% larger than the current "growth" in compact camera sales, which is highly negative now. And it's still better than the low double-digit growth in DSLRs. That's why everyone wants to play in the mirrorless market: it's the best way to show any significant sales growth in any of the camera markets (outside of smartphones, which is beyond the reach of most camera companies, and even outside the camera group in the few that do play there). Play your cards right and you can actually take a bit of overall market share from the leading three players (Canon, Sony, and Nikon).

Since I've been writing a series of articles over on bythom.com this month about the viability of DX (and by assumption APS) DSLRs, which are the heart of the DSLR market, it's worth commenting on what's likely to happen in coming years. DSLRs will defend themselves for awhile, then become EVFs (ala what Sony has done with their DSLR lineup). In other words, most of the DSLR market is posed to eventually merge with mirrorless. Taken together, mirrorless and EVF DSLRs will be bigger than mirrorless or DSLRs by themselves. But it also means that we'll be back to the too many players trying to grab market share from one another problem. Don't underestimate the Canon/Nikon will to dominate this market. They may not appear to be competitive at the moment in mirrorless, but they will have to dominate the combined mirrorless/DSLR market in the future to stay players in cameras.

Sony is the oddball in the race. They are actually successful at mirrorless, not so successful at DSLRs (in terms of market share). I look to Sony to try to leverage their mirrorless success against Canon and Nikon as the markets start coming more together. But here's a message to Sony: get off your butts and produce more and better NEX lenses! There isn't a lot of time until Canon and Nikon figure out what they're going to do in the combined mirrorless/DSLR world and start producing their own solutions, including lenses. The other players need every advantage they can muster to hold off the Big Two. "

[illdefined]

According to Thom Hogan, the future belongs to mirrorless and EV DSLRs:

Did Mirrorless Miss? | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

all due respect to Thom, but he's a bit of a mess. what is the "Reflex" for in "EVF DSLRs" ? does he mean hybrids like Sony's SLTs or full on mirrorless with DSLR mounts like the K-01? if he does indeed mean SLTs, why is Sony the "oddball choice" if they're actually first?

[northcoastgreg]

now that Olympus with the help of Sony has improved the sensor quality of the m4/3 format, even APS-C mirrorless may look a bit bulky for those that are willing to give up the OVF.

The size of the glass is a definite issue with APS-C mirrorless cameras like Sony NEX. It limits the variety of lenses and accessories that can go with it, which will put it at a disadvantage against the DSLR systems. It is also the reason why Canon, Nikon and Pentax aren't interested in FF mirrorless. It's not a format that can grow like a DSLR system. There are too many lenses (e.g., most zooms) that would be too big for it.

Maybe 99% of the photographers who think you have to have a big camera to take good pictures.

It's not prejudice against smaller cameras. I've heard several interviews of pro photographers who love some of the smaller mirrorless cameras like the Fuji X-Pro but admit that they are harder to use than DSLRs. A camera can be too big, but it can also be too small. I know someone who moved from a Canon 60D to a NEX and he's having a heck of a time getting sharp images out of that little sony camera. His hands are just too big for the camera.

Small cameras have their place. But so do larger cameras. Consumers are not going to be forced against their will to take one or the other. Many will choose both.

[vonBaloney]

The size of the glass is a definite issue with APS-C mirrorless cameras like Sony NEX. It limits the variety of lenses and accessories that can go with it, which will put it at a disadvantage against the DSLR systems. It is also the reason why Canon, Nikon and Pentax aren't interested in FF mirrorless. It's not a format that can grow like a DSLR system. There are too many lenses (e.g., most zooms) that would be too big for it.

You could make an FF mirrorless with an EVF styled like a smallish DSLR -- like a K-5 size. Just no big mirror slapping and an electronic shutter. I'd buy that.

[illdefined]

The size of the glass is a definite issue with APS-C mirrorless cameras like Sony NEX. It limits the variety of lenses and accessories that can go with it, which will put it at a disadvantage against the DSLR systems. It is also the reason why Canon, Nikon and Pentax aren't interested in FF mirrorless. It's not a format that can grow like a DSLR system. There are too many lenses (e.g., most zooms) that would be too big for it.

I think Sony heard the criticism (and the m4/3rds competition) and is starting to do a better job, see their new (APS-C) kit zoom below..

Small cameras have their place. But so do larger cameras. Consumers are not going to be forced against their will to take one or the other. Many will choose both.

agree with you here, but if intentionally choosing a bigger camera, wouldn't it generally be preferable to carry the biggest sensor the mount allows?

[normhead]

The thing that's big and bothers me with my DSLR is not the size of the camera. It's the size of that DA* 60-250 I carry with me everywhere. When the 21 Ltd is on the camera, I have no need for smaller, I already carry cameras in my pocket, waterproof, shock proof cameras that I can put in my vest pocket and forget about until I need them. Now if Sony comes up with a 300mm lens that weighs a few ounces to go with that little body, now we're on to something. On long lenses, the camera is just this little thing that hangs on the back of the lens. I guess I should care about what size it is, but really, unless it gets to Canon FF size, or MF size, I don't.

[Winder]

The size of the glass is a definite issue with APS-C mirrorless cameras like Sony NEX. It limits the variety of lenses and accessories that can go with it, which will put it at a disadvantage against the DSLR systems. It is also the reason why Canon, Nikon and Pentax aren't interested in FF mirrorless. It's not a format that can grow like a DSLR system. There are too many lenses (e.g., most zooms) that would be too big for it.

I shot with a Canon 5D up until this Spring when I sold all my Canon gear. I had the 24-70L, 85L, 135L. I had other lenses at different times, but always those three. Even people who collect a lot of glass end up only using a very few. Once your shooting style is established, for good or bad you tend to stick to it. Currently for the K-5 I have the 31mm LTD, 50mm Sigma, & 85mm Sigma. I have borrowed a DA* 200mm, and I might get a 100mm WR macro. Really I can shoot with the 50mm Sigma 50% of the time.

Wedding togs make up 53% of the professional photographers according to the latest industry report. You don't need more than 3-4 lenses to do a wedding, and none of the big monsters. A Full Frame Evil with 5 lenses in the system would meet the needs of this entire industry. Wedding happens to be what Fuji is famous for. The Nikon bodied Fuji S-series cameras with the Super-CCD sensors were famous for their color (skin) and really wide dynamic range for its day. Fuji is doing very well with the wedding togs again with the X system, and in 2 years they will have all of the lenses they need in the system to meed the needs of 53% of the professional market. Not bad for a niche product. Yes, they still need faster AF and much better predictive AF. Yes, they need faster frame rates and bigger buffers, but this is a 1st generation system. A 1st generation system that is making more progress in the professional market than Pentax has in the last 5 years.

It's not prejudice against smaller cameras. I've heard several interviews of pro photographers who love some of the smaller mirrorless cameras like the Fuji X-Pro but admit that they are harder to use than DSLRs. A camera can be too big, but it can also be too small. I know someone who moved from a Canon 60D to a NEX and he's having a heck of a time getting sharp images out of that little sony camera. His hands are just too big for the camera.

Small cameras have their place. But so do larger cameras. Consumers are not going to be forced against their will to take one or the other. Many will choose both.

I would expect that Fuji will produce a X-mount "Professional" body (larger) soon. One with more processing power, bigger battery and 2 card slots. Look at the new GH3. Mirrorless can be as big as they want. SLRs can only get so small. Mirrorless technology is in its infancy compared to the SLR. Today it is not quite there, but it gets better everyday, and SLR has pretty much maxed out is potential.

[illdefined]

The thing that's big and bothers me with my DSLR is not the size of the camera. It's the size of that DA* 60-250 I carry with me everywhere. When the 21 Ltd is on the camera, I have no need for smaller, I already carry cameras in my pocket, waterproof, shock proof cameras that I can put in my vest pocket and forget about until I need them. Now if Sony comes up with a 300mm lens that weighs a few ounces to go with that little body, now we're on to something. On long lenses, the camera is just this little thing that hangs on the back of the lens. I guess I should care about what size it is, but really, unless it gets to Canon FF size, or MF size, I don't.

less apples to apples here, the panasonic lens is a stop slower at the long end but has more reach, and the m4/3 sensor is smaller but still quite excellent (newer Sony).

[gazonk]

less apples to apples here, the panasonic lens is a stop slower at the long end but has more reach, and the m4/3 sensor is smaller but still quite excellent (newer Sony).

I think you should rather compare with the DA55-300, which has more reach than the Panasonic and is much smaller than the 60-250...

(yes, I know you were replying to a complaint about the bulk of the 60-250, but that Panasonic lens is not in the same league)

[illdefined]

I think you should rather compare with the DA55-300, which has more reach than the Panasonic and is much smaller than the 60-250...

(yes, I know you were replying to a complaint about the bulk of the 60-250, but that Panasonic lens is not in the same league)

yeah, i had tried but they don't have that lens on the site. here's an even comparison, both fixed f2.8, fully weathersealed kit. I'm dying to do a comparison with the 55-135mm DA* but they dont have that lens either (not so many Pentax users on the site I guess).

remember, this is just size, the weight difference is more impressive still.

[Kunzite]

The thing that's big and bothers me with my DSLR is not the size of the camera. It's the size of that DA* 60-250 I carry with me everywhere.

Interesting.
I can fit my camera, 60-250 and my three DA Limiteds inside a Lowepro Nova 1; and I still have room for e.g. the O-GPS1, spare battery etc.