[magkelly]

A good tripod is a good tripod whether it costs 1K or $100. My cheap arsed QR one has been with me since 2003 and there's no need so far to replace it. I chose that one based on some reviews I saw. Most QR tripods are crap but this one had decent reviews, cost what I could afford, I could see it locally, and so I bought it. Turned out to be a well spent $100 actually. That tripod with a sandbag on it is enough for me, but then again, like I said I'm not trying to take pics across a football field with a lens that weighs as much as some kids...

[Pål Jensen]

Lenses are not getting much better. That is an advantage of full frame, which allows less image magnification.

Not if you buy FF in order to print larger. Lenses are getting better....

[pinholecam]

At this point of time, I don't find that FF has come down that much to be "consumerized"
They have come down in price over the years, but to me, its not yet reached the sweet spot in price.
I would expect this to change in 1-2yrs as the price drops further for existing models by another ~$200. (D600; A99; 6D included) and perhaps then, the take up rate will suddenly rise as serious enthusiasts save up that bit more to bridge the cost gap between APS-C to FF DSLR.

The other consideration is size.
Not everyone will want to shoot FF if it means lugging a heavy/big package around.
This to me is the harder issue for market penetration.
Yes, when FF reaches a good entry price, there will be a good pick up rate, but after this initial euphoria, the realities of size will come in.
Concepts like the Sony RX1 may promise the direction of smaller FF systems, but its still to early to say.
Perhaps a FF NEX will be smaller.

[Giklab]

Perhaps a FF NEX will be smaller.

Imagine a NEX body with FF zooms

[normhead]

What would be the point of a pro level sensor without the pro level usability features to go along with it?

You mean kind of like a K1000? One of the most popular cameras ever. Certainly one of the longest lasting.

[elliott]

You mean kind of like a K1000? One of the most popular cameras ever. Certainly one of the longest lasting.

I'd be quite happy with a digital K1000, though ergonomics would have to be more like my Super Program for me to really be happy, but I don't think it would sell very well to the soccer mom crowd. I wouldn't even mind it being APS-C, they could put the old Sony 6mp sensor my K100D has in it and I would be happy.

[Lowell Goudge]

TL;DR: APS-C will still be around for decades to come.

LONG VERSION: When I read these forums, I can't help noticing what the people who stand by APS-C tend to say to "justify" (for lack of better term) their decision to the Pro-FF folks:
-Smaller and lighter cameras

-Smaller and lighter lenses

this is a myth. look at the competition, and also within pentax full frame lenses of the 1990's are smaller and lighter than current full frame lenses, and for example, the DA300/4 is actually heavier than the K300/4 even though the DA has the advantage (?) of using plastics.

-APS-C is "enough"/FF is "too much" for my needs

for the FF needs you do have, using a film body would be the way to go for a casual user. simply put, at about $0.25 per frame, for processing, you would need to take 8-10K shots that needed full frame "quality" what ever that is, to pay for a FF camera. casual users dont need it

-APS-C will always be less expensive as a system.

yes

I find that all of the above apply to me too, but that's not the point of this post. What I want to discuss is how manufacturers will address these points.

CAMERA SIZE AND WEIGHT

If you remove features, such as controls, big bright viewfinders, large, powerful processors, additional LCDs, external connectors etc. you quickly shrink camera bodies. And of course, pentamirror VFs instead of pentaprism ones shed a lot of weight.

but users for a full frame camera, or for that matter any camera WANT these

LENS SIZE AND WEIGHT

Lens designs will improve, but FF-compatible lenses will ALWAYS be larger and heavier than APS-C lenses. How to save space and weight here? I predict f/5.6-8 lenses to appear in the future and be and be justified by "There's a FF sensor in the camera, that's more than enough to counter the small aperture.".

this is where you are dead wrong. look at lens design, there are really only 3 aspects except for ultra wide that define a lens shape.
1) maximum aperture,. No matter how you cut it, 200mm F2.8 needs a 77 mm filter to cover the front element. that fixes the front diameter of the lens, period
2) the lens mount determines the back dimension of the lens, period
3) the number of elements has a big impact on total weight, as designs get more optimized weight is driven up because we are adding more stuff between the front element and the mount.

Smaller image circle is irrelevant in lens weight, because for each element, even if you can use smaller ones, whether a rear element is 15 mm or 20mm makes little difference relitive to the 77mm monster up front. area is a function of the square of the diameter, and thickness goes up linear with diameter to allow for the same profile on a lens over a bigger area.

APS-C will still be more affordable than FF, unless the whole industry switches to FF.Which it will not, considering there will have to be compact and mirrorless cameras (eg. micro4/3 and phones).

true, APS-C will be cheaper than full frame, the same way as 35mm is cheaper than medium format. there are two drivers here, one is cameras etc, but the bigger driver is lack of quantity. since APS-C will never disappear FF will never dominate today like 35 did in the past.

[redrockcoulee]

Full frame dlsrs will be come more common and less expensive. Cropped sensor dslrs will be better and less expensive. For different projects my wife and I used a D3, she when it first came out and myself in July and for neither was it a life changing experience. I can handle multiply formats, have three in large format itself. What to argue that 5X7 is better than whole plate? It really is if you want a more rectanglur print. What to argue that full frame is better than APS-C cameras or vice versa: does that not all depend on what you want or need from the camera for example large prints versus compactness? All the companies are also producing smaller formats than APS-C. I also have noticed that Coke which I do not drink but my wife does, comes in several sizes and you buy which size you want or need. The two liter will always be bigger than the 373ml can

One of the rationals for needing FF was shallow depth of field but with 5.6 lenses you lose that advantage.

When I develop my film from the various formats they are all FF unless I had on the wrong lens hood or did not remove the dark slide fully and the only time I have had other than "full frame" on digital was some D200 images that got corrupted. I think the term FF was one of the worst ideas of all, as it makes some people feel they are missing out on something by having anything less. Not saying that FF is not important to some, that is a different story. Its like tandem bike riders referring to the regular bike as a half bike.

[Pål Jensen]

this is a myth. look at the competition, and also within pentax full frame lenses of the 1990's are smaller and lighter than current full frame lenses, and for example, the DA300/4 is actually heavier than the K300/4 even though the DA has the advantage (?) of using plastics. t.

It is no myth. You must compare lenses with similar magnification and angle of view. You don't buy a 300mm for FF if you want to mimic its result on APS; you buy a 450mm lens. Theres no way around the fact that you need 50% longer lenses on FF than on APS.

[sjwaldron]

APS-C in standard DSLR form is a weak argument. New systems like micro 4/3rds or even Sony's NEX system are the true destination of APS-C and somewhat smaller sensors.

Let's take the Olympus OM-D EM-5 for example. If you want small and powerful, that's the direction you should be going. I'll admit it is a very appealing little camera with lenses to match.

-Smaller and lighter cameras
Micro 4/3rds is smaller yet still has similar benefits.

-Smaller and lighter lenses
Micro 4/3rds is a lot smaller. APS-C only lenses just confuse buyers who don't understand that much about cameras and the current state of 35mm digital format.

-APS-C is "enough"/FF is "too much" for my needs
If and when FF prices hit $1000 - $2000 level for a new camera, I'd rather spend a little more to have a FF than an APS-C. If my main goal was small yet quality, again.... micro 4/3rds is where it is at (did I mention already that Olympus OM-D is nice and some impressive lenses are being released for the format?).

-APS-C will always be less expensive as a system.
Likely, but the gap will continue to shrink.


CAMERA SIZE AND WEIGHT

The new Sony RX1 shows that a FF camera can be very small. In time we will probably see a FF NEX camera that isn't much bigger.


LENS SIZE AND WEIGHT

I have a cheap Pentax-F 35-80mm f4-5.6. It's a tiny zoom lens and covers full-frame... While not as wide, still have a lot of similar properties compared to the APS-C only 18-55mm kit lens in regard to aperture.

Pentax, if they are capable, would have shake-reduction in the body. Lenses we see from Nikon and Canon are loaded up with motors, image stabilization, and other bits to make them large. Lenses like the 43mm f1.9 from Pentax show us that FF lenses don't need to be large. Heck, the 40mm f2.8 design was originally in full-frame format and should work just fine on a FF camera. That includes all iterations of the lens from the Marc Newson designed version to the old manual focus ones.


APS-C will still be more affordable than FF, unless the whole industry switches to FF.Which it will not, considering there will have to be compact and mirrorless cameras (eg. micro4/3 and phones).

We are seeing a shift because Nikon and Canon decided it was time once Sony came on the scene. Pentax is currently just an innocent bystander that doesn't want to cooperate with the trend. Micro 4/3 is the format for small yet powerful cameras because they don't have mount registration issues and still have a pretty large sensor.

[redrockcoulee]

sjwaldron

mirco 4/3 does not address those who still shoot 35mm film for example. That was one of the main reasons that I bought a Pentax over Nikon, the ability to use one set of lenses for the most part. Does not address those who might consider a FF in the future or to have both APS-C and full frame. A buddy has both the D4 and the D7000 for example.

If Pentax switched to only FF and micro 4/3 they would get some new customers and lose some existing ones. Fuji seems to use the APS-C sensor as well on their cameras.

I for one do not want to have to replace all my lenses just because some one else thinks that FF and micro 4/3 are the only formats needed for consumers. Might be the only ones you want but we are happy with what we have now for formats. I can see a FF Pentax in the future but most likely not for me, not needed and no arguement that has been presented by others has changed my mind, if the only reason to change it is due to the stopping of production of that format I will cross that hurdle when or if it comes, same as what happens if film production stops. I would like to make the choice myself. Others can choose what they want or need and which manufacture suits them best.

The F and FA 28-80s were not as small as the 18-55 but your point of the lenses at that range the size difference is not that great. Larger lenses I bit more though.

[maxfield_photo]

Lens designs will improve, but FF-compatible lenses will ALWAYS be larger and heavier than APS-C lenses. How to save space and weight here? I predict f/5.6-8 lenses to appear in the future and be and be justified by "There's a FF sensor in the camera, that's more than enough to counter the small aperture.".

We may start to see an influx of constant f/4 lenses to go with these new "budget" full frames as an alternative to constant 2.8s, but a lens with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 just isn't a very attractive prospect.

If you built two lenses with the same focus mechanism, same number of elements, same throw, one f/4 and one f/5.6 and put them on the same body, the f/4 lens will AF faster and more accurately. the same goes for f/2.8, and by extension an f/8 lens will be much slower. A lot of cameras won't even autofocus with an f/8 lens.

And then there's sharpness. Most lenses become sharper when you stop them down a bit, so to get the sharpest image possible out of an f/8 lens you'd need to shoot at f/11. But at f/11 diffraction starts taking it's toll, and by f/16 a lot of full frame lenses are already noticeably soft. That leaves you with one good stop. No, anyone who buys cheapo slow glass to go with their full frame dSLR is missing the whole point, though I'm sure there will be some who try.

[kenyee]

Lenses are not getting much better. That is an advantage of full frame, which allows less image magnification.

Not sure I agree w/ that. Look at Nikon's G series of lenses (all except the 14-24 which was good until the D800 came out)...and Canon's latest 24-70. Zooms that effectively as sharp as primes w/ edge to edge sharpness (not the center sharpness you see in the FA Ltds).
Lens design has gotten a lot better...manufacturing has as well to get this edge sharpness...

That said, FF lenses are bricks...and the new lenses cost a crapload (averaging $2K+)...

[TomB_tx]

That said, FF lenses are bricks...

My Leica FF lenses are much smaller and lighter than APS-C dSLR lenses and are faster as well. While all of my Leica lenses were bought in the '60s-'70s when they were affordable, here are my new Cosina-Voigtlander Full-Frame 35 f1.4 ($629) and 21 f4.0 ($419) compared to the "tiny" Pentax-DA 35 f2.4 APS-C ($220)

[normhead]

I guess comparing the Pentax 21 to the Cosina Voitlander 21 and the 35 to the Pentax 40 wouldn't have proved your point.