Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
On Oct 1, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
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 $400-500 for a reasonably good camera, to
1000 for a much better offering...
I think that for now we are just speculating :-) So far it doesn't
look so - the cheapest APS-C DSLRs are already selling for 650$ (only
30% more than my prediction) while cheapest FF camera is about 3300$
(about 230% more than you predicted). There's no chance that 20MP FF
DSLR will be $999 in two years until there's strong competition from
other manufacturers...
No, I may have been exaggerating a bit (or a lot) about the price,
although I'm quite sure the gap between FF and APS-C will become
smaller. But 20MP for an FF camera is in many ways a more conservative
estimate than 12MP in an entry-level APS-C one. An FF sensor with the
same density as a 12MP APS-C one would have something like 27MP.
The point is, the $650 cameras you mention do not have the same specs as
the $3300 FF one. The only 12MP APS-C camera I know actually costs
40-50% more than That 12MP FF, and over half of That Other 16MP FF, at
least around here. I think we can safely assume that it will remain like
that, i.e. it will never be a question of choosing between an expensive
FF camera and a low-end APS-C with a similar spec; the FF offering is
always going to have a higher pixel count and probably be higher-spec in
other areas, too. (And the same-spec APS-C won't cost *that* much less.)
- Toralf
