Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
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 $1000 [
... ] How do you think? What such a consumer will choose in let's say
two years from now? 12 MPix APS-C camera for 499$ or 12 MPix FF
camera for 1999$ if they look similar physically and in technical
parameters???
I think that might be more like 12 MPix APS-C for $499 vs. 20MPix FF
camera for $999. Now, it has already been proven that they are willing
to go up from say $400-500 for a reasonably good camera, to 1000 for a
much better offering...
- T
