[Aristophanes]

The time will come, sooner rather than later, when you have a 100MP sensor with focus information for each pixel, and minimum glass in front.

The focal range will be digital, and the required DOF will be accurately simulated by an in-camera processor.

Kind of like saying Photoshop will put the art shop selling paint, canvasses, and paintbrushes out of biz.

For many, photography is handicraft. Make the process too exacting and it becomes less emotional etc.

"Camera: bokeh, please. More, more,more. Stop. Less. Stop. More behind the baby, less behind mom. Stop. Good. Send to Grandma."

Oooooh....tech.

I think I'll go whittle something.

[Samsungian]

Canon 1st full frame dslr dates back to November 2002

Canon Camera Museum | Camera Hall - Digital SLR

[GeneV]

The only thing unpredicted however was that dSLRs would first come down in price to almost P&S level ($400) before sensors would uncrop. But that's a done thing and now sensors will uncrop.

Actually that makes some sense if the cropped version is expected to live on for a while as a consumer item to assume the place of cameras like the X90 (which has a similar price). Half-frame film coexisted with full frame in a similar manner.

[TaoMaas]

What matters is that the arguments which once were in favour of APS-C are timing out. That's all.

This is really where we disagree. In 9 pages of discussion, I've seen nothing convincing as to why FF is a "must". Serious photographers represent a fraction of the buying public...and the FF crowd represents a fraction of that fraction. A DSLR is a big investment for many folks. It's been my experience that the reason most folks step up beyond P&S cameras is for the interchangeable lenses. They want lenses that are faster, sharper, wider, longer, etc... That has nothing to do with FF. It seems to me that there is a big assumption that FF is going to come down in cost while APS-C stays the same. I just don't think that's gonna happen. If the world goes FF...eh..fine with me. I only lose the cheapest lens I own.

[GeneV]

This is really where we disagree. In 9 pages of discussion, I've seen nothing convincing as to why FF is a "must". Serious photographers represent a fraction of the buying public...and the FF crowd represents a fraction of that fraction. A DSLR is a big investment for many folks. It's been my experience that the reason most folks step up beyond P&S cameras is for the interchangeable lenses. They want lenses that are faster, sharper, wider, longer, etc... That has nothing to do with FF. It seems to me that there is a big assumption that FF is going to come down in cost while APS-C stays the same. I just don't think that's gonna happen. If the world goes FF...eh..fine with me. I only lose the cheapest lens I own.

I agree with that to an extent. I think at some point Pentax must offer a full-frame digital camera, as that will be the norm for the serioius photographer, but that does not mean there will not be some kind of market for the smaller sensor. Look at how many time P&S sensors are used.

You bring up a point with the lenses, though. I was just posting on another thread about how the price of my FA77 had doubled and the FA31 has gone a similar route. One does wonder why some of the oldest lenses in the Pentax stable were increased the most if it were not believed that they have the most life left in them. The expensive orphans may be lenses like the DA15 and DA21.

[falconeye]

I've seen nothing convincing as to why FF is a "must".

Maybe, because not all arguments are repeated in all threads?

In a nutshell, for any given image quality there is a sweet spot, i.e. an image circle enabling best price (for camera + lens). And this sweet spot changes over time.

It is true in a mathematical sense that the sweet spot's image circle is an increasing function with time (due to different speeds of progress in silicon, optics and precision manufacturing). It's an increasing function with image quality too.

Therefore, I'm not even convinced that 35mm FF is a stable end point for the enthusiast camera segment.

[TaoMaas]

Therefore, I'm not even convinced that 35mm FF is a stable end point for the enthusiast camera segment.

I think Pentax agrees with you and that's why they've currently jumped over FF and are continuing with the 645D.

[falconeye]

The expensive orphans may be lenses like the DA15 and DA21.

While I do generally agree, the DA15 stays a valid proposition even in an FF era. An equivalent 23mm lens will be hard to find. At least until Pentax re-releases their A24/2.8


Same size and weight as the DA15 (but captures 4x more photons).

[falconeye]

they've currently jumped over FF and are continuing with the 645D.

As we all know, some jumps are fatal

[Votesh]

Or, manufacturers will produce and release fewer APS-C cameras as FF prices come down, and more people can afford and will buy FF cameras. APS-C profit margins will drop and manufacturers will go to FF to combat that.

While there are some people with large investments in APS-C glass and no desire to go to FF, there are also plenty of people that would go to FF at the right price. For example, for people like you that wouldn't accept using APS-C lenses on FF bodies, you could still buy a FF camera as an upgrade or second body, and keep their APS-C body for using APS-C lenses. Owning FF would not require getting rid of APS-C equipment.

And APS-C will be selling for as much as a P&S, and a P&S will be selling for as much as a disposable camera.... it's all relative. FF will drop just as fast as anything else

[Votesh]

Most of that isn't a definite statement, it is my opinion. However it was widely related that Sony was selling their FF cameras at a loss, so they could gain market share. I never said that Sony was on the brink of bankruptcy, but they have been losing money almost across the board for the last 2 years. Probably largely because of the recession, as other camera makers haven't fared particularly well either, but also some bad business decisions.

Offering a lot of products in a wide variety of markets doesn't signify that they are intelligent, especially if they are losing money in doing so. I don't have Sony's balance sheets though, so I can't say if that is the case. Even a company like Sony can spread itself thin. Just look at this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/106950-bcn-sales-ranki...lf-2010-a.html . Sony isn't doing too well in Japan when it comes to interchangeable lens cameras. Pentax did better than them in that regard with fewer products, and resources.

I am not sure how someone could make such definite statements rendering a bunch of highly successful guys (those who are running sony) as fools. As you say their unintelligent decisions have put the company to the brink of bankruptcy. Or have they?

Lets see, they made a very good full frame product in A900/A850 which did sell well. (Or it is safe to say that there were buyers for it). Putting them with other two companies that offer full frame.

And they have also put EVIL type cameras into market, which despite what one says have pretty good image quality.

Off course the only company that now offer point&shoots, pro level video equpiments, full frame cameras, APC dslrs and also has EVIL type cameras. (Add to that they have partnered Zeiss for autofocus lenses). All this in short 5 years of taking over from minolta. Man this gotta be parade of unintelligent decisions. This company is surely heading for bankruptcy. Noone can save it.

[Unsinkable II]

I prefer to keep as much of the image processing as possible out of the hands of the camera. I especially wouldn't want to leave nearly every aspect of image capture up to a machine.
Also, how will 100MP be fit on a sensor smaller that FF while maintaining acceptable IQ. There are limits to what can be done.

Given time, I would also prefer to keep as much processing out of the camera as possible. Unfortunately you and I represent a small percentage of camera buyers. I've designed and made products for Brookstone, and done likewise for Target. Guess which one almost isn't worth bothering with?

I remember at CeBIT in 1995 someone saying that 133MHz was the wall with laptop processors due to heat constraints. Technology will always find a way. And it does so at an accelerating rate.

[Aristophanes]

This is really where we disagree. In 9 pages of discussion, I've seen nothing convincing as to why FF is a "must".

It's not a must. It will simply be as cheap to produce and implement as APS-C.

Why then, would one knowingly use an inferior size?

[GeneV]

While I do generally agree, the DA15 stays a valid proposition even in an FF era. An equivalent 23mm lens will be hard to find. At least until Pentax re-releases their A24/2.8


Same size and weight as the DA15 (but captures 4x more photons).

The superb FA24/2 will become even more valuable.

I mentioned the DA15 mostly because it is one of the least useful on full frame. The effect I've observed on film is rather interesting, though.

With the DA21, you could actually crop a bigger piece of of the FF sensor to get that 23mm FOV than with the DA15. I'd guess that would just about remove the dark corners.

[GeneV]

As we all know, some jumps are fatal

Jumping over a half century of lenses might qualify for that description.