Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-06-2014, 02:04 PM   #16
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,656
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MSL Quote
Norm, I'm not sure what sparked this thread or what you are trying to get out of it. I'll accept your argument that APS-c should remain cheaper than FF - although if the cost of the sensor dropped to zero it would then come down to how much more it cost to build the body around the sensor, and those difference might be smaller.

What is changing is the cost of FF relative to a person's purchasing power, and FF is getting more affordable for a growing number of people. And then at some point, economies of scale push this down even further. No free lunch - just more calories for the same price. Just look at trends in other areas that depend on technology. My first PC cost something like a 560mm lens. The one I just bought for my kids, which has specs 1000 times more powerful, was more like decent DA lens.
Need to know basis.
Honest, someone somewhere posted that in a few years FF would be cheaper and APS-c would be dead. I'm not going to ruin a perfectly good thread elsewhere , but if someone really wants to take it on, we can do it here.

01-06-2014, 03:01 PM   #17
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,066
The APS-c camera is still the bread and butter of every manufacturer. How low the prices get will really depend how the camera market develops in the future. With the general public deciding that smartphones are good enough of a camera, the potential market gets smaller and smaller. The top of the line, high end FF will probably remain where it is at a pretty high price. A point may come where they might have to put FF sensors in lower priced cameras just to keep the cash flow and production lines going. A camera with a FF sensor in the $1000 range within 5 years? I wouldn't be surprised.

At some point the digital technology has to mature to the point where this years camera isn't going to be leaps and bounds more advanced than last years model. Back in film days, camera models were in production for years. It's going to happen. It's happened to the computer industry. Sooner or later there won't be a reason to upgrade and people will keep their cameras until they break.
01-06-2014, 03:20 PM   #18
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by BretW Quote
Nomadkng is saying all else being equal, FF will always cost more. That doesn't preclude a scenario in which FF becomes cheap enough to drive smaller sensors extinct, in spite of their cost advantage. Nor does it preclude manufacturers from selling FF cameras for less than aps-c cameras (by cutting corners in places consumers are less likely to notice and/or value).

It's like the old joke, if apples get cheaper the more I buy, how many do I have to purchase before they're free?

Aps-c and FF will approach two different asymptotes of minimum price, FF being a higher minimum.
Yup, they will converge to an asymptote, but there's no guarantee that the FF asymptote is sufficiently high to guarantee a market segment for APS-C. Essentially it's the same kind of situation the Pentax Q ran into: sure, a tiny sensor is cheaper, but with APS-C being so cheap already and offering more capability, most people will just pay a little extra and buy a used or lower-end APS-C instead of a new high-end P+S. Replace "P+S" with "APS-C" and "APS-C" with "FF" and repeat.

Of course there will be niches where it will remain, like sports and bird shooting.
01-06-2014, 03:22 PM   #19
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,667
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
A camera with a FF sensor in the $1000 range within 5 years? I wouldn't be surprised.
Well you can buy aps-c (mostly camera types that failed in the market) for $299, so it is only a matter off time before a FF failed offering hits wel below $1000!

01-06-2014, 03:34 PM   #20
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 464
Concur.

QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Well you can buy aps-c (mostly camera types that failed in the market) for $299, so it is only a matter off time before a FF failed offering hits wel below $1000!
I only buy full frame lenses and plan to buy the first Pentax FF the same month that the second Pentax FF goes on the market. The ecosystem requires a secondary market.
01-06-2014, 04:19 PM   #21
MSL
Pentaxian
MSL's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Greater Toronto Area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,364
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Not a good analogy. Moore's law does not apply to sensors like it does to other integrated circuits. You can squeeze more pixels onto a sensor, but sooner or later you will run into the diffraction limit. There are also still limits to photolithography which prevent FF sensors from coming down in cost simply because of the size of the sensor.
The analogy wasn't a perfect one nor was it meant to be. It was just an indication of how much things technology related can drop in cost or size (think the original briefcase sized satellite phones and early cell phones). As other posters have noted though, the cost of glass isn't getting any cheaper, and that is true of most things in this world. The extent to which tech items can drop in cost is something of an anomaly.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Honest, someone somewhere posted that in a few years FF would be cheaper and APS-c would be dead. I'm not going to ruin a perfectly good thread elsewhere , but if someone really wants to take it on, we can do it here.
Aha! Someone pooped and you're just trying to be a good citizen by cleaning it up. All makes sense now.
01-06-2014, 04:22 PM   #22
Veteran Member
scratchpaddy's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,360
QuoteOriginally posted by aoeu Quote
I only buy full frame lenses and plan to buy the first Pentax FF the same month that the second Pentax FF goes on the market. The ecosystem requires a secondary market.
This is an excellent money saving strategy. You'll probably never get to spend money on a camera ever again!
01-06-2014, 05:03 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 198
I think there is a difference between the relative price per power of technology over the years, and the cost of a non-high tech item during that time period. Take printing costs for example. I just purchased an AV receiver, and it did not come with a printed manual, while my previous model did. Remember when many video games had beautiful printed manuals, playing aids, and various extras? Now, you often just get a disk. I think with non-high tech items, corners must be cut or very cheap labor must be found in order to reduce the costs over the years. Of course, better and more efficient production tools help, but only to a certain degree.

01-06-2014, 05:50 PM   #24
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It may well be that prices are similar. It's true that FF prices have come down, and you can buy an FF refurb for pretty much the same price as a k-3 pre-order. Some people seem to think that somehow that would indicate that FF can continue it's downward curve until it's below APS-c. When in fact, the curve will level off at a point somewhere above the cost of APS-c. Any component used in FF can be used in APS-c except the shutter mechanism, those things will always be equivalent. Economy of scale favours APS-c shutters, and APS-c sensors will always be cheaper. There is simply nothing that can give FF a price advantage.
So then why is a D600 + 24-85 cheaper than a K3 + 16-50?

What is your fascination with FF, anyway? Why do you turn so many threads into FF threads? Or then start FF threads?
01-06-2014, 06:12 PM   #25
Veteran Member
krebsy75's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chester County, Pa.
Posts: 804
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
So then why is a D600 + 24-85 cheaper than a K3 + 16-50?

What is your fascination with FF, anyway? Why do you turn so many threads into FF threads? Or then start FF threads?

Only a lunatic would pay MSRP for the 16-50.
01-06-2014, 06:16 PM   #26
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by krebsy75 Quote
Only a lunatic would pay MSRP for the 16-50.
Only a very impatient person would pay MSRP for the D600 + 24-85. I got mine for $2k total with a camera case and a memory card over a year ago. Didn't want to go Nikon but with the long lens price differences the switch was free.
01-06-2014, 07:31 PM   #27
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,551
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
So then why is a D600 + 24-85 cheaper than a K3 + 16-50?
Because the D600 was a flawed camera that was replaced in production while warehouses were still full of unsold inventory?
01-06-2014, 07:35 PM   #28
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Because the D600 was a flawed camera that was replaced in production while warehouses were still full of unsold inventory?
Well I guess my K-5 was twice as flawed. Come on, this is why Nikon and Pentax both carry warranties. Neither the Pentax nor the Nikon problems were a big deal.
01-06-2014, 07:47 PM   #29
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,656
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
So then why is a D600 + 24-85 cheaper than a K3 + 16-50?

What is your fascination with FF, anyway? Why do you turn so many threads into FF threads? Or then start FF threads?
DO I have to say everything twice.. the thread was start as per usual, because someone enamoured with FF made a ridiculous post about FF becoming cheaper than APS_c.

Because the 24-85 is 3.5 -4.5 is not ƒ2.8 and isn't WR. In terms of focusing and shooting in low light 2.8 on APS-c is better than 3.5 to 3.5 on FF.

QuoteQuote:
That doesn't preclude a scenario in which FF becomes cheap enough to drive smaller sensors extinct, in spite of their cost advantage.
I guess in the FF worshippers part of the work, the scenario where APS-c costs more and still doesn't become extinct, because the features APS-c users value in their cameras are all thing that are better than what FF can give them.

There is this continuous argument among FF users, that everyone is as enamoured with FF as they are, and that the only reason they don't buy FF is they are more expensive. When speaking about a 645D that might be a valid argument, but as ElJamoquio points out, you can get a brand stinking new, new off the shelf full warranty D610 at henry's right now for $2200. And you can pay more for a DA* 16-50 and K-3. So then you have to ask, if you have APS-c because FF was too expensive, and that's the only reason, what are you waiting for?

The rest of us seem to be choosing APS-c despite the available FF equipment. So the deal is, those who want APS-c equipment, do not necessarily think FF is the next thing. Personally I consider it to be a frill, and so do many others.

It's time for some people to put their money where their mouth is.

Last edited by normhead; 01-06-2014 at 07:57 PM.
01-06-2014, 07:57 PM - 2 Likes   #30
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Because the 24-85 is 3.5 -4.5 is not ƒ2.8 and isn't WR. In terms of focusing and shooting in low light 2.8 on APS-c is better than 3.5 to 3.5 on FF.
It's better than an f/2.8 from 16-50 equivalent. So it's better.
It's also longer. So it's better.
It's also WR. Or have you taken one apart, or seen one taken apart, and compared it to the 16-50?
As a FF lens and faster to boot it'll focus better, all else the same.

I know I'll never change your mind and don't care. I hope you aren't influencing others however.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, camera, cost, curve, dslr, ff, ff sensors, film, photography, price, prices, scale, sensors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Suggestion Stop the FF infection ... of the other threads - read on. jpzk Site Suggestions and Help 59 03-18-2015 11:30 AM
K-5II or K-5IIs - which one will you choose if the price is the same? frank Pentax K-5 54 06-20-2013 03:45 PM
This Foron Will Never Be The Same jeffkpotter General Talk 10 06-12-2009 04:14 PM
This Forum Will Never Be The Same jeffkpotter General Talk 45 06-09-2009 06:44 PM
Rumors confirmed! The new Pentax will be FF! B051LjKo Pentax News and Rumors 7 01-11-2008 04:10 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top