[jsherman999]

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).

I think Parents are an ever-present feed for the upgrade market. I know probably 10 couples personally who know not much about photography and probably wouldn't have considered anything above a P&S or phone until they experienced the maddening effort required to try to capture a dim-lit or more-than-10-feet away childhood event with a P&S or phone.

I had a friend of my wife walk up to me at a Halloween event last year, hold up a borrowed P&S and whisper through clenched teeth, "This thing just sucks." (she had grown used to her new little DSLR, but had forgot it at home ) A good percentage of parents will remain willing to upgrade to the enthusiast level.

.

[Barry Pearson]

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.

Are those data buffers and pipes subject to Moore's Law (conjecture)? Will they become cheaper year by year?

[Kunzite]

1) theres a limit downwards for sensor prices (and the rest of the camera).
2) Sensor prices for a certain size is not dropping according to Moores law. Moores law is about more computing power on smaller chips.
3) 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
4) There is no universal desire for larger formats only hindered by economy
5) Larger format size is not a positive factor in itself for most people.

Very good points.

Regarding buffers, a 36MP camera would only require about double the RAM from a K5-II, in order to keep the same "buffer size". A 24MP low-ish end FF camera could get away with the same RAM quantity as the K5-II (and still getting 15+ RAW frames).
Anyway, RAM is cheap and Pentax can easily put in as much as required.

[Aristophanes]

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.

.

I was generally assuming that if you have more mm of sensor you'll probably try and sell more resolution, so more MP's. I suspect that will be the case because one of the attributes (especially for those who do PP edit) justifying FF is resolution. So we see the D800 challenging medium format turf. More resolution justifies the premium.

Analogy: a V8 usually has more HP than a V4. At that point you start to need dual exhausts and so on until you are pricing 10-30% higher for inter-related components. Like the RX-1 having that astounding, and very expensive, lens.

And then you get into margins because once you justify with marketing that they really, really want that V8, the consumer is willing to pay more across the board, so padding the difference is more likely to increase the delta. That's why we're not seeing the D700 sensor recycled into a "budget" FF (which was a long-term suggestion 1-2 years ago for many here getting a Pentax FF out the door cheap).

I am not so sure you'll see "budget" FF. You will the whole cost parameter shift to the left (down in price) , however. For the camera manufacturers, all exposure is to the left these days. Look at Fuji racing to get low-end x-mount models out the door, with a very limited lens selection.

The one camera that will tell us where the FF cost curve is going is the upcoming NEX FF. Where Sony starts that price will give us some idea of a future "floor". The continued absence of a Nikon D400 also speaks volumes.

Nevertheless we are on the verge of a camera market financial bloodletting if recent sales data holds true. This is going to be very good for consumers, and I think Pentax will do OK as a value brand under the Ricoh financial umbrella.

[Rondec]

I guess I still believe that what we forumites are interested in is very different from what the average middle class purchaser of an SLR is interested in. It really is about capturing your kids in football, or baseball, or at birthday parties and getting better quality than your cell phone produces. I would be interested in knowing what percentage of purchasers of an SLR actually purchase any lenses other than a kit lens and telephoto. Based on this forum, you might believe it is 80 to 90 percent, but I believe it is a lot lower than that. If people are happy with the quality they are getting from an entry level SLR with a kit lens -- available for 450 to 500 dollars, why would they move up?

I guess the other issue is that whether or not full frame cameras could be sold for 1000 dollars or less, it probably isn't in the best interest of SLR makers to sell them for that. And I don't believe they will any time soon.

[Aristophanes]

Are those data buffers and pipes subject to Moore's Law (conjecture)? Will they become cheaper year by year?

Not Moore's law but just Econ 101. If it's bigger it will cost more. Eventually it all adds up and you go up a price point.

You also have form factor issues because you may need more circuit board slots to accommodate, so compactness gets...less compact. This is an area where the DSLR format (k-mount) itself loses to mirrorless.

Also, cameras are going to be doing more in-body processing due to the rise of non-desktop, mobile OS's. Where the processing power comes from is still up in the air, but you can already tell that ILC's are increasingly adding in editing and file storage features that were normally reserved for generic computing OS's. That's because huge swathes of the market for ILC's do not have desktop OS capabilities. Been over that in other threads.

So if the camera itself is a networked platform, it needs power and circuitry to make that happen (not to mention wi-fi). All these little costs and requirements to "fit in" and network add up. All you need is 1 more chip, 1 more processor, and 15% more battery plus software and you've added $26 material to the camera + labour + margins. Now you are $71 higher and still have to amortize that within a 3-year maximum sales window. That verges on a whole price point jump.

But since consumers are beginning to analyze with efficacy and value after their first half decade in digital hobby photography, manufacturers have to add these costs at the same or lower price points. The added costs of the smartphone instant gratification requirement are colliding with the commodity pricing of sensors at high-MP's.

If I had to design a DSLR right now from the ground up keeping the OVF as is, I'd opt for a networked platform at reasonable MP's with largest possible sensor but sold with a spare battery rather than assume 400+ shots/session (down to 220 to get your wi-fi). I'd also ditch the top LCD, articulate the touchscreen rear and get the form factor as small as possible both to save money and accommodate the soccer Moms. Want larger? Buy the grip. The device would have an open API for networking and I'd let the market tap the editing (and tethering) with the camera as either the editing platform or via a mobile OS of the consumer's choice with some RAW parameters under license.

I'd close the optical API's and cripple access to create a revenue stream only for licensees. Buy my glass or my chosen partners'. Either way I get a cut. Glass is my money.

APS-C is below US$1,000 and FF is above US$1,200. FF has more MP's, is physically larger, and has costlier, but faster glass. 2 models down, 1 model up, and a mirrorless (APS) with EVF and a silent AF video lens kit....because all of us secretly need 2 bodies.

Photography is an enduring hobby. Cameras as a separate purchase item and category of "household necessities" are not going anywhere. Kodak was right about the whole "moment" thing. The one edge the optical companies have is their optics making for fast, accurate AF and images that reflect emotional moments and passion. I see so many frustrated parents wrestling with their smartphones at soccer and baseball games that when I take a photo during the game, they email me (WHILE I AM COACHING!!!!!...and from 20 feet away), if I could send them the photo I just took with my DSLR.

That's why the standalone camera and photography itself isn't going anywhere.

[hiktaka]

For me, there's something about shooting film + 50mm/f1.4 (or other normals) that still irreplacable by any other formats.
Kit zooms 18-55mm are even worse in this regard, in that it doesn't offer the same shooting experience to a new photographer as normal lenses once were.
Be finicky and say 50mm per 1.6 crop is 31mm, but let me say that it's still not the same.

[Barry Pearson]

For me, there's something about shooting film + 50mm/f1.4 (or other normals) that still irreplacable by any other formats.
Kit zooms 18-55mm are even worse in this regard, in that it doesn't offer the same shooting experience to a new photographer as normal lenses once were.
Be finicky and say 50mm per 1.6 crop is 31mm, but let me say that it's still not the same.

When I started to use an Pentax film SLR in about 1967, all I had was a Super Takumar 85mm f/1.9. That is the only lens I felt I needed for years, because it felt so natural.

I never understood why people bought 50mm lenses, and why they were called "standard" or "normal" lenses. I still don't. But because I have a cropped sensor, I bought a DA* 55mm f/1.4 to re-capture that natural field of view.

There are those who think 70+mm is better. (Etc). People must surely differ in how they examine a scene, and in their comfort-zone when talking to people or photographing them.

[Macaw]

As a noob that hasn't really researched anything about FF but seeing a lot of people complain about Pentax not having FF. I am intrigued on the answer.

Ditto, I am very interested in the Pentax FF camera coming (when?) I just heard about it last weekend while in a nice camera shop on the Mendocino Coast (CALIF)

[123jippo]

Iam also interested in pentax FF but i doubt that i would buy it. Too pricy compared to my k5, most of my favorite lenses now not fit FF. And the biggest reason is that even FF pentax would be better than my K5 pics would not be so much better cos limit is me and my skills as a photographer. So no need now, maybe after 5 years more practising Only FF will make my pics better. But now no need FF...

[Winder]

Iam also interested in pentax FF but i doubt that i would buy it. Too pricy compared to my k5, most of my favorite lenses now not fit FF. And the biggest reason is that even FF pentax would be better than my K5 pics would not be so much better cos limit is me and my skills as a photographer. So no need now, maybe after 5 years more practising Only FF will make my pics better. But now no need FF...

Its not so much about vastly better pictures. My favorite lens is an 85mm F/1.4 and on an APS-C that becomes a long lens and more difficult to work with indoors. I want my 31mm LTD to give me the field of view of a 31mm. My 31mm, 50mm, & 85mm become much more workable focal lengths on a FF body.

Yes, I can buy a DA* 55mm to give me the FoV of the 85mm, but a 55mm will always render like a 55mm lens. It will never render like an 85mm lens.

[123jippo]

Its not so much about vastly better pictures. My favorite lens is an 85mm F/1.4 and on an APS-C that becomes a long lens and more difficult to work with indoors. I want my 31mm LTD to give me the field of view of a 31mm. My 31mm, 50mm, & 85mm become much more workable focal lengths on a FF body.

Yes, I can buy a DA* 55mm to give me the FoV of the 85mm, but a 55mm will always render like a 55mm lens. It will never render like an 85mm lens.

For u and ur lenses ff wouldbe better yes, its clear. I use so muchtamron 17-50 and i not want to replace it. Its almoust like fixed iq, very near andi like zooming than changing lens all time. If i would moustly use fixed focal lenses i think i would like more ff pentax. But honestly, no money for ff andnew lensesnow...

[adwb]

Back on the 23rd of April I started this thread and 19 pages and 6 month later it still is attracting answers, how many I wonder have read all 19 pages and every post???

6 months and 19 pages is a record for one of my posts and I thought it was such a innocent question as well

[123jippo]

Back on the 23rd of April I started this thread and 19 pages and 6 month later it still is attracting answers, how many I wonder have read all 19 pages and every post???

6 months and 19 pages is a record for one of my posts and I thought it was such a innocent question as well

Before posting i did read thread title and last post...so no idea what was ur question and it does not matter anymore

[AndyN]

I am at the point I am ready to upgrade from my K10D. I do a lot of shooting in low light and I am looking at a FF camera. Personally I think that is where the future is going to be. I have been using a Pentax for over 30 years and I am now considering going to Nikon. I will wait until the end of the year but if a full frame offering is not in the works then I will make the switch. I think Pentax is going to find more people making the switch as FF camera prices are coming down to were it becomes more affordable.