[Aristophanes]

In the truly long term, you might be right. I'm thinking however that the market will become more polarized in the near term: phones eat the P&S segment, leaving room for enticing high-end compacts and evils... The APS-C SLR may feel a squeeze, as FF sensors become cheaper

Except because of yield limitations and contamination error an FF sensor will always cost at least 2.45 time more than an APS-C one.

And an APS-C one will cost 1.75 times more than a CX/1" one.

So at each price point we'll see different sensors, and since sensor size partly determines form factor...

...not much will change.

[jsherman999]

Except because of yield limitations and contamination error an FF sensor will always cost at least 2.45 time more than an APS-C one.

And an APS-C one will cost 1.75 times more than a CX/1" one.

So at each price point we'll see different sensors, and since sensor size partly determines form factor...

...not much will change.

.

The D7000 sensor cost about $50. There's plenty of room in the enthusiast sector for $175 sensors, with the margins staying happily padded.

.

[jsherman999]

. I'm thinking however that the market will become more polarized in the near term: phones eat the P&S segment, leaving room for enticing high-end compacts and evils... The APS-C SLR may feel a squeeze, as FF sensors become cheaper

^^ gets it.

[boriscleto]

The APS-C SLR may feel a squeeze, as FF sensors become cheaper

But APS-C sensors will be even cheaper...

[Nesster]

But APS-C sensors will be even cheaper...

And thus they will be eaten into by the even cheaper camera/phones... If you could have a full frame for $750, or a super fancy compact from Ricoh, Fuji, Nikon, Sigma et al for a bit less, or pay $500 for an APS-C... there's not much pricing room between the phones and the bottom of the Good Camera market.

[boriscleto]

And thus they will be eaten into by the even cheaper camera/phones... If you could have a full frame for $750, or a super fancy compact from Ricoh, Fuji, Nikon, Sigma et al for a bit less, or pay $500 for an APS-C... there's not much pricing room between the phones and the bottom of the Good Camera market.

You wouldn't be paying $500 for an APS-C, APS-C is $500 now. If a FF sensor is being produced in quantities high enough to price a FF camera at $750 then APS-C sensors would be produced in quantities high enough for a $250 camera.

[Nesster]

You wouldn't be paying $500 for an APS-C, APS-C is $500 now. If a FF sensor is being produced in quantities high enough to price a FF camera at $750 then APS-C sensors would be produced in quantities high enough for a $250 camera.

Yes, but will that be economical for the manufacturers, as at that price point you get severe competition from other formats, and no longer have the SLR 'quality advantage' to bank on. I know I bought a NEX at $250; my cell phone contract would get me a phone in that range; or one of the quality compacts would make much more sense than a SLR, at that price.

At $500 the SLR is still a hard sell -- already (though I'm a minority in this) I don't consider anything but a K-30 as a sensible buy in the APS-C SLR format. I'd be much more interested at a top-end mirrorless of some kind, or stretching the extra $250 to get FF in this future scenario. Right now it's more difficult, as Nikon doesn't truly have a K-30 equivalent (low price - limited lens compatibility; or a D7000/7100 at the K-5 II price point), and the price penalty for a D600 is still very high.

I suppose there will be people who would rather pay $750 for a fancy APS-C SLR; but if you could get (even a down-spec'd functionality) FF for the same price, and one that does the Nikon trick of adjusting to APS-C crop with APS-C lenses....

I wish I could speculate with Pentax, but I'll use Nikon as a substitute. Once the FF camera is where the D7000/7100 are now, price wise, Nikon's got a bit of a marketing problem. Do they move the prosumer (i.e. screw drive support, metering support) to the lower consumer area (D5100/5200 etc on down) and in turn move their crippled cameras even lower? I suppose Nikon could support an ultra PRO APS-C D300 successor at the $1-1.25K level, but I dunno.

There's also the pixel count argument, in that at some pixel level the APS-C will start to lose its price advantage...

[boriscleto]

The point is moot. Nikon and Canon have set the low-end FF price point already. There is no way either is going to risk cannibalizing sales of high margin cameras by selling a model below the D600 / 60D, even if the cost of the sensor allowed it. Sony has proven they can't sell a FF at any price.

[Nesster]

The point is moot. Nikon and Canon have set the low-end FF price point already. There is no way either is going to risk cannibalizing sales of high margin cameras by selling a model below the D600 / 60D, even if the cost of the sensor allowed it

Really, under no circumstance will there ever be a $1000 FF, or a $750 one? Never say never... I'm sure they want to stick with what they got as long as they can, but at the same time they need to keep the market at a happy simmer.

[falconeye]

So at each price point we'll see different sensors

Correct observation. And additionally, sensor price per area is going down over time and expectation for image quality per $$ is going up over time.

Therefore, the following statement holds true in a mathematically strict sense (i.e., please don't discuss):

"Over time and at a given price point per camera (like say 1000$), the typical sensor sizes will increase."

BTW, the newest rumors that Canon is investigating into digital medium format are logical. Because sooner or later, a $1000 Canon camera must be larger than FF to sell well.

Even Pentax FF may become obsolete because of affordable digital MF if only Pentax is waiting and surviving long enough. Say, till 2025

[Aristophanes]

Yes, but will that be economical for the manufacturers, as at that price point you get severe competition from other formats, and no longer have the SLR 'quality advantage' to bank on. I know I bought a NEX at $250; my cell phone contract would get me a phone in that range; or one of the quality compacts would make much more sense than a SLR, at that price.

At $500 the SLR is still a hard sell -- already (though I'm a minority in this) I don't consider anything but a K-30 as a sensible buy in the APS-C SLR format. I'd be much more interested at a top-end mirrorless of some kind, or stretching the extra $250 to get FF in this future scenario. Right now it's more difficult, as Nikon doesn't truly have a K-30 equivalent (low price - limited lens compatibility; or a D7000/7100 at the K-5 II price point), and the price penalty for a D600 is still very high.

I suppose there will be people who would rather pay $750 for a fancy APS-C SLR; but if you could get (even a down-spec'd functionality) FF for the same price, and one that does the Nikon trick of adjusting to APS-C crop with APS-C lenses....

I wish I could speculate with Pentax, but I'll use Nikon as a substitute. Once the FF camera is where the D7000/7100 are now, price wise, Nikon's got a bit of a marketing problem. Do they move the prosumer (i.e. screw drive support, metering support) to the lower consumer area (D5100/5200 etc on down) and in turn move their crippled cameras even lower? I suppose Nikon could support an ultra PRO APS-C D300 successor at the $1-1.25K level, but I dunno.

There's also the pixel count argument, in that at some pixel level the APS-C will start to lose its price advantage...

Prices tend to stabilize. APS-C starts at $85 for a first run sensor then drops to about $45.

FF starts at 2.45x that just because of unavoidable technical issues with photolithography.

And FF requires much larger data buffers and pipes, which are costlier physical components.

Cooling is also a factor, as is more power.

Just getting an FF sensor out the door on a circuit is probably 4x APS-C in cost. Add in another 10-15% in form factor size to correspond and FF will always be 2-3 price points higher than APS-C and physically larger.

Economically we then get to the point of efficacy and value.

If we only view web images via Facebook and printing becomes exceedingly rare, and larger formats are not needed (we stream rather than face and gaze) then the price per image comes into play and efficacy enters the market through millions of consumer experiences. This is why many people are starting to say 16-24 MP's (FF or APS) is more than good enough for editing as there is little observable benefit more MP's. The upgrade cycle slows.

So the market will begin to question the $2,000 camera and then the $1,000 camera, and so on as value becomes more important. Nevertheless consumers will benefit by having excellent IQ from a variety of sensors.

This happened with film cameras in the 1990's. We started to see much cheaper polycarbonate bodies mounting polycarb optical housings because for the 4x6 mini-lab print on a roll once per month there was no need to over-invest. Cameras got cheaper (and film actually got more expensive and substantially better) as the consumer market balked at paying premiums. It was a bloodbath. You started to see super-pro cameras like the F4 come out at astronomical prices causing Nikon all sorts of financial grief and consumers getting 90% of that functionality for 30% of that price...on the same film.

We're likely going to see the same effect here as people realize that they will not need to spend more money to get quickly shot and quickly viewed photos online, so the price acceptability will creep down and a $3,000 camera will look silly for Facebook and Flickr. Canon and Nikon will mess with larger sensors than FF just to keep those high margins, and the rest of us will get the price:sensor benefits as the curve bends our way. I love it when that happens. Get ready for the $500 Ricoh GR with an articulating screen and much better video.

There will be a floor of course. Where that is can generally be extrapolated from fixed costs and dynamics like the sensor cost and yields, and the unforgiving costs of batteries, etc.

[falconeye]

If we only view web images via Facebook and printing becomes exceedingly rare [...]
So the market will begin to question the $2,000 camera and then the $1,000 camera

I am so glad you are saying this.

Because think it through: we all already have the camera we need. No need to upgrade. Probably, future mobile phones and more universal media capture devices will cover the mass market. I am totally with you.

It is like HiFi which was a trend in the 80s but eventually became discount consumer electronics nobody cares about anymore. And now replaced by iPhone docks

But, a niche with HighEnd audio as a hobby survived.

I predict the same for the camera market: It will become a commodity and be absorbed by other devices. Nobody will care about cameras anymore in the foreseeable future.

But, a niche with HighEnd photography as a hobby will survive. Eventually, photography will be a hobby again where NOT everybody out there runs around with a dSLR (I actually hate it to see this many people carry dSLRs. Makes me feel like a nerd, not a photog.)

All what you say applies to a photography mass market (which I simply do not care about at all!). All what I say applies to photography as a hobby which in the future, will become both more expensive and less wide-spread. To be called HighEnd photography. It is the only niche the current photo-only players will be able to survive, i.e., Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Fuji, Leica. Already now, FF is the only market where the above players are still generating good profit (i.e., Nikon and Leica).

[Pål Jensen]

Correct observation. And additionally, sensor price per area is going down over time and expectation for image quality per $$ is going up over time.

Therefore, the following statement holds true in a mathematically strict sense (i.e., please don't discuss):

"Over time and at a given price point per camera (like say 1000$), the typical sensor sizes will increase."

BTW, the newest rumors that Canon is investigating into digital medium format are logical. Because sooner or later, a $1000 Canon camera must be larger than FF to sell well.

Even Pentax FF may become obsolete because of affordable digital MF if only Pentax is waiting and surviving long enough. Say, till 2025

Just want to start with saying please don't discuss on discussion forum is rather silly.

1) theres a limit downwards for sensor prices (and the rest of the camera). This means that we will never see a $1000 MF camera (I doubt we would see a $1000 FF camera anytime soon). You might have a point if you choose $5000 instead of $1000.
2) Sensor prices for a certain size is not dropping according to Moores law. Moores law is about more computing power on smaller chips. A camera format chip is constrant sizewise. It is size that costs. We get better sensors over time at more or less the same price but thats true for most technology. So there is no perpetual decrease in sensor costs which would have been necessary for your theory to hold water.
3) You mix up image quality with sensor size. You will have increased image quality over time with constant sensor size too, thereby satisfying the expectation for higher image quality for a price point over time; Just compare a *istD with the K5. Although there will be a limit of much quality you can achieve per area there's also a limit defined by the law of deminishing returns*. This will be achieved eventually for sensor smaller than whats currently used in DSLR's. Then other features of the camera will count more for the consumers, pretty much like in the film days.
4) There is no universal desire for larger formats only hindered by economy as you indicate in your last sentence. Some people prefer APS; others FF or MF digital. In addition, MF Digital, not to mention large format, is a very different tool than an APS camera.
5) Larger format size is not a positive factor in itself for most people.

* Already now people can't spot the difference between the K-5 and the 20 something MP FF cameras in large scale prints (my experience too). See here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/219502-full-confidence-k5iis-i...gear-home.html

[Pål Jensen]

Already now, FF is the only market where the above players are still generating good profit (i.e., Nikon and Leica).

Are there any datas that say that Nikon is making profit on FF? Nikon answer for their lack of profit and sales is to make more APS cameras according to themselves. I can only assume they do it in order to make profit.

And I'm not convinced that that the DSLR market will be eaten up by other devices anytime soon; thats will happen with P&S, and to some extent mirrorless. There is a countereffect at play here; the more people who shoot causually with cell phone or whatever, the more people get through this more interested in Photography and consequently buy a real camera meaning DSLR. The market is satuurated and will probably shrink but will still be healthy.

[jsherman999]

And FF requires much larger data buffers and pipes, which are costlier physical components.

.

Can you explain why you think "FF requires much larger data buffers and pipes"?

The data throughput requirements are tied to MP, not sensor size. If you meant to say, "the increased MPs that the larger sensors will support better require larger buffers", you'd be right... But I also think you're overestimating the delta in cost for those components.

.