[Mark Ransom]

After Canon Nikon go mirrorless, Pentax is going to the world #1 of the OVF cameras. I'm still amazed that I can switch-on my K1 and dial in settings when I enter the hide and leave it switched-on for 6 hours in case something shows up the camera is immediately ready to shoot at any time. Try to keep a mirrorless camera always on, it's going to heat up and drain the battery in less than 2 hours.

If you think Canon and Nikon are going to abandon their traditional DSLR customers the minute they introduce a mirrorless, you're nuts. Even if half their customers switch over the other half will dwarf anything happening at Pentax.

[reh321]

I understand the figures, what I don't understand is why I have seen plenty of Canon and Nikon full frames "in the field," but never a Sony one. And I live in the United States where these numbers come from. I believe you live in Australia where every second camera is a Leica and every third camera is a Sony, but it is still a different market here.

My guess is that it is a sign more of a declining overall market than that Sony is generating loads of new sales. In point of fact, I see very few Sony ILCs when I am out and about, at National Parks, zoos, etc. Surprising as I should see A7 IIIs and A9s everywhere.

If you look at total sales in the US for the past five years, or whatever is the average life of a camera, Canon will still be first, Nikon second, and Sony maybe third

[normhead]

What has surprised me about Sony is the number of older people I've seen with them. I've never seen one in the hands of a younger photographer.

[biz-engineer]

If you think Canon and Nikon are going to abandon their traditional DSLR customers the minute they introduce a mirrorless, you're nuts. Even if half their customers switch over the other half will dwarf anything happening at Pentax.

Market forces. Until now, only Sony was pushing (spending advertising and promotional incentives to dealers etc) mirrorless, and already when going into camera shops the first thing they recommend to any prospective buyer is a Sony mirrorless. In principle (marketing), companies don't like to play alone, they like to have slightly inferioir competitors who also pour money to develop their market. That is why Sony invited Nikon and Canon to also join in the mirrorless arena. You are thinking in the past, but consider a moment business strategy. Once Nikon and Canon will also offer mirrorless systems, together with Sony the amount of marketing money will exceed by far anything done for DSLR. That means, Canon/Nikon DSLR will follow the same route as Sony A mount, they will deprecate over time. When Sony and Fuji started mirrorless a decade ago, we said .... "this will never work", Pentax was thrid camera marker. But look after a decade what happened, Sony and Fuji are now significantly ahead of Pentax, let the trend continue and you get a good idea of what will happen.

---------- Post added 22-08-18 at 05:32 ----------

If you look at total sales in the US for the past five years, or whatever is the average life of a camera, Canon will still be first, Nikon second, and Sony maybe third

Well, this threat says: Sony has reached #1 FF sales in the USA... if Canon should be first in the future they should work to regain the lost ground against Sony then.

[RobA_Oz]

I understand the figures, what I don't understand is why I have seen plenty of Canon and Nikon full frames "in the field," but never a Sony one. And I live in the United States where these numbers come from. I believe you live in Australia where every second camera is a Leica and every third camera is a Sony, but it is still a different market here.

My guess is that it is a sign more of a declining overall market than that Sony is generating loads of new sales. In point of fact, I see very few Sony ILCs when I am out and about, at National Parks, zoos, etc. Surprising as I should see A7 IIIs and A9s everywhere.

I noticed the same thing when I was in Europe, late last year. Wherever these are going, it isn't into the hands of tourists. The big-camera crowds there are still overwhelmingly using DSLRs.

[reh321]

Well, this threat says: Sony has reached #1 FF sales in the USA... if Canon should be first in the future they should work to regain the lost ground against Sony then.

My point is that Canon has a thriving business in the US right now, this minute - some is in FF, and some is in APS-C, which are equally important.

[biz-engineer]

My point is that Canon has a thriving business in the US right now, this minute - some is in FF, and some is in APS-C, which are equally important.

Sure, and they also have copiers and the photolithography business. Ricoh is big with the copiers business, that should help cameras. On top of full frame, Sony has apsc cameras, camcoders, OLED displays etc.

[reh321]

Sure, and they also have copiers and the photolithography business. Ricoh is big with the copiers business, that should help cameras. On top of full frame, Sony has apsc cameras, camcoders, OLED displays etc.

So why all the focus on FF??

[normhead]

So why all the focus on FF??

It was all marketing from the beginning.

[Mark Ransom]

So why all the focus on FF??

FF has an unnatural appeal to a lot of people - it hits a sweet spot of image quality. APS-C has always had the stigma of being a crop of FF, even after lenses were designed specifically for the format.

How many people switched from Pentax before the K-1 finally came out?

Sony were the first to combine the twin fads of FF and mirrorless.

[reh321]

FF has an unnatural appeal to a lot of people - it hits a sweet spot of image quality. APS-C has always had the stigma of being a crop of FF, even after lenses were designed specifically for the format.

How many people switched from Pentax before the K-1 finally came out?

Sony were the first to combine the twin fads of FF and mirrorless.

I believe a lot of the attention on "FF" is a result of people being wed to primes; personally I became a much better photographer after I got zooms, because then I could choose the perspective I want followed by the framing I want, instead of having the two decisions chained together. I hardly ever look at the focal length I used to take a photo and I don't think in terms of "the right lens for 35mm". This orientation of mine is why I keep bringing up these questions. Unless some one comes up with a magic bullet to reduce costs, I believe that "FF" will never be the dominant size again .... "FF" will just be a size between "APS-C" and "MF", and dominating in "FF" will be no more important, perhaps less important because of volume, than dominating in "APS-C".

[Rondec]

So why all the focus on FF??

I think there are several reasons. There are tons of full frame lenses floating around out there -- K mount and others. Mounting these on a crop camera, for many people, seems to be a poor substitute for the wider view that you get with a 35mm sensor. There are other size lenses out there, but they are fewer and more expensive. Then, there is the past experience aspect. Prior to digital, the most common format for film was 35mm and so people with that history like to go that direction as well. It just feels "right" compared to APS-C.

As far as image quality, there is a performance boost going from APS-C to full frame, just as there is going from full frame to medium format. That said, the cost difference is not that great. You can get a K-1 for 1500 dollars and older k mount lenses for cheap, while a 645Z and lenses is going to break the bank.

But there is no right or wrong and people should choose the best sensor size that works for them.

[reh321]

Then, there is the past experience aspect. Prior to digital, the most common format for film was 35mm and so people with that history like to go that direction as well. It just feels "right" compared to APS-C.

This brings us back to prime lenses. I used 35mm for forty years - but 'APS-C' doesn't feel "wrong" to me, and I doubt 'FF' would feel "right". As I said before, I'm not even aware of the focal length I've selected - I select the focal length that gives me the "right" framing to go with the perspective I've already chosen.

[Rondec]

This brings us back to prime lenses. I used 35mm for forty years - but 'APS-C' doesn't feel "wrong" to me, and I doubt 'FF' would feel "right". As I said before, I'm not even aware of the focal length I've selected - I select the focal length that gives me the "right" framing to go with the perspective I've already chosen.

I would have said that a lot of the idea with full frames was focused around shallow depth of field photography and the idea was as much that you get similarly shallow depth of field with f2.8 zooms on full frame as you could with f2 primes on APS-C. That isn't my thing, but I can understand those who shoot a lot of portraits liking it pretty well.

[RobA_Oz]

This brings us back to prime lenses. I used 35mm for forty years - but 'APS-C' doesn't feel "wrong" to me, and I doubt 'FF' would feel "right". As I said before, I'm not even aware of the focal length I've selected - I select the focal length that gives me the "right" framing to go with the perspective I've already chosen.

I’m in much the same historical position, but having used a K-1 for over two years now and various APS-C bodies over the time since the *istD was released, I have to say that the “feel” of the *istD was what drew me to it over the competition, and the sheer usability of the K-1 (including its ergonomics) is what prevents me going back to an APS-C body (I still have three) most of the time. It’s not the sensor format, it’s the body, for me. The lenses can work on either format.