On Oct 1, 2005, at 12:57 AM, Cotty wrote:
I think you're wrong!
God one knows who of us is really right ;-)
(If you want reasons, I gotta think a bit harder - and it's late
here -
I'll try and come up with something tomorrow. Suffice it to say for
now,
that leading camera manufacturers *love* to change things and make
things
better - if they can - and the rest *have* to play catch-up. APS-C
is an
anomaly IMO and will be consigned to the history books by 2010, 2015
tops. There is no historical basis for APS-C - that part of the market
will eventually be dominated by fixed-lens SLRs.
There was no historical basis for 35 mm film before II WW too ;-) And
look what happened ;-)
All 35mm-style DSLRs
will all achieve 'full' 24X36mm status within 10 years maximum. And if
you want to know why 24X36mm, ask someone in the railway business
about
track width ;-)))
As you can see from our talks we are divided. Some people would love
to have FF DSLR, some are just happy with APS-C. Yes, with time FF
cameras will get more affordable, but by this time APS-C DSLRs will
get even more cheap and affordable than now and will sell 100x better
than FF models. Imagine that most consumers who buy now sub $1000
DSLRs are just families, which are sure that SLR camera is just
better than compact digicam. And they don't really care whether
sensor is FF or APS-C. For them it is good enough that DSLR will get
first prize in their favourite magazine and that it would have good
technical parameters on paper. And of course price tag. How do you
think? What such a consumer will choose in let's say two years from
now? 12 MPix APS-C camera for 499$ or 12 MPix FF camera for 1999$ if
they look similar physically and in technical parameters??? And
that's a reasons why I think FF won't be ever as popular as some
advanced shooters like you would like it to happen.
--
Best regards
Sylwek
