[wpvv]

That is why I wrote 'might'. For others the fastest dSLR or the smallest pocketable camera might be that.


I have to say that for most non-professionals the process (of which viewing the output is one) is more important than the product per se.
If you want to sell images, this of course is different, although even a portraiture session is also about the process!

[Class A]

You might be able to envision a time when FF is king, but why stop there?

There is a reason why the format is most commonly referred to as "full frame" as opposed to "135 format" or "35mm".

The reason is that there are many mounts that are "underused" with just an APS-C sensor behind them. These mounts, including the K-mount, were developed for the 135 format, not for a sensor that has less than half the size.

Many people are happy with what APS-C gives them, but that doesn't detract from the fact that their lens mounts were designed to support a larger format. True APS-C mount cameras could be a bit smaller. Having said that, most lenses wouldn't become a lot smaller because the size of the image circle is not the dominant factor for lens size.

So nothing "holy grail" about FF; it just makes sense to provide 135 format mounts with an image forming device that does justice to their capabilities. Previously this wasn't economical due to manufacturing challenges and then companies protected their high-end margins as long as they could. Now that FF sensors become more widely available and affordable, FF is just a logical step.

And yes, for anyone invested in the K-mount, there is a very good reason to stop right there.

[Clavius]

There is a reason why the format is most commonly referred to as "full frame" as opposed to "135 format" or "35mm".

The reason is that there are many mounts that are "underused" with just an APS-C sensor behind them. These mounts, including the K-mount, were developed for the 135 format, not for a sensor that has less than half the size.

Many people are happy with what APS-C gives them, but that doesn't detract from the fact that their lens mounts were designed to support a larger format. True APS-C mount cameras could be a bit smaller. Having said that, most lenses wouldn't become a lot smaller because the size of the image circle is not the dominant factor for lens size.

So nothing "holy grail" about FF; it just makes sense to provide 135 format mounts with an image forming device that does justice to their capabilities. Previously this wasn't economical due to manufacturing challenges and then companies protected their high-end margins as long as they could. Now that FF sensors become more widely available and affordable, FF is just a logical step.

And yes, for anyone invested in the K-mount, there is a very good reason to stop right there.

But still... The 645D has a full 645 mount but with a crop 645 sensor. I would imagine, using that same logic, people would be demanding a 645DII with an FF 645 sensor. But they aren't. Or are they just smaller in number?

[Rondec]

I'd say there's even more realization that aps-c DSLR is going to have problems. I think that if you want to shoot a DSLR in 2020... it will be FF. Internet-connected, app-enabled FF.

Even if you don't want to shoot DSLR - if MILC is where you want to be - there's just not going to be enough separating m43 & aps-c from really good phone cameras, and people spending $1000+ on dedicated MILC cameras will be buying FF.

There's no way around it, and Pentax isn't going to thrive selling aps-c DSLRs in the years and decades ahead.

.

I don't buy it. Full frame, maybe. But the same mounts with the same SLR format, no way. SLRs will live on in some super-specialized situations, but EVFs will take over eventually -- probably long before 2020 and I imagine even Nikon will read the writing on the wall and when they release their mirrorless full frame cameras, they will do it with a different mount.

Whatever the case, while sensor cost comes down, the price of good glass continues to climb.

Finally, I think the biggest argument is the "good enough" argument, which is that getting people to buy interchangable lens cameras when their cell phone is adequate for their needs is going to be tough. People want something they can take selfies with. Can you do that with your D800, even if you had connectivity? Of course not. Their will always be dedicated cameras, but I really don't buy the fact that most of the market is looking for full frame -- either from a cost or, a size stand point -- certainly not if you keep the SLR form factor.

[normhead]

Oh, absolutely. I'l be first in line for an affordable, 4x5 based system.

And if people are willing to hold up full-sized ipads to take shots, they should try to make 'compact' 4x5 cameras that would sell well - most of the size of the camera would be in encasing the huge sensor, and if there's no mirror the register distance could be small. It would be like shooting an ipad with a coffee cup strapped on the front - very manageable for the IQ it delivered!

Exactly why I ordered the flu card... now if the House Appropriations committee will just allocate funds for the Rokinon tilt shift.

[Pete_the_Irish_Guy]

I think I would, despite already having multiple FF sytems. But I can't really tell untill it exists. Pentax does a terrific job at APS-C and MF, so I'd be very interested to see what kind of FF they would bake.

That statement on my part may have been a bit preemptive. I am not so familiar with Pentax FA and F and A glass and maybe it would be appealing.

But still... The 645D has a full 645 mount but with a crop 645 sensor. I would imagine, using that same logic, people would be demanding a 645DII with an FF 645 sensor. But they aren't. Or are they just smaller in number?

check out the medium format section and you'll see multiple posts of people speculating on a "full 645 format". It is less popular though because even hasselblad, mamiya & phase one make crop medium format sensors. Some more cropped than others.

[krebsy75]

One benefit of FF is the huge viewfinder. Peering through the finder on my PZ-1 is like going from standard def to HD.

---

Last edited by krebsy75; 01-03-2014 at 08:22 AM.

[Clavius]

check out the medium format section and you'll see multiple posts of people speculating on a "full 645 format". It is less popular though because even hasselblad, mamiya & phase one make crop medium format sensors. Some more cropped than others.

I stand corrected. I hadn't informed myself well enough!

One benefit of FF is the huge viewfinder. Peering through the finder on my PZ-1 is like going from a standard def to HD.

Yes, but with an EVF you could have a VF equalling the size of that of a 645D on a Q, but for much less cost then an FF sensor, mirror, mirrorbox, mirrormechanism, prism and so on. So the big OVF isn't going to save FF. But I don't think it needs to anyway. FF isn't going to die while the trend is still towards better and better IQ.

This man is predicting we don't need FF in the future, but he is assuming the printing industry won't advance either. Who says we won't need the extra resolution for even higher resolution printing? Sure for printing large on canvas APSC is more then enough... But printing large acrylic is already becoming a different story with some high quality print services I've used.

[krebsy75]

Yes, but with an EVF you could have a VF equalling the size of that of a 645D on a Q, but for much less cost then an FF sensor, mirror, mirrorbox, mirrormechanism, prism and so on. So the big OVF isn't going to save FF. But I don't think it needs to anyway. FF isn't going to die while the trend is still towards better and better IQ.

Great point.

[normhead]

There will always be advantages to each format and disadvantages, that doesn't mean one will prevail and one will die out. It doesn't mean it won't happen that one won't die out either. But once again, we have a parade of un-testable theories.

The one reason APS-c will never die out, is that some people will always be more impressed by the APS-c skill set that FF isn't an attractive option. Some try and make it all about price... absolute propaganda. Some people will pay more for APS-c than they will for FF. They're just happy they don't have to. Some people want that little bit smaller and a little bit lighter, even if it were only a half ounce per system, they'd still want it.

What seems to be rotting everyone's socks... is the notion that APS-c doesn't have a place. it really must rot FF partisan's socks that APS-c is still lout selling FF 10-1, even though there are crippled FF bodies out there for almost APS-c prices. For those so full of FF bias, that they can't see the APS-c forest because a few FF trees are in the way, this isn't making any sense. Many of us who bought K-3s, could have bought a 6D or 610 for the same money. I must be boggling the little minds.

The simple fact it, no matter what happens in the FF world, there will always be a place for APS-c. All the evidence points to that. People blinded by the FF light constantly try to spin numbers and trends to say different. And I have no idea why... I should ask you guys, why is it important that FF wipes out APS-c?

I'm going out on a limb here. And say, like so many of the guys who have gone FF on the forum, if I ever do, I will keep my APS-c gear, and use it for 90% of my shooting. I don't ever expect the FF market to be more than 9 or 10% of the APS-c market. Just based on the economics of the two systems. It doesn't matter how many arguments you come up with as to why it shouldn't be so. The positive attributes of one system, in no way diminishes the positive attributes of another. And in systems as similar as APS-c and FF, the cheapest system wins the most market share.

[Clavius]

And in systems as similar as APS-c and FF, the cheapest system wins the most market share.

You're correct here of course. APS-C is just as similar to FF, as M4/3 is similar to APS-C. Crop 2.0 to crop 1.5 to 1.0. And in M4/3 land there are very expensive high end cameras and lenses too. Including people who buy the stuff.

People are always going to start somewhere, and there are few people that start out with the most expensive gear they can find. So most will start with either M4/3 or APS-C and move up from there. And then most who do move up don't even make comlete switches, they just add a format with one or two desired lenses to complement the system they already have.

[redrockcoulee]

That's a very personal opinion that that varies from person to person. Rationally only the output lasts, and the enjoyment of the photographer can't be seen in the delivered images. Especially for professionals the enjoyment (or lack of it) definitely should never influence the quality of their work.

Agreed, but for us amatuers the enjoyment of the process should be number one or at least tied with quality. For example if one really enjoys using the iPhone that is fine and no matter if digital exceeds or far exceeds in quality my Hasselblad I will not stop using it because I enjoy both the process of using the camera and being in the darkroom. As I will continue to use Pentax digital cameras as long as I enjoy using them.

For professionals, delivering the product the client wants is what is important.

[jsherman999]

Finally, I think the biggest argument is the "good enough" argument, which is that getting people to buy interchangable lens cameras when their cell phone is adequate for their needs is going to be tough. People want something they can take selfies with. Can you do that with your D800, even if you had connectivity?

People are going to have the same aversion to taking selfies with any DSLR, not just FF. When they see a deficiency in their phone, they'll be looking to add a real camera for those times, and they will be more willing to spend $1000+ to do so if there's a large delta between a 2020 phone and a 2020 camera. FF gives that large delta.

Think of it this way - assuming you upgraded from a P&S to a DSLR at some point in the past, why did you do so? Those same upgrade reasons will exist in the future, and people are not going to necessarily want to upgrade to a camera that barely trumps their (probably realy good, by 2020) camera phone - they're going to want to see a real upgrade in quality and performance if they're going to spend the money.

At the same time, manufacturers are going to want to keep the $1000+ price point, and they're going to want to get aps-c and smaller DSLR/MILC shooters to stay on a body upgrade path, so they're going to bring FF down to the $1000, $1500 point to do that. Upper-end aps-c (especially DSLR) gets squeezed when that happens.

What does that portend for a company (Pentax) who's trying to sell lenses for an aps-c DSLR mount? (hint: bad things... unless they're selling FF at the time.)


.

[Biro]

Unless the technology improves somehow I think 24mp is about the limit for APS-C, the difference in noise between 16mp K-5IIs and 24mp K-3 is easily seen. The question is will people buy into larger MP cameras? If not, then for the vast majority APS-C @ 24mp or less is more than they need or can get the benefit from.

Frankly, I'm not sure I even want a 24mp camera. For me, 16mp is the sweet spot for APS-C. I have a friend who has a K-3 and he already notices how the files slow down (in relative terms) his computer - which is quite up to date and features 16 gigs of RAM. 24mp is actually something that might prevent me from buying the K-3. Yes, I know, I can shoot at lower resolutions. But then there is even less reason to buy the K-3.

[RonHendriks1966]

Frankly, I'm not sure I even want a 24mp camera. For me, 16mp is the sweet spot for APS-C. I have a friend who has a K-3 and he already notices how the files slow down (in relative terms) his computer - which is quite up to date and features 16 gigs of RAM. 24mp is actually something that might prevent me from buying the K-3. Yes, I know, I can shoot at lower resolutions. But then there is even less reason to buy the K-3.

Yes it does and the solution to that problem is to become a better photographer so you can take less images to get the end result.