[Biro]

Also size is a concern. Once they figure out how to reduce the size of a FF cam (which Sony so far has done admirably with the RX1) and still retain controls and some sort of a VF, we're set.

However, I don't think APSc is going anywhere and my guess is that we'll finally start seeing more and more APS-like compacts available.

Olympus decided to be stupid and never made a company using the 4/3 sensor, then Canon blindsided everyone with the G1x and Sony with the RX100, so it's inevitable that now we're going to enter an era of sensor size wars, which is fantastic. I also notice Sony is educating people on sensor size now and this leads me to believe they will be doing APS-c compacts, too.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Until the price of a full-frame body comes down to $1,000 for less (even if on close-out) then it really isn't all that relevent to me. And there's still size to consider until most manufacturers figure out how to make FF more compact.

And even as more APS-C DSLRs are introduced, you are correct to predict the appearance of more APS-C compacts and the asvent of "sensor wars," which may be an extension of the megapixel wars.

[Medium FormatPro]

Perhaps the more valid question for PK lens owners is; will any new Pentax full frame also accept the existing lens'?


Ironically one can be sure that Pentax already has all of the answers on this one, but isn't quite sharing just yet.

There is the possiblity and capability that Pentax could elect to make a full frame today and still use a full frame SR sensor and also the existing PK lens mount. Hopefully Pentax will not opt for the easy way out, and go for a new lens mount - which would completely divide the entire Pentax market. If that last option would happen, one would see the existing marketed PK lens mount options go well below fifty lens'

[mdodrill]

I don't see the APS market going away.....but it could under a complete realignment of photography in which only expensive FF are owned by pros and those with very deep pockets and every one else uses a phone. I hope it does not come to that; but could be.

[snake]

I don't see the APS market going away.....but it could under a complete realignment of photography in which only expensive FF are owned by pros and those with very deep pockets and every one else uses a phone. I hope it does not come to that; but could be.

Personally, I think small-sensored p&s cams should be phased out in favor of smartphones. I use Nokia, so I can say that, since Nokia's N8 is still several years ahead of everything else, aside from the 808. If by nothing else, brute force in terms of optics and sensor size.

Any advancements to small sensors, like Panasonic's recent one, will only end up making their way into phones because they are driving technology. Just look at the 808 that did what Fuji's small sensor EXR always failed to do by going the opposite way- scaling down from insane numbers of MP, rather than scaling up from a small number.

[bullitt_60]

It wasn't too long ago that some were predicting the end of full frame. The price of bodies will continue to fall, which is great for enthusiast, but lenses won't drop in cost. In fact, I believe the vast majority of those asking for a FF body will never switch after they see how much their kit will really cost.

[percy]

Smartphones are getting more capable all the time, and will soon replace the lower/mid range compacts. So to maintain market share, compacts will start to take on larger sensors, such as APSC, and lower/mid range FF will start to occupy the space currently taken by APSC DSLR's.
Price has been mentioned as a factor, but the price of lower/mid range FF cameras will soon come down to the current level of APSC's.
For the mid range enthusiasts, I think the camera body is likely to become cheaper to replace than the lenses that go with it. As things are now, a decent lens will cost me as much as the K-5.

[Anvh]

Until somone can manufacture a FF sensor at the same price as an APS-C sized sensor then the market for APS-C sized DSLR's will always exist because they present an option that costs vastly less to produce and thus cheaper sale price and yet greater profit. Simply put the sensor is one of the most expensive parts of a DSLR body to create.

Thats the thing, because APS-C are smaller they can get more out of a single wafer, that means they will always be cheaper.

[Pål Jensen]

I'm not sure if this should be posted in the camera or the lens section, but here goes . . .

There is a lot of discussion about the next Full Frame Pentax. There also seems to be a move amongst other manufacturers to have much cheaper Full Frame cameras available.

FF has been "cheap" for about four years now. They cost twice as much as comparable APS bodies. Then theres the lenses...
Nikon have just announced the D7200. They will release the pro APS D400 this summer. Pentax have just released the K5II and will release the K-3 this summer. Canon have leaked that they plan to expand the lens line-up with more APS lenses.
FF will continue to be sub 10% of the DSLR marked...

[Pål Jensen]

Smartphones are getting more capable all the time, and will soon replace the lower/mid range compacts. So to maintain market share, compacts will start to take on larger sensors, such as APSC, and lower/mid range FF will start to occupy the space currently taken by APSC DSLR's..

Both P&S and cell phones (and most mirrorless for that matter) are used for causual shooting primarily and hence compete with each other. It is the usage that decides what compete with what, not the physical size of the sensor. DSLR's, however, are bought as a dedicated instrument for photography something that explains why cell phone or P&S (or mirrorless) sales do not affect DSLR sales. In fact, DSLR sales increases. One of the reason for this is that more people than ever photographs. They start with their cell phones and a certain percentages of those will get interested in photography, and end up buying a "real" camera; usually a DSLR.
With better sensor technology APS will only get more relevant. A few years ago you needed FF in order to compete with 35mm film. Today APS camera give good enough output for large fine art prints sold in galleries.

[nitehntr]

the new f5.6 is 7 grand and while I understand the economies of scale could they have not priced this a lot better and made money in volume of sales ? the cost is in the setup and if it had been priced a lot lower a lot more folks would buy one and the profit would have been there.

[ivanvernon]

For all those wondering about the future , why bother, we can't predict tomorrow, so there is no point worrying about a few years down the road.

Lets be practical about this.

For all the discussion about size, whether or not the future includes a mirror and optical viewfinder or electronic view finder etc..... Think about the impacts.

All camera makers are tied to their existing regestry distance. With the exception of canon, who have had the arrogance to abandon their past lens mount twice, leaving their customers no option but to replace all their existing lenses or remain with old technology, not other maker can afford today, to do this. The market impact would sink the company.

Therefore, if you don't change the regestry, which is largely based upon the clearances necessary to swing a mirror, cameras will not get more compact. That is as simple as it gets.

As for the future of APS-C sensors, they will remain, there are just too many users, and lenses out the for them to go away totally. I can see both an entry level and advanced APS-C camera remaining for a long time even if Pentax does deliver a FF body or two.

The only thing I hope with a FF if it does appear, is that Pentax fully support K lenses, and they bring back TTL flash capability like the *istD

I think your reasoning in the next to last paragraph may be faulty, when you refer to number of users out there. You would not believe how many A-1 and AE-1 and F-1 Canon cameras were out there when digital came along. I got maybe 25 of them myself!

[Pål Jensen]

the new f5.6 is 7 grand and while I understand the economies of scale could they have not priced this a lot better and made money in volume of sales ? the cost is in the setup and if it had been priced a lot lower a lot more folks would buy one and the profit would have been there.

Seven grand is about right for a 560mm lens. Just like 50 000 is not much for a Ferrari.
It is debatable wether the 560 is profitable at all. The 90mm for the 645 cost $5000.

[snake]

The 560 is also aps-c only, which makes me question lots of things.

[Louicio]

Thats the thing, because APS-C are smaller they can get more out of a single wafer, that means they will always be cheaper.

A wafer that is delicately made in a sterile clean room with many sensitive processes. Hence the very long term longevity. I believe we are thinking on the same page here. =)

[philbaum]

It wasn't too long ago that some were predicting the end of full frame. The price of bodies will continue to fall, which is great for enthusiast, but lenses won't drop in cost. In fact, I believe the vast majority of those asking for a FF body will never switch after they see how much their kit will really cost.

It wasn't too long ago that some were predicting the triumph of FF and the death of APS Then Nikon missed their sales targets in the moment of FF celebrations, and Nikon stock slid 19%. The Nikon introduced a new APS camera, the 7200 and rumour has it a new mirrorless model.

A lot of customers previously worshipped the number of MP in a sensor, now its sensor size. In the end, the only thing that matters, does the tool fit the job and provide the result desired. Sensor size is only one attribute for evaluating a camera.