Originally posted by normhead With film, you alway knew that the larger the film was the more you paid for it. No one ever said or thought, "because of the economy of scale 4x5 film is going to be cheaper than 35mm film." Never heard it, no one said it, no one thought it. With sensors it's worse. With film you paid for basically the amount of film you used. With sensors, you pay a premium for larger sensors because there is more waste and a higher percentage of throw aways that don't meet spec. Yet we continually see people claiming that as FF camera become more available, prices will merge with APS-c prices.
But it's already happened. FF cameras are available now for less than top-end aps-c cameras were selling for just three years ago.
I think you assume people are making the argument that FF is going to immediately take over entry-level DSLR. No-one is saying that. What most of us are saying is that it will encroach high and mid-level aps-c DSLR, while at the same time other alternatives (MILC, mirrorless-fixed, really good camera phones) encroach lower-end apsc DSLR. A company who makes only aps-c DSLR bodies and lenses may be in trouble in that scenario.
At some point in time, the only DSLRs available may be mid-high tier and FF ($1000+), with most everything else covered by those other non-DSLR alternatives. But Pentax needs to worry about the landscape even before that happens, because they will be squeezed in the years leading up to it.
(BTW, I requested that this be moved to the FF section so as to not antagonize aps-c shooters who don't want another FF discussion in their midst
)
.